Posted on 08/05/2009 6:12:23 PM PDT by Excuse_My_Bellicosity
One Russian jamming system becomes a target. Think about it. An autonomous weapon does not require interaction (i.e., a radio signal). A semi-autonomous weapon only requires a minimal amount of control (from a radio signal).
For something to chew on, you might want to read this Naval Postgraduate School paper from a couple of years ago that gives a good overview.
bears repeating. Folks don't realize that the basic technology behind the airframe is from the early to mid 80s.
I can't speak to that first hand, but I can imagine that one would feel far less critical.
But everybody has to remember that the mission is not romance, it's not to make heroes: the mission is to put iron on target and to prevent the bad guys from being able to do the same.
It would be idiotic to take a Spad for a dogfight against a Flanker. It has a thirteenfold speed advantage and carries heavy armament versus twin MGs.
Even an attack helo wouldn’t slug it out against a fast mover.
Its sad to see the fighter pilot history wind down. Its not over yet, but you can see it from here. I have no desire to recreate “the charge of the light brigade” in the air however.....
Dude! Easy there. A few pointers;
- AAC? I don’t know what that is, I think you mean ACC (Air Combat Command)
- 10 to 1 kill ratio? Maybe but it only carries six AIM120s so that would be tough vs a Su-27 or something like it. Getting in a WVR fight in an F22 defeats the purpose, which is the only way they could get a 10:1 ratio. Its got more like a 100+ to 1 ratio in training sorties vs 4th gen fighters, but they are only going to get 6 at a time assuming the AIM120s have 100% Pk and that is over years.
- Upset? No, frustrated with a poorly run program from top to bottom for 20 years
- Thrust vectoring F16 better than F22? No, and I wasn’t arguing that at all. But for small money we could have had excellent capability on 4th gen fighters and extended their airframe life. We still need 4th gen fighters, and will for the next 20 years at least.
- All the upgrades I desired? No one asked the Captain (me) in the 90s when most of these decisions were made which is probably good. But for about $7M per aircraft we could have about a 40% increase in airframe life and capabilities as a rough number. We need 4th and 5th gen aircraft, and for about 20 years we’ve managed both extremely poorly. The current regime is “Predator Centric”; great for fighting in Iraq/Afghanistan, absolutely useless in Iran/China/N. Korea. We need a balance of current threat and future threat, and our top leaders tried to do that and got canned. We don’t have that balance now, it will get worse in the next 5-10 years by quite a bit as we gut 4th gen units to fill the Pred/Reaper requirements.
Just my observations over the past 18 years in the USAF. Take it for what it’s worth.
You really thought I was serious? HAHAHAA
IDF/AF F-15C "Baz" Eagles with Syrian kill markings 
IDF/AF F-16A "Netz" Vipers with 5 Syrian MiG kill markings
Nosterrex to markomalley
I wonder how pilots would feel about being replaced with UAV’s? The limitations for aircraft design has been the pilot (human factor); it will certainly remove the romantic aspect of air combat. There will be no more aces although there won’t be any human KIA’s either. I guess that’s a fair trade.
PIF to Nosterrex
Wonder how the UAV controllers sitting at some desk somewhere will feel as the signal homing missile hits?
Nosterrex to PIF
I know how I would feel, thankful.
PIF to Nosterrex
Oh you would feel thankful that a bunch of guys defending this country to the best of their ability would get blown to kingdom come ... or is it that if you were one of the controlers that got blasted, you’d be thankful?
Nosterrex to PIF
I would be thankful that I wasn’t in the plane that got blasted. Why would you think that I would be thankful that Americans were killed defending this country? I used to fly an A-4 in Vietnam, and I served 30 years in the military. I don’t know how anyone could draw the conclusion that you did.
PIF to Nosterrex
“Why would you think that I would be thankful that Americans were killed defending this country?” Because that is what you replied - see above.
If that is not what you mean, be more careful about what words you choose and more complete in your answer; anyone reading the dialogue would draw the same conclusion I did. Example: “I know how I would feel, thankful for their service.” or something similar.
Generally when a construction concludes with a single word, the implication is ambiguous at best, and usually denotes lack of care or derision towards something.
Sorry for the misunderstanding.
