Slightly OT : USAF future toys

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Slightly OT : USAF future toys

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> War in the Pacific: Admiral's Edition >> Slightly OT : USAF future toys

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 8:31:42 AM

MineSweeper

Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline

These aircraft are bad-***

....hope they are developed.

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

Post #: 1

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 8:33:21 AM

MineSweeper

Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline

Second pic....the bomber

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-leader-confirms-manned-decision-for-new-bomber-385037/

< Message edited by MineSweeper -- 5/11/2013 8:35:11 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to MineSweeper)

Post #: 2

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 8:36:16 AM

MineSweeper

Posts: 653
Joined: 9/19/2006
From: Nags Head, NC
Status: offline

forgot the pic

Attachment (1)

_____________________________

(in reply to MineSweeper)

Post #: 3

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 1:54:25 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

Nice pictures. Ain't gonna happen (development that is). With the F-35 overruns looking like they are, people will be fleeing in droves from embracing another short-lived manned aircraft project. Neat designs, but these won't see the light of day.

ETA: Plus, they're totally overmatched by that new Iranian 'stealth fighter'.

< Message edited by Chickenboy -- 5/11/2013 1:55:28 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to MineSweeper)

Post #: 4

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 2:08:01 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

what's the problem with the F35?

(in reply to Chickenboy)

Post #: 5

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 2:13:37 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Massively overrun development cycle and budget.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 6

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 2:17:31 PM

GreyJoy

Posts: 6750
Joined: 3/18/2011
Status: offline

Ah, ok, Thanks T.! I thought the F35 was still in the planned production scheldue

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 7

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 2:19:30 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

I think there's something like 90 in service by now...

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 8

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 5:13:54 PM

Chickenboy

Posts: 24520
Joined: 6/29/2002
From: San Antonio, TX
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

Ah, ok, Thanks T.! I thought the F35 was still in the planned production scheldue

It is, GreyJoy. It's just a WHOLE lot more expensive and slow to come online than originally thought.

_____________________________

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 9

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 6:41:10 PM

Walloc

Posts: 3141
Joined: 10/30/2006
From: Denmark
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: GreyJoy

what's the problem with the F35?

A recent Washington Post article on it here if u wish to read more:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/f-35s-ability-to-evade-budget-cuts-illustrates-challenge-of-paring-defense-spending/2013/03/09/42a6085a-8776-11e2-98a3-b3db6b9ac586_story.html

Kind regards,

Rasmus

(in reply to GreyJoy)

Post #: 10

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/11/2013 8:26:52 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers. As for the VSTOL technology, I'm not sure we can't get by with helicopters that are much cheaper. They're not as fast, but their weapons are.

Come to think of it, maybe we should restrict the AF to ICBMs, ICBM defense and strategic transport, and give the warfighting back to the Army.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 5/11/2013 8:34:36 PM >

_____________________________

(in reply to Walloc)

Post #: 11

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/12/2013 6:47:13 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers.

What is this supposed to mean?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 12

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/12/2013 8:53:33 PM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers.

What is this supposed to mean?

The USAF has a sort of class system not seen so much in other services, fighter jocks are the Brahmins. They're having difficulty even handling drones, that's for little people. I hope I'm not offending anyone but some of those people are offensive. The large number of sexual assaults in the AF is disgusting, as is their sweeping of it under the rug. I grew up next to Chanute AFB and the non coms and privates and such were good people. Transport Command people are too for the most part, but some of those others are real knuckle draggers.

I think we probably shouldn't carry this topic forward.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 13

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/12/2013 10:40:49 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers.

What is this supposed to mean?

The USAF has a sort of class system not seen so much in other services, fighter jocks are the Brahmins.

BS

They're having difficulty even handling drones, that's for little people.

Ditto

I hope I'm not offending anyone but some of those people are offensive.

Do you ever do ANY research before you run off at the mouth? Do you even know what a warrant office is? Do you know what they do in the USAF? Here's a clue: the USAF discontinued their warrant officer program in 1959! The last one retired in 1980. They don't have any WOs.

