F-35 Jet drama and accountability

Drones are an extremely far future but yeah, their survivability is low (which is partially the point, despite their general expense). AI research to have them run autonomously is a long, long way off.

Also, yes, it’s entirely possible I will lose that bet on “no manned carrier aircraft in the Pacific by 2026.” Still, it’ll be damned interesting to see how close it comes, and I’ll stick to it. In fact, I’ll put a $50 amount (in 2026 dollars! no inflation adjustment!)

Not possible at all I figure. A 15-year turnaround from an active nuclear carrier fleet a dozen ships strong of which not to mention the fact that an entirely new fleet carrier class is already under construction (the Ford class) for trials possibly by 2015? No chance in hell your prediction will come to fruition unless we went to war with China by, say, 2020.

There’s no doubt that’s the way we’re moving, however. The next class of carriers, perhaps, will be smaller, have less manpower, and have a ton of automation with perhaps a fleet of various drone types including recon, interceptor, refueling, long-range strike, ECM, etc. It’s the only way robotics (in essence) will be able to keep our capability on par with certain opponents, and perhaps it’ll be the new arms race.

I’d put many on that. Hell buy a $50 inflation-adjusting Bond and I’ll match it :)

— Alan

Some of you forget that missiles are also drones, and they have come very far indeed. The ability of the targeting computers to identify and hit the correct target is quite impressive.

Air to air missiles also have manoeuvrability and precision that is quite scary these days.

Missiles don’t identify their own targets, they are fed targeting data by people.

I agree fully autonomous drones are a very long way off. But that’s not the entire point. On the previous page of this thread I posted an article pointing out that even stealthy planes may become substantially more vulnerable to new VHF/UHF-based radar systems. If the F-35 loses its stealth advantage, then it doesn’t matter how nice it is having a human in it, it’s going to get shot to hell by SAM defenses.

So between the increasing threat to even stealthed manned airplanes, and the increasing capabilities of drones (soon to include really long-range ones), the overall environment looks just too hostile to manned aircraft. Robotic attrition is the future. I’m still willing to bet it’s here by 2026.

Unfortunately longbet.org is not that impressive – three clicks got me to a prediction that expired in 2007, with no indication of whether or not the prediction was won or lost! I mean, shouldn’t that be one of the most basic things such a site tracks?

Predictions aren’t won or lost, bets are. You make a prediction and it either expires on it’s own or becomes a bet once someone challenges you on it. The site tracks the outcome of these bets.

I don’t see why they shouldn’t also track the outcome of predictions, is all. Predictions still happen (or not) regardless of whether you’re being challenged.

Because it’s beyond their scope to track and verify the outcome of any and every prediction someone makes. They’re not Wikipedia. Lots of the details about how to objectively judge a prediction are only hashed out when an adversary takes up the challenge. They just record bets and their outcomes, as agreed upon by the participants.

If everyone’s flying drones, though, isn’t effective defense against air attack just a matter of coming up with effective satellite communication jammers?

…unless of course you’re jamming yourself.

— Alan

Except that in this thread we have already talked about stealth not being the F35s only defence, it is fitted with a ~laser to shoot down incoming missiles ~. We have also talked about the size and vulnerability of these large radar systems required to detect stealth aircraft. Why bother continuing this debate if you can’t acknowledge reality?

If the overall environment is too hostile for a manned aircraft there is no way the infrastructure required to keep a human pilot in the drones loop will survive, if anything it has a shorter lifespan in a full scale conflict such as the one you’re alluding too.

The further you remove humans from the conflict while still requiring them to be part of the decision making process the more you require an increasingly complex communications infrastructure, one that is incredibly vulnerable and an obvious target. Fully autonomous is the entire point, only when this technology can be realised will manned aircraft be irrelevant.

edit:

This is also just plain wrong, so wrong you’re probably just a troll. You are quoting the projected cost of operating 2,500ish F35s for 65 years, the main factor in this increase is the projected rise in fuel costs which will not only effect the F35 but all aircraft. It includes everything from fuel to training, weapons and maintenance, etc.

Why you would get on a public forum and intentionally mislead people in this debate I can’t understand so I’m going to say that you poorly understand the subject and are displaying the same economic and statistical incompetence that currently undermines the public climate change debate. Please actually read the context of the figures you’re trying to use before you post and misrepresent them.

The latest version of Harpoon (Nov. 2010) already has the DF-21C anti-ship Ballistic missile and the Shi Lang CV.

How feasible would it be to have a manned aircraft to make the targeting decisions in close line-of-sight communication with a group of drones?

Problem with this debate is that we got two types of conflict for the future…

In the case of high intensity conflicts, there is no safe zone.
To say that drone command centre is any less defensible than say carriers or airports is then questionable.

In a roundabout way that is already how manned aircraft function today with modern weapons. Also keep in mind that the F35 is designed with these capabilities in mind, it can easily hand off targeting information or receive it, this is essentially what 5th gen is all about.

Depends on the sort of aircraft we’re talking about, and what sort of engagement. Under some circumstances, I’d think it’d be very possible. Analogous to special ops guys on the ground acting as a spotter and illuminating the target.

Developments on the F-35 in Canada. Any day the federal government is expected to announce that we’re going ahead with the F-35 purchase. But yesterday a new report was released that the single engine is a critical flaw in terms of patrolling Canada’s north.

Link if you’re interested.

And in naval operations … but never mind that.

And nevermind that the purchase of F-35s is going to cost at least double what the government originally claimed.

Yeah, it’s horrible, but it’s also routine. Double isn’t even that bad these days, anyway.

He really does ignore engine advancement since the 1970’s there, which makes the conclusion…rather suspect.

He’s handwaved away the data for the Gripen, for instance, which is 1990’s tech, while using incidents from airliners!
And what about flight role differences? Different service procedures in different air forces? Etc.

There are plenty of reasons to - strongly - dislike the F-35 (which he also states) without using non-comparable data and anecdotes from other types of aircraft.

(Of course, apparently one of the alternatives being considered is the Eurofighter Typhoon…which shows they really are not paying attention! The modernised F-15’s come very close to the Typhoon…and neither are decent against modern Russian aircraft!)