1. Ahem, problems reading?   The RFP was a paper exercise, a gedankenexperiment for a hardware solution.;

 

Attend what I said:

 

Gavial proposal for RFP Air De...

 

quote:

 

Executive Summary
In response to the Request for Proposal [1] from the AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft
Design Competition, VersaCorp Aerospace from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University proudly
presents Gavial, a next generation Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, Homeland Defense Interceptor (UCAVHDI).
The Gavial meets the design mission requirements of providing superior operational capability while
maximizing cost-effectiveness in all facets of the design.
The Gavial is designed primarily for supersonic performance. This led to the use of a highly swept
cranked arrow wing with a blended fuselage. Primary control is provided by canards and a single vertical
tail. The Gavial also utilizes a single engine in the 35,000 lb thrust class. Missiles are stored externally on
under-wing hard-points, and rail launched. The flyaway cost of the Gavial is ?$15,000,000, with ?half of that
being for materials and systems.
The Gavial is capable of performing three distinct missions, each contributing significantly to the aircraft?s
overall mission of ensuring homeland security. The streamlined fuselage is equipped with the M61-A1 Vulcan
20mm Gatling rotary gun which is driven by the aircraft?s hydraulic system and has a maximum rate of
fire of up to 7,200 shots per minute (SPM), providing the Gavial with excellent lethality during dog-fighting
and pinpoint attacks. The wing undercarriage is capable of carrying a maximum of four AIM-120 advanced
medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, or a combination of two AIM-
120 missiles and up to two AIM-9s. Such arsenal versatility optimizes the Gavial?s performance in the RFP
specified Defensive Counter-Air Patrol (DCAP), Intercept/Escort and Point Defense Intercept missions.
The option of mounting three 660 gallon exterior fuel tanks provides the capability of fulfilling the DCAP
missions four hour loiter requirement. As a supersonic performer, the Gavial is designed to minimize drag
and maximize maneuverability at the design altitude of 35,000ft, out-performing many operational features
of modern fighters. The inclusion of the most advanced radar and UCAV communications systems, including
a portable next-generation ground station, maximizes mission effectiveness while simultaneously decreasing
the overall cost of the aircraft and completely eliminating pilot risk. This highly survivable and versatile
aircraft highly exceeds many of the RFP requirements with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date of

2020 and a flyaway cost of $15 million.

 

This is a paper exercise by people who are learning how to do this for real, not somebody who claims to have seen something.

 

It is what is possible within our technology tree NOW. Note the date.  Interception at the border of our airspace is SIMPLE. Now try to tell me UCAS air combat in a war-zone where you are sending in mixed strike packages is going to be something we will see in five years?

 

Just try to tell me that.

 

Herald

 

 

2. That South Carolina UAV developer is how far from me? Did you even read the paper I cited on the autonomous UCAS helo pr

Herald, you're arguing a strawman of your own construction.

 

Please point to the post by Darth where he said anything about *AUTONOMOUS* UCAVs performing air-to-air (or even any other mission) with IOC within 5-10 years.

 

Darth, you've been a bit disingenuous yourself earlier on.  You seemed to basically admit it yourself that you're asking them to "prove" a case that essentially can't be "proven" in this venue... to the same level of detail that (I certainly hope) has been done inside the Pentagon.  That hardly seems to me to be an appropriate standard for any discussion here, and that certainly does seem like an appeal to authority, which I think is what Herald has tried to point out.  And OMG, I'm so tired of reading people say "I've presented facts, you've only presented opinions."  "No, I've presented facts, and you've only presented opinions."  "No, *I've* presented...."  Please just state your opinions/facts, rebut the other guy's opinions/facts, and there it is.

 

I've found this whole thread fun to read, though.  I like to think of myself as someone who is pretty black-and-white and logical, but I see what I think are good arguments for each of the various positions (and there are more than just two).  I confess I do not see a clearly superior position so far, but also admit that may be due to my own ignorance more than anything else.

 

Yeah, I admit that. But I caught myself after I thought about it and thats why I made the comment that this is all opinion after all because no one can seriously "prove" anything one way or the other since obviously that data is classified and too much to post here even if it wasn't. However, I would like people to at least discuss or support their opinion about specific threats they see that would overwhelm our Raptor force. For instance, The DPRK AF essentially has no chance against our Air Force. Neither would the Cuban Air Force. But perhaps the Pakistani AF in some nightmare scenario might be able to for example. Something very cursory and within the scope of the thread topic on an open forum. And without all the drama about people being stupid, staff sergeants intergumnist or whatever the hell that means ect. The way we used to do it on this site before certain behaviors became the norm and we got away from friendly even if spirited debate.

-DA 

UAVs and UCAVs are getting more reliable and useful.  That said the last OSB study I recall showed Predator having a mishap rate of around 34 per 100,000 flight hours compared to about 3.4 for F-16s and F/A-18s.  The mishap rate for other nations UAVs is mostly significantly higher.

 

It's not clear that a UCAV is going to be replacing air superiority fighters anytime soon.  That aside UAVs remain much more expensive than is continually promised and this is before factoring in the fact that as of now they are roughly an order of magnitude more likely to crash than a manned fighter.  UAVs are not nearly as cost effective as some would have us believe.

