Dying military industry still wants to fight the last war. News at 11.

So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.

China is no threat only because they love us too much. I'm serious about that (new window).

The Russians on the other hand are saber rattling assholes (new window).

I'm not sure if there is a conclusion to these things. It would be nice if our taxes weren't being used to "police the world" (as if it's our (new window) job).

Finally the budgeting of these things. Our real enemies are the Iran's and the Taliban's of the world. Since most of the huge budget for these programs is in R&D... why not just build new versions of existing planes (new window).

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.

This isn't a typical airplane. They're striving to beat the current best-of-the-best which requires actually developing completely new technology which could be used elsewhere, think Apollo and Shuttle tech, sure we didn't need the things but the advancements that came out of those programs have greatly benefited and advanced society as a whole. I'm not saying this will be the case with this plan but it isn't hard to imagine that the things invented for this will find application elsewhere in the aerospace industry.

I think its sad that the military really is the first and last place for aerospace tech financing. They are the only entity willing to dump millions/billions into advancing the industry and pushing the envelope. Private sector will never spend that type of dime without a definite X return on whatever particular project. If left completely with private sector we would all still be flying turbo props for everything.

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.

Yes. Eighteen years from now the F-22 & F-35 will still be fairly new, and more advanced than anything flying. The F-15 first saw service in 1974, so 18 years isn't that long.

You know subby, there are other parts of military hardware that isn't "used" on a daily basis. Submarines and ballistic missiles for example. That does not make them useless; they might be needed some day, and having them might deter the other guys. (or force them to spend too much money for their own hardware)

But sure, it would have been interesting to see a F-22A over Libya, but apparently their radio systems etc are not combat ready. And then there is the whole loss of consciousness due hypoxia-thing which grounded the whole fleet. Having said that, the F-22A is a lot better than the fiasco that is the F-35 Lightning II series, which are, slow, short legged, loud and have a small payload; the list goes on and on. They are not even really stealthy compared to F-22As but are almost as expensive. The F-22A production line should have been kept open longer, same thing with the B-2s which are still the best bomber in the US arsenal even though only a handful (20 or so) were ever made.

Also the legacy stuff should be updated, because Super Hornets, F-16E's and F-15SEs pretty surely have a lot more firepower than a silver bullet airforce consisting solely of expensive, maintenance intesive hardware can ever have.

The B-2 has been in service for 57 years.

The F-14 flew 35 years.

The F-4 flew 36 years.

Errr b-52

Fear_and_Loathing: The B-52 has been in service for 57 years.

If the B-2 was in service 57 years ago, Russia may not exist anymore.

See the above correction

The Raptor has so seen combat!
They used them to fight the Decepticons!

Meanwhile, in Oxfordshire, a new squadron of Spitfires is being built. (new window)

Al-yoo-min-ee-umm.

How much is this thing going to end up costing us?

Rusty Shackleford: a new squadron of Spitfires is being built.

I was going to say cool, but they are scaled down replicas.

You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones,


Kill Sarah Connor?

War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.

jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.

We're talking air combat here, not ground actions. In future wars, the drones piloted from around tha world would be used to protect the poor people on one side while helping them kill the poor people on the other side.

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?

i worked on a program like this in college in our virtual reality lab

and no, it's not classified or anything.

serial_crusher: So you're telling me it's going to take them 18 years to get the new fighter that we "don't need" built, and that during those 18 years, nothing's going to change that might make the new one necessary?

Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.

This is why "The F-15 is good enough" is simply wrong. As Eisenhower pointed out, you can't beat your plowshares into swords anymore - and he endorsed a large, continuous military-industrial complex to meet the nation's defense needs.

RexTalionis: You know, I always wondered whether fighter jets, with human pilots within them, are even necessary anymore.

I imagine a future where air war is conducted by large swarms of drones, each swarm (not each drone) under the control of AI-assisted human pilots from afar. I mean, we have the technology. Why aren't we going there, and instead placing our men and women in harm's way?

A colleague of mine predicted the F-35 would be the last manned fighter the US produces. I think he's not making a SAFE bet, but neither am I willing to categorically state he is wrong.

jaylectricity: War will never be reduced to remote control. The people in power will always need to send poor people to their death. Poor people are a lot cheaper than these expensive machines. The machines are just there to give people a small sense of security. That is necessary to keep today's kids willing to die for their country.

Well, you still need boots on the ground to win a war, no matter WHAT the Air Force marketing literature will tell you. It doesn't have to be OUR boots (Libya), but boots you need, and we're nowhere NEAR changing that. Pilots, OTOH, are rarely just poor minorities - they're very educated and have all kinds of post-career earning potential.

Galwran: You know subby, there are other parts of military hardware that isn't "used" on a daily basis. Submarines and ballistic missiles for example. That does not make them useless; they might be needed some day, and having them might deter the other guys. (or force them to spend too much money for their own hardware)

But sure, it would have been interesting to see a F-22A over Libya, but apparently their radio systems etc are not combat ready. And then there is the whole loss of consciousness due hypoxia-thing which grounded the whole fleet. Having said that, the F-22A is a lot better than the fiasco that is the F-35 Lightning II series, which are, slow, short legged, loud and have a small payload; the list goes on and on. They are not even really stealthy compared to F-22As but are almost as expensive. The F-22A production line should have been kept open longer, same thing with the B-2s which are still the best bomber in the US arsenal even though only a handful (20 or so) were ever made.

Also the legacy stuff should be updated, because Super Hornets, F-16E's and F-15SEs pretty surely have a lot more firepower than a silver bullet airforce consisting solely of expensive, maintenance intesive hardware can ever have.

The F-35 electronics suite makes the F-22 look like an Atari Pong game.

OK, maybe not that big a difference, but it's a significant one. The F-35 BY NATURE has to have shorter legs and lighter payload: it has to do one thing the F-22 cannot: land on a carrier.

fap

serial_crusher: Seems kind of spooky that it takes 18 years to design a plane. I know it's complicated and all, but that's not really a good situation to be in if we needed innovation in a pinch.

18 years?!


Disapproves.

Looks a bit like the old Northrup/McDonnell-Douglas YF-23.

I'm cool about a new, sixth-generation, fighter jet. But, I am a little prejudiced.

vygramul: The F-35 electronics suite makes the F-22 look like an Atari Pong game.

Pong is awesome!

whoaaaa...

How much does it cost? 465 quadrillion dollars? I'll take ten.

vygramul: A colleague of mine predicted the F-35 would be the last manned fighter the US produces. I think he's not making a SAFE bet, but neither am I willing to categorically state he is wrong.

If we don't include the Super Tuscano, I think he may well be right. Take out the pilot and the plane gets smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Pilots can't be held at risk, so losing a drone doesn't then require a CSAR mission involving several other highly trained (at great expense) people who are themselves in significant danger. Without the CSAR infrastructure, costs go down yet again. Since no human life is at risk in the cockpit, we can dial back the survivability of the drones, allowing us to swarm the bad guys with easier to shoot down aircraft, but so many they can't hope to get even half of them (the "quantity has a quality all its own" argument).

With the way technology is going, there are fewer and fewer reasons to keeping humans in the cockpit.