"keep it simple stupid" do we need a change in combat aircraft philosophy?

Read the forum code of contact

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 2,587

After reading several developments in aircraft today and Toms posts,

everything seems to be taking much longer than planned. Development of a complete and functioning avionics system and weapons integration is going beyond a decade. changing political needs change the role of the aircraft, thus more delays. Spiralling costs complicate this as politicians are afraid to commit to this aircraft.

As a result, aircraft are trying to do more in the same airframe. They are getting heavier, not lighter, because of these changes in roles, the avionics and such have become much more complicated and sensitive, bringing in another sense of maintainability issues..

To worsen things, growing private enterprises are creating a brain drain on skilled personnel..

what happens now?

Virtually none of the US major design companies (as well as European, etc) are using developments in modern technology to make a lighter, simpler, and CHEAPER aircraft.

development of such aircraft could be built personally by the company using their best knowledge, or based on the knowledge of what pilots need (F-5, MiG-21 any body?) rather than based on political needs (cough JSF cough).

such aircraft would undoubtely be cheaper to maintain, acquire, operate and likely be flying in the air instead of being hanger queens due to maintainability, software issues, spares, etc.

you could get it within a reasonable amount of time instead of waiting 10 years for something that you probably can't afford or use to it's full potential.

This is why I've posted the question (particularly to vortex) about the feasibility of using something similar to a scaled up, manned X-36 or BoP to be a modern light and cheap aircraft.

So far, the FC-1 is the closest thing I've seen to this. (Although not exactly next generation)

Original post

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 1,949


everything seems to be taking much longer than planned.

So far, the FC-1 is the closest thing I've seen to this. (Although not exactly next generation)...

So far, the FC-1 is the closest thing I've seen to this. (Although not exactly next generation)
__________________
KEYPUBLISHING'S FINEST FLIP FLOPPER, YAHOO25/STAR49!! :

MIG-21 and LCA small nose radar will not see FC-1 at distance for lockon. The rest are too big targets. Those days are gone when larger Aircraft has bigger radars and heavier BVR had a big advantage.

First part: LCA?
Second part: edit your lines. Bad manners.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 2,587

First part: LCA?
Second part: edit your lines. Bad manners.

what about LCA? I never mentioned it. Unless you're referring to my signature :cool:

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 1,949

Correct. But this way it becomes like chatting and then I am doing a bad job here. Sorry.

Member for

20 years 11 months

Posts: 669

I am sure the US is aware of this, but rather than use a manned fighter solution, it's using new supersonic UCAVs such as the X-45C.

the benefits?

-unmanned crew = no need for a canopy and systems to ensure human survival, no need for hmds, cockpit displays etc. thus a dramatic savings in weight, size, complexity and costs.

the result, you have a cost effective, cheap and simple modern aircraft that could be bought in numbers and developed into specific role variants. You then can have a manned aircraft such as an F-22, etc (might be better if it was a two seater) to help guide things.

but personally.. I would rather prefer a solution that had a human pilot.

Member for

24 years 2 months

Posts: 3,269

Well what about the Gripen? J-10? FC-1? LCA? Latest Block F-16s are still pretty useful.... There really is still a decent choice out there.

Member for

20 years 6 months

Posts: 4,441

Well what about the Gripen? J-10? FC-1? LCA? Latest Block F-16s are still pretty useful.... There really is still a decent choice out there.

the latest block F-16's are pretty good, maybe even above good.. but the price tag is also that good.

Member for

19 years 5 months

Posts: 251

The X-45C won't be supersonic. Looking at its projected speed, payload, and range, it seems more like a replacement for the F-117 than a cheap fighter. Something the USAF can send deep to take out air defense networks and high value targets early in the campaign. The original X-45 idea was to have it cost about the third of the JSF and be easily storable, but the USAF keeps upping the desired capabilities. Weight of the original X-45A prototype has almost tripled, so the price of the X-45C has probably gone up significantly, too.

We're probably some years away before a UCAV has the capabilities to fully replace a light fighter. Who knows? Training pilots might end up cheaper than buying the technology it will take to replace them.

Member for

20 years 11 months

Posts: 669

I wonder what the vulnerability of UCAVs being jammed "their control signals" or if worse, being controlled elsewhere

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 218

I wonder what the vulnerability of UCAVs being jammed "their control signals" or if worse, being controlled elsewhere

Intresting Point Wachenroder !! That danger always exist! UNless UCAV's instead of being LIVE Controlled are just programmed(Read Hard Coded) to perform their mission/respond to Some threat situations!! Guess More of AI work!

But What I think UCAV's will be fitting in future saturation attack roles :confused:

Unless you cram a UCAV with RHAWs and sensors then you need some form of off platform SA. In other words you need JSTARs and AWACS and other bits and bobs to make sure someone doesn't just fly up next to that 6 million dollar UCAV with 6 one million dollar AMRAAMs on board in a helo, lean out the window and shoot you down with a PK general purpose machinegun.
If you do cram it with all those sensors then the cost of the UCAV will not be hugely different from a manned aircraft to buy. Ownership costs could be reduced by training the "pilots" with light RPVs and keeping the real UCAV in a sealed plastic wrap that you rip open when you go to war.

Member for

19 years 3 months

Posts: 218

Unless you cram a UCAV with RHAWs and sensors then you need some form of off platform SA. In other words you need JSTARs and AWACS and other bits and bobs to make sure someone doesn't just fly up next to that 6 million dollar UCAV with 6 one million dollar AMRAAMs on board in a helo, lean out the window and shoot you down with a PK general purpose machinegun.
If you do cram it with all those sensors then the cost of the UCAV will not be hugely different from a manned aircraft to buy. Ownership costs could be reduced by training the "pilots" with light RPVs and keeping the real UCAV in a sealed plastic wrap that you rip open when you go to war.

But Garry what about the situation where the guiding aircrafts(AWACS) themselves get involved in mess? So wouldn't that make UCAVS orphan and alone ?I am saying this because the way current Radar & BVR Missiles development is taking place I dont think AWACS advantage would stay for long! Think about AWACS killer missiles!?

Thanks