Well, for better or for worse, the USAF is already looking forward to the next fighter plane, potentially available in both manned and unmanned configurations, due out roughly around 2030.
Regarding the US responses to the two world wars, I'd say they were vastly different. In the First World War, the US was well aware there was an air war going on in Europe. The Army experimented a little with airplanes, and several private companies produced military designs. Nevertheless, when the US declared war on Germany, its aircraft industry was almost completely unprepared. I am aware of only two aircraft designed by US companies that were actually used for war purposes: the Curtiss JN-4 and the Curtiss H-12 flying boat. The former was used as a trainer for US and Canadian pilots. The latter, which had been largely designed by an Englishman, was license-built in England as the Felixstowe F.2 and used to patrol the North Sea and, in particular, to hunt for submarines.
By the end of the war the primary focus of the US aircraft industry was to produce the best of the Allied (i.e. British and French) aircraft designs under license, sometimes using American engines. The British-designed Airco D.H.4 and D.H.9A two-seat bombers produced in the US were fitted with the Liberty L-12 engine, while the the American Eberhart Aeroplane corporation produced versions of the excellent British RAF S.E.5a and French SPAD S.XIII fighters with the Wright-Hispano E engine, an American license-built copy of the Spanish Hispano-Suiza 8Aa engine. Nevertheless, these US-built fighters never saw combat service, although they might have had the war lasted longer. The American aces of the First World War all flew French or British planes built in France or Britain.
The Second World War was very different. By then the US had various competing manufacturers with experience producing military aircraft, was exporting military aircraft to other countries, including China and the United Kingdom, and was itself quietly mobilizing for a war that it was already involved in as an arms dealer. Nevertheless, US pilots felt outclassed by the Mitsubishi Zero toward the beginning of the war, and not entirely without reason. At any rate, US-built fighters were under production even as Japanese planes attacked Pearl Harbor.
The situation right now doesn't really compare to either war, as there is no conventional air war going on right now, as far as I am aware. It's difficult to tell just what capabilities will be needed for the next conventional air war...if there is one. The military aircraft industry doesn't turn on a dime, and it may be that the iterative design process favored by the Chinese works out better than the politically risky pie-in-the-sky big project process apparently favored by the US.
If we had just kept the F-22 production line funded...
First of all, France is still a net payer. So that is bullshit. Yes they are having riots by some muslim teenagers in the south of Paris and in the slums of some major cities, but that is NOT the major part of the population. Greece is a bunch of lazy asses that lied their way into the Euro zone, yes. But, the rioters there are NOT the majority either.What happened? The WHINING "Give me your money" LAZY BASTARDS freaking rioted and looted and destroyed property. So what happens? They give in and say "we'll have someone give us the money" (aka the EU).
The EU is paying money to Greece and Ireland, because they want to keep the Euro stable. Since these countries are part of the Euro zone, it would signifficantly reduce the value of the Euro if they did not help.
This is why these are democracies. Get it? Get it? If people do not want to pay anymore, they will either vote for somebody else, or leave the country. Besides, nobody is forced to be a member of the EU, or the Euro- zone. Germany is openly thinking about leaving it.What happens when they:
1) Can't borrow more money
2) Can't find someone to give them more money
3) Can't take more from the population and maintain their willing cooperation
You have almost 200 F22s and many, many other excellent fighter planes in service. So please dont exaggerate the situation. You also do NOT have any wars to use them in right now. The wars you are fighting right now do NOT require F22s. So any F22 produced right now will take away money from things that are actually NEEDED for the wars that you are fighting RIGHT NOW. Of course in your fantasy world of unlimited budgets for the military it would be wonderful to fund the F22, the F35, as well as all the UAVs and what else that is needed for the wars that you are actually fighting RIGHT NOW (*). You are however, I assume intelligent enough to understand that the world we live in is the real world, with real budgets that are actually limited. You want money for the F22? End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!Skipjack, if you get some time, when you're finished with your long-winded dissertations on the benefits of current, ground-attack/ISR UCAVs and notional, future, air combat UCAVs, please address how all that fits in with US air superiority fighter needs for the next 20 years* while the above-pictured, real-hardware responses to the US F-22 roll off of their respective Chinese and Russian assembly lines
*versus the fantasy wars that you are making up that are most likely never going to happen, but that you war monger love to have wet dreams about. I assume it is because you hate the Chinese for having such great economic growth and like a schoolyard bully the only way you can think of paying them back is by punching them into the face.
