TRUE!

Great post!

Something often forgotten!

Hermann

future UCAVs though probably won't even be remotely piloted, they will be programmed to go fly to an area and kill any enemy aircraft that comes within range.

Delivering it by ground platforms ain't so easy...which is all you're going to have when your air force is grounded.

RULE #1: NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE ENEMY



RULE #2:  haveone you  a plan to kill everyone you meet



 

More like ten thousand ground stations constructed out of cheap ass electronics that, individually, do little, but collectively are quite effective.  You can forget taking them all out.  And I'm wondering how you're bombing anything if your air power is negated by jamming?

It's dangerous, relying completely on UAVs.  We're asking to have our asses kicked.

Additionally, the gun may yet come in handy for light ground targets of opportunity.

The difference being that a manned aircraft can still fly and fight, albeit in a reduced capacity.  A UAV without control from its remote ground station simply crashes.

A UAV can still fight without command........if we give it (them) artificial intelligence....

Look, I write software for a living.  And while I'm not a namby pamby politician worried about fighting a war without killing anyone, I can tell you right now that trusting a computer to positively identify friend or foe is asking for a first rate cluster fucking.

Computers are exceptionally stupid, even the best ones.  What's going to happen if someone forgets to program friend or foe codes into an AWACS one day?  The damned drones go nuts and shoot down every E-3 within a 300 mile radius, that's what.

Letting a computer determine targeting is a major grade A no-go.

There is no such thing artificial intelligence.  Hasn't been invented yet, despite what the talking heads will say.  Ask me how I know.

OK....how do you know?

Send in Clint to steal it!!

Fire rearward missles!

You must think in Russian.

Damn I love that movle!

Because I write software for a living.  Practical AI simply won't happen on current hardware.  The software cannot exceed the limitations of the hardware.  So unless silicon and plastic is capable of rational thought, you aren't getting any AI no matter how good the software is.

At my job, me and another programmer just rolled out a piece of software with 800,000 lines of code.  We spent as much time debugging it as we did writing it.  And in the end, about a dozen major bugs were found during the first few days of deployment.  And our software isn't intelligent, it's merely a glorified calculator.  In order for a drone, not remote controlled, to fight on its own programming without killing friendlies, the software would have to be absolutely perfect.

There is no perfect software.  Anyone that tells you there is is either misinformed or a fucking idiot.

No it's not. The problem lies in the Russian's perpetual need to change designations.

Actually the need to change designations is russian tradition rooted in keeping stuff secret.

Reading about tank development they would usually have 3-4 wierd ass designations for the same damn tank.

Practical AI for engagement purposes already exists.

Two interesting facts.
#1 USN F-4s never had a cannon.
#2 USN pilots had a better kill ratio.

Those SU-35s would get OWNED by a F-22. I bet 1 F-22 could at least shoot down 10-15 of them all by itself.

But we only have to worry about low tech mid east terrorists right?

Those planes may look good at some airshows ( maybe not) but the electronics / weapons systems inside those things are where it's at. I think the russkies kind of suck at that, don't they?

what if we give our pilots those wolf shirts?

Russian aircraft seldom live up to their hype. Example MiG25

Actually, two Sukhoi SU-27 just crashed into each other this past Wednesday...........


http://www.upi.com/Security_Industry/2009/08/19/Russian-air-show-opens-despite-crash/UPI-44601250716967/

Best way to avoid any confusion on what is considered a current generation Su-35 as opposed to the older versions from the 1990's is the aircraft number, which for the new ones are those listed as 9xx. Number 901 and 902 are flying, 903 is reportedly a static test airframe and 904 is the one that was destroyed. Also something not mentioned in the article for visual distinction of the new version is the lack of a dorsal air brake, along with the other notable features of no canards and the 3D thrust vectoring nozzles. Apparently the shape of the wing is unique compared to older versions as well.

The SU-27 does not in any way resemble an F-15.  I've put hands on both of them. The only thing they have in common is two tails and two engines. They are much bigger, more powerful and more maneuverable, by design, because they built them to beat F-15's. They are built very rugged to withstand the use of thrust vectoring engines.

When they first showed up in the US, they were equipped with passive infrared detectors and all aspect targeting systems that we soon copied, while they copied the F-15 egress ladder for later models.

They are also developing missiles with twice the range of the AIM 120D.



In their stealth configuration, F-22's would be able to shoot down six, and only with AWACs support over friendly terrain.

Over their own terrain, the Russian's Air Defense distributed network would be able to spot and attack F-22's that were high enough or maneuvering to engage SU-35s.

Do some reading. Our stealth technology depends on visual, infrared and radar masking as well as countermeasures, it doesn't make us invisible, just hard to find and lock on to.

If they have enough sensors in enough places we'll be easily spotted.

