NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Leadership Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Death To The F-35

June 7, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). This is a planning exercise that takes into account all the nations military and civil resources as applied to a list of potential opponents and in wars that could break out in the next decade. This analysis is used to determine what weapons will be needed in the future. The QDR also has to take into account the "guidance" from the president and Congress. The air force believes that a more optimistic (about world peace) government will provide guidance that indicates a need for fewer F-35s (currently the air force plans to buy 1,763.)

Another problem is that many people, including some generals in the air force, believe that its next generation fighter will not have a pilot on board. Many air force generals admit that the F-35 is probably the last manned fighter. But some believe that the F-35 will be facing stiff competition from pilotless fighters before F-35 production is scheduled to end in 2034.

 UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) are not particularly popular with many U.S. Air Force leaders, but that is not the case in many other countries. Air force generals around the world see the unpiloted jet fighter as a way to break the monopoly the U.S. Air Force has had on air supremacy for the last sixty years. Most Americans don't even think of this long domination of the air, but potential enemies of the United States are well aware of it, and that domination has a profound effect on how those nations do their military planning. In effect, if you think about going to war with the United States, you take for granted that American aircraft will control the skies above. Robotic jet fighters could change that. And this is forcing American air force generals to confront a very unsavory prospect; a sixth generation fighter that is flown by software, not a pilot.

It's not just that most of the those American air force generals began their careers as fighter pilots. No, the reason is more practical. American air superiority has largely been the result of superior pilots. The U.S. didn't always have the best aircraft, but they always had the most talented and resourceful pilots. And that's what gave the U.S. its edge. Will that translate to software piloted fighters? Research to date seems to indicate it will.

Meanwhile, simulations, using fighter flown by software, versus those flown by humans, have been used for over two decades. The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with.

The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software, and now the United States, and Russia, are creating pilotless fighters. Many air force generals are convinced that the pilotless fighters will perform as well for real, as they have in the simulations. So convinced are U.S. Air Force generals, that they are seriously considering a sixth generation fighter that will not carry a human pilot. Otherwise, enemy pilotless fighters would have an edge over the U.S. sixth generation aircraft.

The potential superiority of U.S. pilotless fighters is partly driven by the fact that most American fighter pilots are geeks. Many can create software, and have a deep understanding of the many computers, and their software, that modern aircraft contain. It's the fighter pilots who will play a key role in creating the best "software pilots." Thus the thinking is that American control of the air will be maintained by a new generation combat aircraft controlled by software, not someone in a cockpit.

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article SUBMARINES: Plastic Fantastic Terrifying


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

SAE       6/7/2009 10:22:09 AM
"The U.S. Air Force is under growing pressure to build fewer of its next fighter, the F-35. The air force has been ordered to reexamine the future needs for F-35s during the current Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR)."
What did I tell you? See my comments in the May 21. 2009 strategypage.com warplane article "A Tough Act To Follow." So, much for 2,400 F-35s.
 
Quote    Reply

Ashley-the-man       6/7/2009 12:20:05 PM

Spend a billion dollars on a couple of thousand Ripsaw tanks, and the same on a fleet of UAV, and some nation could give the U.S. pause for concern in any conflict. 

It looks like we are now facing a Ripsaw/UAV "gap."  This president should be outfront in confronting this threat to our future national security.  Remote controlled submarines, and cruisers can also be thrown into the mix.

 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       6/8/2009 3:34:26 PM
There is too much money in the F-35 program that politicians can use for programs to buy themselves votes for it to  remain available to the military.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Missed the PUN!   6/8/2009 3:39:45 PM

Spend a billion dollars on a couple of thousand Ripsaw tanks, and the same on a fleet of UAV, and some nation could give the U.S. pause for concern in any conflict. 


It looks like we are now facing a Ripsaw/UAV "gap."  This president should be outfront in confronting this threat to our future national security.  Remote controlled submarines, and cruisers can also be thrown into the mix.


You  could have used "RICKSHAW" and really drove in the knife..

But you have a point, up to a point.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Cancelling the F35 by proxy   6/9/2009 1:56:26 PM
You reduce the number of F35's you are going to buy.
 
This drives the price per F35 up way above any earlier price quotes/cost estimates.
 
One of the states cooperating in the F35 program says "This is not what we have signed up for." and pulls out.
That state buys Gripens instead.
 
The F35 program fails and the US politicians can point the finger at the state that has pulled out and blame "them doublecrossing Europeans". Some smartass politician will say that they can do it all with UAV's now which means that no new fighters are being ordered or designed and the US fighter industry is well and truly screwed.
 
Of course nobody notices that the politicians wanted to cancel the F35 all along.
 
30 Years later we all lament the demise of the US fighter industry.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

SAE       6/9/2009 2:58:35 PM

You reduce the number of F35's you are going to buy.

 

This drives the price per F35 up way above any earlier price quotes/cost estimates.

 

One of the states cooperating in the F35 program says "This is not what we have signed up for." and pulls out.


That state buys Gripens instead.


