Good news for non-USA automakers and Honda and Toyota pickup buyers

[Sojourner]

Pretty sure we have one now

Well, that might depend on what one thinks of the F-35 (as it may be on the chopping block).

Sponsored

 

[Dakar09]

Well, that might depend on what one thinks of the F-35 (as it may be on the chopping block).

This one responding to you thinks it's an abysmal over-priced failure. Cut it.

 

[Samson16]

I’m not sure how long manned fighter aircraft will be around anyway. Finish out the F-35 run to get some efficiency from the program while we focus on wicked nasty drone aircraft of various types and roles ??‍

 

[Samson16]

Perhaps an F-35 launched from a carrier with a drone wingman can wreak havoc quite nicely ?

Now pardon me while I go to the range and practice with something Mr. Browning developed in the early 1900’s…

 

[FaaWrenchBndr]

WAS? It's still in service in few countries.

Still can't believe what happened to the F14 fleet There's no big 'kill all F4s' nonsense going on despite the same country having 14s and 4s. Such a poor excuse too. Bush should be tried for not allowing people to keep 14s flying. Then obama comes in, he really hates airplanes too. Couldn't let bush keep the title of 'biggest hater of cool jets' and canceled the 22. Biden thought NGAD stood for no good and just ignored doing anything on it.

We need a pro cool jet president already.

Sure…..it’s still being flown. But it’s been so overshadowed by much more modern and reliable planes. Certainly a cool jet, kinda like a ‘69 Chevelle SS 396

 

[Dakar09]

Perhaps an F-35 launched from a carrier with a drone wingman can wreak havoc quite nicely ?

Now pardon me while I go to the range and practice with something Mr. Browning developed in the early 1900’s…

Does it rhyme with "CAR"?!

Childhood friend was a WSO in an F-15. LOVED that jet. HATED the F35. None of them wanted to fly it. he used to tell me about the F-4s used for SAM baiting. They'd send them in to get the radars to lock on and fire, then they would take them out. Not a job I'd want. Still, the F-4 is a beautiful aircraft, imo....one of the first models I build back in the 70s.

It would seem the F22 is still a viable platform for manned aircraft, but I agree the drones are the wave of the future.

 

[Cobra129]

This one responding to you thinks it's an abysmal over-priced failure. Cut it.

Failue? Au Contraire!

WAS? It's still in service in few countries.

Still can't believe what happened to the F14 fleet There's no big 'kill all F4s' nonsense going on despite the same country having 14s and 4s. Such a poor excuse too. Bush should be tried for not allowing people to keep 14s flying. Then obama comes in, he really hates airplanes too. Couldn't let bush keep the title of 'biggest hater of cool jets' and canceled the 22. Biden thought NGAD stood for no good and just ignored doing anything on it.

We need a pro cool jet president already.

F-14 just got waaaay to expensive to fly and maintain, not to mention the ROE these weenies concocted would never let the F-14 use its Phoenix system to the max, ie, beyond visual range.

 

[HammaMan]

It would seem the F22 is still a viable platform for manned aircraft, but I agree the drones are the wave of the future.

Not as ubiquitous as some think. "Go over there and kill the enemy" Is a bit more complicated than that. Missiles are drones of sorts, and the russians have shot down a lot of their own aircraft because an operator told a missile to "go over there and kill the enemy". It's why the phoenix didn't get a lot of use and not much emphasis was put on long range aerial AA missiles. A blip on the radar could be any number of things from a friendly to an airliner (also GWOT sucked up a lot of $)

This is what the next 20-30 years looks like. Drone command ships with a lot of range able to stay hidden and go the distance as well as carry a healthy loadout of its own. Our fighters can have stealth or range (sans the 22 with new stealth tanks but even that's .....eeeh) and this can have both.
Cruise missiles are drones that can't return home. In the RU/UA war, we've seen a lot of footage of FPVs, yet 80% of the deaths have come from artillery.

 

[Samson16]

RU/UA war, we've seen a lot of footage of FPVs, yet 80% of the deaths have come from artillery.

