The end of the fighter pilot?

[cold0]

From the http://www.strategypage.com/

WARPLANES: F-22 Threatened by Budget, Robots and Software



February 24, 2004: The U.S. Air Forces new F-22 fighter is already in production, with 25 built (for testing and training), and 19 to be manufactured this year. The air force wants to eventually buy 276, at a cost of over $250 million each. The F-22 is the pinnacle of 20th century warplane design and technology. Unfortunately, it's now the 21st century and new aerial threats are appearing that may make the F-22 obsolete before it even enters service at the end of the decade.

One thing that has always threatened the F-22 has been cost. Development costs kept growing beyond constantly increased budgets, to the point where the development bill was nearly $30 billion. The large cost of the F-22 was always a threat to the project. Originally conceived in the 1980s as the successor to the F-15, and the primary weapon to keep the Soviet air force from controlling the skies, the F-22 prototypes first flew just as the Cold War ended. At that point, the air force planned to buy 648 aircraft. That number has come down steadily as development costs escalated, and no credible threat to American air supremacy appeared to replace the Soviet Air Force.

What's sneaking up on the F-22 now are combat UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles.) These UCAVs are being built and tested by the air force and navy. The technology is mature and widely available. The rest of the world is waiting to see what the United States comes up with, knowing that this is the future and it will be software, more than anything else, that will make a superior UCAV. At the moment, the U.S. appears headed for dominance in the UCAV department. But if other nations start building UCAVs, the current American fleet of manned warplanes will be threatened. UCAVs are cheaper than manned aircraft, and can be used more aggressively. You don't have to worry about losing pilots. Not just because you don't like to see your pilots get killed, but also because of the time and cost required to produce effective combat pilots. UCAVs are cheaper to build, use and lose.

Another threat to F-22s are advances in radar technology that are making the stealthiness of these aircraft less effective. A lot of this has to do with improvements in computer and software technology, but the end result is more vulnerability for a few very expensive aircraft. Many UCAVs will be bombers, and the air force sees it's new F-35 threatened as well. UCAVs being developed are stealthy, and can take risks you would avoid when using manned aircraft.

If the air force decides it needs a lot of UCAVs in a hurry, Congress will probably not put up with buying expensive F-22s and F-35s (which only cost about $40 million each) as well. So the air force is looking into the possibility of cutting or canceling F-22 and F-35 production, and upgrading current aircraft (F-15s, F-16s and A-10s) to hold the fort until the UCAVs are available in quantity. The huge development costs for the F-22 and F-35 won't be wasted. Those technologies can be applied to UCAVs, which can be built cheaper (at least 20 percent cheaper) because these aircraft don't have to carry a pilot. That means F-22 class UCAVs could be built for under $100-150 million each. The F-22 UCAV would also be a more capable aircraft, being able to perform maneuvers a human pilot could not survive.

The army is facing many of the same problems with it's Comanche reconnaissance helicopter. The army cancelled the Comanche program this week, losing $10 billion in the process ($8 billion already spent on development, plus $2 billion in cancellation fees to the manufacturers.) The Comanche cancellation, and the air force contingency plans, don't auger well for the F-22. :( :( :(

[Seoulstriker]

there will always be pilots in the sky. certain roles such as reconnaisance can be done by unmanned aircraft, but a human in the fighter seat can't be eliminated.

yet. :)

[Ratamacue]

Last I remember, the F/A-22 costs closer to $125 milion each than $250. In any case, it seems to me that it's a waste of money as compared to the F-35. For those that are more knowledgeable on the subject, what advantages does the F/A-22 offer over the F-35? My uncle basically says that the '22 doesn't have nearly as advanced avionics as the '35 and is an overall waste of money, especially considering the fact that the '35 costs about $30+ million a piece.

[berkal]

I read somewhere along time ago...

"...even in Star Wars, they still had pilots in the fighters..."

[AFACadet]

Your uncle DOES know about avionics, but I can tell he understands little about air combat.