 

The issue with how many F-22s are enough depends upon a number of assumptions within the analysis.  It would appear the conclusion that 187 is enough, whether one agrees with that or not, is near or at 'just enough'.  There seems to be very little to no reserve in case of anything unexpected such as an enemy tech breakthrough in some area, enemy attack of F-22 bases, legacy aircraft not being able to sustain projected thousands of flight hours, etc.  With this in mind even if 187 were "enough" it seems rather dangerous to provide no reserve and even more dangerous to actually not have a production line available to produce more air superiority fighters.

 

The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter and neither is the F/A-18E.  The F-22 can perform a number of missions beyond just air superiority fighter some of which alone might be worth having more than 187. 

 

The USN had it's carrier air wings gutted.  The F/A-18E/F is a nice aircraft but it does not have the range and loiter ability of the A-6 and F-14 it has "replaced".  Nor are there any KA-6 or S-3s anymore to tank the shorter range 18s so there are even less available for combat operations given they have to also operate as tankers.  The air wing is much smaller, with shorter ranged aircraft, more dependent on tanker aircraft the nation has less of, and with a much smaller ability to gather information due to the loss of all dedicated recon aircraft.  There is no plans for the USN to ever regain an air superiority fighter so the reliance upon the F-22 is greater than it appears.  This is not to say the F-35 and F/A-18 do not do air to air well but rather that a strike fighter can do many things well or very well but may not excell in any single area the way a dedicated aircraft can.

 

In fact both the F-35 and F/A-18E/F replaced 1970 designs in the F-16 and F/A-18 that themselves grew out of the high/low mix theory of systems that was created to justify buying less capable but "affordable" weapon systems.  The doctrine was flawed and is not needed today.  We do not require a "low" and indeed given the extremely high personnel costs it makes little sense to spend a bit less on a less capable airframe but still fund the rest of the air wing. 

 

What is ironic is the USN now only has the low from the high low mix.  USN carrier aviation will never recover from the cancellation of the NATF, upgrading the F-14 (the F-15 is supposed to fly for decades more), cancelling the A-12, and then not funding the A-6F.  There are no more long range aircraft on USN carrier decks.  It's a bit of a stretch for a nation of 300 million to rely on 187 aircraft with no margin of error.

 

Spending on national defense is a lot like spending on insurance in that one attempts to manage risk.  It's not difficult to make the case that even if 187 is just enough that having no reserve, no production line for any other air superiority fighter, the only other air superiority aircraft being upgraded F-15s with rather high flight hours, and a reliance on strike fighters to fill the mission, that prudence would dictate a reasonable cushion of additional F-22s to insure we actually do have at least 187.

 

If anyone asks in order to fund more F-22s one might suggest cutting USAF F-35As.  There will be significant numbers of F-35 B and C models, even the USAF has stated it will buy some number of Bs.  Frankly, the nation would be better served today with less F-16s and more combat coded A-10s and B-52s.  That is if the F-16 was not needed when the F-15 fleet gets grounded, again.

 

At some point the F-15 will have to be entirely replaced.  The aircraft that was supposed to do this was the F-22.  Now we are going to keep some F-15s flying for a few more decades.  What will replace them?  Why does anyone imagine that future replacement will cost less than an F-22? 

 

Co

I ran across this in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine:

 

 

On UAVs:

 

"When he chose to discuss the first thing on his mind on taking office, Schwartz picked UAVs...'the combat contributions of unmanned aircraft systems...have surpassed all expectations and hold even greater promise for the future,' said Schwartz.  These words reflect Gates' views--dangerously so, in that they imply Schwartz may be simply saying what is convienent.  The usefulness of UAVs is beyond dispute, but some wonder if Gates hasn't gone overboard on UAVs and if Schwartz isn't simply mimicking his boss."

The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!

 

However: I know where we are. He blows a lot of smoke with hos usual claims to secret knowledge.I wasn't kidding when I said we were having trouble matching the stimulis response of an amoeba in a computer and that there was trouble pairing that up with sensors, when we were aiming for the intelligence and sense response of an ant.

 

The poster doesn't understand how complex multiple sensory systems are to build and assemble to make them user friendly to a rather stupid computer. Its easy for men because we are self programming and we can, up to our filtered processing limits, sort critical information out, far faster than any machine and make decisions on the fragmented data. A computer, being stupid, doesn't have the advantage of a half billion years pf land animal experience that set the "noise" filters for us to sort out that critical information in less than a second. .

 

He, the poster, confuses simple feedback with autonomous learning and experience. A damaged plane program that pilot assists the controller by reorienting FBW inputs to pre-programmed parameters is not a pilot who sees the wing snap off and has to use what he/it knows to apply torque forces to maintain his thrust line.A computer doesn't recognize that. A Human has to write it out for it as instruction for it. If this happens, then this.

 

What we are trying to do is write software that allows a computer to LEARN to self correct and then we can download that "experience" as we teach it and pass it on.as instruction to the machines we build.

 

Computers are stubborn. They don't want to learn. Reminds me of too many people.

 

Herald 

   

You aren't looking at the complete picture, WP

Interesting news article... that shows exactly how Gates got this insanity through -- he forced the military leadership to sign gag orders so that they couldn't voice opposition to his decisions:

Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that? 

Gates has a well known reputation as that article described. He earned it.

 

He earned it.

 

 

Herald