- Joined
- 19 July 2016
- Messages
- 3,937
- Reaction score
- 2,968
I have only one thing to say, "Wibble". Pencil a delete option.
A while back the USAF were talking about buying small numbers of multiple different designs as a means to keep competition and design variations in the aviation world.
Then it was all about the 'Loyal Wingman' scheme.
Now they want to bring in some sort of new manned low-cost F-16 replacement.
It is possible (if you squint hard enough) to make all 3 of those become the same thing.
I think the USAF have no idea what they want or really need. They have the F-15, F-16, F-22 and F-35 as fighters AND the B-1, B-2, B-52 and B-21 as bombers. 8 types for 2 roles where most air forces have 8 types all-told for fighter, bomber, trainer, transport, recon and helicopter.
The US have more choice across their fleets then nearly every other air force has for everything combined.
Oh ho ho, a low cost military equipment with no weak spots, what can go wrong?Removing any characteristic just creates a weak spot that will be exploited by your rivals.
The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
How many flight hours does the guy whose job is to turn it off and turn it on again need? After all the plane can do the ACM with a download~
Without a low flying cost airframe, this result may be forced on the airforce. I don't think it would be taken well.
Oh ho ho, a low cost military equipment with no weak spots, what can go wrong?Removing any characteristic just creates a weak spot that will be exploited by your rivals.
The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
That is why you need UCAVs, those things do not need to train, at least not individually as humans do. Fly some as companions of your human pilots when they train and leave the rest in the ground. There you have your reduction in flight hours...The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
That is why you need UCAVs, those things do not need to train, at least not individually as humans do. Fly some as companions of your human pilots when they train and leave the rest in the ground. There you have your reduction in flight hours...The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
No, that is why some people are proposing to make manned and unmanned versions of the same aircraft. So you can start with the unmanned ones being simple auxiliaries of the manned force, but maybe ten years down the road they outnumber the manned fighters and take care of most of the tasks. It allows to develop a flexible platform and develop SW technology, experience and doctrine without having to scrap your fleet several times in the process...Yep. On paper UCAVs are the way to go, but are they soup yet? Are they technically mature enough yet to do all the things an F16 can do??
For instance?The problem with optionally manning aircraft, particularly small fighter sized ones is that you'd need to bake in a lot of the compromises needed to keep a human alive. The unmanned version later down the road won't be able to capitalize on the full potential that removing a pilot from the get-go would have allowed.
A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.
The unmanned version would not have cockpit and life support systems, obviously. You just need to put the required systems at one place so they can be removed in the unmanned versions with little influence, in which that space would be used with additional avionics and fuel. Additionally you would benefit from lack of canopy that would appreciably reduce drag.A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.
The same (small) human cannot cause a 30% of the weight on a 200 kg ultralight, on a 5- t light fighter or on a 20+ t heavy fighter or interceptor. The size of the plane, be it manned or unmanned, is going to depend mainly on range, performance and payload requirements.Don't forget the volume needed to host a human that reflect in extra surrounding structure, bigger airframe, higher mass, extra fuel, higher tank volume, bigger wings, higher drag...
You can make it a 30% of net aircraft weight.
... I think the USAF have no idea what they want or really need. ...
I hesitate to mention this, but two possible (though highly controversial) approaches would be 'solid armor' or the even more infamous 'brain in a box'.The unmanned version would not have cockpit and life support systems, obviously. You just need to put the required systems at one place so they can be removed in the unmanned versions with little influence, in which that space would be used with additional avionics and fuel. Additionally you would benefit from lack of canopy that would appreciably reduce drag.A lot of weight goes into supporting the organic aspect of the piloted aircraft that are not needed, seat and instruments alone are a sizeable reduction when removed, not to mention oxygen and the organic aspect itself.
The same (small) human cannot cause a 30% of the weight on a 200 kg ultralight, on a 5- t light fighter or on a 20+ t heavy fighter or interceptor. The size of the plane, be it manned or unmanned, is going to depend mainly on range, performance and payload requirements.Don't forget the volume needed to host a human that reflect in extra surrounding structure, bigger airframe, higher mass, extra fuel, higher tank volume, bigger wings, higher drag...
You can make it a 30% of net aircraft weight.
If you think about which elements of the hourly costs you can vary, and those that basically you cant. - assuming a manned system.
-Pilot - slightly lower skill, some minor savings, but minimal.
-Fuel - lower speed, lower potential/top speed - stick to subsonic capability - some saving
- Engine life - lower power - lower stress, no afterburner - some saving
- simpler avionics - some savings on purchase, and on groundcrew
- simple robust structure - some savings
- fat tyres - some savings.
-No fancy starting fluids, 'civil' rules on pre-flights etc. - some savings.
More robust airframe, less maintenance - cost saving.
-from my earlier post, purchase cost does play a part as well, so if you can lower both I can see you coming out 30-40% less than buying new F16. Over say 2000 aircraft thats a lot of money.
