The End: no more jets for me

[Bobski]

According to the Beeb, the USAF has been taking mothballed F-16A a/c from AMARC and flying them as a version of the RQ-9/RQ-4 (so a QF-16) to look at 'possibilities' of use. Apparently they were flown pilotless at Mach 1.4!

The USAF/Boeing has been taking mothballed F-16s from AMARC and converting them into full-scale aerial targets to replace the QF-4. It's not new, it's not revolutionary, it's just the latest iteration of a system that's been around for donkey's years.

The BBC's article was about 5% fact, 95% made-up hyperbole.

[Selwyn]

Once the Russian SAM technology improves

as it will do, then the F35 will be less capable

than a Hawker Hunter. And a lot less capable

than a Harrier. Does the USAF think that an

F35 will be more effective than an F111 or

even an F4 at low level attack? Pathetic.

Never mind, early 1950's B52s and late

60's B1's still protect us. Cheers

The way price inflation on Military aircraft is increasing it has been estimated in 25 years time the entire US DoD budget will be just enough to buy just one aircraft a year.

This isn't a Joke by the way!

Selwyn

[nicE1]

Fortunately not all aircraft manufactures think the future Hi-tech and stealth!

these people still seem to have a little bit of common sense left!

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/20/cessna-textron-scorpion/#.UkQg475wbIV

[Arachnid]

Fortunately not all aircraft manufactures think the future Hi-tech and stealth!

these people still seem to have a little bit of common sense left!

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/20/cessna-textron-scorpion/#.UkQg475wbIV

Wow I want one, kinetic make this your next kit!!!

[khimbar]

I joke with SWMBO (who's more into airshows than even I am!) that in a few years they'll all be drones and unmanned craft, and the pilots will use Xbox controllers. I'm not so sure it's a joke anymore. The unique selling point of RIAT 2025 may well be an actual piloted craft.

To the OP though. Yep. I agree.

Do scifi/starships instead....much more fun, and you can light them. And you don't have to be anal about paint colours or rivets.

Edited September 26, 2013 by khimbar

[thomastmcc]

do AFVs then mate..

[David Womby]

do AFVs then mate..

Now that's made me wonder; why are we not hearing more about unmanned, or even completely autonomous robotic, AFVs? Are they in the works?

David

[Jennings Heilig]

Now airliners...I think we have had this (light-hearted) discussion before!

I didn't say I thought they all looked alike (although they're ALL ugly as sin), I just don't care tuppence about them

[Sgt.Squarehead]

Bus + Wings = Airliner!

[Caution Wake Turbulence]

Bus + Wings = Airliner!

Ego + Wings = Fighter

[Albeback52]

I'm yet to be convinced that a scruffy, bearded, bespectacled computer geek at a console is actually going to do a better job than a real flesh & blood pilot sitting in an actual seat in an actual aeroplane. Politicians especially seem to be totally besotted with the idea of unmanned aircraft largely because of the illusory and probably false (and overstated?) claims by manufacturers who have a vested interest in peddling their supposedly cheaper and more efficient wares. Remember Duncan Sandys?. I personally think that unmanned combat aircraft and the current obsession with stealth are passing, flavour of the month fads! Just one technological break through could render those fads obsolete

Granted, there is a place for UCAVs in some specialised roles but, for the core roles of air superiority, air dominance, close air support? No, I'm sorry. I just don't buy it. I don't buy the "not risking lives of our soldiers/airmen" excuse either. Take the human element out of fighting and I suspect that ambitious politicians will use wars more and more often as the means to justify their ends. After all, they will only be using machines (but against other people?)

Allan

[XV107]

Why assume that the stereotypical, scruffy, bearded 'geek' will be employed to operate the unmanned system? There are legal issues as to why those operating RPAS/UCAS/UAS/Drones would, in time of war, need to be military and I can't see the USAF Academy, West Point, Annapolis, Quantico, Sandhurst, Cranwell or Dartmouth ditching their standards so as to attract these 'geeks', never mind (for instance) Catterick: 'I don't care if you're going to be a drone operator, sunshine, you *will* shave...'

Even in the sort of undeclared wars we've been doing for more than a decade, there are issues pertaining to LOAC which have raised interesting questions on government employees (aka 'the CIA') controlling weaponised unmanned platforms. The idea that we're going to have air forces of social inept, slightly weird people who have the skills to programme their iPad to do the shopping, but who have n idea how to use a razor and who go around saying 'Cool' and 'Dude' is a caricature.

The cost/benefit equation in RPAS procurement is appreciated by politicians, and from the British perspective the ethical and legal issues associated with 'drone wars' are significant. No-one, be they politician or senior officer, has yet suggested that RPAS will completely dominate the force structure. While we might not see these sort of discussions going on in public, they are going on and the notion of sharp-suited manufacturers conning naive politicians and air officers into thinking that the 'drone' is the way forward and the answer to all their problems doesn't stack up against reality. Been there, seen that, heard it, have the corporate sponsor's branded soft laptop bag and ball point pen...