Ok, so please enlighten me, why the current UAVs work quite well then?I don't think you quite understand the difficulties in robotics.
Having a 1-1 user-robot ratio is about the limit of the state-of-the-art right now. And that's for robots that don't require constant input (aka ground robots). If you've ever used a robot with more than just "forward/backwards/turn" capability, you know what I mean.
And this is only the current generation. They will get much better, more autonomous and much easier to control. E.g. automated landings are being implemented into the software for the current generation and will be standard for the future generation of UAVs.
So please dont lesson me on UAVs, rather go and read up on that yourself!
I have never said that one user would control multiple robots. PLEASE TELL ME WHERE I SAID THAT!There's work being done that will allow one user to control multiple robots
I said, that there will be plenty of pilots for UAVs because the requirements for UAV- pilots will be much less restricting than they are for fighter pilots (e.g. perfect eye sight, perfect physical health, etc).
Please would you actually read what I actually said!
Much of that is actually already happening. I think your information is a few decades behind...If you can make the UAV capable of handling itself in all possible adverse situations including weather, up/down drafts, crosswinds, low, limited, or no visibility on visible or IR, etc, THEN you can possibly have a video-game type scenario where a robot does the maneuvering, and a person tells it "engage target X".
It doesn't matter what type of elections they hold, whether it's single-party forced vote like in the Soviet Union, Romania, etc prior to 1989, or if they're a democracy.Skipjack wrote:This is why these are democracies. Get it? Get it? If people do not want to pay anymore, they will either vote for somebody else, or leave the country. Besides, nobody is forced to be a member of the EU, or the Euro- zone. Germany is openly thinking about leaving it.What happens when they:
1) Can't borrow more money
2) Can't find someone to give them more money
3) Can't take more from the population and maintain their willing cooperation
The point is this: They're STUCK.
They cannot stop these "benefits" they promised to the population, because you'd have the French Revolution all over again (or the Bolshevik Revolution, take your pick) in whatever country that tried to get rid of those Government "benefits".
And on the other end, they can't get more money. That was my point. They can't stop spending it, and they can't just take it.
Again, this thread is about dedicated air-superiority fighters, not ground-attack planes. I can see you don't even know the difference. So 186 F-22s will replace about 630 rapidly-aging F-15s. So in an all-out air war, each F-22 will have to kill 3.4 times as many adversaries as an F-15, just to keep the current capability.Skipjack wrote:You have almost 200 F22s and many, many other excellent fighter planes in service. So please dont exaggerate the situation.
That's not the point, you moron. The point is to be prepared for plausible strategic military scenarios that impact US security. That's one of the few valid functions of a government. Now go ahead, in your typical manner, and twist that around into claiming that I want an expansion of ALL current US military activity and policies.Skipjack wrote:You also do NOT have any wars to use them in right now..
Where did I say the war in Afghanistan requires F-22s? Show me where I said that.Skipjack wrote:The wars you are fighting right now do NOT require F22s. So any F22 produced right now will take away money from things that are actually NEEDED for the wars that you are fighting RIGHT NOW.
I hate to interrupt you while you masturbate with one hand and use your other hand on your video game joystick to kill stealth fighters with your imaginary air combat UCAVs, but I started this thread about one and only one weapon system, the F-22.Skipjack wrote:Of course in your fantasy world of unlimited budgets for the military it would be wonderful to fund the F22, the F35, as well as all the UAVs and what else that is needed for the wars that you are actually fighting RIGHT NOW (*).
*versus the fantasy wars that you are making up that are most likely never going to happen, but that you war monger love to have wet dreams about.
What makes you think I ever wanted them started? The F-22 money had mostly been spent already. My point all along has been that circumstances will require it be done again soon, instead of just finishing the program that was nearing completion. You are obviously not intelligent enough to learn the lessons of history. The price of freedom is eternal vigilence.Skipjack wrote:You are however, I assume intelligent enough to understand that the world we live in is the real world, with real budgets that are actually limited. You want money for the F22? End the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan!