The large number of sexual assaults in the AF is disgusting, as is their sweeping of it under the rug.

True, but irrelevant to the point. You almost managed to stay on topic for four sentences.

I grew up next to Chanute AFB and the non coms and privates and such were good people. Transport Command people are too for the most part, but some of those others are real knuckle draggers.

Wow. Just . . . wow.

I think we probably shouldn't carry this topic forward.

No, let's. I didn't comment on the possibility of re-starting Prowler or A-10 production. Both stupid ideas, but at least they're an opinion. Conflating women and warrant officers is simply wrong. Some women are warrant officers, and some warant officers are women (but not in the Air Force.) But that's a Venn diagram, not the point you were making, to wit, that women are too "lowly" to fly figthers in the USAF.

So I did your research for you.

As of March 31, 2013:

There are 64, 090 active duty USAF officers. 19.4 % are female. 55% of them are line officers. Females have been USAF pilots since 1976, navigators since 1977, and fighter pilots since 1993.

There are 726 female USAF pilots. 270 navigators. 212 air battle mangers.

http://www.afpc.af.mil/library/airforcepersonneldemographics.asp

"3/1/2013 - FORT MEADE, Md. (AFNS) -- After Col. Jeannie Leavitt finished pilot training at the top of her class in 1992, she was given her first choice of aircraft, with a few restrictions. Her first choice, the F-15 Strike Eagle, wasn't yet an option for female pilots.

"I was told you finished No. 1, but you cannot pick a fighter," Leavitt said. "You cannot pick a bomber. You cannot pick a special ops aircraft. There was a whole list of aircraft I couldn't fly, and I was directed to choose among the other aircraft."

Fortunately for Leavitt and all female Airmen with similar aspirations, the following year then-Defense Department Secretary Les Aspin ordered all service branches to drop restrictions on women flying combat missions. Leavitt became the Air Force's first female fighter pilot and later the service's first woman to graduate from the Air Force Weapons School at Nellis Air Force Base, Nev. Almost two decades later, she's been the nation's first female fighter wing commander since she assumed command of the 4th Fighter Wing at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base, N.C., in 2012."

http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123338034

What was that you were saying?

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 14

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 3:35:00 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers. As for the VSTOL technology, I'm not sure we can't get by with helicopters that are much cheaper. They're not as fast, but their weapons are.

Come to think of it, maybe we should restrict the AF to ICBMs, ICBM defense and strategic transport, and give the warfighting back to the Army.

The A-10, EA-6, and for that matter F-14 and A-6 were all excellent planes. But they were and are old. They were and are being replaced as they were massive maintainance headaches. A warplane that spend 10 hours in maintainace for every hour in the air is no bargain, no matter how well they do the job. And especially when parts are not available and everyone is "hand made".

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 15

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:12:01 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

What was that you were saying?

No. My point was that too many male USAF officers are not interested in lowly tasks like dedicated ground support for Army or Marines in subsonic aircraft. I am aware that there are female USAF officers, but there is something different about the USAF as in: We hear about Navy and Army female officers being groped and having sexist comments and jokes directed at them, but in the USAF they (OFFICERS!) are all too often the victims of forcible rape. I think there is a serious cultural problem in that service that must be addressed. I agree with everything you have said, by the way. I should note that I have no current contacts in the USAF but am reacting to things I see in the broad media.

_____________________________

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 16

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:20:25 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers. As for the VSTOL technology, I'm not sure we can't get by with helicopters that are much cheaper. They're not as fast, but their weapons are.

Come to think of it, maybe we should restrict the AF to ICBMs, ICBM defense and strategic transport, and give the warfighting back to the Army.

The A-10, EA-6, and for that matter F-14 and A-6 were all excellent planes. But they were and are old. They were and are being replaced as they were massive maintainance headaches. A warplane that spend 10 hours in maintainace for every hour in the air is no bargain, no matter how well they do the job. And especially when parts are not available and everyone is "hand made".