Yes, the F-35 has more advanced avionics than the F/A-22. That's simply because the F-35 is a newer design. The thing is that the F/A-22 is STILL a massive leap in avionics technology over anything else flying or in development.

The F-35s avionics are more suited to the AG mission and the Raptors are more suited to AA.

Here are the pros and cons of each aircraft:

The Raptor, while not haveing as advanced avionics has MUCH more powerful avionics. The AESA radars in both aircraft are comprised of hundreds or thousands of 'mini-radars' put together. The number directly influences the power of the radar, its range, detection ability, how many things it can do at once, ect. The nose cone size dictates the number of these 'elements.' The F/A-22, becaues of its bigger size, can pack a huge amount (somewhere around 2,000). The JSF on the other hand can only have a few hundred.


The rest of the sensors on the Raptor are much more powerful alowing for greater detection ranges and more information.



The Raptor also has MUCH better performance than the F-35. The F-35 has about the same flight performace as a current generation F-16. It cruises at normal speeds, altitudes, and pulls about the same number of Gs.

The Raptor on the other hand can fly significantlly higher than any other current fighter, cruises at mach 1.5-1.8, and has maneuverability unmatched by any current or projected aircraft. What this means it can attack extreme high value targets (much of the type the F-117 does), during any time of the day, in the weather, in airspace filled with hostile fighters, AAA, and SAMs, and still be pretty safe. When you are a stealthy aircraft flying at Mach 1.8 at 60,000 feet, there is not many missiles that even have the energy to get up there. In air combat, the Raptor will be able to detect a target at about twice the range of the F-35, and because of the Raptors speed and altitude, its AMRAAMs have a 50% greater range than if the F-35 fired them.


While the F-35 is stealthy, it does not have true all aspect stealth. The back of an F-35, while having less RCS than other aircraft, is not stealth. The Raptor on the other hand has full 360 degree stealth. It will be able to operate in environoments that the F-35 can't until some of the SAM threats are taken care of.



The F-35 is not the best aircraft for air combat either. It can only carry 4 AMRAAMs. The F/A-22 on the other hand carries 6 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders.

When carrying JDAMs, the F-35 can only carry to internally and 2 AMRAAMs, the F/A-22 can carry 2, and 2 AMRAAMs and 2 Sidewinders.


After the first couple of days when the main enemy SAM threats are gone, the F-35 can start packing weapons under the wings (on the order of 18,000 lbs). The F/A-22 can put weapons in the outside, but not that much. This is where the F-35 has an advantage over the F/A-22 in ground attack. In additon, the F-35 has in integrated EO, IRST, FLIR, and laser system--something the Raptor does not have.


The trade-offs of the F-35 were made to keep it cheap. The F/A-22 is total 100% quality killing machine with all effort placed into getting the best aircraft for its mission and not to keep it cheap.


Each has their own mission and each will support the other.





In regard to the UAVs, that's a very real possibilty for the future, but the EU is the closest to our position in regard to this technology. Even by their own admission, they started too late, and have put WAY to little into UCAV programs. Many of the countries are trying to shoot up the funding, but both many in the US and EU say that they are about 5-10 years behind. Being that the EU and the US are friends, we can't consider this a threat. Its actually a benefit because it will make joint operations that much easier.

The countries who are considered a threat are WELL behind in the UAV race and there are no indications they are working on them.



Oh, and the Raptor is not close to $250 million. The $125 million is MUCH more accurate.

[Schwabo Elite]

You can see the devil in the detail again.
The Raptor is the F/A-22.
The F-35 is to replace the F-16 and the A-10. The F-16, though build as a cheap fighter now serves primarliy as an attack plane. As does the A-10. The powerful avionics of the Raptor designate it for this combined role, though it lacks the punch of the A-10's cannon.
Though the Raptor is not "full stealth" as e.g. the B-2 is, its advanced stealth capabilities will make it a good wild weasel, while its supercruise ability enables it to be a fast hit and good fighter plane at the same time.

As mentioned, the F-35 will be a good attack palne, too, and should bear the "A" designation as well.

