Author Topic: F-35 "lighting II"? (Read 3338 times)

Elfie · « **Reply #105 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:08:59 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Just a friendly question Elfie,

Do you assume that the engineers that design these systems havn't allready thought of this?

I'm no where close to agreeing that a computer can replace a pilot alltogether BUT as I've allways said on this board it's not about the plane or the pilot it's about tactics and how you use them.

For every counter measure, there's a counter measure. No human can think of all the possibilities that can arise in combat ahead of time. Part of that is the human factor from the *other side*. No one can reliably predict 100% of the time what an opponent is going to do next.

A computer can only react how it's programmed to react. Humans can react however they choose and arent dependent on a programmer.

Don't get me wrong, there are advantages to an unmanned aircraft. Machines dont get scared and bug out. You dont have to spend money training machines etc etc.

When technology advances to the point that we can build androids (like Data from Star Trek) that can think and reason through problems, then we can say good bye to human pilots for good.

Unmanned aircraft do have their place on the battlefield. It would be foolish though to replace all manned aircraft with unmanned versions imo.

Elfie · « **Reply #106 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:17:40 PM »

Quote

have they been shot at..what about jamming ?....lololololol.

Assuming we use remote controlled aircraft.....you dont think our opponents WOULDNT try to figure out how to jam the signals and possibly even succeed? What happens when they DO succeed?

Brenjen · « **Reply #107 on:** July 04, 2006, 03:22:00 PM »

The only limiting factors I've heard about the human link is the G-load limitations on the human body & the fatigue factor.

In those aspects the un-manned ROV's will be better, but I think we seriously need to strike a balance. 100% ROV fighter cover would be a mistake (& more than 1 genration away IMHO)....70 or 80% air to ground strike capable ROV's on the other hand would make good sense; to remove pilots from the most dangerous form of aerial combat, ground attack....but we already have cruise missles & air to ground armed ROV's

If it saves U.S. pilots lives & keeps us as safe as we can be made at the same time, I'm all for it.

wojo71 · « **Reply #108 on:** July 04, 2006, 04:05:47 PM »

And to think I started this post about a nickname for a new warplane:rofl

Gunslinger · « **Reply #109 on:** July 04, 2006, 05:21:59 PM »

Elfie you are forgetting that the human brain does indeed have to be programed (trained) Either way I do see your point that computers have a hard time being "creative".

Too many on this board (and I'm not saying you elfie) think that modern warfare is about one pilot taking off from C58 and another from A55 and meeting over the pond to duke it out. It's not like that at all. In fact even UAVs arent really controlled at all but more or less given a set of instructions, the UAVs computer then figures out the best way to perform the task. I think it's an exciting development.

Kurt · « **Reply #110 on:** July 04, 2006, 05:36:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Elfie
What is the Air Force gonna use for a tank buster if they retire the A-10? Or will they leave tank busting to the Army's Apache helicopters?

They've talked about using F-16 (basically in a weasel configuration) in the role, but I don't think it makes much sense... The A10 is a great plane for the role it fills. You'd be shocked how much the look of a plane can influence the brass in Washington... If they think its ugly, it will have a hard life..

When SkunkWorks told the Gov that they could apply the stealth technique used on the F117 to a submarine and make it sonar invisable the Navy turned it down because 'It doesn't look like a submarine'... Thats all it took. Could have revolutionized naval warfare, but it was ugly.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #111 on:** July 04, 2006, 05:39:58 PM »

Actually there was recently an artical in the AF times about extending the life of the A10.

It seems everytime they want to get rid of this plane there is a war where it proves its usfullness beyond a doubt.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

Quote

The Precision Engagement upgrade program for the A-10 includes enhanced precision target engagement capabilities, which will allow the deployment of precision weapons such as JDAM (Joint Direct Attack Munition) and Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser (WCMD), as well as enabling an extension of the aircraft's service life to 2028. Improvements include: two new multifunction cockpit displays, situational awareness datalinks, digital stores management system, Integrated Flight and Fire Control Computer (IFFCC) from BAE Systems Platform Solutions for automated continuously computed weapons delivery, Litening AT or Sniper XR targeting pod for precision-guided weapons and helmet-mounted sighting system. Lockheed Martin Systems Integration-Owego is prime contractor for the program. First flight of the upgraded A-10C was in January 2005. A contract for Low Rate Initial Production (LRIP) was awarded in March 2005. Up to 125 A-10 aircraft are to be upgraded by 2009. A parallel program will give the A-10 new engine pylons. It is possible that the A-10 engine will also be upgraded if funding is made available.

