RAPCON
Topic Author
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Wed Aug 16, 2006 9:44 pm

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!!!
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Wed Aug 16, 2006 11:12 pm

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 
This space intentionally left blank
 
RAPCON
Topic Author
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Thu Aug 17, 2006 3:00 am

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!!!
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Thu Aug 17, 2006 5:02 am

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
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Thu Aug 17, 2006 10:59 pm

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?
This space intentionally left blank
 
MigFan
Posts: 710
Joined: Sun Jan 29, 2006 12:50 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Thu Aug 17, 2006 11:55 pm

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

/M
UH-60's suck!!!
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 12:27 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:10 am

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
 
RAPCON
Topic Author
Posts: 651
Joined: Mon Jul 03, 2006 7:20 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 1:28 am

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!!!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8572
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:37 am

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...
 
10boomer
Posts: 93
Joined: Fri Dec 23, 2005 2:43 pm

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 5:11 am

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

You won't catch me refueling it!
Fly Gucci
 
deltadc9
Posts: 2788
Joined: Fri Apr 14, 2006 10:00 pm

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 6:00 am

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
 
TedTAce
Posts: 9098
Joined: Sun Mar 27, 2005 12:31 am

RE: Lockheed Says F-35 Could Fly Pilotless

Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:09 am

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.
This space intentionally left blank

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AERTANK and 10 guests