F-22 ... America's Last Manned Fighter ???
12-25-2008, 10:51 AM
#1
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
F-22 ... America's Last Manned Fighter ???
Had a jump seater two days ago, retired USAF Colonel.
His claim, the F-22 will be the last manned fighter in the DOD. He said he was up at the Air Staff in the Pentagon when they argued whether the F-22 would be manned or not. He said, there's no snowballs chance in helll that the next fighter will be manned.
Additionally, he claimed that after OEF comes to an end, the DOD is going receive substantial personell cuts. Also, he said that we currently are WAY over manned on fighter pilots.
No, this isn't flamebait, just curious what ya'll think.
Any comments???
-Fatty
His claim, the F-22 will be the last manned fighter in the DOD. He said he was up at the Air Staff in the Pentagon when they argued whether the F-22 would be manned or not. He said, there's no snowballs chance in helll that the next fighter will be manned.
Additionally, he claimed that after OEF comes to an end, the DOD is going receive substantial personell cuts. Also, he said that we currently are WAY over manned on fighter pilots.
No, this isn't flamebait, just curious what ya'll think.
Any comments???
-Fatty
12-25-2008, 11:45 AM
#2
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
More or Less
KC-10:
The general feeling at UPT bases is the F-22/F-35 will be last manned fighters built. Existing fighters will be in the inventory for some time, but the advantages of UAVs is (in theory) lower operating cost, no risk to a pilot of being captured/wounded/interogated, longer loiter times, cheaper airframe cost, etc. Training this year in the T-38 is down about 35% from last year, and many of these guys are getting PC-12s / U-28s / EC-12s as assignments, instead of fighters.
That being said: UAVs have been built strictly for an air-to-ground function, so far. Can a UAV be built that could provide the operator (ne, pilot) with the situational awareness to do effective air-to-air? I doubt it, at least, not in a VID-required environment.
Could that change? Possibly. Stealth was supposed to be the end-all, be-all, but the perfect stealth airplane (radar-wise) has severely compromised aerodynamic properties. Missiles were supposed to replace guns and cannons--yet now we have them again. Swing-wings were supposed to solve all high-speed and low-speed fighter-handling problems, but no one uses them anymore (in new designs).
My point is, aircraft procurement and design goes through fashion trends. All it will take is one or two disastrous engagements with UAVs shooting the wrong things/people, and the Brass at the top will be clamoring for manned aircraft again.
Just my opinion.
The general feeling at UPT bases is the F-22/F-35 will be last manned fighters built. Existing fighters will be in the inventory for some time, but the advantages of UAVs is (in theory) lower operating cost, no risk to a pilot of being captured/wounded/interogated, longer loiter times, cheaper airframe cost, etc. Training this year in the T-38 is down about 35% from last year, and many of these guys are getting PC-12s / U-28s / EC-12s as assignments, instead of fighters.
That being said: UAVs have been built strictly for an air-to-ground function, so far. Can a UAV be built that could provide the operator (ne, pilot) with the situational awareness to do effective air-to-air? I doubt it, at least, not in a VID-required environment.
Could that change? Possibly. Stealth was supposed to be the end-all, be-all, but the perfect stealth airplane (radar-wise) has severely compromised aerodynamic properties. Missiles were supposed to replace guns and cannons--yet now we have them again. Swing-wings were supposed to solve all high-speed and low-speed fighter-handling problems, but no one uses them anymore (in new designs).
My point is, aircraft procurement and design goes through fashion trends. All it will take is one or two disastrous engagements with UAVs shooting the wrong things/people, and the Brass at the top will be clamoring for manned aircraft again.
Just my opinion.
12-25-2008, 12:13 PM
#3
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Legacy FO
Posts: 4,096
UAL T38 Phlyer:
Very good points. I had no idea that T-38 training was so low. Amazing.
I can definitely see the knee-jerk reaction coming in the future. It is the typical DOD response to anything.
I read somewhere recently (I forget where), that the Airborne Laser 747 is undergoing changes to make it an air-to-air fighter as well. In other words, the laser can shoot down enemy aircraft. The theory was, you park a couple of ABLs in the theatre and nothing by the enemy gets airborne.
