Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless  
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 1 week 12 hours ago) and read 3091 times:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...le/2006/08/15/AR2006081501288.html


HEY! Great Idea!! I'm all for that.....but Lockheed should never forget that it is flyboys in the USAF that are going to decide this matter, and they may not like the idea.

After all, it means less jobs for them, and less influence over all.


MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
12 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 1, posted (8 years 1 week 11 hours ago) and read 3061 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Thread starter):
it is flyboys in the USAF that are going to decide this matter, and they may not like the idea.

Which opens a new question for future promotions. If the top of the heap is mostly ex-fighter jocks now; where are the future AF generals going to come from MAC?  duck 


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (8 years 1 week 7 hours ago) and read 3004 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 1):
Which opens a new question for future promotions. If the top of the heap is mostly ex-fighter jocks now; where are the future AF generals going to come from MAC

MAC is the old school name. They're now called AMC--Air Mobility Command--and belong to USTRANSCOM.

Same thing, just reshuffle the initials around.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 3, posted (8 years 1 week 5 hours ago) and read 2977 times:

Seeing that F-4 Phantoms are flying without pilots, this is not a surprise. You still need a "pilot" though.


Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (8 years 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2873 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 3):
You still need a "pilot" though.

Sort of...

Let's think about this paradigm. If you launch an ICBM with a nuclear payload at a target is there any way to stop it once it's launched? What's the diference between that and having a computer run a mission end to end? Now if you want to talk targets with limited windows and targets of opportunity, yeah someone does have have to pull the last second trigger, but if you are going after a building or a camp, there is no reason I can think of (besides using a tomahawk instead*) to not program the mission and let the technology execute.

*Which makes me wonder, why not just buy more Tomahawks?


User currently offlineMigfan From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2863 times:

Could the F-35 land by itself? As far as I know, the Global Hawk still needs a pilot to land it...

/M


User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (8 years 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2859 times:

Quoting Migfan (Reply 5):
Could the F-35 land by itself? As far as I know, the Global Hawk still needs a pilot to land it...

I don't see why not.....but the GH is meant to be a hands on a/c when it's 'local'. I would think (hope) the F-35 would need to be autoland capable manned or not.


User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 7, posted (8 years 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2849 times:

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
Sort of...

I agree, I was thinknig of the F-117 where they plan the mission in advance, program the plane, and the pilot is really just riding along to make target decisions and manage unforseen events. What I dont know is if they auto take-off and auto-land, but the plane flys by itself unless overridden.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
If you launch an ICBM

Interesting thing going on with the ICBMs, reloading them with conventional warheads. A buddy who used to be in charge of an ICBM site sais they are good to within a football field.

Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
*Which makes me wonder, why not just buy more Tomahawks?

I agree. Did you see that Navy ship proposal that was unmanned and had its deck covered from stem to stern with missile launchers? If was 'shot down" by congress but I like the idea.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (8 years 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2843 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):

I agree, I was thinknig of the F-117 where they plan the mission in advance, program the plane,

mission preplanning and programing of the weapons systems is done pre-flight in all modern combat a/c.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):


Interesting thing going on with the ICBMs, reloading them with conventional warheads. A buddy who used to be in charge of an ICBM site sais they are good to within a football field.

Bad idea in my book. An ICBM conventional warhead would be small, and most importantly, the launch of an ICBM just gives away the position of the boomer.

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 7):
Quoting TedTAce (Reply 4):
*Which makes me wonder, why not just buy more Tomahawks?

I agree. Did you see that Navy ship proposal that was unmanned and had its deck covered from stem to stern with missile launchers? If was 'shot down" by congress but I like the idea.

Amen. Or better yet, design a more stealther/faster TLAM.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineDfwRevolution From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 968 posts, RR: 51
Reply 9, posted (8 years 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2799 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
An ICBM conventional warhead would be small, and most importantly, the launch of an ICBM just gives away the position of the boomer.

