If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...

[DeltaV]

As stated multiple times, I'm looking at the pre-2030 or so time frame.

What UCAV have you got now that will keep up with this (or the soon-to-be fielded Russian/Chinese responses)?

[Betruger]

Click for glorious high res, for anyone who can't just

[Skipjack]

As stated multiple times, I'm looking at the pre-2030 or so time frame.
What UCAV have you got now that will keep up with this (or the soon-to-be fielded Russian/Chinese responses)?

Chinese and Russian responses are not going to be ready much sooner than our new combat UAVs will be. They are still in development and we all know from experience how long the development of a generation 5 fighter jet takes. There is a lot more that goes into it than just a stealthy body and some engines (and the Chinese don't even have those yet). A lot of the technology is about keeping the pilot alive and in full control of all the planes capabilities. Just look at all the problems with the F22 and the F35! If the Chinese can build their generation 5 fighter jets faster than we can, then I would say, we have a more serious problem because that would mean that their approach to economic production of military equipment is better than ours. Now that would be a serious ideological implications right there! I doubt that though. So I would say it is safe to assume that while we can see some demo flights, it will be a long time until something equaling the F22, even the F35 will come from the Chinese. The Russians might have the better starting situation, but their economy is still not very strong. That will also mean delays. All that might be enough to have our UAVs ready. The Avenger, I posted earlier is already operational, from what I understand.

[DeltaV]

Translation: None.

[GIThruster]

It is important to note that things like the Avenger and X-47b replace the F-117, not the F-18. They're not intended for air-to air combat at all. Without F-18's or F-22's, even F-117's were vulnerable to attack by far less capable craft. This hasn't changed with the advent of UAV's.

While I agree with DeltaV that air-to-air with drones is likely some ways off, US DOD has a habit of being far better prepared than they admit (which is the opposite of what the Soviets did during the cold war) and if they had an air-to-air UCAV, we would likely not know about it. In fact, such a program might well be hid by the outrageous costs of the F-35.

Just remember, the US was flying the F-117 for a full decade before anyone knew about it.

[Skipjack]

Translation: None.

This is silly. The Russians and the Chinese have nothing right now and I want to see their current fighters that can deal with any drone force outnumbering them 12 to 1.
Of course these drones are not meant for dogfights, but then neither were the US bombers in WW2 and they took out plenty of German fighters.

[GIThruster]

Yes but we don't have the drones to outnumber anyone 12 to one either, and even if we did, they're not equipped for air to air combat. It's not just they don't have the specs to dogfight. They don't mount the proper weapons and don't have the proper radar. It doesn't matter if you have 50 drones against an ancient dogfighter if the dogfighter is the only dogfighter in the air. It's just gonna knock off drones and your built in attrition capability is suddenly gone, along with all your ground assault capability.

Luckily, our F-18's still have great multi-mission capability. They're still the number one power in the skies. I am dubious as to the F-35's ability to adequately replace them, especially given their cost.

And note too, even the X-47b's are not designed to land on carriers with the old steam system of the Nimitz. They were designed for the Ford class EM restraint system so we're not going to see them fielded in large numbers for quite some time. Rushing them into service would mean replacing the Nimitz class well before planned which would likewise cost a fortune.

[kunkmiester]

All carriers use wire traps for landing. Steam/EM is the catapults, and we don't have any EM catapults in service right now IIRC. Not old enough to be used for the tests anyway.

[Skipjack]

Yes but we don't have the drones to outnumber anyone 12 to one either, and even if we did, they're not equipped for air to air combat. It's not just they don't have the specs to dogfight. They don't mount the proper weapons and don't have the proper radar. It doesn't matter if you have 50 drones against an ancient dogfighter if the dogfighter is the only dogfighter in the air. It's just gonna knock off drones and your built in attrition capability is suddenly gone, along with all your ground assault capability.

Drones cost only a fraction of a manned fighter and can easily be mass produced. I think we can stock up on them very quickly. They are never meant to engage in dogfights, neither were the WW2 bombers. Of course they would have escorts of fighters to cover them against other fighters. The point is that if the enemy fighters fire all their rockets at the drones, they wont have any left to engage the escort fighters. Plus it will be very difficult to pick the right target to engage first. In fact, I doubt that a single fighter can take out 12 very stealthy drones that are equipped with lasers to fight of incoming missiles, before they have reached their target area. How many targets can a single fighter engage at the same time?

[DeltaV]

This is silly. The Russians and the Chinese have nothing right now...

Of course. Nothing. Nothing at all...

[Skipjack]

Neither of them are production ready yet. The J20 does not even have engines!!!!

[DeltaV]

Oh. Those must be embedded JATOs for the high-weight, return-to-base glide test.

T-50 goes online 2016.

I'm sure none of the 3.5 TB of F-35 data China hacked mentions engines.

[Skipjack]

Oh. Those must be embedded JATOs for the high-weight, return-to-base glide test.

T-50 goes online 2016.

I'm sure none of the 3.5 TB of F-35 data China hacked mentions engines.

All blah, blah. F22 took years to go "online" even once it started flying. But maybe the Russian and Chinese just have a better, more efficient system? I doubt it, but you seem to imply that.
J20 is currently using some Russia supplied engines that are too weak. That has been stated by many analysts. The Chinese are still waiting to get the right engines for it.
the J31s engines are also old Russian supplied (2nd generation) RD93s. These are essentially the engines used on the Mig29.
The F35 engines are not particularly great either, from what I understand.

Also want to add that if the F22 is any indication, a single fighter does not have enough missiles to take down 12 UAVs (F22 can carry six mid range and 2 short range missiles). They might be able to get close and use their cannons (if they have one), but that will be much more difficult.

[GIThruster]

All carriers use wire traps for landing. Steam/EM is the catapults, and we don't have any EM catapults in service right now IIRC. Not old enough to be used for the tests anyway.

I posted on this some months ago, but as I recall; the steam cats aboard the Nimitz class are too powerful for the lower weight of the X-47b, and they can't be turned down. In order to avoid damaging the drones, they need to use the em cats aboard the Ford class. So its not as if we can simply launch dozens of ground assault drones from our current fleets, even given we had the drones. We can launch drones from the Nimitz class, but at the cost of damaging the drones' airframes. That's not something the Pentagon is going to think is insignificant should we ever get into a real shooting war, and that's why we don't see dozens or hundreds of X-47b's already aboard our carriers.

BTW, we could launch drones from the USS Ford, but even though she's in the water, she's not due to see service until 2016.

[GIThruster]

Drones cost only a fraction of a manned fighter and can easily be mass produced. I think we can stock up on them very quickly. They are never meant to engage in dogfights, neither were the WW2 bombers.

Well let me remind you that the Allied bomber crews of WWII had the lowest life expectancy of any form of service during that war. Even with the guns aboard and fighters overhead, they were knocked down like flies. That's not a model to base future conflict on. Delta is right. Drones are not a viable option for air to air conflict right now, so far as what the public knows. But as I said, the public doesn't always know the full story, and in fact we should presume what we don't know is significant, and even would make the difference in a conflict.