I'm sorry Steve, but the F35 almost never gets out of maintenance and it costs a fortune. The maintenance cost for the others (I suspect) is due to the fact we've stopped production on both the planes themselves and many of the parts. I'm not a fiscal conservative generally, but we need to start thinking more lean and mean in the military, I think. How does a carrier commander (for instance) feel about having 2/3 or more of his air wing unavailable as a matter of routine? The grunts and dogfaces on the ground in Afghanistan didn't complain about A-10 maintenance issues or the fact that it was subsonic.

I'm just saying, why don't we replace old A-10s with new A-10s?

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 5/13/2013 4:26:17 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 17

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:24:07 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bullwinkle58

What was that you were saying?

No. My point was that too many male USAF officers are not interested in lowly tasks like dedicated ground support for Army or Marines in subsonic aircraft. I am aware that there are female USAF officers, but there is something different about the USAF as in: We hear about Navy and Army female officers being groped and having sexist comments and jokes directed at them, but in the USAF they (OFFICERS!) are all too often the victims of forcible rape. I think there is a serious cultural problem in that service that must be addressed. I agree with everything you have said, by the way. I should note that I have no current contacts in the USAF but am reacting to things I see in the broad media.

I've got a lot of contacts (Living on a USAF base). Here there seems to be a genuine shock at the reports. The biggest news here was the secAF sending teams to make sure that all spaces are "sexually inoffensive". And with most governement programs it's been taken to extreme. Like the young airman who had to take down the photo of he and his girlfriend on the beach while on vacation , because she was in a bikini.

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 18

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:27:43 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

They should restart production on the Warthog and the Prowler, they are excellent at their jobs. The A-10 isn't sexy enough for the Air Force jocks, so they're mostly flown by women and other warrant officers. As for the VSTOL technology, I'm not sure we can't get by with helicopters that are much cheaper. They're not as fast, but their weapons are.

Come to think of it, maybe we should restrict the AF to ICBMs, ICBM defense and strategic transport, and give the warfighting back to the Army.

The A-10, EA-6, and for that matter F-14 and A-6 were all excellent planes. But they were and are old. They were and are being replaced as they were massive maintainance headaches. A warplane that spend 10 hours in maintainace for every hour in the air is no bargain, no matter how well they do the job. And especially when parts are not available and everyone is "hand made".

I'm sorry Steve, but the F35 almost never gets out of maintenance and it costs a fortune. The maintenance cost for the others (I suspect) is due to the fact we've stopped production on both the planes themselves and many of the parts. I'm not a fiscal conservative generally, but we need to start thinking more lean and mean in the military, I think. How does a carrier commander (for instance) feel about having 2/3 or more of his air wing unavailable as a matter of routine? The grunts and dogfaces on the ground in Afghanistan didn't complain about A-10 maintenance issues or the fact that it was subsonic.

F-35 is a brand new revolutionary airplane. Ten years ago they said the same about the V-22 osprey. They are saying the same about the P-8. And said the same about the F/A-18. I'm sure the same's been said about any radically new design. Compared to the B-29 the F-35 has had a charmed life. It's too soon to fairly decide. It will take at least five years in the system to really know .

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 19

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:33:58 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

I see both your points and know them to be true, however, the USAF to a degree is a government unto itself, evidenced by that officer who threw out a rape conviction by a military jury, no less, knowing that he was the Supreme Court in that case.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 20

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:41:25 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

The B-29 didn't take (how many years has it been since the F-35 was supposed to be fully operational and in sufficient volume?) and the P-47 (by far the most expensive fighter produced in that war, but worth every penny) came in in a reasonable time and we were able to mass produce them. The F-35's troubles outclass anything but the F-22, perhaps. Remember the Sgt. York? It didn't take us this long to figure that one out.

It's an old saw, about preparing to fight the last war, but it used to be true. Now we're preparing to fight wars that never happened instead of the ones that might. Aircraft carriers, for instance are already far too vulnerable to be considered reliable in a conflict with an opponent as sophisticated as Iran. We need a major upheaval in military thinking and the F-35 is not a part of the solution.

< Message edited by geofflambert -- 5/13/2013 4:48:34 AM >

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 21

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:48:43 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I see both your points and know them to be true, however, the USAF to a degree is a government unto itself, evidenced by that officer who threw out a rape conviction by a military jury, no less, knowing that he was the Supreme Court in that case.