Not the 120D. One of the 120C variants. It's also supposed to be a ramjet powered version, but they haven't come out with it. In fact, their new version got rid of the potato smasher directional fins and adopted a fin similar to the 120.

I always thought an SU-27 looked more like a non-variable geometry wing F-14 than an F-15.

Oh and I forgot to add the Euros are trying to develop a ramjet engined missile too. Neither the Russian nor the Euro effort are going as well as planned.

Report at the bottom of this page from MAKS 2009 that the second PAK FA prototype is in testing. Sounds like first flight is supposed to be in November.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=163247

And what the Russians are calling the PAK FA now is just another warmed over Su-27.

Is that some reference to a Jane's article you mentioned earlier? Any link with that story? I've read the Su-47 Berkut was given the "warmed over" moniker but not in relation to the T-50.

Post again when the final production version is rolling off the line and they have a training squadron and a couple operational squadrons fully manned up and ready to go.  

You have to pay for Jane's. They don't give it away. And it was in one of their books.

They're still having problems developing the current SU-35 version without its engines blowing up and you think they'll actually fly a fifth generation fighter by the end of the year? Yeah right.

 

+1, Out of the planned F22's we have how many will actually be able to fly at any given time?  I'm not dissing it, I think we need 1000 at least.  Anyway When you figure in maintainance, parts needing replaced there is no way all of them could be ready to fly at one time.  Now comes another problem spare parts?  If we need parts in a hurry do we cannibilize one for parts that may be down for maintainance?  What if one has some minor damage from say combat, hard landing or hanger rash, etc.  No with our present administration who have no problem cutting our future, I'm starting to worry about Russia and China, they know were slitting our own throats and are using the great ones stupidity to their favor.  They will have a massive build up, than wait for him to talk it over with cookies and milk while they are doing what they want to us since we wont be able to fight back.  It kind of reminds me of the Sherman vs the Tiger.  it was superior but the Sherman won as we had higher numbers of them, not unlike what the former USSR learned just inandate them with masses vs technology

The russians have won battles in the past by wasting millions of lives, equipment, and money with little
respect for any of the 3.
Strength in numbers and nothing more.
We should (the USA) always be advancing and innovating to stay ahead of the pack but head to head the russians
won't ever overtake our technology.

More interesting facts:
USAF flew the prototype for the F-4E (gun-nose Phantom) in August 1965.  First production planes June 1967.  By war's end, the E-Rhino would get 6 gun kills, including the only kill at supersonic speed.

Handley's tale is told here:

http://www.nickelonthegrass.net/MiG_Kill.htm

From 1965-1968 USAF and USN had roughly the same kill ratio, 2.25:1 and 2.42:1 repectively:

http://books.google.com/books?id=g28yvaf3988C&pg=PA48&lpg=PA48&dq=navy+air-to-air+kills+vietnam&source=bl&ots=JRZTbujWS5&sig=Md_K3g1_KRlxdtD0KQaubNBEy_k&hl=en&ei=DF6PSqadH4fgswOp650M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6#v=onepage&q=navy%20air-to-air%20kills%20vietnam&f=false

The inaugration of Top Gun brought Overall Navy numbers to 13:1 (1970-1973).  However during that timeframe the USN only accounted for 29 bandits.  Overall USAF kills for the same time period were 60, however the AF Kill ratio was 1.92:1.

As a result, USAF post war established Red Flag.

I have always wondered about the real kill ratio numbers.  It is my opinion that the numbers have been artifically skewed.  The Navy F-4's shot down 40 planes for 5 planes shot down (A-to-A).  USAF F-4's was 107.5 to 33.  Reduction of the numbers yields 8:1 for Navy and ~3.25:1 for the USAF.  I think that the reason that the early year numbers were so bad is that both services used their F-4's very generally.  One day they could be escorts, the next bombing.  There was no specialization.  The Navy, as a result of top gun, and newer specialized attack planes (A-6) could in the later stages of the war operate their F-4s in a more pure A-to-A role.  The AF continued to have F-4s operate generally.  The lack of specialization was costly in the kill ratio.

If one compares the USAF F-4 ratio to the overall USAF ratio, it is easy to see why.  The USAF was getting A to A kills with the Thud.  While the Thud excelled as a strike plane, in A to A it was out of it's league.  It was the Thud however that allowed Robin Olds to plan Operation Bolo.  Here, he devised a plan to have F-4's act as fighters, however they would fly F-105 routes and use F-105 call signs.  The Migs took the bait, and seven were shot down (all Mig-21's) in one engagement with no USAF losses.  

The jack-of-all-trades approach for USAF fighters went away with the initial designs of the F-15.  Not a lb. for Air-to-Ground, and an undefeated record in A-to-A combat.  Improved training is a major factor, but also having planes who's primary role is to own the skies is another.  

The F-15 would prove versatile in the strike role, but that would be later on.

