$200 billion deal!

[Octavius]

Just finished watching Deadline Discovery on the Discovery Channel... They were talking about new high tech toys that will be available in all branches of the US military by 2008.  

X-32 and X-35 joint strike fighters are competing for a 200 billion dollar (3-6 thousand aircraft to be produced) deal w/ the US and UK.  UK variant will be used for carrier ops.  Mix the greatest aspects of an AV-8 Harrier, F/A-18 Hornet, F-22 Raptor, and other good things and you'll get this new stealty fighter..

I'm just amazed at this technology!  I'm sure yall know something about this already, but it caught my eye and I felt like sharing it with wonderful Knight[\b] community here at AH... I guess[\i] could allow Rooks and Bish to read.. but you better be gratefull!!     LoL


------------------
-=///Octavius\\\=-
VMF-323 "Death Rattlers"
MAG-33
  Maz203@aol.com  


[This message has been edited by Octavius (edited 02-21-2001).]

[J_A_B]

These newer designs scare me.  They have so much technology and cost so much and generally don't seem like something that can withstand the hardships of day-to-day service in an actual war.

Massive amounts of tech = "hangar queen"


The best approach to fighting equipment?  K.I.S.S.

J_A_B

[Octavius]

My thoughts exactly JAB.  They also mentioned unmanned multi-task fighters.  They give them autonomous control.  Send them on their way and they target, kill, return and land, taxi, the whole thing on their own.  What happens when our toasters turn on us?  Reminds me of Terminator    Its great that we're capable of creating this technology, but I don't believe we need it.

[This message has been edited by Octavius (edited 02-21-2001).]

[TheWobble]

 

They also mentioned unmmaned multi-task fighters

That idea scares the toejam outta me.

[Voss]

Mostly highly advanced R/C airplanes, right? I mean, they can't put that kind of intel into an airplane! But, we certainly have enough Nintendo pilots around to fly the darn things.

[SwampRat]

 

Originally posted by J_A_B:
These newer designs scare me.  They have so much technology and cost so much and generally don't seem like something that can withstand the hardships of day-to-day service in an actual war.

The best approach to fighting equipment?  K.I.S.S.

J_A_B

  The K.I.S.S. principle really is being applied in a round-a-bout way if you think about it.  The higher OUR technology the less the hardships in that real war (simple approach idea).  If the bad guyz can't get off the ground, and can't utilize thier technology effectively because it's countered by our technology, then you have more of a cakewalk than a war.

Swamp

[Jekyll]

You never know, flying online flight sims might lead to a new job offer.

Dateline: Washington
August 12th, 2008

"In response to the recent Declaration of War issued by the Republic of China, Pentagon officials have confirmed that they have engaged in a mass drafting of Aces High and Warbirds pilots.  These pilots will be responsible for flying the remote controlled X-42 attack fighter.  Unofficial sources have stated that the ROC has now been renamed 'Knitland'".

[Midnight]

Don't forget how the JSF program is supposed to work. It's not a "one plane does all" concept.

The idea is that most of the major components for each type of aircraft will be interchangeable. There are still 4 or 5 variants that will be made.
1. CV capable
2. STOL capable
3. ground pounder
4. intercepter

Basically it means that if an American plane needs something, they can go to the british wharehouse and get it. Guns, ammo, external ords, radar, radio, engines (model dependant), certain airframe components, etc.

And they are being designed to take the beatings and be highly repairable in the field. I still wouldn't want to come up against the Russian backflipper though  



------------------
"Wing up, Get kills, Be happy"

Midnight
13th TAS
midnight@13thtas.com

"I see you have made your decision. Now let's see you enforce it." -Brandon Lee (The Crow)

[StSanta]

The Russians have mastered the K.I.S.S principle with their planes. Sure, American made planes have shot a lot of them down, but we gotta look at the specific situation. Gulf war for instance was pretty much a turkey shoot with regards to a2a.

Imagine if they added some better avionics to the Su-37.

