Jalopnik 
Enter your username and password.
Detroit, 12:54 AM
Wed Nov 25
23 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
tips@jalopnik.com
Editor-in-Chief:
Ray Wert | Email | AIM
Road Test Editor:
Wes Siler | Email
Weekend Editor:
Murilee Martin | Email
Associate Editor - Houston:
Matt Hardigree
Associate Editor - Detroit:
Ben Wojdyla
Editor-at-Large:
Mike Spinelli
Contributors:
Mark Arnold
John Krewson | Email
Andy Didorosi
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/18/09
Wonder if it can handle these?
11/18/09
Not sure why we need a STOVL, but it seems very useful for countries who need flexible manned air defense but don't have the cash for a carrier fleet.
11/18/09
11/18/09
11/18/09
By this point in time, they've damn near got it mastered, so they may as well finish the job.
11/18/09
[www.aviationweek.com]
I'm not calling for it to be cancelled, but the way I understand it, the other two types have been hamstrung by the need for THIS type to work. Considering the numbers needed for each type, I think it's more critical for the standard Air Force version to be the focus. But that's just how I read it...I could be wrong about prioritization.
11/18/09
I had thought, though, that the prototypes had long since demonstrated the ability; I was at a hover demonstration for the F-35 a few years back.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Lisa: He's getting away! [gets covered by the blimp]
Hapablap: Oh...not the F-35B Lightning II! We've got a war tomorrow.
Bob: [sees control panel with two buttons, STOP and FLY]
God bless the idiot-proof Air Force.
He presses the FLY button, and the F-35B Lightning II taxis forward into a ditch. Sideshow Bob switches to the Wright Brothers plane.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Aaaannnd you just made my point. Way cool, too expensive and not needed. Why not build updated versions of F-15's, 16's & 18's? Unless China's building something in secret, I don't see any other country building something that is competitive with these planes. IMHO.
11/18/09
The F35 is going to be sold to a number of allies, so it's not really a matter of competition.
I mean what is the likelihood we are going to see another air war anyway? That's why they scrapped the F22 production plans. Globalization has pretty much eliminated the prospect of major conventional wars for the foreseeable future. It is economic suicide to go to war now.
11/18/09
And it's not a question (just) of other airplanes being a threat, but very much more so surface-to-air missiles. Modern Russian SAM designs (which are sold/licensed all over the world) WILL kill existing legacy fighters to death in a networked air defense environment. F-22 was designed from the start to operate in that type of environment and it's the best at it (except maybe the B-2). F-35 is not as stealthy in all aspects as the F-22 and from the start, it was designed to work under the protection of the F-22, but the current administration decided to kill F-22 production to help push the F-35.
But make no mistake...updated 4th-gen legacy fighters are going to be relegated to second-line bomb trucks, assuming that they have enough flyable hours left in them.
11/18/09
Whoa buddy...before you go pushing off the F22 debacle on the "current administration" keep in mind that Sec Def Gates is really the guy who killed it. The Prez doesn't have a clue about the intricacies of multi-role strike fighters (F35) vs. air superiority fighters (F22). As a Texan, Gates has been pro F-35 from the get go.... it's assembled here in the Lone Star State.
11/18/09
11/18/09
Back when I was working for a freight forwarder, we were asked to move one piece of equipment for the JSF project, which if lost would take 2-3 months to build another one. (Why? I don't know, but that is what we were told.) Of course the airline (Delta) "lost" the box no bigger than my fist moving it from Frankfurt (?) to Los Angeles. The piece was eventually found, in Hawaii, and I eventually hand delivered it to the primary supplier.
The more people that are working on it, the more chance there is someone who doesn't know what they are doing, and will mess up something tiny like how a part is sent. Do not send a tiny package with a freight forwarder. It will be lost. You also do not entrust 2-3 months of work with anything but a courier. More people, more variables to go wrong. Or don't use Delta's cargo operations. One of those is the point.
11/18/09
And no, UAVs are the not the solution. UAVs depend on stationary networks to keep them going, and guess what: networks go down. All the frickin' time. And when the networks go down, your UAVs become little more than skeet-shooting exercises. I'm not saying that they don't have their potentially useful applications, but to simply rely on them altogether is asking for trouble.
11/18/09
UAVs do currently depend on a remote link to relay instructions, however the majority of the time UAVs are running on autopilot and simply orbiting an area. The remote pilot simply connects when a new action has to be taken.