PS,

Previously it was mentioned how every sequal has sucked......Well officially teh A10 isn't the warthog it is the "thunderbolt II"

Elfie · « **Reply #112 on:** July 04, 2006, 08:32:40 PM »

Quote

Elfie you are forgetting that the human brain does indeed have to be programed (trained) Either way I do see your point that computers have a hard time being "creative".

Not forgetting that at all.

Human pilots are trained, and with that training can be far more creative than pilots who have not had similar training.

I do see this as an exciting development, it just has a long ways to go before we can get rid of the human pilot. Some day all our planes will be unmannned, I just dont think it will happen in our lifetimes. Probably during our kids lifetimes.

In the mean time.....lets keep those Predator drones going and keep developing the technologies needed to make this happen.

Elfie · « **Reply #113 on:** July 04, 2006, 08:35:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Actually there was recently an artical in the AF times about extending the life of the A10.

It seems everytime they want to get rid of this plane there is a war where it proves its usfullness beyond a doubt.

http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/a-10/

PS,

Previously it was mentioned how every sequal has sucked......Well officially teh A10 isn't the warthog it is the "thunderbolt II"

About time they upgrade the A-10. The A-10 is (imo) the best ground attack aircraft the Air Force has in its inventory atm.

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #114 on:** July 04, 2006, 09:21:21 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by eagl
Shrimp,

Not in a fighter or bomber it isn't. You can't scale up a single engine in a combat aircraft like you can in an airliner. If you could, then we'd be seeing single-engine 747s as our next B-52 replacement. It just doesn't work that way.

And you're totally ignoring the reliability issues. A single engine fighter with one engine inoperative is an inventory write-off. A dual engine fighter with one engine inoperative is just a maintenance write-up.

Try sticking one of your uber efficient airline fans in a fighter... After you got past the ludicrous intake shape required to get a big efficient airline fanjet up near mach 2, let me know...

Yeah, the engine size limits are why the highest performance fighters use twin engines. But, lets compare your F-15E to its rival. The F-16XL. The XL was able to supercruise at 20,000 at Mach 1.1. A range of 2850 miles, top speed of Mach 2 (due to fixed inlet geometry). 16 hardpoints capable of carrying 750lbs each.

RTR · « **Reply #115 on:** July 04, 2006, 09:39:19 PM »

WOW.

We don't need unmanned weapons flying around. What we need is educated responsible people able to determine if the weapons are needed, and where they need to go.

If we are going to kill, lets at least keep the "human factor" in it.

War sucks people, we need to get that watermelon over with quick.

Put a human face on it, stop "friendly firing" your allies, and either get it done or get out.

Who cares about singler engine or dual engine?
Small change.

RTR

AquaShrimp · « **Reply #116 on:** July 04, 2006, 10:21:33 PM »

Just because a plane doesn't have an actual pilot in the cockpit doesnt mean that humans aren't controlling it. Theres still a person sitting behind a computer operating it.

This is how predator drones work.

BGBMAW · « **Reply #117 on:** July 05, 2006, 11:51:57 AM »

TWA 800 was not a "fuel tank" explsoion..

It was a tiemd "shoe bomb" set off by a casio wacth

Chairboy · « **Reply #118 on:** July 05, 2006, 11:53:31 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by BGBMAW
TWA 800 was not a "fuel tank" explsoion..

It was a tiemd "shoe bomb" set off by a casio wacth

Pretty poor product placement, I imagine Casio would pick their promotions more proactively.

McDeath · « **Reply #119 on:** July 13, 2006, 03:56:17 PM »

Information

LOCKHEED MARTIN JOINT STRIKE FIGHTER OFFICIALLY NAMED “LIGHTNING II”

FORT WORTH, Texas, July 7, 2006 – The Lockheed Martin [NYSE; LMT] F-35 Joint Strike Fighter was officially named Lightning II, in a ceremony held today in Fort Worth, Texas.

The name echoes those of two formidable fighters from the past: the World War II-era Lockheed P-38 Lightning and the mid-1950s Lightning supersonic jet, built by English Electric.

“The F-35 Lightning II will carry on the legacy of two of the greatest and most capable fighter aircraft of all time,” said Ralph D. Heath, president of Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Co. “Just as the P-38 and the British Lightning were at the top of their class during their day, the F-35 will redefine multi-role fighter capability in the 21st century.”

linky