Good point. Hard to video in real time

 

[JExpedition07]

B-21 Raider is cooler than all the above

 

[Dakar09]

I fundamentally disagree that "missiles are drones of sorts". Missiles are mostly fire and forget, unless they are laser targetted by ground troops, in which case they can be diverted by removing the ground targetting. Drones are "unmanned aircraft", which is still not entirely correct because they are "manned" by remote operators (or "unpersoned" foe those easily offended). Probably better to call them "unoccupied aircraft" ?. But they are indeed aircraft with various weapons systems and ordnance.

Regardless of what is supposedly going on on Ukraine, I just don't see countries paying to train pilots and buy fleets of expensive aircraft going into the future. Just don't see it.

 

[HammaMan]

I fundamentally disagree that "missiles are drones of sorts". Missiles are mostly fire and forget, unless they are laser targetted by ground troops, in which case they can be diverted by removing the ground targetting. Drones are "unmanned aircraft", which is still not entirely correct because they are "manned" by remote operators (or "unpersoned" foe those easily offended). Probably better to call them "unoccupied aircraft" ?. But they are indeed aircraft with various weapons systems and ordnance.

Regardless of what is supposedly going on on Ukraine, I just don't see countries paying to train pilots and buy fleets of expensive aircraft going into the future. Just don't see it.

The issue with assuming drones are remotely controlled is that in a near peer/peer conflict, you MUST assume a highly contested RF environment leaving the craft in human-out-of-the-loop mode (Iran with the help of russia downed one of our most advanced stealth drones, the RQ170 that was still highly classified, causing it to land in their desert and took it/cloned it).

Older missiles were either beam riders (literally staying inside of an RF cone) or they needed a radar to 'paint' the target. Missiles today can be controlled via datalink (often the launching aircraft's radar which a stupidly powerful transmitter), or sent to an area to search out its target -- often still relying on some type of offboard guidance. If the signal is interrupted / jammed /etc... it's on its own. If it can't complete the mission or it's captured, it has no utility.

Drone size and capability as well as range all comes at a cost. There's just no way around it. The F35 for instance could be optionally manned if they desired turning the cockpit into a fuel tank. It gains range but that's still the cost of an F35. Its sensors make up a big cost of the aircraft. Right now all major players are looking at manned quarterback aircraft to 'direct' smaller attritable drones, but the drones can't carry much in terms of weapons as more weapons = bigger drone = bigger cost. The sweet spot is to make one-way drones that can go deep into enemy airspace collecting as much targeting data as possible while lobbing telephone pole sized missiles to kill whatever the little drone is seeing from much larger aircraft at safer distances. Meanwhile it's going to be encountering manned stealth QBs also directing the same sort of drones, but theirs are reusable because they're near their bases. The difference being the attacker in the asia region has a huge disadvantage as everything must have really long range to get to the battle space whereas the defender has their own soil. Attrition advantage to the 'defender'.

When starshield is fully operational the equation changes a bit as hundreds of LEO birds using both optical and radar technologies can provide a persistent surveillance capability unparalleled to everything we have today. It still doesn't change the fact that the distances are great and fighters have no role because they don't have the legs to get there. There's no cheap drone options because it needs thousands of miles of range, which takes fuel, and if it's carry weapons it's even larger and needs even more fuel. Human presence isn't the limiting factor here, it's the $ of any type of aircraft that can meet the needs of the mission.

 

[dochawk]

hey got the F-4 Phantom Jet to Fly…?

If a bumble bee can fly, we can make this brick do it!

there, we did it.

Wait, what do you mean by, "why doesn't it have a cannon?"

 

[Calson]

The F-35 is expensive by design to provide as much pork as possible to contractors in as many congressional districts as possible. The Air Force has been unhappy with the A10 warthog that saved the bacon of American tanks but is considered to be no expensive enough. The planned replacement will fly twice as fast which provides no added value for taking out armored vehicles.

The A10 has been terrific at providing air support for soldiers on the ground whereas the B-1 bomber has kiiled many friendlies with is lack of accuracy and its lack of compatibility with infantry communications equipment. But the B-1 bomber is expensive and so the brass love it.

 

[JohnMcClane]

Yep…..that beast was a BRICK

C5s were always hilarious to watch “fly”

Still see em occasionally, but C17s are far more common now.

Sponsored