Also the network is not necessarily stationary (AWACS) and there are many redundant networks in any battlefield (particularly in the air where line of sight is unrestricted). There has not been any major issues with networked UAVs in Iraq or Afghanistan. One UAV was lost when it stopped responding to commands, but it was still linked up and sending data. Do you have evidence for this constant loss of military networks and this causing any problem with UAV operations? I haven't heard of any.
Lastly the capability of UAVs will drastically increase in the next 10 years. If it was a need at all, they could even make UAVs much more autonomous with current technology. The maneuvers required to avoid a SAM launch or to approach a target are quite simple. The sensor suites on a UAV can provide information to its processor which a human pilot would simply not be able to process in the same amount of time. For example it could juke out of the way of an incoming missile much closer than a human could react, and with a harder g-force turn.
Within 15 years you will see UAVs performing missions far more successfully and capably than manned planes. Particularly once we start having UAV helicopters, scout vehicles, bird sized UAVs, etc, etc.
I'm not saying we will only use UAVs, but they will be a much larger part of the military than anyone would have expected (not just in the air either!).
11/18/09
And yes, I have a brother who currently works on expanding the network systems used to control the Predator, and our mother was a systems engineers on the project. They have network problems all the damn time, at which point the UAVs, as you point out simply run circles around themselves trying (and failing) to re-establish contact. This wastes fuel, time, and resources, and in a combat environment, results in a major vulnerability.
The maneuver for juking a single missile is simple. The maneuver for juking a single missile while maintaining a constant G-load necessary to effectively launch your missile/bomb at a target while setting up your course to fire your weapon and then get the hell out of there and go home is a bit more complex. It gets even more complex when their are multiple missile coming for you at the same damn time. And no UAV is capable of doing that.
Lastly, the next 15 years is precisely that: the next 15 years. Not now. We have problems now, and the F-22 and the F-35 are excellent solutions to the problems that we have now. Also, we were promised that we would have something as comparatively simple (when contrasted to a UAV) as flying cars in the next fifteen years...45 years ago.
11/18/09
UAVs are not capable of such maneuvers because they have yet to need such programming. However said programming is absolutely possible and in many ways would be superior to human reactions. Combat situations which require human ingenuity and creativity in the air simply don't exist anymore (other flight situations requiring human ingenuity do exist). If such situations started arising, I'm sure there would be money put into implementing missile avoidance and strike programming. I mean the math and g-forces for maneuvering while targeting are going to handled better by a computer than a person. A computer can handle far higher g-forces and calculate far faster.
This will take place over the course of 15 years, not after 15 years. And a flying car is FAR more complex than a UAV. You have much more weight, safety issues, traffic issues, etc, etc. Removing humans makes the whole thing cheaper, simpler, and smaller. Also the next 15 years is going to be an exponentially larger change than the last 15 years (just look at Moore's law).
11/18/09
Why do you need to out-accelerate/strip/climb and enemy fighter?
In any kind of combat situation, you need to out-accelerate, out-strip, and out-climb not only opposing aircraft, but opposing weapons systems as well, including should-launched SAMs.
Speed is life.
When is it really an issue about UAV orbits?
Umm....always. An orbiting UAV is nothing more than an easy target. And despite the perception otherwise, at this point, they are not significantly cheaper than manned aircraft.
Why should the control mechanism matter?
Because while you are still getting your turn either way, it's a matter of how quickly you are getting that turn. Take the original Hornet as an example, as it was fitted with both. Use hydraulics on one and FBW on the other. The FBW will get you the same turn, but noticeably more quickly, as the command to move travels at nearly the speed of light, as opposed to the speed of a hydraulic system. In any combat situation, that extra edge is worth more than it's measurement in time.
A computer, in any form, comes down to this: Garbage in, garbage out. It can only do what it is programmed to do. It cannot expand, extrapolate, improvise, or invent that which is not included in it's programming. It's that simple. As a result, no matter how many times the force of gravity it can withstand, it will always be inferior to a human pilot. I've also already demonstrated that combat situations do exist, and occur hundreds of times a day, that do require human ingenuity.
And no, a flying car is not more complex than a UAV. It does not necessarily involve programming of any kind. It does not need to withstand combat maneuvers. It does not need to carry weapons. It does not need stealth. It does not need a jet engine. It does not need an on-board computer. It does not need to go several hundred miles per hour. It does not need to withstand the same stresses and fatigues. It does not need as much in the way of advanced materials. Note that a few flying car prototypes have been produced, and if memory serves, the most expensive one has been roughly a million dollars. The cheapest UAV we have in service, on the other hand costs upwards of 35 million dollars. Why? Complexity.
