F-22 Raptor program cancellation

[Moonbox]

Some have talked about Costs, automated equipment are very expensive to developed, maintain, and produce....when compared to the cost of say a human life, it is much cheaper to give a soldier a 1200.00 rifle, some boots, a bag full of rations, a blanket , roll of shit paper....a good slap on the ass, piont him towards the bad guys and yell go get him.....I know it sounds cold, but that is what nations do...now and in the future....the cheapest wpn system available is the human....and while they are cheap, bury enough of them and the nation will demand it all stop...thats they way it has been since man first picked up a club and beat his neibour with....and that will be the way in the future....No need to program them, maintain them, just feed them, with food and ammo, and occasionally a roll of TP and there good to go....

I agree with all that but it's a bit different when we're talking about aircraft and automation.

It's probably NOT cheaper to train a pilot to fly a fighter jet than it is to automate it.

[DogOnPorch]

I agree with all that but it's a bit different when we're talking about aircraft and automation.

It's probably NOT cheaper to train a pilot to fly a fighter jet than it is to automate it.

Especially when a mere fighter jet isn't going to make a difference. Being able to fly up north...hang around for 10 minutes then fly back...the Rooooosins will just wait to surface their sub.

[bush_cheney2004]

Especially when a mere fighter jet isn't going to make a difference. Being able to fly up north...hang around for 10 minutes then fly back...the Rooooosins will just wait to surface their sub.

That's why you need to deputize the belugas, polar bears, and seals. The US already does this with dolphins. They work cheap...for fish.

[DogOnPorch]

That's why you need to deputize the belugas, polar bears, and seals. The US already does this with dolphins. They work cheap...for fish.

Canadian seagulls will poop on those Kilo class sub...bombs away!

[Army Guy]

I agree with all that but it's a bit different when we're talking about aircraft and automation.

It's probably NOT cheaper to train a pilot to fly a fighter jet than it is to automate it.

Your right it is cheaper, training a fighter pilot and keeping them current is very expensive, over the long term....and training a UAV or UCAV pilot is done mostly on a sim, much cheaper way to go...but you get what you pay for....a tech geek flying a UCAV does not have his or her life strapped on to thier ass, they have nothing to risk, fully expecting to be respawned or recieve another chance to fly..... while thier mistakes can cost the very people they are supporting thier lives....be it not recieving they airstrike that will turn the nature of the battle around....If i'm down in the weeds getting shot at, i want my fast air pilot to have as much at risk as i do....it motivates them to come thru...

[Moonbox]

If i'm down in the weeds getting shot at, i want my fast air pilot to have as much at risk as i do....it motivates them to come thru...

but you have to weigh the benefits vs the risks. Eventually maybe your son will be knee-deep in muck waiting for air support only to have a friendly manned fighter shot down by a remotely piloted UAV that doesn't have to worry about G forces when making high speed climbs.

Given the limitations of the human body, it's really only a matter of time before it simply cannot compete with an unmanned counterpart.

I understand what you're saying completely but the grim reality is that man was not meant to fly upwards at Mach 2.

[Wilber]

but you have to weigh the benefits vs the risks. Eventually maybe your son will be knee-deep in muck waiting for air support only to have a friendly manned fighter shot down by a remotely piloted UAV that doesn't have to worry about G forces when making high speed climbs.

Given the limitations of the human body, it's really only a matter of time before it simply cannot compete with an unmanned counterpart.

I understand what you're saying completely but the grim reality is that man was not meant to fly upwards at Mach 2.

In the real world almost all air to air and air to ground combat is subsonic.

[Moonbox]

In the real world almost all air to air and air to ground combat is subsonic.

and why is that might you ask?

[M.Dancer]

and why is that might you ask?

I might not though.

[Moonbox]

I might not though.

Smartass

[Army Guy]

but you have to weigh the benefits vs the risks. Eventually maybe your son will be knee-deep in muck waiting for air support only to have a friendly manned fighter shot down by a remotely piloted UAV that doesn't have to worry about G forces when making high speed climbs.

Given the limitations of the human body, it's really only a matter of time before it simply cannot compete with an unmanned counterpart.