Ever heard of a UCAV?  No pilot on board means = smaller + highly manueverable + cheaper to build and maintain



The Chinese or Russians are not stupid enough to pick a fight with expensive manned fighters with expensively trained pilots.  They will flood the air with UCAVs in quantity and on the cheap.  How many missiles can an F-22 carry and maintain it's stealth?  6?  8 tops?

Putin speaks at the MAKS 2009 over the weekend..

Vladimir Putin:

“We shall keep supporting the aircraft-building. Without aviation the Russian economy has no future, and the defense capabilities cannot be maintained without advanced complexes… We have identified aircraft-building, alongside space, shipbuilding and nuclear power, as one of the key priorities, and it is our hope these sectors will considerably increase the share of high technology enterprises in the domestic economy, enhance its stability and diversify export…. As far as combat aircraft are concerned, it is one of the focal points of the state program for armaments

...This year alone we have disbursed 80 billion rubles, anti-crisis measures included…. Just days ago the government made a decision to increase the capitalization of the holding company Sukhoi by 3.2 billion rubles [about $100 million].... In the past we purchased for the Air Force very few samples of modern technologies – one, two, three pieces, six at the most. Last year we shifted to long-term contracts and signed contracts for the purchase of 32 Su-34 jets 40 billion rubles worth [DID coverage], and 34 MiG-29 SNT 15 billion rubles worth [Algerian returns].... A number of contracts unparalleled in Russia’s modern history were signed here today for the purchase of 48 Su-35s, twelve Su-27SMs and four Su-30Ms over 80 billion rubles worth [DID coverage]. The supplies are to be effected by 2012”

So thats 32 Su 34's


plus  48 Su 35's



plus 12 Su 27's



plus 4 Su-30's



Thats 96 very capable aircraft we have to counter with Raptors  Not to mention the need for Raptors in the region of China.

You can say oh, well , we can counter those with an F-15 etc...  except that with proper maintenance these  newly purchased Russian jets will still be flying and all of our F-15s and F-16s are ending their service life, due to the hours put on from being at war for 15 years in the Middle East.

Violation of the Geneva Convention, probably

Only if its the one with 3 wolves...

If I'm not mistaken on Aegis cruiser and destroyers they can flip a switch and completely turn the weapons systems over to the computer, it can track and engage anything in it's area without human input.

yep its AI that allows for BVR engagements.... At sea or in the air.

Yeah big +1 on the Su-27 not being anything like the F-15. Aerodynamically speaking the originals were probably the closest to the F-18's with their LERX's etc. But the Su-27s had way more powerful engines.

And another big +1 on who owns who really depends on the circumstances. The aussies have an interesting radar system that can see F-22's taking off and landing in japan for instance. And the F-22 is by no means invulnerable.

The russians have put a lot time/money into FLIR type air targeting systems back in the 80's presumably so they might be able to track radar stealthy aircraft using IR. I realize the F-22 does try to mask its IR signature as well, but lets be real about those engines putting out alot of heat.

The Battle of Khalkhin Gol

What do I win?

ETA: Rogue-Sasquatch beat me by 3 days!

If the PAK thingny has intakes that big, not only will you know which Ivan built the engine, you'll know what he had for lunch.  Nice concept photos but not gonna work in real life.

Who exactly is going to fly those 96 Russian jets that just got sold?  Some Third World hamburger whose dad is the emir's accountant.  (And, don't give me any shit about how hot the Indian pilots are who waxed the F-15's in that bogus exercise.  THEY wrote the ROE's.)

Can we not build a jet without turning it into a do-everything christmas tree designed by retired generals lobbying for LM and Boeing?  This Government is so f#@king corrupt, sometimes I hope the Commies win just to prove a point.

Let transports be designed by transport pilots and let fighters be designed by fighter pilots.

TC

That's not intelligence, though, that's simply reacting to simple, pre-programmed inputs. "Airborne? Y/N. If Y then go to Direction. If Direction is To Ownship, then go to IFF. IFF Y/N, if N then go to selection subroutine. Catalogue all targets meeting earlier criteria. Engage fastest/nearest ones first. Fire"

Incidently, I was surprised to note that of the, 800 or so F-15s made, that the US has lost about 150 of the things. Granted, it's over a 30 year service life, but there won't be many F-22s left after 30 years if they suffer the same attrition rate.

NTM

you could use similar programs for UCAVs, not a true AI in the sense that it thinks and learns but it could handle a battle without human input.

Depends on how you define AI. I hate to use Wiki as a source, but it does have the same definition I was taught:
"Artificial Intelligence (AI) is the intelligence of machines and the branch of computer science which aims to create it. Major AI textbooks define the field as "the study and design of intelligent agents," where an intelligent agent is a system that perceives its environment and takes actions which maximize its chances of success."
Doctrine, which powers Aegis and CEC, most certainly fits that definition.