You are a theoretical analyst, attempting to analyze what theoretically is or ought to be from an armchair. But reality is significantly different, and there is a reason that UAVs, after 40 years, have only gotten as far as they have today. Reality is, quite simply, much different.
11/19/09
How often to pilots actually need to improvise or be unpredictable these days? Perhaps there are non-combat scenarios such as landing in severe weather which are more common, but actual combat where reflexes matter? The majority of sorties are ground strikes against targets with no anti-air capability. Certainly such things exist out there, but yet again simply saying so does not make it a threat. You keep citing reality, yet don't provide a realistic or real situation where these things happen with anything approximating regularity.
I will grant you the car though, I didn't think that through fully. However humans on board certainly adds its own set of problems and limitations (size, g-forces, safety, cockpit).
Considering that the MQ-1 Predator costs approx. 5 million ([bit.ly]) and the MQ-9 Reaper costs approx. 13 million ([bit.ly]) while an F/A-18 E or F costs approx. 57 million ([bit.ly]) I don't really think that you are getting all that much more out of adding a pilot, not in this day and this conflict, and not likely in realistic future conflicts.
PS - Those UAV costs include ground equipment, sensors, and satellite link.
11/19/09
There may not be hundreds of instances per flight, but do you have any idea how many missions are launched from a single carrier in a single day? In war time, it usually clocks in at close to a thousand. From one carrier. In one day. Multiply that the five to eight carriers that are deployed at any given time, and then start taking into account how many missions are launched from Air Force bases.
So, yeah, with that in mind, situation where pilots need that performance literally happens hundreds of times a day.
I eat it on the UAV cost in this instance; I had intended to type in $3.5 million, which was the estimated cost of the Reaper when it was first being proposed.
Finally, here's why I keep bringing up reality: It's easy as all hell to sit down an talk about what should be, what theoretically ought to be, or what we think is from an armchair on the sidelines. Kind of like it was easy for everyone to talk about what happened with Bugatti in the lake. But the simple truth is, we weren't there. We weren't the ones driving. We have no idea what the context of the situation was. All we got to see was a replay of it happen.
Similarly, you are being a perfect armchair analyst here. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and say that a fighter doesn't need to have the kind of performance that it has. But when it comes down to it, your ass has never been in one and been in a situation where that power has saved your life. In fact, I would be willing to bet you've never flown any plane, much less a fighter jet.
You make assertions about the nature of war that not only have no backing, but have been proven false by history, both ancient and recent.
You also assert that UAVs can do anything that a manned fighter can do. And yet, when it comes down to it, Reapers are sent to orbit and patrol a single area that may or may not have any targets in it. On the other hand, manned jets are sent into high risk, heavily defended areas where there are high priority targets. Why do you think that is?
Finally, you also make it a point to say something along the lines of "in the future...." Well, welcome to the present.
This is what I mean when I say that you aren't considering the reality of it.
#tips
11/19/09
I definitely understand and respect your opinion on the matter, but I don't think you have fully demonstrated the need. Certainly historically, but not in recent events.
Just because there are hundreds of sorties a day does not mean that they come into situations requiring fast reflexes except during a carrier landing. The majority of these sorties are patrols/recon and ground strikes against targets with no AA defenses.
Certainly we may come up against AA defenses in the future, but I see that as unlikely and rare given the economic/political trends in the world.
Good convo by the way! I too love a good manned fighter jet, and longed to be a fighter pilot as a child. I haven't flown a jet, but I have been at the controls of a small Cessna and made some highly enjoyable turns and whatnot (didn't get to land of course, was just for fun with friend of the family).
I really wanted to do a barrel-roll...
11/18/09
I can honestly say I've never heard of STOVL and was about to correct it to VSTOL until it suddenly made sense. Vertical takeoff is very demanding and can screw up the tarmac (melting the tar). Landing, less so.
11/18/09
STOVL is safer adn burns less fuel, too. I was in the Marines @ Cherry Point, NC when they received the first batch of VSTOL Harriers.
They were crashing every other week until they got the kinks out in the 2nd version.
11/18/09
11/19/09
The Limeys know their jets...
...and their F1 drivers.
04/16/09
03/26/09
My condolences to the family. There's no way to sugarcoat an accident like this. Somebody's got to actually fire the beast up and fly it, and this guy's number came up.