And the said officer was relived by higher authority. Officers in US service have been making bad calls since the revolution. To judge all by one's misdeeds is as foolish as blaming everyone of the same race or religion due to the malfeasance of one person of that race or creed. The powers given a commanding officer have been steadily reduced since the 1st world war (that is , the begining of the era of mass communications). This incident will no doubt reduce it further.

The officer in this case was not "The Supreme Court" as you put it. But a "convening Authority". Think of the CA as acting as a district attorney or a attorney general of a state. But in most legal jurisdictions , any judge can "set aside" a jury's decision. It's not done often , and needs compelling reasons. So before you scream about the senior military officers having that kind of power , take a look at your local judge. He can do it. And the local DA can drop charges. So what your upset about is that a military officer made a bad call (and was punished for it) but civilian judges and DA's can do the same thing everyday and rarely get called on the carpet?

All I'm asking is be fair. While there is a tendacy to require any person in uniform to be held to a higher standard,( and they should be) is the whole system bad because of one poor leader?

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 22

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 4:52:09 AM

AW1Steve

Posts: 14507
Joined: 3/10/2007
From: Mordor Illlinois
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

The B-29 didn't take (how many years has it been since the F-35 was supposed to be fully operational and in sufficient volume?) and the P-47 (by far the most expensive fighter produced in that war, but worth every penny) came in in a reasonable time and we were able to mass produce them. The F-35's troubles outclass anything but the F-22, perhaps. Remember the Sgt. York? It didn't take us this long to figure that one out.

It's an old saw, about preparing to fight the last war, but it used to be true. Now we're preparing to fight wars that never happened instead of the ones that might. Aircraft carriers, for instance are already far too vulnerable to be considered reliable in a conflict with an opponent as sophisticated as Iran. We need a major upheaval in military thinking and the F-35 is not a part of the solution.

The B-29 wasn't really reliable till Korea (it's engines blew up at high altitude. That's 8 years in a program that cost as much as the Mahatten project).

We will have to agree to disagree. I consider CV's to still be useful, and the F-35 as part of the solution. I don't belive that the plane is the problem , the procurement system is. If they built A B-17 today , each one would probably cost $100 million each.

_____________________________

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 23

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 6:13:57 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

quote:

ORIGINAL: geofflambert

I see both your points and know them to be true, however, the USAF to a degree is a government unto itself, evidenced by that officer who threw out a rape conviction by a military jury, no less, knowing that he was the Supreme Court in that case.

And the said officer was relived by higher authority. Officers in US service have been making bad calls since the revolution. To judge all by one's misdeeds is as foolish as blaming everyone of the same race or religion due to the malfeasance of one person of that race or creed. The powers given a commanding officer have been steadily reduced since the 1st world war (that is , the begining of the era of mass communications). This incident will no doubt reduce it further.

The officer in this case was not "The Supreme Court" as you put it. But a "convening Authority". Think of the CA as acting as a district attorney or a attorney general of a state. But in most legal jurisdictions , any judge can "set aside" a jury's decision. It's not done often , and needs compelling reasons. So before you scream about the senior military officers having that kind of power , take a look at your local judge. He can do it. And the local DA can drop charges. So what your upset about is that a military officer made a bad call (and was punished for it) but civilian judges and DA's can do the same thing everyday and rarely get called on the carpet?

All I'm asking is be fair. While there is a tendacy to require any person in uniform to be held to a higher standard,( and they should be) is the whole system bad because of one poor leader?

I have little problem with anything you've said, but it required outside forces to make those corrections happen, most importantly the court of public opinion. I hesitate to cite a particular religious denomination that has had similar structural difficulties that required the same court to rule but specifically the court of the common accolytes to begin addressing it. That man would've gotten away with it free and clear otherwise.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 24

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 6:17:29 AM

geofflambert

Posts: 14863
Joined: 12/23/2010
From: St. Louis
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

We will have to agree to disagree. I consider CV's to still be useful, and the F-35 as part of the solution. I don't belive that the plane is the problem , the procurement system is. If they built A B-17 today , each one would probably cost $100 million each.