Increasing automation should allow more pilots to be trained on multiple craft. Can the AF Guard/Reserve pilot model be enhanced/maximized so there is increasingly less pilot down time? Airlines can stay afloat w/ USAF/USG compensation for pilot availablility. Private incentives keeps the airlines and the AF in business. The pilot culture is important and there should be creative ways to perpetuate it. Demographic trends are going to demand drastic change in the pilot model anyway.The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
But flying less just increases the per hour cost?
Sure you burn less fuel, but fuel is a tiny component of fast jet operating and support costs. Sure less time based maintenance but you don't really save that much money because you still need all the maintenance guys for when you're operating at high rate in wartime. So basically you're paying people to sit around and get really bored in peacetime.
So costs decrease a little from flying less, but cost per hour massively increases.
I think that is a political issue rather than a technical one, which holds also the answer to why the JSF has ended with a plane way bigger and more expensive than it was planned. When asking politicians and military if they want something so so, but cheap, or some high tech platform with greater capabilities, the second is far easier to defend in the public opinion and the one that will have more budget to gain support among decision makers. To prevent this capability and cost creep is the proof that there is a sane government running the country, or some other form of less optimal governance.Ultimately, that's the trend we're trying to reverse so that is what is relevant here i.e. can you keep making the aircraft more capable, more survivable, and continue to add performance while staying OPEX neutral or actually reducing what you spend to keep it flying.
Certainly the fall of the USSR created the conditions for US to rest on their laurels, many weapons programs of that age were abject failures of unrealistic expectations and happy engineering.One of the problems in this discussion is the lack of urgency following the collapse of the Soviet Union.
F22 was designed to cope with whatever the Soviets devloped to replace the SU27 Flanker. Thirty years later the Russians and Chinese are still only flying prototypes which may or may not be equal to the F22.
The F16 and F18 proved at least equal and in many respects to the Mig 29 family. Russia and China still have not deployed a newer fighter in large numbers.
F35 is the new standard fighter of the West, an heir to the F4.
Job done.
only if there is a firm date, when we will need 5th gen, if not the country that first got them may be right. Alternatively, New Zealand has it right, with their 8th gen stealth wing.There is always a downside of being the country that 1st throws 5th gens on production lines than a country that takes there time later with the latest technology and depending how costly upgrades will be with said huge amount of 5th gens being produced from the 1st country that started their 5th gens 1st.
SAAB auto was spun off in 1990 and is not related to SAAB aerospace.Increasing automation should allow more pilots to be trained on multiple craft. Can the AF Guard/Reserve pilot model be enhanced/maximized so there is increasingly less pilot down time? Airlines can stay afloat w/ USAF/USG compensation for pilot availablility. Private incentives keeps the airlines and the AF in business. The pilot culture is important and there should be creative ways to perpetuate it. Demographic trends are going to demand drastic change in the pilot model anyway.The best way to save hourly costs: keep the thing on the ground until the shooting starts.
But flying less just increases the per hour cost?
Sure you burn less fuel, but fuel is a tiny component of fast jet operating and support costs. Sure less time based maintenance but you don't really save that much money because you still need all the maintenance guys for when you're operating at high rate in wartime. So basically you're paying people to sit around and get really bored in peacetime.
So costs decrease a little from flying less, but cost per hour massively increases.
PS: If dont start w/ the most tricked out pony (all F-16 technology already looked at/tested +plus maximized logistics etc) then a new bird is going to cost much more to start from scratch...and as far trusting 'foreign princes'..well..
Is there a financial connection between SAAB Automotive and Saab Aerospace?
Saab sold to Chinese-Swedish investment group
Bankrupt Swedish carmaker Saab has been sold to an investment group which aims to develop the company into a maker of electric cars.www.bbc.com
That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.
That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.
Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.
That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.
That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.
Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.
How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS? And when did my country begin to feel bad about bringing overwhelming technical superiority fight?
And now magically after purposely building an aircraft that can't supercruise the USAF needs a fighter that's faster than the f16 (and by default the 35) as I read about the wish list. We've seen this movie before when the USAF built the 22 and decided it needed something else.
And designing a new fighter is now a relatively trivial task.That's funny. The country that spends trillions on a stimulus for money to be spent unrelated to the disaster that the country itself created for political reasons can't afford magically to buy an operate a single engine fighter plane. I have a great idea: lets cancel another aircraft in production and spend another 75b to engineer another aircraft purposely obsolete. Only in America.Its probable the USAF has already seen concepts of aircraft that would fit the bill.
That they may not be able to afford and operate enough F35s is probably not a sudden revelation.
That the F35 is not optimal for every scenario is surely not a surprise either.
Comments advocating a new Century-series approach and touting new digital design capabilities mean the USAF and their favorite manufacturers have spent some time looking at what is possible.
How is the 35 not optimal for every situation? Where is it lacking? BVR or CAS? And when did my country begin to feel bad about bringing overwhelming technical superiority fight?
And now magically after purposely building an aircraft that can't supercruise the USAF needs a fighter that's faster than the f16 (and by default the 35) as I read about the wish list. We've seen this movie before when the USAF built the 22 and decided it needed something else.
Range.