03/26/09
Second, by the time you factor in the total spending on the F-22, you are talking $355 Million per aircraft. It's one of the greatest boondoggles in history, a fighter craft that won't do what's it's supposed to do, and is barely better than what's it replacing. From the 3/9 issue of American Conservative:
"The F-22 is the distillation of that failed dream. The huge weight, drag, and complexity burden of its stealth-compromised skin, big-ticket radar, and belly-fattening radar missile load have swollen it to bomber size, wrecked its maneuvering performance, and run its cost through the roof. The radar is useless because turning it on makes the F-22 an instant target. The stealth fails against World War II-technology search radars and against enemy fighters savvy enough to turn off their radars. The F-22's vaunted effectiveness is based only on peacetime exercises using rigged ground rules and missile lethality numbers unrelated to actual combat results or real enemy countermeasures. Even more telling is the number of combat sorties the F-22 has flown to help the fights in Iraq or Afghanistan since going operational in 2006: zero. "
It's also one of the reasons we could not get adequately armored Humvees and other vehicles to soldiers on the ground.
03/26/09
Don't hurt yourself grindin' that ax....
03/26/09
1. It has clearly a very maneuverable fighter. The huge control surfaces, thrust vectoring and advanced flight controls allow for some pretty crazy maneuverability.
2. Turning on the F-22's radar does not make it a target. The AESA radar can operate in low probability of intercept (LPI) mode. The mode allows the radar to frequency hop and change other parameters so that enemy's radar warning receiver just sees as noise. Also it is very narrow beam, so it has even less chance of being seen. Also a raptor at a range outside of the enemy's missiles could be using its radar to find the enemy and then send the information to the closer raptor that can fire its missiles at the targets without ever turning on its radar.
3. WWII radars with very long wavelengths may be able to detect the F-22. But detecting is very different than having a firing solution.
4. It does not matter if an enemy turns off its radar, because it can still be seen by the raptors radar or AWACs.
5. The effectiveness argument could be a good argument if it was based soley on the US Air force, but foreign pilots that have flown it or flown against it are in awe of it. The British pilots have said they could not even get a radar lock when they could see the plane. Also the Russians have said that it is far and beyond anything they make.
6. The raptors worth may be judged not by how much it is used, but in how much it is not used. Not to mention why should we be only equiped to fight a counter-insurgency? Why are we assuming that is all we are ever going to fight ever again?
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
Now I feel like I need to watch The Right Stuff again.
03/26/09
03/26/09
Hmmmm...there's a definite pattern there. Maybe I should be on Planeopnik.
03/26/09
Dude, you just named some of my favorite movies of all time.
However, I love James Bond and Star Trek flicks as well, no matter how terrible they are, simply because of the awesomeness that is James Bond and Star Trek in general. There's a lot to be said for the Lord of the Rings trilogy, too. And Indiana Jones.
And, I know, I am weird as hell, but for some reason I find The Transporter movies to be stupidly entertaining. If they hired a real writer and added a little more character depth and development, and some better plot material, it could damn near be the next James Bond series.
03/26/09
Read Yeager's autobiography. It's an excellent view into the man and what all he did test pilot and other exploits. He's an old school hoon.
03/26/09
03/26/09
The $150M/unit price includes spare parts and all the necessary training to service, repair, and (possibly) fly the thing.
Each unit in and of itself is probably a bit cheaper. Maybe $100M.
03/26/09
03/26/09
The average flyaway cost is calculated by adding up the cost of parts and assembly of aircraft components (engines, airframe, etc.) and the cost of final assembly for the entire lot of aircraft purchased, and then divided by the number of aircraft produced in that lot.
It does not include the cost of logistical support.
The flyaway cost for Lot 7 aircraft in FY08 dollars is $141.507 million.
03/26/09
"Let go talk to my sales manager, ok?"
03/26/09
Sales manager: "Make him an offer he can't refuse."
03/26/09
03/26/09
Have you tried accounting for inflation in the 30+ years that the F-16 has been flying? Not mention vastly more complicated and expensive avionics fits?
When the F-16 first came out, it was intended to be a no-frills, bare-bones ACM fighter with little more than a ranging radar. It has now evolved into one of the most advanced strikefighters in existence. That kind of capability upgrade usually adds to the cost.
03/26/09
So maybe - just maybe - that flippant picture that says "oh crap" is in incredibly bad taste.
03/26/09
But, to be fair, that picture is an exact summarization of what goes through a pilot's head in that situation.
03/26/09
03/26/09
03/26/09
It has wheels, two engines, and is theoretically capable of driving (taxiing) down a road.
Close enough.
03/26/09
03/26/09
@Tiberiuswise - now with 20% more sarcasm.: Well, my comments weren't ever any good, save for a COTD once, but I'm more of a tipster kind of guy
03/27/09