Boeing has already demostrated UAV air-to-air refueling. I think our flying forces are going to radically change in the next decade.
-Fatty
Very good points. I had no idea that T-38 training was so low. Amazing.
I can definitely see the knee-jerk reaction coming in the future. It is the typical DOD response to anything.
I read somewhere recently (I forget where), that the Airborne Laser 747 is undergoing changes to make it an air-to-air fighter as well. In other words, the laser can shoot down enemy aircraft. The theory was, you park a couple of ABLs in the theatre and nothing by the enemy gets airborne.
Boeing has already demostrated UAV air-to-air refueling. I think our flying forces are going to radically change in the next decade.
-Fatty
12-25-2008, 12:34 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2007
Position: Retired Naval Aviator
Posts: 377
Originally Posted by KC10 FATboy
I can definitely see the knee-jerk reaction coming in the future. It is the typical DOD response to anything.
12-25-2008, 12:35 PM
#5
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,271
The isrealis have established a policy of mixed manned/unmanned tacair going forward. They do not envision a foreseeable future where UAS's will be smart enough to function autonomously under all circumstances, especially in the attack role.
I agree with them. Anybody who tries to employ fully autonomous systems in combat is going to be up to their eyeballs in politically untenable collateral damage. It can work in a LIC/SOF role because you can usually be more deliberate under those circumstances...either everything goes your way or you abort and try again later.
You need a man in the loop. A video gamer in NV doesn't count...too many ways to break that comm link.
Why doesn't the army operate unmanned tanks? Computers simply are not that smart...they have tremendous processing capability, but they cannot think themselves out of an unexpected situation. It's going to be a very long time before they can. Faster processors won't help, some genius is going to have to develop algorithms for creative thought.
I agree with them. Anybody who tries to employ fully autonomous systems in combat is going to be up to their eyeballs in politically untenable collateral damage. It can work in a LIC/SOF role because you can usually be more deliberate under those circumstances...either everything goes your way or you abort and try again later.
You need a man in the loop. A video gamer in NV doesn't count...too many ways to break that comm link.
Why doesn't the army operate unmanned tanks? Computers simply are not that smart...they have tremendous processing capability, but they cannot think themselves out of an unexpected situation. It's going to be a very long time before they can. Faster processors won't help, some genius is going to have to develop algorithms for creative thought.
12-25-2008, 02:03 PM
#6
Moderate Moderator
Joined APC: Mar 2008
Position: Curator at Static Display
Posts: 5,681
Addenda
I forgot to add that the drop in training (35%) is a temporary FY 2009 phenomenon. It is supposed to start going back up around Spring, 2009 (because those students will be under FY 2010 when they graduate).
However, overall fighter slots will still be in short supply. Most students can expect only ONE tour in their fighter, then either a UAV or Trainer role as their follow-on. After that, a staff job, and if they are a Golden Boy, they may go back to Ops to be groomed for potential DO or Commander jobs. Back-to-back fighter tours will be for Golden Boys destined for Weapons School.
The rest will be stuck in UAVs or MDJs (Manned Desk Jobs).
KC10:
I think Boeing is desperate to find a function for the ABL. The last I heard, it had run into development problems, was over-budget, and its intended role was seen to be less pressing (ie, not many rogue states likely to launch an ICBM at us).
By suggesting it has the capability to project Air Superiority is a bid to keep it allive. However, the weakest link in an aircraft is the pilot. The ABL would be most effective at blinding him---rendering it useless (and him, too). However, I think this would run afoul of the Laws of Armed Conflict (which is crazy, anyway, to suggest that there is a 'civilized' way to conduct the un-civilized drama of warfare). I think it would be hard to sell on this basis alone.
Rickair:
We have to be careful when those computer-networks become more capable..and self-aware. United's Employee-network is called (no kidding) "Skynet."
Legend has it that when it becomes (insert Swarzennegger voice here) "Self-aware," its first priority will be to Terminate Glenn Tilton, and hire F/As who look like Linda Hamilton (circa 1980).
However, overall fighter slots will still be in short supply. Most students can expect only ONE tour in their fighter, then either a UAV or Trainer role as their follow-on. After that, a staff job, and if they are a Golden Boy, they may go back to Ops to be groomed for potential DO or Commander jobs. Back-to-back fighter tours will be for Golden Boys destined for Weapons School.