I agree with AFACadet on the U(C)AV part and the EU thing as well.

[DE_Six]

I don't know how much the F/A-22 fleet will cost to operate and maintain, but it would seem rather dumb to cancel it now after all these years of R&D and testing, when the plane is so close to operational service.

Besides, as AFACadet pointed out, it will be so superior to any current or projected aircraft (including the F-35) in the AA arena that once it is deployed, the US will have such an advance over the ROW they won't have to plan a replacement in a long time. Chances are, the F/A-22 and its variants could be the last jet fighter the US acquire. By the time it is obsolete, newer technologies like UCAVs and energy weapons (THEL, ABL) will dominate the skies.

[SEALInTheMaking]

The military should not start replacing pilots with UAVs. I dont like the idea of robotic warriors. Seems like it could turn into a Terminator movie to easily. ;) Using UAVs for recon missions is a good idea, but pilots should not be taken out of the combat role.

I love the F/A-22, but honestly I think it's a waste of money. The fact is we dont need an air superiority fighter right now. We arn't on hostile terms with any countries that have comperable air forces. The fact is that the multirole fighter/bombers we are using right now (F-16, F-15, F/A-18) are more then capable of dealing with all aerial threats that we would face today or in the near future. The F-35 is a much better investment then the F-22, because a fighter/bomber is much more useful and versatile then an air superiority fighter.

[oldsoak]

If we are going to use UCAV's for recce tasks against mininmal opposition - take off, fly to this grid, take a load of piccies and come home - we're there already. However, against heavy opposition, the UCAV is going to need some sort of artificial intelligence to keep itself out of trouble and accomplish its mission. These are not cheap machines, and bluntly, how much does a pilots life cost the military ? He/she is still the cheapest computer going that can make decisions in real time, so he'll be around for a few years yet. To do what he can do, the UCAV will need to have sensors that provide it with a view of whats going on around it, make sense of it and then act. Enter the world of computer games...where a lot of shady chaps in dark glasses are talking to game designers and programmers to see if what they do can be applied to the UCAV. Some games are adaptive - ie they "learn" and develop strategies against opponents. IMHO this is where the next developments in UCAV technologies is going to be - we have the airframes, the guideance systems, the sensor fits - what we dont have is the "intelligence". There are ways around this - remote piloting etc. Think of the number of game stations that you could fit into an airliner, and give it enough radio bandwidth to control the UCAVs from miles away. Maybe the next generation fighter ace will be a computer nerd or chess player - Tom Cruise eat your heart out ! :lol: .

[cut]

I don't see it like that, my idea of the next stage is with better communication have a pilot controling the aircraft, in a virtual cockpit, and obviously this would mean unlimited visabitlity no need for ejection seats, a bit like flying a flight sim but a lot more developped. And the best part of that is that the pilots can hop from one aircraft to another when one of them runs out of payload, hence no additional briefing etc.. The planes can be brought back on autopilot or with a rookie pilot. Easy.

minimum physical stress and lighter workload for pilots.

[Seiyuuki]

The F-35 is a much better investment then the F-22, because a fighter/bomber is much more useful and versatile then an air superiority fighter.

F/A-22 Raptor



The F-35 was designed to be cheap and exportable from the start, that meant sacrifices in its design...the F/A-22 on the other hand, was meant from the start to be fitted with the best of everything and was designed to be the best of the best, the reason for the price tag. That logic alone would conclude that the F/A-22 is a superior fighter.

The USAF want both of them and will fight hard to keep both of them because the USAF is always keen on its policy of having a two-fighter system. The F/A-22 Raptor and F-35 combo is replacing the F-15 and F-16 combo.

http://www.fa22raptor.com/images/domin_chart3.gif



On another note...What's the official name of the F-35?

[Rakki]

The military doesn't have much of a choice- future UCAVs will be able to pull Gs that will kill a normal human being, and wll be smaller, faster, cheaper and can be used far more aggressively.

The only question is the timeframe, and whether the arrival of fully developed combat ready UCAVs will be so soon as to squeeze out the F-22s.