I understand what you're saying completely but the grim reality is that man was not meant to fly upwards at Mach 2.

Thats my piont exactly, thier are no risks to the pilot flying a UAV or UCAV thousands of miles away from the aircraft it self......and while tech may give the UAV and UCAV airframe some advantage it will not replace skill of a manned pilot as they are motivated to fly at the edge of airframe frames specs to save thier own lives....

I'm not sure in of the standards in other western airforces, but in the CF pilots must withstand a min of 5 g's during fighter pilot training, with most experience pilots able to withstand 9 g's for short periods of time....anything much higher may damage the airframe itself....Keep in mind these UAV and UCAV's are not built to the same high safety standards as say F14,15, 16, 22's are....

History has shown us in the past that although speed does give you a edge, P-51 pilots where still able to shoot down much faster and agile germany jet fighters.....beisdes todays UCAV are not faster, just more agile....i don't think anything will surpass the speed or power of a F14 or 15....

Todays airforce relies on many different types of aircraft to carry out any of thier missions, AWACS to control and dirrect the fight, refuelers to give them the range, electronic warfare aircraft to jam radars, other types to pin piont comms and troop concerntrations, etc etc etc and your wingman to cover your ass, on top of all that these piloted aircraft such as the F-35 and f-22 will have a huge payload edge over UCAV's, while keeping a stealth profile ....meaning they can afford multiple engagements....using the same type of wpns carried on the UCAV....

Any tech developed for the UCAV will also be able to be transfered over to a piloted aircraft.....

And while i agree with you man was never intended to fly, they sure have kicked the crap out of that myth...and i sure the Airforces around the world are just not ready to get replaced by a machine....to sit behind a desk in some office controling some UCAV....

Machines don't think, they obey orders, how many pilots have done a mission when they've been told not to because it was to dangerous, or could not be done....how many lives did they save....in the future those aircraft will remain on the ground...and those lives will be lost....

War is a risky bussiness, once we start taking out the risk we set our selfs up for long and protracted wars, ending when one country can not produce any more machines....it will change warfare as we know it, and not for the good as i see it....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Thats my piont exactly, thier are no risks to the pilot flying a UAV or UCAV thousands of miles away from the aircraft it self......and while tech may give the UAV and UCAV airframe some advantage it will not replace skill of a manned pilot as they are motivated to fly at the edge of airframe frames specs to save thier own lives....

I'm not sure in of the standards in other western airforces, but in the CF pilots must withstand a min of 5 g's during fighter pilot training, with most experience pilots able to withstand 9 g's for short periods of time....anything much higher may damage the airframe itself....Keep in mind these UAV and UCAV's are not built to the same high safety standards as say F14,15, 16, 22's are....

History has shown us in the past that although speed does give you a edge, P-51 pilots where still able to shoot down much faster and agile germany jet fighters.....beisdes todays UCAV are not faster, just more agile....i don't think anything will surpass the speed or power of a F14 or 15....

Todays airforce relies on many different types of aircraft to carry out any of thier missions, AWACS to control and dirrect the fight, refuelers to give them the range, electronic warfare aircraft to jam radars, other types to pin piont comms and troop concerntrations, etc etc etc and your wingman to cover your ass, on top of all that these piloted aircraft such as the F-35 and f-22 will have a huge payload edge over UCAV's, while keeping a stealth profile ....meaning they can afford multiple engagements....using the same type of wpns carried on the UCAV....

Any tech developed for the UCAV will also be able to be transfered over to a piloted aircraft.....

And while i agree with you man was never intended to fly, they sure have kicked the crap out of that myth...and i sure the Airforces around the world are just not ready to get replaced by a machine....to sit behind a desk in some office controling some UCAV....

Machines don't think, they obey orders, how many pilots have done a mission when they've been told not to because it was to dangerous, or could not be done....how many lives did they save....in the future those aircraft will remain on the ground...and those lives will be lost....

War is a risky bussiness, once we start taking out the risk we set our selfs up for long and protracted wars, ending when one country can not produce any more machines....it will change warfare as we know it, and not for the good as i see it....

Good warfare? Herein lays the root of the problem.