The rest will be stuck in UAVs or MDJs (Manned Desk Jobs).
KC10:
I think Boeing is desperate to find a function for the ABL. The last I heard, it had run into development problems, was over-budget, and its intended role was seen to be less pressing (ie, not many rogue states likely to launch an ICBM at us).
By suggesting it has the capability to project Air Superiority is a bid to keep it allive. However, the weakest link in an aircraft is the pilot. The ABL would be most effective at blinding him---rendering it useless (and him, too). However, I think this would run afoul of the Laws of Armed Conflict (which is crazy, anyway, to suggest that there is a 'civilized' way to conduct the un-civilized drama of warfare). I think it would be hard to sell on this basis alone.
Rickair:
We have to be careful when those computer-networks become more capable..and self-aware. United's Employee-network is called (no kidding) "Skynet."
Legend has it that when it becomes (insert Swarzennegger voice here) "Self-aware," its first priority will be to Terminate Glenn Tilton, and hire F/As who look like Linda Hamilton (circa 1980).
12-25-2008, 08:52 PM
#8
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
In reality, there are a lot of limfacs to operating UAV's in any foreseeable combat environment (although they are sort of a fit in the current combat environment) and I am always leery of those who put too much faith in technology - remember when the AIM-7 was the the great weapon of all weapons in Vietnam?
But, here is where the USAF leadership is going with comments like that. The next generations of UAV's are being envisioned as completely autonomous or at least require very little real-time human input. The UCAV was built as an autonomous aircraft and the vision was to eventually deliver both air-ground and air-air capabilities - it's all open source. As far as their thinking goes, this isn't actually that much of a stretch.
Have you ever looked at the hype surrounding the F-22? I don't want to discuss capabilities and limitations, so I will keep it generic. The displays are all morphed into one and the decision to shoot or not shoot is pretty much made by the aircraft (at least according to many of these "leaders" that we are talking about). If you can envision and find plausible a completely BVR war with only EID built into the ROE, then it is not hard to see the next step of programming that criteria into a UAV. Same goes for air-mud - program image files into the memory and if the sensors find that image - destroy it.
The question is - how long will it take until we can develop technology that is that robust, that fail-safe, and that adaptive? I, for one, am not that quick to think that we can get this technology to the operational status very soon - but what do I know? I do know what the MR rate for our most current generation of manned fighter is. And I also know how difficult it would be to operate anything controlled remotely in a semi-permissive or non-permissive environment against an enemy that had the technology to deny these systems.
But, here is where the USAF leadership is going with comments like that. The next generations of UAV's are being envisioned as completely autonomous or at least require very little real-time human input. The UCAV was built as an autonomous aircraft and the vision was to eventually deliver both air-ground and air-air capabilities - it's all open source. As far as their thinking goes, this isn't actually that much of a stretch.
Have you ever looked at the hype surrounding the F-22? I don't want to discuss capabilities and limitations, so I will keep it generic. The displays are all morphed into one and the decision to shoot or not shoot is pretty much made by the aircraft (at least according to many of these "leaders" that we are talking about). If you can envision and find plausible a completely BVR war with only EID built into the ROE, then it is not hard to see the next step of programming that criteria into a UAV. Same goes for air-mud - program image files into the memory and if the sensors find that image - destroy it.
The question is - how long will it take until we can develop technology that is that robust, that fail-safe, and that adaptive? I, for one, am not that quick to think that we can get this technology to the operational status very soon - but what do I know? I do know what the MR rate for our most current generation of manned fighter is. And I also know how difficult it would be to operate anything controlled remotely in a semi-permissive or non-permissive environment against an enemy that had the technology to deny these systems.
12-25-2008, 09:11 PM
#10
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Nope - but I have spent some time considering these things in somewhat depth due to what I do. This is certainly one of those topics that sound great on the surface, but the devil is in the details. The problem is that our leadership is somewhat out of touch with reality and they don't have the time nor the interest to consider those details before committing our entire acquisition program down a path that is unrecoverable. But, hey, that's just my opinion.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
