Guest pfcem Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 No you're not. The only 'apples' that matter are future dollars.244075[/snapback]apple #1: cost to build one F/A-18E/F (in 2000 dollars)apple #2: cost to build one F/A-22 (in 2000 dollars)apple #3: cost to build one F-35A (in 2000 dollars)apple #4: cost to build one F-35B (in 2000 dollars)apple #5: cost to build one F-35C (in 2000 dollars) Looks like apples-to-apples to me. I would be happy to compare 2005, 2010, 2015 or any other year apples (dollars) but I do not have them. There ARE significant development costs left in the F-35 program. They aren't ready to roll off production lines, as you assume.244075[/snapback]There ARE significant costs to cancelling the F-35 program as well & all the development costs not spent on the F-35 will then have to be spent on whatever it is you intend to replace the F-35 with. I'm willing to replace a force of 2400 F-35s with a combination of 5-700 Raptors (enough for two squadrons per AEF), some significant number of J-UCAS, and as many gap-filler F-16C/E/Fs and F-18E/Fs as needed. 244075[/snapback]I seriously doubt Congress (unfortunately) would ever fund 500-700 Raptors. IMHO, we don't need 2400 new tactical fighters. The QDR will undoubtably show this.244075[/snapback]The USAF, USN & USMC disagree with you & I think they have a much better idea of what they need to do their job than you do. $199 billion of the $245 billion is procurement. http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05271.pdf BTW, $199 billion for 2443 aircraft comes to $82 million each. That's just the procurement cost if, somehow magically, LockMart cuts all the 'red-tape' and managed to start shipping them tomorrow, as you seem think they can.244075[/snapback]Do you have something against Lockheed personally? They have proven they are capable of amazing things. The 2443 is just for current orders, additional export orders could double that figure & drop the cost of each aircraft significantly. Some money can go towards buying upgrading new F-16s and F-18s. Some can go towards upgrading the F-22. Some can go towards speeding the J-UCAS program. Some can go towards munitions. Some can go towards tankers and C4ISR. Some can go towards long-ranged strike options.244075[/snapback]All that & more just to make up for the loss of the F-35 program that is already underway. $200+ billion can go a long way.244075[/snapback]Yep, it will get you the 2400+ stealth strike fighters the USAF, USN & USMC say they want & need. The point is that either you spend the $250billion on the F-35 or you spend the $250billion on something else to do the jobs that the F-35 is intended to do so cancelling the F-35 will not actually save any money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smitty Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 apple #1: cost to build one F/A-18E/F (in 2000 dollars)apple #2: cost to build one F/A-22 (in 2000 dollars)apple #3: cost to build one F-35A (in 2000 dollars)apple #4: cost to build one F-35B (in 2000 dollars)apple #5: cost to build one F-35C (in 2000 dollars) Looks like apples-to-apples to me. What part of "future dollars" do you not understand? Perhaps you should go bone up on your economics. There ARE significant costs to cancelling the F-35 program as well & all the development costs not spent on the F-35 will then have to be spent on whatever it is you intend to replace the F-35 with. Do you have definitive cancellation costs? Neither do I. And why would all F-35 development costs need to be spent on a replacement? Why not just some? A fraction perhaps. I seriously doubt Congress (unfortunately) would ever fund 500-700 Raptors. Probably not, but they probably won't fund 2400 F-35s either. The USAF, USN & USMC disagree with you & I think they have a much better idea of what they need to do their job than you do. Undoubtably, but they're also hamstrung by pork politics and the desire to maintain their slice of the funding pie. Do you have something against Lockheed personally? No. Why would you think that? Just because I don't want to fund a $250 billion program that I don't believe the country needs? The 2443 is just for current orders, additional export orders could double that figure & drop the cost of each aircraft significantly. They might, and then again, they might not. The point is that either you spend the $250billion on the F-35 or you spend the $250billion on something else to do the jobs that the F-35 is intended to do so cancelling the F-35 will not actually save any money. Baloney. Have you done an analysis of alternatives? No. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Martin Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Yeah, my first reaction is that whatever else you might make unmanned, transport a/c will be a non-starter, both from the troops' point of view, and the points of view of their respective Congresscritters... Whether transports, bombers or air supremecy, the use of UAVs to corresponds the the UGV in that none of the macho servcie specialties wishes to see them employed in their cherished branches...point of the bayonet, fighter or transport....but then, who will volunteer to be the first troop unit airlifted in by a UAV??242943[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burncycle360 Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Yeah, my first reaction is that whatever else you might make unmanned, transport a/c will be a non-starter, both from the troops' point of view, and the points of view of their respective Congresscritters... Which is what led me to my earlier comment about getting CAS from UAV's. I'm fully aware (to E5M etc) that predators have been armed for a while, and have been spotting for artillery even before that. I just find it funny that they won't ride in one, but they don't mind one shooting a missile danger close... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 8, 2005 Share Posted November 8, 2005 Looks like apples-to-apples to me. What part of "future dollars" do you not understand? Perhaps you should go bone up on your economics.244346[/snapback]Again, apples-to apples. How can you compare "future dollars" when you do not know what numbers to use to do the comparison. Do you have definitive cancellation costs? Neither do I. 244346[/snapback]And yet you appear to think they are so insignificant that you ingnore that there would be. And why would all F-35 development costs need to be spent on a replacement? Why not just some? A fraction perhaps.244346[/snapback]Because the F-35 is being developed to fill the USAF, USN, & USMC future strike fighter requitrement. They have looked at what they have now, what the will need in the future to peform the missions they may have to perform & have put forth a requirement for ~2400 new strike fighters. Among the details of the requirement is stealth & longer range than current strike fighters. If they do not get F-35's, they will require something else to do the jobs that F-35 are intended to do. I seriously doubt Congress (unfortunately) would ever fund 500-700 Raptors. Probably not, but they probably won't fund 2400 F-35s either.244346[/snapback]What was the original USAF requirement for the F/A-22? The USAF, USN & USMC disagree with you & I think they have a much better idea of what they need to do their job than you do. Undoubtably, but they're also hamstrung by pork politics and the desire to maintain their slice of the funding pie.244346[/snapback]Yeh, all those porks projects that take money away from them. Do you have something against Lockheed personally? No. Why would you think that? Just because I don't want to fund a $250 billion program that I don't believe the country needs?244346[/snapback]Because you sound like you do. Thankfully, for the sake of our future national security, it is not your decision. The point is that either you spend the $250billion on the F-35 or you spend the $250billion on something else to do the jobs that the F-35 is intended to do so cancelling the F-35 will not actually save any money. Baloney. 244346[/snapback]That is the way military spending works. Have you done an analysis of alternatives? No.244346[/snapback]Well, since you appearantly have, why don't you share them with use. I bet you haven't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EchoFiveMike Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Which is what led me to my earlier comment about getting CAS from UAV's. I'm fully aware (to E5M etc) that predators have been armed for a while, and have been spotting for artillery even before that. I just find it funny that they won't ride in one, but they don't mind one shooting a missile danger close...244441[/snapback] Getting shot at is NoBigDeal, getting blown up is also generally very survivable, there's lots of dirt to hide behind. Falling out of the damned sky is a Non Survivable Event and you can't do shit to help yourself. S/F....Ken M Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Getting shot at is NoBigDeal, getting blown up is also generally very survivable, there's lots of dirt to hide behind. Falling out of the damned sky is a Non Survivable Event and you can't do shit to help yourself. S/F....Ken M244603[/snapback] They're under the impression that they could do something about it now?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasidas Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 EchoFiveMike & kaikaun, Do either of you have a degree in Eletronics or Software Engineering? I have a degree in Electronics & there are some on this board who have degrees in Software Engineering. We can tell you for a fact that it is not as simple as you make it out to be. If it were, it would have been done already. We have only recently begun employing the simplest of unmanned robotic vehicles for recon (the simplest of task) & are, according to most estimates, decades away from being able to do what you describe. <snip>243700[/snapback] Hmmm, I only have a degree in physics, and have been programming aviation navigation software for just seven years, and working on both military and civilian integrated navigation avionics as well. I'd say the capability for UAVs to dogfight semi-autonomously isn't more than a decade off, and I am known on this fora for being somewhat conservative when people start talking about dogfighting UAVs using off the shelf tech. I'd say the capability is no more than one hardware generation, and one dedicated software implementation and integration program away, then fully autonomous capability with operator prompts, is about twenty years off at most IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Martin Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Considering that your average home PC is able to run flight sim programs ranging in aviation technology from WWI to the modern era, with "AI"-controlled opposition aircraft dogfighting against human players, isn't that an indicator that the same "AI" could be reasonably expected to be able to fly a UAV in the real world? Hmmm, I only have a degree in physics, and have been programming aviation navigation software for just seven years, and working on both military and civilian integrated navigation avionics as well. I'd say the capability for UAVs to dogfight semi-autonomously isn't more than a decade off, and I am known on this fora for being somewhat conservative when people start talking about dogfighting UAVs using off the shelf tech. I'd say the capability is no more than one hardware generation, and one dedicated software implementation and integration program away, then fully autonomous capability with operator prompts, is about twenty years off at most IMO.244668[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brasidas Posted November 9, 2005 Share Posted November 9, 2005 Considering that your average home PC is able to run flight sim programs ranging in aviation technology from WWI to the modern era, with "AI"-controlled opposition aircraft