Yum.

------------------
Baron Claus "StSanta" Von Ribbentroppen
9./JG 54 "Grünherz"
"All your base/are belong to us"
http://www.thefever.com/AYB2.swf
Keep up the momentum!

[pzvg]

3-6 thousand planes? whose bellybutton did they pull that number out of? No one's built planes for the military in that quantity since WWII.
(edit, OK, maybe the most successful combat jet in the world has, do you know which that is? hint, don't go by kills)  

------------------
pzvg- "5 years and I still can't shoot"

[funked]

Imagine if they delivered any Su-37's to an armed force of any country anywhere LOL!  It's at a comparable stage of development to the F-22, but it's basically a 30 year old design.

[This message has been edited by funked (edited 02-22-2001).]

[Jimdandy]

 

Originally posted by SwampRat:
  The K.I.S.S. principle really is being applied in a round-a-bout way if you think about it.  The higher OUR technology the less the hardships in that real war (simple approach idea).  If the bad guyz can't get off the ground, and can't utilize thier technology effectively because it's countered by our technology, then you have more of a cakewalk than a war.

Swamp

Optimism.   I most certainly hope it all works like that. Of course the problem arises when the bad guys technology is better or yours doesn't work as planed. I just hope the next enemy is like Iraq and not someone who surprises use with their new goodies or just flat overwhelms us with the number of older but capable weapons in the hands of well trained troops. We ran into that a couple times in the past.  

[Jayhawk]

Newly developed autonomous attack vehicles are a going to be a big thing. I know some people in the industry that are working on some things that are real scary. Think of an attack aircraft that is able to distinguish targets via synthetic aperture radar signals. Give it a kill box of 100sq miles and tell it to kill anything it finds moving in the kill box that matches a radar signature in its database. Sort of like a cruise missile that thinks for itself. It loiters over the target area and waits for a target to appear then ether dispenses ordnance or goes terminal. Ether way build them cheap and launch thousands of them and stay the hell out of the kill boxes.

------------------
"Little boy blue....cause he needed the money".....owwwww

[Sundog]

Actually, the JSF costs are lower then the current F-16 and the F-18. The way they are using the sensors in those aircraft is remarkable as well. The helmet mounted display of the boeing JSF (And most likely Lockheeds submission as well), allows the pilot to track targets anywhere (Well as far as he can turn his head! Of course the cursors still display the direction of the target/threat. 'Computer sim padlock' for real fighters    ).

As for the unmanned combat air vehicles, Boeing rolled out it's design (The X-45) late last year under a DARPA contract and Lockheed has a classified (go figure) UCAV for the Air Force, and Northrop Grumman unveiled their UCAV demonstrator design for the Navy last week (This weeks Aviation Week & Space Technology). According to what I have read, many of these designs won't be flown by a man in the loop, but rather 'monitored' during their missions. This allows one controller to control many vehicles at once. They also stated that when one of these has acquired the target, they may require authorization to launch from the mission controller. However, they can obviously be programmed to launch weapons w/o authorization. Of course, the cost savings these vehicles would allow is enormous, since they don't have all the life support/MMI equipment and they don't have to be built to be flown hundreds or thousands of hours a year, and the training costs for the personnal and equipment support is greatly reduced as well. I think Boeing stated that their design would be stressed to last about six to twelve missions. I think the reason for the low number is:

a) To keep costs down.
b) They probably don't expect them to last long in the extremely high threat environment they would fly in.

Did they have anything in that show about the micro air vehicles they are working on? These are flying vehicles about the size of insects. Reportedly, one of the missions they are looking at for those, would be to have many of them 'parked' in the fields/grass at the end of enemy airfields and have them take off in clouds when enemy aircraft take off so they are ingested by the planes engines. So, you think we will see that in the next Bond or Clancy movie?  



------------------
Sundog
VMF-111 Devildogs
'Criticism is always easier than craftmanship.'

[Ripsnort]

If...I...could...only...show. ..you....