Most plans call for replacing the MIRV with a single kinetic energy warhead. The sheer momentum of a solid slug of tungsten (or whatever) slamming into the target would do the damage, not a conventional explosive.

I also think that DeltaDC9 was refering to land-based ICBM sites for possible conversion to conventional missiles. Not to mention, the Ohio Class boomer is rediculously quiet and no one has submarine warfare that could seriously pose a threat to the USN. If we're affraid of using them, what's the point? We're already loading the Ohio's down with cruise missles...

The real risk IMO, is the fact that your enemy can't tell if the incoming warhead is nuclear or conventional until the moment of strike. That gives them about 15-20 minutes to decide to "use or lose" their forces, which could possibly include nuclear weapons.

I'd rather not have WWIII started because we felt it necessary to bunker bust from a continent away...


User currently offline10boomer From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 57 posts, RR: 5
Reply 10, posted (8 years 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 2789 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Thread starter):
Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

You won't catch me refueling it!



Fly Gucci
User currently offlineDeltaDC9 From United States of America, joined Apr 2006, 2844 posts, RR: 4
Reply 11, posted (8 years 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2777 times:

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
mission preplanning and programing of the weapons systems is done pre-flight in all modern combat a/c.

I was referring to preprogramming the flight path of the plane, it is "autopilot" most of the time. The pilot is just riding along until needed.

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
I also think that DeltaDC9 was refering to land-based ICBM sites for possible conversion to conventional missiles.

Exactly

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 9):
I'd rather not have WWIII started because we felt it necessary to bunker bust from a continent away...

I would think that nations in the nuclear club would be exempt.

Quoting 10boomer (Reply 10):
You won't catch me refueling it!

Which raises a good question, are unmanned missions limited by its unrefuled range?

Quoting RAPCON (Reply 8):
An ICBM conventional warhead would be small

Since an old Titan II can put 4200 pounds into orbit, I would think that enough weight can be lobbed to do some serious damage.

Modern ICBMs can lob 3 or more tons.



Dont take life too seriously because you will never get out of it alive - Bugs Bunny
User currently offlineTedTAce From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Quoting DeltaDC9 (Reply 11):
Which raises a good question, are unmanned missions limited by its unrefuled range?

A) I would be stunned if a UAV of ANY kind has gone for an a-a refueling cycle
B) If one has, it's OPSEC.

I SORT of agree on the ICBM as conventional issue. I guess the problem is: who is it being launched against? China? CWIS? Forget it, anything launched at them BETTER be a special.

Iran? Fire 'em up boys!! Though I'd REALLY like to know the cost/benefit ratio of that scenario versus a MOAB or an inert MOAB of the same weight. IE if the airspace is secure, why not dump a moab full of cement for the same effect? I'm sure it has to be cheaper then a ICBM and probably can deliver more weight to the target.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Lockheed Martin F-35 JSF Rolls Out Fully Assembled posted Wed Feb 22 2006 03:55:30 by Atmx2000
Boeing X-32 Or Lockheed Martin X-35 Will Win? posted Thu Sep 20 2001 07:17:30 by B777-777X
Lockheed F-35 JSF posted Thu Jan 19 2006 17:33:34 by KrisYYZ
Can The MIG-29 Fly Backwards? posted Thu Nov 16 2006 19:07:54 by DIJKKIJK
US Senate Approves Selling 100 F-35's To Turkey posted Thu Nov 9 2006 11:30:01 by Wing
Fighter Jet Fly-by Question posted Mon Nov 6 2006 05:37:12 by Chi-town
First To Fly The PC-21 - Singapore Air Force posted Fri Nov 3 2006 18:05:15 by Airimages
Fly In A B-17 posted Wed Oct 25 2006 21:48:24 by Borat
Lockheed Martin Studies Lunar Lander Design posted Wed Oct 11 2006 15:30:47 by AerospaceFan
F-35 Fires Up F135 Engine posted Thu Sep 21 2006 01:06:34 by MCIGuy

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format