dogfighting against human players, isn't that an indicator that the same "AI" could be reasonably expected to be able to fly a UAV in the real world?244749[/snapback] Most PC sims fidelity in respect to realistic flight dynamics, systems engineering, engine simulation, and environmental effects are laughable IMO. Additionally, one of the most critical areas of autonomous operations for UAVs, situational awareness of the environment, is modeled as absolute in most PC flight sims. In effect, the PC sim AI is given way more situational information than a UAV would have in 90% of real world instances IMO. This will change with time of course, but not soon either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 pfcem EchoFiveMike & kaikaun, Do either of you have a degree in Eletronics or Software Engineering? I have a degree in Electronics & there are some on this board who have degrees in Software Engineering. We can tell you for a fact that it is not as simple as you make it out to be. If it were, it would have been done already. We have only recently begun employing the simplest of unmanned robotic vehicles for recon (the simplest of task) & are, according to most estimates, decades away from being able to do what you describe. I don't have a degree but I do know the Canadair CL-89 (an autonomous recon air vehicle) first flew in 1964 and has been in British service since at least 1970. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL-89 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I don't have a degree but I do know the Canadair CL-89 (an autonomous recon air vehicle) first flew in 1964 and has been in British service since at least 1970. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CL-89245523[/snapback]The Canadair CL-89 is a drone. It has no true "autonomous" capability. It simlply flies a preprogrammed flight path. There is a big difference between a pre-programmed drone & an autonomous UCAV capable of searching for & engaging targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
swerve Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 (edited) The Canadair CL-89 is a drone. It has no true "autonomous" capability. It simlply flies a preprogrammed flight path. There is a big difference between a pre-programmed drone & an autonomous UCAV capable of searching for & engaging targets. Indeed there is. The CL-289 & the like are what you described, i.e. the simplest of robots, & they've been around for decades. Slightly more sophisticated ones, with a man in the loop & some more advanced capabilities, such as diverting from their flightpath to fly one of a set of pre-programmed patterns when ordered to, have been around for fewer decades. Sophisticated robots, with some autonomous capability, are another thing altogether, & you didn't mention them as being in use. Or did you (again) mean something other than what you said? PS. Sorry to disappoint, but my only degree's in biology. My partner has 3 degrees - does that count? Edited November 12, 2005 by swerve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pfcem Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Indeed there is. The CL-289 & the like are what you described, i.e. the simplest of robots, & they've been around for decades. Slightly more sophisticated ones, with a man in the loop & some more advanced capabilities, such as diverting from their flightpath to fly one of a set of pre-programmed patterns when ordered to, have been around for fewer decades. Sophisticated robots, with some autonomous capability, are another thing altogether, & you didn't mention them as being in use. Or did you (again) mean something other than what you said? 245647[/snapback]It helps to keep in mind that the post you replied to was a relpy I posted concerning UCAV. More specifically UCAV that may one day replace manned fighters. For that you need a fully autonomous vehicle capable of locating, identifying & engaging enemy targets. And do it at least as well as a human pilot. PS. Sorry to disappoint, but my only degree's in biology. My partner has 3 degrees - does that count? 245647[/snapback]The point is that those who have degrees in Electronics &/or Software Engineering will know that we do not yet possess the capability to produce a UCAV capable of replacing a manned fighter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
5150 Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 The point is that those who have degrees in Electronics &/or Software Engineering will know that we do not yet possess the capability to produce a UCAV capable of replacing a manned fighter.245676[/snapback] You continuously confuse capability and will. PS, count the roadwheels! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rickshaw Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 (edited) The point is that those who have degrees in Electronics &/or Software Engineering will know that we do not yet possess the capability to produce a UCAV capable of replacing a manned fighter.245676[/snapback] Yet the Ryan Firebee was able to demonstrate exactly that back in the 1970s. I think you're unfortunately associating the "unmanned" part with being completely autonomous, when it doesn't necessarily have to be. Edited November 12, 2005 by Baron Samedi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Werb Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 The Canadair CL-89 is a drone. It has no true "autonomous" capability. It simlply flies a preprogrammed flight path. There is a big difference between a pre-programmed drone & an autonomous UCAV capable of searching for & engaging targets.245638[/snapback] The CL-89 was not steered by a third party - hence it is technically not a drone. Once airborne it completed its mission completely autonomously. Drone [noun] an aircraft without a pilot that is operated by remote controlSynonyms: pilotless aircraft, radio-controlled aircraft http://www.elook.org/dictionary/drone.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now