Back when, Russian jammers used to be not only highly mobil, but use simple, foldable, and disposable antennas - placed at intervals using coaxial cables. If one went down - run out another. Hitting the vehicle with a missile is like shooting a particular grain of sand on a large beach - assuming the target is even vulnerable in the first place. The Russians can put up more antennas than the US can field UAVs - cost-benefit: multimillion dollar missile vs 20 ruble antenna.
The paper is theoretical and makes assumptions that are only useful in proving the author’s thesis. More over, in a major conflict UAVs are a “First Day Weapon” - after that they become mostly useless against Anti-Access weapons.
What is vulnerable are the UAV controllers and the relay satellite - neither of which have any defenses against enemy action, unlike a F22. Would not doubt that in a major conflict (Russia, China) the battle-life of a UAV is similar to a helicopter’s - 15 seconds over target.
“An autonomous weapon does not require interaction (i.e., a radio signal). A semi-autonomous weapon only requires a minimal amount of control (from a radio signal).”
Not at all sure which is which in that statement or what point you are trying to make. But attrition rate of UAV and their associated signals/controllers would be significantly higher than jamming antennas. One Russian cruise missile hits roomful of controllers, many UAVs out of action. One Anti-Satellite missile hit, loss of entire theatre UAV control.
autonomous = ‘set it and forget it’
In other words, it maintains EMCON while it flies a predetermined mission. Using a combination of radio receivers, tv, and IR, it could defeat chaff and other counter-radar type measures put out.
If it gets shot down, it’s nowhere as big a deal as if a manned aircraft gets shot down. (It sucks, but not nearly as bad)
And please keep in mind, I’m not talking Predator. I’m not even talking son of Predator. Maybe grandson of Predator.
Planes getting shot down is a fact of air war. Loss of pilots a bigger deal, but no less a fact of air war. It becomes an attrition game more than anything else. And we have far too few F22s to win that game even at 100:1 kill ratio.
But all that does not matter, Husein would never ever go to war against any foreign county other than Israel, and then only through surrogates like Iran.
Where UAVs will come in handy for Him will be in His war against the American people.
True, that.
Where UAVs will come in handy for Him will be in His war against the American people.
Yup.
LOL nothing, you screwed yourself when you started citing bogus “facts” from bogus articles, then admitted your institutionalized hatred for a program that you wrongly view as a rival that is stealing your resources.
“LOL nothing, you screwed yourself when you started citing bogus “facts” from bogus articles, then admitted your institutionalized hatred for a program that you wrongly view as a rival that is stealing your resources.”
Take it down a notch pounder.... I didn’t quote any articles, I responded to them from my 18 years 11F3H experience in the USAF as an F16 pilot and Pentagon staffer. You understand submarines, I understand tactical aviation, got it? Do you work for Lockheed Martin? You sound like the sales guys who do the dog and pony road show.
180 is closer to 200, not “100 plus”, and it’s designated for the air-to-air environment. I’ve spent enough time at ranges all over the US and Europe and never saw anything but the A-10 go to the gun first.
And, It’s a good thing the F-35 isn’t intended for environments like Afghanistan. But, then again, neither was the A-10. Fortunately, somebody in the early 1970s was a bit forward-thinking and it wasn’t The Army, Navy or Marines.
I seem to remember sitting around the hills of Fort Sill, Oklahoma as a young 2LT, calling in F-16s, F-4s and even F-111s. They got their quickly from their bases in Texas and they brought enough ordnance. They also had the systems to deliver their payloads accurately.
Looking FORWARD is what’s given us the technological advantage in almost every current weapons system.
Is every future weapon system to be based on the requirements of Afghanistan?
The point I’ve been trying to make is that it’s OK to keep using a weapon system in a role that fits, but trying to say that system, with it’s clearly definable limitations, should be the model for future systems is a strategic mistake we’ve made before.
What happens when the A-10 finds itself in contested airspace? What happens when the A-10 doesn’t get in-country bases, or even bases in an adjacent nation? It’s a long-ass haul in a slow-ass airplane, who’s biggest selling point to too many is the big-assed gun.
Sure, keep upgrading the A-10 to keep it viable for THOSE missions, where it excels. Just don’t lose sight of its limitations.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.