[Maverick77]

You wont see unmanned weapons in combat widely used.

A man and a ****ty weapon is much more deadly to a machine than the machine is to him.


Thats why you will always need a man closely with any machine.

[cut]

The military doesn't have much of a choice- future UCAVs will be able to pull Gs that will kill a normal human being, and wll be smaller, faster, cheaper and can be used far more aggressively.

The only question is the timeframe, and whether the arrival of fully developed combat ready UCAVs will be so soon as to squeeze out the F-22s.

exactly but you don't need AI so the pilots will be on the ground. being a pilot will be more of a geeky job then a glamourous one though.

[AFACadet]

Schwabo Elite,


The F/A-22 IS full, all aspect stealth on the same order of the B-2. That's why its such a great aircraft. World Class Fighter performance with the stealth of the F-117 and B-2. Of course the B-2 is a little better simply because of its shape, but the Raptor uses more advanced stealth designs and materials.



SEALInTheMaking,

1) The US has been willing to 'trade gold for blood.' In other words, the US population will spend huge amounts of money on projects if it means a few less American servicemen killed in combat. This continues with the F/A-22. Sure our national survival is not dependent of the F/A-22, F-15s can continue to fly for the next 15-20 years. They will duke it out with advanced Sus or MiGs or even other F-15s/F-16s, but they will still come out on top due to their superior numbers and network of support aircraft. That will mean a lot of F-15s will be shot down in the process. The Raptor will continue the legacy of the Eagles "a lot to zero" kill ratio.

2) Just because something works well now does not mean it will work later. We are not the only country designing advanced fighters. While we are on at least fairly good terms with all the countries that are producing these fighters, some of the countries that get these aircraft are not on the best terms. I'm not simply directing this to other countries--the US is included here as well. Not a single person on this planet knows what tomorrow will bring. The examples of surprises are endless, but I'll take a recient example. In the late 70s we sold a number of F-14 Tomcats to Iran. At the time, they were our best friends in the area. But revolutions sometimes come out of nowhere and now the F-14s would be fighting against us. The only thing that can counter them with little trouble are other F-14s using Aim-54Cs. Other countries like china are on a massive overhull of their air force. China is getting some of the most advanced aircraft in the world (Su-30MKK) and building more of their own. Once again, we are on good terms with them (well sorta), but we don't konw what tomorrow will bring or what country some of those aircraft will end up in.

3) As you may remember, in 1991, the Iraqis sent up a pretty stong aircraft response on the first couple of nights. They figured they were fighting against someone like Iran. They learned very quickly that if they took off, they would die. In 2003, not a single aircraft even bothered to take off--helicopter or fighter. They understood it would hopeless to even try. But the longer we keep our current aircraft, and the longer the other guys get a chance to upgrade their aircraft, the superiority gap narrows. In the case Bulkins, a number of MiG 29s were sent up because they thought they COULD make a difference. We need to keep the same edge. And the bigger that edge is, the faster wars can end, saving lives and resources on BOTH sides. If you have the same tech as the enemy, it turns into a slug fest.

4) In order for that not to happen, we need something that makes it clear that there is no chance. The F/A-22 will serve as a new line of deterrence. If you knew 20 or 30 of those were flying around near by, would you even want to try and take off? Unlike an F-15 or F-16 you wouldn't know where it is, you wouldn't know where to look, you wouldn't know how many there are and the first indication that one found you and fired a missile is when your RWR goes off saying an AMRAAM is about 10 seconds away. That has an extremely powerful psychological factor that other aircraft don't posess.

5) Even if air threats are a streach, ground threats are not. SAMs and AAA have been the most dangerous aspect of flying combat missions since Korea (for the US at least). SAM systems can pose huge problems for an air attack. The current crop of SAMs such as the SA-10 and SA-20 are extremely deadly to F-16s and F-15s. Even if no fighters are in the area, these SAM sites need to be destroyed before full operations can take place. There is little an F-16 or F-15 can do to fully protect itself. The Raptor on the other hand can much more safely operate in these environoments and kill the SAM sites (or other high value targets within the threat circles of these SAM sites).