I fantasize about stealth carriers that are submersible. How much do you think those will cost?

Maybe if they just carry drones it would be feasible.

_____________________________

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 25

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 7:09:41 AM

czert2

Posts: 508
Joined: 2/10/2013
Status: offline

for bomber : well, it doesnt look much different from b-2. What willl be major differences ?
fighter : doesnt look good, it lack tail - lack of tail is nice for stealth, but realy bad for manuveranility.
F-35: great disaster, it will be beter if canceled and money will be used for f-22. Since f35 cant match in combat curent/future planes of other states - mainly russia/china.

(in reply to geofflambert)

Post #: 26

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 1:09:51 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: AW1Steve

The A-10, EA-6, and for that matter F-14 and A-6 were all excellent planes. But they were and are old. They were and are being replaced as they were massive maintainance headaches. A warplane that spend 10 hours in maintainace for every hour in the air is no bargain, no matter how well they do the job. And especially when parts are not available and everyone is "hand made".

They all were excellent, for their time and missions. That last bit is what military amateurs often forget. A plane (like the A-10) looks "cool", or it does something unique, so fanbois want it back in the inventory. Never asking why it was built or if that need still exists. (The same tendency exists with battleship FBs.)

The A-10 was designed in the 1970s to stop massed Soviet armor intrusions into western Europe. It was excellent at that, as it was excellent, with upgraded electronics and other sensors and systems, at open-desert tank hunting in Desert Storm. But now? Who in the world, after Desert Storm, is building huge tank armies? What tanks in the world can stand up to the Abrams? Those that are close all belong to our allies. And smart munitions carried by multi-role fighters can attack armor very well. We don't need a dedicated anti-armor plane.

Same with the Prowler. Few nations can afford to put up even a modest modern anti-air network. And EW can be, and will be, done primarily with drones in the future. Investing hangar space and deck space, and risking four highly expensive, valuable humans on an escorting EW platform is dumb when unmanned platforms with fast datalinks can carry the devices into enemy airspace at a fraction of the risk and footprint. The operators can manipulate the EW devices remotely just fine; they don't need to be sitting in a cockpit over the battlespace.

Unmanned is the future, as much as pilots don't like to hear it. Bomb trucks don't need to be manned either. Very soon the only mission that will need a pilot in the cockpit will be battlegroup air defense, and that probably not the case in 30 years. Maybe less. A vehicle without a need for pilot space and weight, data displays, workload constraints, or gentle maneuvering opens up the design parameters on a vast scale. The code and the processors will get there.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to AW1Steve)

Post #: 27

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 1:15:55 PM

Terminus

Posts: 41459
Joined: 4/23/2005
From: Denmark
Status: offline

Well, the A-10 certainly still has a mission in today's assymetrical warfare world, just like the A-1 had one over South Vietnam 50 years ago.

_____________________________

We are all dreams of the Giant Space Butterfly.

(in reply to Bullwinkle58)

Post #: 28

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 1:36:06 PM

Bullwinkle58

Posts: 11302
Joined: 2/24/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Terminus

Well, the A-10 certainly still has a mission in today's assymetrical warfare world, just like the A-1 had one over South Vietnam 50 years ago.

Asymetrical is not the delimiter. You can have asymetrical environments where the ground opponent is well-supplied with MANPADS and A-10s will die in droves. The A-10 is useful now in primitive environments, yes. Over, Syria, for example, perhaps not so much.

The Spad is also an excellent analogy to the A-10, so thank you. We had them, so we used them, for awhile. We rapidly replaced them on carriers with jets as Vietnam heated up though. They needed extensive up-armoring to survive even against bullet-based AA environments. But most on-point is this--the production line was closed in 1957. We used them because we had them (A-10) We did not re-open the production line and start to build a 1940s platform again.

_____________________________

The Moose

(in reply to Terminus)

Post #: 29

RE: Slightly OT : USAF future toys - 5/13/2013 3:19:25 PM

jeffk3510