War is hell, death and destruction are the consequences of war. The issue here is aborting F22 production, and the consequences of this development. Originally it was my desire to somehow gain access to this airframe and use it for the defense of Canada's northern frontier. I have since learned the folly of that concept. From that point in this discussion forward I have taken the position that another high tech approach may well be a possible solution to our problem.

Here is how I view the situation; our northern borders are largely undefended and we are incapable at the present time of changing that reality. What I propose is that we undertake efforts to provide at least a minimum level of defensive capabilities to our armed forces in order to safeguard our sovereignty in the north. To do this I believe that the most viable approach is to increase point defense systems based at existing radar bases, and begin to enhance any capabilities from that point northward. I suggest we utilize our existing resources and infrastructure as a foundation for further development. As a first step I suggest the acquisition of cruise missiles to be based at those forward radar locations and in addition we need to provide air defense systems for those bases.

[Moonbox]

Thats my piont exactly, thier are no risks to the pilot flying a UAV or UCAV thousands of miles away from the aircraft it self......and while tech may give the UAV and UCAV airframe some advantage it will not replace skill of a manned pilot as they are motivated to fly at the edge of airframe frames specs to save thier own lives....

but that works both ways. Sometimes an actual pilot is more concerned with saving his own skin than saving yours. I completely understand what you're saying, but my point is that a UAV/UCAV can push the performance envelope beyond that of a manned fighter and they are MORE likely I think to risk the aircraft to save lives or accomplish an objective.

I'm not sure in of the standards in other western airforces, but in the CF pilots must withstand a min of 5 g's during fighter pilot training, with most experience pilots able to withstand 9 g's for short periods of time....anything much higher may damage the airframe itself....Keep in mind these UAV and UCAV's are not built to the same high safety standards as say F14,15, 16, 22's are....

Human safety standards are a detriment when it comes to performance dynamics. The basic problem here is there are a lot of manoeuvers an unmanned craft can perform at high speeds that would be impossible for a human. I'm no expert on this sort of thing obviously but I do know that in a dogfight altitude is one of the keys to success and an aircraft that can climb faster and with more agility than its counterpart is going to have a huge advantage.

History has shown us in the past that although speed does give you a edge, P-51 pilots where still able to shoot down much faster and agile germany jet fighters.....beisdes todays UCAV are not faster, just more agile....i don't think anything will surpass the speed or power of a F14 or 15....

That's really not a good comparison here. Nobody is debating the speed vs agility. Agility has proven it can more than compensate for lower speed in alot of cases. An unmanned craft, however, can accomplish both better than its human piloted counterpart.

And while i agree with you man was never intended to fly, they sure have kicked the crap out of that myth...and i sure the Airforces around the world are just not ready to get replaced by a machine....to sit behind a desk in some office controling some UCAV....

No question there. The F-35 from what I understand is intended to be in service until 2040. I don't see things changing right away.

Machines don't think, they obey orders, how many pilots have done a mission when they've been told not to because it was to dangerous, or could not be done....how many lives did they save....in the future those aircraft will remain on the ground...and those lives will be lost....

War is a risky bussiness, once we start taking out the risk we set our selfs up for long and protracted wars, ending when one country can not produce any more machines....it will change warfare as we know it, and not for the good as i see it....

The only thing I'm debating is that unmanned craft will eventually be able to vastly outperform manned air vehicles. I don't want it to happen and I'm terrified about an AI controlled weapon. I don't like the idea of taking the 'personal touch' out of war either. I agree with ALMOST everything you're saying.

[Army Guy]

Good warfare? Herein lays the root of the problem.

War is hell, death and destruction are the consequences of war

Which is my piont, when a nation suffers enough or to much it surrenders, and the war is finished. However take one of those pionts out such as death and the war will be a protracted one, lasting forever.....or atleast while both nations can produce machines....hence why i said it will change warfare and not for the better....

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Which is my piont, when a nation suffers enough or to much it surrenders, and the war is finished. However take one of those pionts out such as death and the war will be a protracted one, lasting forever.....or atleast while both nations can produce machines....hence why i said it will change warfare and not for the better....

I must agree with you, point taken.