The Raptor IS extremely expensive. That's its greatest drawback, but unlike what many say, there still are very good reasons to have the program.

[AFACadet]

In regard to the UCAV stuff, the first purpose designed UCAVs are slated to enter service in 2008-2010. Their first mission is to attack those air defense sites. The target set is limited and the targets pump out vast amounts of electromagnetic radiation.

A few different models exist how UCAVs will be controlled. Some go from a man in the loop 100% of the time (like the Predator), to 0% of the time (like the Global Hawk). At first, it will most likely be either totally human controlled, or fly to and from the battle area on its own and have humans make the target choices.


A UCAV has several advantages over a manned aircraft.


Even though they cost 10-20 million, they are much easier to produce. They don't need nearly as much development time nor as much research. For example, the Boeing X-45, the first purpose built UCAV flew somtime in 2001 (or 02, I forget exactly). It is slated to go into serivce only 6-8 years later. The YF-22 first flew in 1991. The production F-22 first flew in 1998 (or something around that), and it will not be in service until December 2005. That's 14 years.

What's even more amazing is that the X-45 was COMPLETELLY redesigned from the ground up this past year based on lessons learned from OIF and OEF. That is impossible with a manned fighter.

Because the aircraft is smaller, maintainence is much less and fuel costs are much lower. The support infrastructure does not need to be as large. This means less people need to work in support and less people need to support those people. "pilots" can be trained in sims at huge savings and can be trained much quicker.

There is no risk of the pilot dying or being shot down. That has huge political implications.

In addition, as has been stated, a UCAV can have MUCH better performance than a manned fighter.



Flying my thing, its what I'm good at and what I've wante to do my whole life, but if the UCAV concept makes a better weapon, then so be it--that's what need to be done.



Seiyuuki,

In regard to the F-35s name, there is none yet. It will probably be done like its has with most other AF aircraft (other than the Raptor). When the AF accepts the aircraft and the dedication ceremony, they will also name it.

[Ratamacue]

Is there any particular reason that the Navy chose the F-35 over the F/A-22? Is it simply the price? Or is the F-35 superior for the missions the Navy tends to fly more of? I figure the Marine Corps doesn't have the cash for the '22 and plus the '35B has VSTOL capability, but I haven't been able to figure it out for the Navy.

[Fox2]

Is there any particular reason that the Navy chose the F-35 over the F/A-22? Is it simply the price? Or is the F-35 superior for the missions the Navy tends to fly more of? I figure the Marine Corps doesn't have the cash for the '22 and plus the '35B has VSTOL capability, but I haven't been able to figure it out for the Navy.

Perhaps the AF cadet here can elaborate, but I'm not sure.

Perhaps, as was mentioned, because it is more adapted to the air-to-ground role? I'm guessing the Navy forsees them using their aircraft more for mudmoving than air to air engagements.

Also, could it be more resistant to seawater and rust?

One question I have; It's been a long time since the USN used a single engine aircraft on the carriers, isn't it? I think the last was during Vietnam. A-4 Skyhawk? They went over to mainly two engine birds, I believe, for the safety in redundancy. Are they that confident in the F-35?

[Kilgor]

they wont replace everything, but they are the future of aircraft.

Its only a matter of time.

[AFACadet]

Cost was in fact the reason why the F/A-22 was not designed for the Navy. There were some designs floating around (a two seat, swing wing beast), but it was simply too expensive. The AF can afford these types of aircraft because that is (for the most part) their main mission. The Navy on the other hand must Pay for massive and extremely expensive ships.

For there to be a naval F-22, a good deal the the structure would have to be beefed up, and other components added for carrier operations. A naval F-22 would have had a seperate design and had to be tested seperatly, increasing costs even higher.

The Naval F-22 was to replace the Tomcat...


A 1992 design, the F-X, was to be a stealth aircraft to take over the AG role--also soon cancelled.