I have nothing against the Chinese. I admire their rapid engineering progress. I also know that their country is run by an elite clique that answers to nobody and has money to burn, unlike my bankrupt country, which will now have to borrow even more from them instead of finishing what was nearly done.Skipjack wrote:I assume it is because you hate the Chinese for having such great economic growth and like a schoolyard bully the only way you can think of paying them back is by punching them into the face.
Dude, some of the EU countries are already running a pretty tough spending reduction. More will have to follow. You can predict whatever you want, but IMHO this makes no sense. People here are not THAT stupid, you know. Those that make a lot of noise are NOT the majority!They cannot stop these "benefits" they promised to the population, because you'd have the French Revolution all over again (or the Bolshevik Revolution, take your pick) in whatever country that tried to get rid of those Government "benefits".
Yeah and what about the F16 and the F18s?!Again, this thread is about dedicated air-superiority fighters, not ground-attack planes. I can see you don't even know the difference. So 186 F-22s will replace about 630 rapidly-aging F-15s.
They might not be able to carry quite as much as the F15s, but there are still plenty in service and they are not quite as old.
First of all, please refrain from personal attacks on this level!That's not the point, you moron. The point is to be prepared for plausible strategic military scenarios that impact US security.
Second of all those scenarios are fictional while the wars that the US is fighting right now (by its own choice) are very real and they are costing the lives of US troops every day RIGHT NOW. Also very real is the US budget and economic situation. You can try to twist it any which way you want, but that is a fact. Now, you can keep spending twice as much as the rest of the world on defense, or you can get realistic.
Your current arsenal is more than perfect to defend your country. You are fighting two wars that you can either end, or continue to fight. If you want to continue to fight them, then you need to give your troops the weapns that they need. They too cost money. It is a choice you have to make. Either spend money on weapons that you need right now, or spend money on weapons that you might need for some fictional war some time in the future. These are the only two choices you have.
No it is about their cancellation. And their cancellation is because of the things that I mentioned. Maybe you just dont get it, but it is very clear to me. Maybe it is because I actually do run a business and know about budgets and how to deal with budget limitations. And these budget limitations mean that you have to make tough choices.but I started this thread about one and only one weapon system, the F-22.
It is my understanding (and I admit, I could easily be misinformed) that the F22 project was funded and paid for to develop and purchase a certain number of aircraft. That value gets paid no matter what. If we build all the aircraft on that contact, then additional aircraft cost extra, but at a significantly reduced cost because it is already developed.
In my opinion, even if UCAVs work as you describe, Skipjack, we still need more than 186 F22s to fill the hole created by the F15s that will soon have to be pulled out of service due to age. Of course, we could always purchase F-15Js from Japan if it came down to it ...
In my opinion, even if UCAVs work as you describe, Skipjack, we still need more than 186 F22s to fill the hole created by the F15s that will soon have to be pulled out of service due to age. Of course, we could always purchase F-15Js from Japan if it came down to it ...
Already obsolete. Just ask Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute.Skipjack wrote:Yeah and what about the F16 and the F18s?!
Oh, did I forget to mention finances? My wish was to save money by avoiding the waste due to an unnecessary repetition of already-done work.Skipjack wrote:Also very real is the US budget and economic situation. You can try to twist it any which way you want, but that is a fact.
DeltaV wrote:The F-22 money had mostly been spent already. My point all along has been that circumstances will require it be done again soon, instead of just finishing the program that was nearing completion.
DeltaV wrote:...unlike my bankrupt country, which will now have to borrow even more from them instead of finishing what was nearly done.
First it was as much as the rest of the world. Now it's twice as much. Keep going, pretty soon you'll be exponential.Skipjack wrote:Now, you can keep spending twice as much as the rest of the world on defense, or you can get realistic..
I choose F-22.Skipjack wrote:And these budget limitations mean that you have to make tough choices.
Again, what for?In my opinion, even if UCAVs work as you describe, Skipjack, we still need more than 186 F22s to fill the hole created by the F15s that will soon have to be pulled out of service due to age.
When in the last 30 years did the US have a need for more than 186 F15s at once even?
Plus, it is not like you dont have any other planes that could at least do some of the tasks.