The only instance I can think of where I have personally seen a manufacturer lay it on with a trowel was a decade ago when a conference of sceptical military types was given the hard sell on the Harpy and remained sceptical afterwards. Granted, there will have been other occasions, but there is a much greater appreciation of the pros and cons than seems to be realised here, just as there is a clear awareness of the potential degradation of stealth/low observable technology (which is why there are clever people working away to mitigate advances in detection capability, but the less said about that the better).

We already use UCAVs in CAS - we need to distinguish between the UCAV and systems with high level of autonomous functionality or even AI - but there are further ethical and legal dilemmas, never mind technical ones, which accompany that. And since SEAD and DEAD are core elements of Control of the Air, along with ISA and networking, it isn't beyond the realms of possibility to contemplate systems with some degree of autonomy participating in part of a counter-air campaign; in terms of aerial combat against other aircraft, then the manned platform still has some time ahead of it - as recognised by early work into so-called 6th Generation platforms and the sort of conceptual work into aircraft (or air systems) which could be sent out with a crew aboard them, or controlled remotely from the ground, or sent off into the blue yonder for a flight of x many hours to a launch position whereupon an authentication signal gives the system the approval to launch its Storm Shadow Mk 5 equivalent, etc, etc.

Again with respect, we need to be careful not to engage in generalised observations that reflect the media's lack of understanding of how the whole UCAV/RPAS/Autonomous system domain is developing...

[-Neu-]

I'm going to go against the grain here. I like the history and capability of aircraft, which is what primarily motivates me to build. Thinking about their significance is what captures my imagination: beauty is extremely subjective in my mind. Consequently I actually like boring grey jets, especially if they historically significant... like this 555 TFS F-16 that was shot down over the Balkans:

Don't get me wrong. I think previous generation aircraft have "beauty" based on their history. But everything has their place.

In regards to the F-35, its too early for it to have developed an operational history of note.... yet I can see it quickly playing a pivotal role: I can see a possible operation in 2015 over Syria where the F-35B is the key capability to prosecute advanced Russian AD capabilities. Three F-35s can do what may have required 20+ aircraft twenty years ago. That's pretty evident when you look at how ineffective our 20+ CF-18s were 20 years ago in the gulf war, compared to the six or so that participated over Libya. The addition of sniper pods and other avionics advances allowed the 6 aircraft to do vastly more than the fighters in their original configuration.

Now we're look to transition to another fighter that offers another revolutionary advance on what we currently use. Its planform basically gives it performance roughly like the F-16 and F/A-18, while carrying a full A2G load and fuel... all the while being low observable. That's actually a immense technical advance. Then there is its avionics capabilities... and not just the warfighting one but the support systems (maybe that shows how boring I am... I find logistics cool.)

Anyway, I can't just condemn an aircraft like this "boring" based on a few photos. I think when some of you see the thing up close it, in an airshow display, or on the news due to some crisis, attitudes may shift significantly.

Edited September 26, 2013 by -Neu-

[Gary C]

Anyway, I can't just condemn an aircraft like this "boring" based on how a few photos. I think when some of you see the thing up close it, in an airshow display, or on the news due to some crisis, attitudes may shift significantly.

It always makes me smile when modellers describe grey jets as boring because they're grey. We're talking about killing machines. Yet it seems to be the same thought process women use when choosing a new car, you know " I want the red one - they go faster". Still, girls will be girls

[horrido109]

I think grey jets are cool

Edited September 27, 2013 by horrido109

[cmatthewbacon]

Don't get me wrong - I'm not saying the latest jets are boring because they're grey! Tomcats and Eagles and F-16s and F-18s (especially ones with big Viking's heads on the tail) are cool...

I'm more contrasting today's era when there are so few new types emerging, the ones that get built will be in service for 50 years, and development is more likely to come with software updates than next generation hardware, with the era I was born in and grew up in (which was the late 60s, 70s and early 80s). You know, when you could buy a book of "modern military aircraft" and it would have 300 pages. What I find "boring" is the lack of variety -- where are the Starfighters, Vulcans, Harriers, and Mig-29s of today? Even the latest generation combat aircraft from the US, Russia and China tend to look very similar...

Back in the day, every Paris Air Show or Farnborough would bring new aircraft, and the kit manufacturers would race to tool up neat 1/72 kits of them. These days, Revell can do a state of the art 1/72 Typhoon, safe in the knowledge that for the next thirty years it'll still be in the frontline, and at worst they may have to do a new weapons and "lumps and bumps" sprue every 5-10 years.

I agree, watching a Typhoon perform at Waddington is far from boring. But having to build the same 10 types for the next 30 years is definitely enough to prompt a switch in genre for me!

bestest,

M.

Edited September 27, 2013 by cmatthewbacon

[Bobski]

What I find "boring" is the lack of variety -- where are the Starfighters, Vulcans, Harriers, and Mig-29s of today? Even the latest generation combat aircraft from the US, Russia and China tend to look very similar...

That's because aircraft designers all have to work to the same basic principles when designing a combat platform, the net result being that aircraft tend to look the same. The same is true of airliners. It's no coincidence that Concorde, Concordski and the Boeing SST all looked very similar. Ditto for the 787 and A350. Certain requirements lead to a particular set of design features, and since the rules around aerodynamics and other elements of aircraft design are the same the world over you end up with aircraft that look very similar to one another.