In regards to the number of engines for naval aircraft:


The last single engined combat aircraft in US Naval service was the A-7. It flew until--get this--1992. Most naval aircraft from other countries are single engined as well (notable exceptions, Su-33, Rafale)


Twin engines for naval aircraft have been a somewhat recient addition. It had little to do with relialibility and more to do with actual engine power. Sure, two engines are safer, but that's more a by-product. The Marines STILL use the AV-8B harrier, and that's a single engined aircraft. If you look at the aircraft used by naval forces around the world since the 1920s, they have been single engined. When you see twin engined aircraft, it was for added aircraft performance.

There are many people who disagree with this (but there are also many people who also say the same thing), by looking back at past history, a single engine for naval operations will not be the problem some make it out to be.

[Fox2]

Thanks for that, cadet.

I always thought it was for the redundancy, so if one engine was lost, the plane could still make it back to deck.

Anyway, good information. Thanks.

[Ratamacue]

Thanks for that, cadet.

I always thought it was for the redundancy, so if one engine was lost, the plane could still make it back to deck.

Anyway, good information. Thanks.

Agreed. I'm guessing you go to alot of lectures and whatnot at the Academy about all this stuff? My bro does alot with Navy ROTC but most of that is about Naval weapon systems, radar, sonar, USN aircraft, stuff like that, so I don't really know all that much about the F/A-22.

[AFACadet]

Most of it I actually learned on my own since about 6 or 7. Is a long story, but everything in my life placed me around aviation or the people in aviation--from where I lived, to the people I knew, to the books I read. I've been following the F-22 program since 1991.


At the Academy, its much the same, but instead of seeing the day-to-day people or events in aviation, you get to learn from or listen to the guys most people only read about in books. The random weapons briefs and space warfare briefs by Generals, program manages, and the actual operators is also helpful. My major allows me to focus on airpower and its uses in war (both good and bad aspects), you also learn a lot when you physics instructors were the guys who figured out how to make the ABL laser work or helped design parts of nuclear weapons.


I don't know, its the only thing I can talk about in great detail on this site. ;)

[cold0]

Well, AFAcadet give an excellent essay on the matter (F/A22, F-35 ect.),
so I have nothing to say about the Raptor's perfomances.

What bother me is the political implication of the cancellation of Crusader, Comanche (in the end a wise choise) and the treat for F/A-22, Osprey ect.
I fear that the "new vision" of Rummie about the american military machine is coming back. During the first years of Bush presidence (before 9/11), Rummie come out with his idea of innovation of american armed force.
Pratically he said:

1) Kill all the new acquisition program! They are only a legacy of the Cold War.
2) Start the study of new, innovative weapon systems.
3) Create new armed forces that are more flexible, with a superior strategic mobility

In all the plan is a huge BS! I don't understand why the military must buy what Rummie and hi staff say and they can't buy what they really need. Worst, killing the current programs for "new, futurible weapons systems" will leave the american armed forces for many years with the actual weapons (F15, F16 for USAF and so on), so the general efficiency will decrease with the time.
In the end there's no hope that the "new wonder weapon" (UCAV, Space bomber ect.) will never became operative. Probably many would be cancelled in the future for the same reason that the current programs are killed (save money, new administrations ect.).

So, thanks to the new "smart procurement" politicies and the Rummie's vision, the results are:

1- Crasader is cancelled
2- Comanche is cancelled (the only wise choise)
3- Raptor, Osprey are under revisions
4- Millions of $ are lost and the american armed forced woul fight in the future with the same, old stuff

[HoboWithAK]

According to the DODs Vital Statistics, 163 billion has been spent of the F-35 with 2400 units ordered at a cost of 67 million per unit. The F/A-22 has had 73 billion with 278 units produced, at a cost of 264 million per unit. Why so high a cost? Because these are still in development/experamental phases and when you split all that money between the systems not needed for combat but for testing, you rack up a big bill. In the end I bet it will be inbetween 120-130 million per unit.