Oh yeah the boogy man of the chinese super fighter planes... One prototype does not make a flotilla of generation 5 fighters. How many prototypes did they build for the F22 before they had a final version? Help me here, I forget...Already obsolete. Just ask Chengdu Aircraft Design Institute.
And then again, China would need the money to build them too. Right now, it does not seem like they are willing to jeopardize their economy for a bunch of planes that have no wars to go to.
Again I dont see why. You can keep saying that you will need them and I keep saying that you wont. You are fighting two wars right now where you dont need them and were you need UAVs to help your troops that are dying there every day! IMHO wasting money on anything that does not help them is irresponsible!Oh, did I forget to mention finances? My wish was to save money by avoiding the waste due to an unnecessary repetition of already-done work.
Sorry my mistake. I got mixed up.First it was as much as the rest of the world. Now it's twice as much. Keep going, pretty soon you'll be exponential.
Yeah, we have all seen these pictures by now. They mean very little. It is one prototype of the thing. Everyone knows that you will need many more until it is ripe to be mass produced... Could still be many years away.
Yes, but I dont update it, if I dont have to and especially not, if I DO NOT HAVE THE MONEY. You have plenty of fighter planes.Do you pay for any insurance policies for yourself or your family? If so, what for? Why spend money to protect yourself against something that's not currently happening, and that hasn't happened in a very long time?
You dont have the money unless you want to neglect your troops in the field or ruin your economy even more than you already have.
My point is: More F22s would be wonderful. I am all for a strong military. I would have thousands of F22s if there was the money for that. My point is that there is no money for F22s.
I agree that there is no money. But that is true for anything the US government does these days, with almost 40% of the US budget being borrowed money:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
When the US economy finally implodes, and martial law has to be declared after the food riots start, it is my opinion that a sufficient number of F-22s will do much more to protect what's left of this country from opportunistic, rising superpowers than having expeditionary forces in Afghanistan would.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
When the US economy finally implodes, and martial law has to be declared after the food riots start, it is my opinion that a sufficient number of F-22s will do much more to protect what's left of this country from opportunistic, rising superpowers than having expeditionary forces in Afghanistan would.
The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military. That is only about 5 to 10 percent of what is taken in by taxes from what I've seen. The budget problems are in how the other 90 - 95% are being used, in my opinion.
Starting a project, spending 95% of the money to complete it, getting one third or less of the expected product of said project, and then just throwing it all to the curb because "it isn't new anymore" is a huge waste of resources, time, and ... money. This is what happened with the F22 project.
It had a reason for existing -- replace rapidly aging aircraft to ensure national security (regardless of whether that is required or not ... entirely different subject there
). It was basically completed like any other project of its type, including the U(C)AV projects. But after just a few years of receiving production run aircraft it gets canceled, despite the fact that a decade or more of construction had already been paid for (and the companies building the planes/parts keep the money).
If they could cancel the project and get the money back for the planes they contracted for but aren't now receiving, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. The money could then be used on whatever the new project is. However, to the best of my knowledge that isn't how it works.
Starting a project, spending 95% of the money to complete it, getting one third or less of the expected product of said project, and then just throwing it all to the curb because "it isn't new anymore" is a huge waste of resources, time, and ... money. This is what happened with the F22 project.
It had a reason for existing -- replace rapidly aging aircraft to ensure national security (regardless of whether that is required or not ... entirely different subject there
). It was basically completed like any other project of its type, including the U(C)AV projects. But after just a few years of receiving production run aircraft it gets canceled, despite the fact that a decade or more of construction had already been paid for (and the companies building the planes/parts keep the money).If they could cancel the project and get the money back for the planes they contracted for but aren't now receiving, I wouldn't have as much of a problem with it. The money could then be used on whatever the new project is. However, to the best of my knowledge that isn't how it works.
-
happyjack27
- Posts: 1439
- Joined: Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:27 pm
the u.s. federal budget is publically available online. i encourage you to take a look at it. let me assure you, the proportion of your federal taxes that go to the military is MUCH closer to 50% than 5%. look it up.krenshala wrote:The money problem in the US isn't how much is being spent on the military. That is only about 5 to 10 percent of what is taken in by taxes from what I've seen. The budget problems are in how the other 90 - 95% are being used, in my opinion.