A Starfighter looks like a Starfighter because of what it was designed to do, ie climb very fast and fly supersonic. The result is a long, bullet fuselage, a powerful engine and short, thin wings. Similarly, the Lightning was designed to do the same thing, and as a result has the same basic design principles. The only real difference between the two is the Lightning has a shorter fuselage and two engines.

The MiG-29, F-15 and Su-27 were all designed with similar requirements, and as a result all three of them look very similar to one another. F-35 looks a bit like F-22 because of the stealth requirements combined with the differing requirements of the three variants.

There are exceptions to this historically - the V-Bombers being a great example - but more often than not it is true of both civil and military aviation. The B-52 is basically a B-47 on steroids, and if they'd kept the tandem cockpit of the original YB-52 then the only way to tell them apart would have been to count the engines. Another example is the TSR2 and the Vigilante. Both designed for similar roles, which results in two similar looking aircraft.

Edited September 27, 2013 by Bobski

[cmatthewbacon]

A Starfighter looks like a Starfighter because of what it was designed to do.... the Lightning was designed to do the same thing, and as a result has the same basic design principles. The only real difference between the two is the Lightning has a shorter fuselage and two engines.

You clearly have a different definition of "variety" from me! Certainly, for my shelves, there's enough difference between a Lightning and a Starfighter to qualify as "variety". Same for, say, a Voodoo and a Mig-25, which were both designed for long-distance interception...

I suspect the problem these days is that not only are designers essentially designing to the same requirements, but they're using the same computer modelling to optimise the end result for those requirements. The solutions may be better, but the differentiation between them is limited. It's the same trend as in the mobile phone business -- engineering has driven efficient solutions to the touch screen smartphone, which means that now all the manufacturers sell virtually indistinguishable, similar-sized black slabs of plastic and glass...

bestest,

M.

[Procopius]

It always makes me smile when modellers describe grey jets as boring because they're grey. We're talking about killing machines.

“Pardon if all the cleanness and the beauty

Brave rhythym and the immemorial sea

Ensare us sometimes with their siren song,

Forgetful of our murderous intentions.

Through our uneasy peacetime carnival

Cold sweat of death holds us like a dew;

Even this grey machinery of murder

Holds beauty and the promise of a future.”

-- Norman Hampson, "Corvette"

[Bobski]

You clearly have a different definition of "variety" from me! Certainly, for my shelves, there's enough difference between a Lightning and a Starfighter to qualify as "variety". Same for, say, a Voodoo and a Mig-25, which were both designed for long-distance interception.

Except the Voodoo and MiG-25 were not designed for the same role. Voodoo designed for interception of slow-moving Russian bombers and MiG-25 designed for long-range high-speed (allegedly up to Mach 3) interception of perceived high altitude supersonic US bombers. Different mission requirements mean different design principles mean aircraft that look different.

And you're right, aircraft designers use the same basic design principles because they are universal. The laws of flight are the same everywhere and Air Forces are more interested in aircraft that do the job rather than aircraft that look pretty.

[Gary C]

What I find "boring" is the lack of variety -- where are the Starfighters, Vulcans, Harriers, and Mig-29s of today? Even the latest generation combat aircraft from the US, Russia and China tend to look very similar...

Starfighters became F-16's, Vulcans became Tornado's, Harriers are about about to become F-35's and the MiG-29 is still very much with us. There's no shortage of variety there. As to the new gen stuff, perhaps average Joe may look at the F-22, F-35 and T-50 and think they all look the same. But it's only in the same broad sense that Spitfires sort of look like Hurricanes or 109's. Anyone with any sort of clue knows the difference.

Perhaps in another 20 years you might have a point but who knows what will happen between now and then. Did we all think the F-16 would look the same now as it did back in 1981? I don't think anyone could have guessed what the F-16F was going to look like. Same goes for the Super Hornet. What will the F-22 or F-35 look like in 30 years time? There's already plans to put CFT's on both the Typhoon and F/A-18E/F.

But right now...off the top of my head...Gripen, Rafale, F-22, F-35, Typhoon, F-16, F-15E, F/A-18E/F, B-1, B-2, Tornado, Su-27/30/35, T-50...theres no shortage of variety. And I can't even begin to imagine what 6th gen stuff will look like.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

And I can't even begin to imagine what 6th gen stuff will look like.

Something like this I suspect:

[hythe]

Fortunately not all aircraft manufactures think the future Hi-tech and stealth!

these people still seem to have a little bit of common sense left!

http://theaviationist.com/2013/09/20/cessna-textron-scorpion/#.UkQg475wbIV

Sounds like the spiritual successor to the A-37...

[Giorgio N]

Following some of the comments here, air forces should still use biplanes.. or better, there would be no air force at all ! What can a flying machine do that can not be done better by a regiment of proper soldiers charging the enemy with bayonets on their flintlock muskets...

[Navy Bird]

Short article on the training of USAF drone pilots, who are military not civilian:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/23/us-usa-security-drones-idUSBRE93M04520130423

I like the last sentence: "It's not a video game."

Cheers,

Bill