[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by catscratch I know about the F-22's advancements That's not the point that I'm trying to make, or get feedback about. Let's just take a look at this hypothetical scenario: The price of a single F-22 can field how many unmanned drones? Equip each with a single hardpoint and give them some air-ground or air-air capability. What's going to be more effective, one F-22 or the several hundred drones that you can buy with the same money?

You make a good point, but the military is almost never concerned with cost. I wouldn't be surprised if, like other branches of the government, they operate on an "if you don't spend it all this year, next year's budget may be reduced" style of accounting. And if you look at the historical numbers, the military's percentage of federal discretionary spending has risen steadily (source). I'd argue part of the reason the F-22 survives is precisely because it is so expensive, and it's almost certain they'll continue production past 2009.

 

[mjg]

random pretzel.

 

[marvin]

Contrary to popular opinion, the military is very concerned about cost. The more each weapons system costs, the less weapons systems it can have. The only reason that the F-22 survives is program momentum and the obscene amount of power Air Force generals have in comparison to Army generals. I fully expect production to cut off well short of the 179 F-22's, especially at the rate of equipment attrition that Iraq is inflicting on ground forces.

As for cost effectiveness, one MQ-1 Predator system, the only armed drone currently on the market, cost 40 million a copy in FY1997 dollars (from af.mil). You'd get about 9 of those per F-22. They'd be piss poor for air to air combat, low manuverability, low speed, really suboptimal radar, and really poor situational awareness. Against good ground defenses, really anything with modern military technology, the MQ-1's would be blown out of the sky before they could fire a shot.

So current tech isn't good enough, what about future technology?

First, it will be a long time before fully automated drones for combat air patrol come into use. The F-22 will be well into it's service life span by the time the first viable ones come online. The problems with an air-to-air combat AI are immense, and it will be a long time before combat AI will even approach good pilots.

Also, sensors will be a major problem. The two major sensors of air-to-air combat are eyeballs and radars. Last time I checked, state of the art machine vision really sucks compared to eyeballs. Using radars negate stealth, and heavy ECM combined with creative tactics can easily bring fights into visual range, where human pilots will massacre drones, no matter how high performance they are.

Next, to get F-22 like performance, you're going to have near F-22 size, and F-22 like price. Life support and cockpit doesn't really take up that much space, and the addition of the necessary computing power and visual sensors pretty much make it a wash. Drones will have manuverability advantages due to human constraints though.

I can see drones replacing air-to-ground manned planes fairly soon, but high performance air-to-air? Forget about it. That will never happen in the F-22's lifespan.

 

[trains are bad]

That would actually be neat, if future drones' weak eyesite brought dogfighting back into the world of air combat.

We spend a lot on defense, but we still spend more on social welfare than on the entire military. I say we cut ALL of that and divert it to defense and R&D, and space.

 

[AlanY]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad We spend a lot on defense, but we still spend more on social welfare than on the entire military.

Yes and no. Non-war related Pentagon spending now accounts for over half (50.5%) of all federal discretionary spending.

It's only once you add in spending on Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid that the total for social spending increases to more than military spending.

Quote:

I say we cut ALL of that and divert it to defense and R&D, and space.

I agree!

 

[JahJahBinks]

Most COTS products are crap off the shelve anyway.

 

[Polaris111688]

Quote:

Originally Posted by marvin Contrary to popular opinion, the military is very concerned about cost. The more each weapons system costs, the less weapons systems it can have. The only reason that the F-22 survives is program momentum and the obscene amount of power Air Force generals have in comparison to Army generals. I fully expect production to cut off well short of the 179 F-22's, especially at the rate of equipment attrition that Iraq is inflicting on ground forces. As for cost effectiveness, one MQ-1 Predator system, the only armed drone currently on the market, cost 40 million a copy in FY1997 dollars (from af.mil). You'd get about 9 of those per F-22. They'd be piss poor for air to air combat, low manuverability, low speed, really suboptimal radar, and really poor situational awareness. Against good ground defenses, really anything with modern military technology, the MQ-1's would be blown out of the sky before they could fire a shot. So current tech isn't good enough, what about future technology? First, it will be a long time before fully automated drones for combat air patrol come into use. The F-22 will be well into it's service life span by the time the first viable ones come online. The problems with an air-to-air combat AI are immense, and it will be a long time before combat AI will even approach good pilots. Also, sensors will be a major problem. The two major sensors of air-to-air combat are eyeballs and radars. Last time I checked, state of the art machine vision really sucks compared to eyeballs. Using radars negate stealth, and heavy ECM combined with creative tactics can easily bring fights into visual range, where human pilots will massacre drones, no matter how high performance they are. Next, to get F-22 like performance, you're going to have near F-22 size, and F-22 like price. Life support and cockpit doesn't really take up that much space, and the addition of the necessary computing power and visual sensors pretty much make it a wash. Drones will have manuverability advantages due to human constraints though. I can see drones replacing air-to-ground manned planes fairly soon, but high performance air-to-air? Forget about it. That will never happen in the F-22's lifespan.

Your argument is quite agreeable to me. However, I will point out one thing. The use of the latest AESA radar systems does not negate low-observability. The latest AESA systems are capable of constantly and randomly switching radar frequencies thousands of times per second and require a very low energy output and input to detect a target, as compared to a dopplar radar. They call this type of radar a LPI radar (Low Probability of Intercept). As for the future drones, their size will still be large, as they have to accomodate just as much fuel as the F-22A or similar fighters to accomplish simliar missions. I don't know about you, but combat air patrols usually involve loiter time and, god forbid, air combat maneuvers, both of which take large quantities of fuel. The Raptor is rumored to carry 25,000 lbs of fuel internally.

 

[ScubaSteve87]

Quote:

Originally Posted by trains are bad I say we cut ALL of that and divert it to defense and R&D, and space.

word