The F-35 is in early finished phase production right now. Of course, you still can't beat the fact that the F-35 is cheaper. And then again, the F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet is at a cost of 90 million (45 or so for the aircraft, the rest I believe for the upgrades). The F-35 is needed to cut costs. This is the same with the latest F-15 C ("not a pound for air to ground") and F-15E Strike models, they are getting very expensive.

I don't believe a pilotless combat aircraft will take over any air force industy any time soon. A pilot is 1000 times more comprehensive to flexability, yet is not expendable. Besides, a pilot has been proven. AI and R/C ground pilots haven't. What about jamming of signals or overrides of the UCAV? That can't be good.

[Beowulf]

[tosses 5 dollar bill in hat..and moves out smartly] .......Nothing scarier than a well armed hobo....

[Rakki]

Maybe in the future "human" pilots will fly in ultra-ultra-advanced low-flying stealth machines in order to go in there and take out the enemy jamming facilities - thus opening the way for UAVs to pound the enemy into oblivion.

Kinda like the opening rounds of Desert Storm - Apaches to blast Iraqi radar stations so the jets can get through.

As it is, the F-22 and F-35 will probably be still flying in 2030...

[cold0]

As it is, the F-22 and F-35 will probably be still flying in 2030...

I hope!!! :D

[HoboWithAK]

For 150 million a pop, they better be lasting until 2030.

[TALOS]

[tosses 5 dollar bill in hat..and moves out smartly] .......Nothing scarier than a well armed hobo....

rofl now that is just damn funny

[DLodge]

I'm resurrecting this old thread to offer this one quote that I really like...

Leveraging UCAV capability will be essential to future combat. History has shown us that technology has inherent weaknesses, such as the capacity to function in asymmetric, nonlinear environments. Consequently, we must be careful about placing too much faith in unmanned vehicles. For specific missions and purposes, they show great promise. Using them as ISR platforms and airborne snipers would maximize their strengths and provide excellent integration with manned assets. The notion that UCAVs could replace humans in warfare echoes of something out of a science-fiction novel. I think back to the time when a general told me that the movie Star Wars taught us three lessons: there will always be fighter pilots, there will always be fighter-pilot bars, and the dive toss never works. He was right.
The article this is from appeared in Air and Space Power Journal and can be found here: http://www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/apj/apj02/sum02/vorsum02.html

[HELEX]

Just look what a simple combat flight simulator opponent is able to do when difficulty level is set to the highest level. What is so difficult about to fly in the direction of aproaching aircrafts and start your weapons in Standoff range? The processor unit of my cellphone is able to fly such "difficult" missions..... :roll:

And what is so difficult to follow certain waipoints and release your JDAMs? My phone could do that too.... :cantbeli:

Close air support can be easily done by a Drone, just give the location and security code in your PDA send it to the drone and thats it.

Same thing in the SEAD role, is it difficult to fire a Anti radar Missile when the sensors say there is a radar in range???

For some special missions Pilots will be needed in future, but 95% of the combat can be done better by drones.


On ground it is more difficult, its not that easy to program a working groud-drone that avoides obstacles and identifies enemys. But thats a question of time...

[Falco]

[quote="HELEX"]Just look what a simple combat flight simulator opponent is able to do when difficulty level is set to the highest level. What is so difficult about to fly in the direction of aproaching aircrafts and start your weapons in Standoff range? The processor unit of my cellphone is able to fly such "difficult" missions..... :roll:

And what is so difficult to follow certain waipoints and release your JDAMs? My phone could do that too.... :cantbeli:

Close air support can be easily done by a Drone, just give the location and security code in your PDA send it to the drone and thats it.
[quote]

Flight simulators do not exactly replicate combat situations because it would require too much computing power. A computer cannot tell the difference inbetween a friendly soldier and an enemy (some pilots can't either).

[HELEX]

A computer cannot tell the difference inbetween a friendly soldier and an enemy (some pilots can't either).

But with the future Systems the computer can, when it gets IVIS data and Position of every single soldier. The System asks over Satelite to engage or not, the control room gets a Picture of Situation.