 

The F35 program fails and the US politicians can point the finger at the state that has pulled out and blame "them doublecrossing Europeans". Some smartass politician will say that they can do it all with UAV's now which means that no new fighters are being ordered or designed and the US fighter industry is well and truly screwed.


 

Of course nobody notices that the politicians wanted to cancel the F35 all along.


 

30 Years later we all lament the demise of the US fighter industry.


Exactly what they did to the F-22 and B-2 programs. See my comments in the Dec 2, 2008 article "F-35 Fading Under Pressures."
 
Quote    Reply

ambush       6/9/2009 8:28:29 PM

There is too much money in the F-35 program that politicians can use for programs to buy themselves votes for it to  remain available to the military.


You could have said the same thing about the F-22 with contractors and sub-contractors in 48 states.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/9/2009 11:51:59 PM
We've just gone through an audit of major programs.  Interestingly enough McKinsey has rated JSF as the next most compex military project outside of Apollo - due to the size and scope of all involved.

we're interested in how the US reacts as that will effect unit cost - and its pretty clear that the JSF for the USG fulfills and aviation version of the US Navys "1000 Ship Navy".

Politically, there is more USG skin in this game than the F-22.  They want it in any fashion as its part of the broader political  landscape.

the mistake is to see this as just a military platform procurement issue.... it's not. 
 
Quote    Reply

LB    Congress   6/10/2009 1:03:43 AM
Don't overestimate the ability of the US Congress to see anything with any level of nuance.  It is in fact a very large procurement program and the broad political implications of the program are simply not going to matter to the vast majority of those voting. 
 
The cost escalation in the program is a problem that will directly affect how many are built.  This is simply no longer an F-16 replacement program.  The F-35 is not a lightweight cost effective strike fighter.  It's a rather expensive stealthy single engine strike fighter that has a max t/o weight of 70,000 lbs which is around 27,000 greater than an F-16 and more than the max t/o weight of an F-15C.  It might end up being a great stealthy strike fighter but it's a bit more aircraft than many imagined it would originally be.
 
 
We've just gone through an audit of major programs.  Interestingly enough McKinsey has rated JSF as the next most compex military project outside of Apollo - due to the size and scope of all involved.




we're interested in how the US reacts as that will effect unit cost - and its pretty clear that the JSF for the USG fulfills and aviation version of the US Navys "1000 Ship Navy".




Politically, there is more USG skin in this game than the F-22.  They want it in any fashion as its part of the broader political  landscape.




the mistake is to see this as just a military platform procurement issue.... it's not. 

 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       6/10/2009 6:08:11 AM
Less stealthy fighter-bomber for the US of A, ne?
 
Dear old Lady has been spoiled, guess it will be a while till everyone wakes up and realizes air supremacy has been lost and WHO'S REPONSIBLE FOR IT?!?!??!? *cue witchhunt*
 
Not that I don't think the bankers and co. are responsible for the current crisis, but it's the American people foremost.
 
At least when there's too few fighters around maybe the 22 will get a review and win an actual usage/user history comparison.
 
Quote    Reply

intently       6/11/2009 9:16:28 AM
The "software pilots" have gotten better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable than anything your opponent can come up with. The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software...
Does anyone really think that there are AI pilots that can defeat human pilots? Where are these software pilots being created?
 
Quote    Reply

flyingarty    Software pilots   6/11/2009 9:50:58 AM
Not really the idea. If you look at some of the promotional stuff for the UCAV-B it is performing some of the wingman duties for the human pilot. It is also doing things like SAMsite supression and removal. In fact, in a 2 seater, the back seat guy was "flying" the UCAV. I am a big supporter of UAV's but I think there will always be a need for competent knowlegdable humans in the air.
 
One thing the Obama adminisration has to do is take a very hard look at the QDR and look at the system as a whole. There aren't enough F-22's, The F-35 is still under development, and UCAV-UCAS is still in the experimental stages. Frankly in retrospect, the US should have built either the F-22 or the F-35 not both. Now the F-35 is delayed and the USAF can't get enough money to buy enough F-22's. The USAF generals are adament they need at least 200 F-22's and CSBA agrees with them.
 
Flyingarty
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       6/12/2009 4:35:03 PM

The "software pilots" have gotten
better, and better. Moreover, a fighter without a pilot is more
maneuverable (because some maneuvers are too stressful on the human
body.) UAV fighters can be smaller, cheaper, stealthier and more
expendable. But the key to software pilots is the development of
superior tactics, and artificial intelligence (AI) that is more capable
than anything your opponent can come up with.
The U.S. Air Force, and several other air forces, have already created fighter pilot software...


Does anyone really think that there are AI pilots that can defeat human pilots? Where are these software pilots being created?


Under the cover of darkness.
Nah, I'm just kidding. Until good AI programs come forward, and that's at LEAST a decade from now, the way to go is remote-controlled warplanes with AI assist.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       6/12/2009 4:37:01 PM
Not true AIs though of course.
 
A more practical answer to your question is 'Combat Sims'. You do realize everytime a pilot plays a high-end flight sim or gets into VR he's fighting the 'puter, right? It shouldn't be too hard to feed the programming into a live plane, though of course there will be pitfalls as well as advantages.
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy