Forum: Air Power

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

The F-22A bomber role has been discussed before, but the idea I will share also appies to the F-35 A and C (not the B variant while is developed a STOL UCAV).

Why to use those figthers as bomber if you have UCAV (stealth ucavs also), if you need to do a deepstrike the best way to doit is to put enough bombs on ucavs and use an F-22A or an F-35 as sensor plataform/ucav control/Escort patrol. if you put all these capabilites in a single plane (as the FB-22) you don't have the best chances only more less efficient planes.

As I see the ground attack capability on those planes is an outdated focus on the attack role, we don't need a B-3 os FB-22 o B-1R, what we need are more ucavs as the X-45 and bigger/faster ucavs (for fast deepstrike) by far cheaper to develope than a specilized bomber -coz no crew support rq, optimized aerodynamics and less sensors rq coz the ucav is only a delivery platform, the sensors must be on the Command/Scort plane-, and of course more F-22A/F35 specilized as Interceptors/Scorts/Reconinsance/Ucav's C&C.

A deep strike mission could be done this way (with more succes chance):
An F-22A loaded with Amraams and extra fuel on internal bays only followed by two or more X-45s (or something like a supersonic X-45), The F-22A finds the target and program the UCAVS to atack it (using JDAMS) with different target approach routes also, the after the attack the F-22 will provide the scort until the group reach safe sky, simple, flexible and more effective AND CHEAPER.

Why pentagon guys are so focused on old tactics?

-Sorry by my english I'm not fluently-

P.D. Kick the Hugo Chavez a$$ for me ...

F-16.net Sponsor

People fear change. When we switched to unstable aircraft and fly-by-wire everyone predicted F-16s falling from the sky all over the world, killing people when they landed. Now we see what became of that prophecy...
That said, UCAVs are coming but their reliability is in question. That and cost. Before people will accept them the price, and capability will have to improve a fair amount. Or else, they won't be good enough to gain acceptance.
And sadly enough there are people in the Pentagon whose interest is not in doing the best thing for their country, but in doing the best thing for their job. People like that will try not to allow UCAVs into service because they will become unpopular or they won't get promoted for doing it.
We'll have widespread UCAVs someday, but that day is not today.

The whole issue is much simpler IMHO.
UCAVS are not ready yet, they're still too dumb. Of course, this will change with time.
Making the Raptor able to drop bombs costed just a small fraction of its R&D price tag, so why not?
Just look how much BVR technology took to mature. If you have 2 UCAVS in tests it doesn't mean that you can throw them in combat in a few years!

Too dumb? Then why not just have a guy fly it from some kind of sim?

I don't see how a UCAV operator can have the situational awareness of a pilot in a cockpit.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

IMHO, to add the bomber role to the F-22A cost near twice the F-22A R&D costs.

Already ucavs are more combat ready than many people can imagine, also many Figthers/bombers are mere Piloted Ucavs (the B-2A spirit is the best sample, at the moment no crew touch a button after t.o. on any B-2A's Mission), thats nothing new, except that the UCAVs t.o. and land w/o a pilot inside, then all the raid is exactly the same (unless you have also the recoinsance role).

About the situaional awareness, if you know the current smart weapons tactics, you must to know that many times the plane that drop the bombs isn't the plane that targeted/control that bomb (usually is an recoinsance plane or another plane on the wing assuming that role), also the Predator's are a good example.

I Agree with LWF in most of his points.

VMF-214 wrote:

Quote:

IMHO, to add the bomber role to the F-22A cost near twice the F-22A R&D costs.

That's a grose exaggeration. Think what they did to add to the F-22 the capability to launch JDAMS:
-a new pylon in the weapons bay
-extra wireing
-some electronic devices
-necesarry software
-a number of tests

So how in the world can you pretend that a mere adaptation could cost TWICE as much as the research and development costs of a plane???
I'd love to see your source for that statement...other than your imagination.

sure you could argue that dropping a jdam or even a lgb doesnt require a whole ton of expertise, but thats not what the pilot is in the cockpit for. Dropping a bomb most of the time is the easy part, the hard part is getting to the target. A guy flying a UCAV cant see an untargeted guy flying up from a valley, he cant check leads 6, and he cant call break turns on sams...thats where the pilot comes in, he's not needed for the expected, he's needed for the unexpected...

Active Member Joined: May 23, 2006 - 03:25 PM Posts: 101

Just a thought..

I really cannot see how the US need for 1700+ F35 will persist through the mid 2020's , wher the the end of F35 production is currently forseen, considering the current speed of evolution in heuristic software automation and computer speed which will make the concept of UCAV's in A2G and SEAD very attractive very soon. One could argue that just like the ATF (F22) and the LHX programme, the JSF programme runs too slow to exploit the potential of its initial specifications. The F22 programm produced the world's ultimate fighter... 10 years than the initially projected dates for IOC of the ATF. The much needed LHX was (unthoughtfully in my opinion) cancelled being 10 years overdue too. The JSF programm will provide the most capable attack aircraft off its time (with less delay than its original scope) however this too originates from ColdWar specifications after post-ColdWar budget cuts with excessive compromise (being 'Joint" and all) resulting in so much technological risk and so prolonged a development phase that only the export and STOVL market will justify its existence after 2015, when it will finally come to life. But that's just an argument.

I am wondering what would happen if the F22 programme came in fruition as a 50-airframe per year 2006-2020 project with an estimated cost per unit well below its current fly-away of 170 million, providing helical development potential as both an Air Dominance fighter as well as a precision strike penetrator and an UCAV 'mother". Block 60/ AESA and derivatives could easily fill the void in USAF's high/low mix until the first operational swarms of UCAV's could take over.

The US and Royal Navies do need a JSF-type a/c, however if they were able to develop the aircraft with less compromise (less "jointness") they would propbably have come up with something or somethings less expensive, more capable and less overdue.

clown_shoes wrote:

sure you could argue that dropping a jdam or even a lgb doesnt require a whole ton of expertise, but thats not what the pilot is in the cockpit for. Dropping a bomb most of the time is the easy part, the hard part is getting to the target. A guy flying a UCAV cant see an untargeted guy flying up from a valley, he cant check leads 6, and he cant call break turns on sams...thats where the pilot comes in, he's not needed for the expected, he's needed for the unexpected...

But assuming hi rez cameras could be installed to give the guy a cockpit environmen..... I mean, why wouldn't it work?

Shonuff wrote:

clown_shoes wrote:

sure you could argue that dropping a jdam or even a lgb doesnt require a whole ton of expertise, but thats not what the pilot is in the cockpit for. Dropping a bomb most of the time is the easy part, the hard part is getting to the target. A guy flying a UCAV cant see an untargeted guy flying up from a valley, he cant check leads 6, and he cant call break turns on sams...thats where the pilot comes in, he's not needed for the expected, he's needed for the unexpected...

But assuming hi rez cameras could be installed to give the guy a cockpit environmen..... I mean, why wouldn't it work?

There still won't be the situational awareness.

why not?

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

If you are familiar with JDAM release tactics and procedures, you will know that situational awareness means only precission GPS Coordinates, when X-45 ucavs release JDAMs the only thing the opertaor need to know about the target are the GPS coordinates provided by the intelligence or the surveilance planes.

W.O. Ucavs most JDAMs attacs ar done with the following procedure (supposing two bombers with the same surveilance equipment and weapons): the first plane flying 1-2 km away its partner locates the target, then passes the coordinates to its partner which releases all their load on the target, then on a second pass (if required) the unloaded partener looks for targets and passes the coordinates to the first (now behind), this way there is more chance to succefully attack the enemi.

This tactic is also usual when the partner is a Bone or a Buff too high to look on the targes, then smaller/faster low fliying recoinsance plane have the work to find that magic precission GPS coordinaes.

Dropping LGB's is not as easy as you might think. It requires a lot of target area study and knowing how to effectively setup/work the targeting pod. Its especially difficult in an urban environment. Now start adding weather were you can't see the target through the clouds and only have limited opportunities to ID the target, track it and work the attack so there are no clouds in field of view when the laser is firing. I'd imagine this would be pretty tough looking through just a targeting pod or onboard camera. You need to be able to see the big picture.

Now lets look at the proposed advantages of UAV/UCAVs.
- Pilotless, no risk other than financial
- Cheaper than pilot a/c
- Potentially high G limits/better maneuverability

Drawbacks
- No pilot big picture
- No self defense capability
- No PILOT

So what is it a pilot brings to the fight? Determination to stay alive. Pilots spend a lot of time studying threats and tactics to ensure survivability. If you have just an operator hitting a target you more than likely will not get the same level of performanc.

As for the benefits to UAV's let me dismiss those.

No pilot. - Pilots know the risk they exposing themselves to and accept it. We love our job and country and are willng to take that risk to do our job. If we're willing to risk it to have the best job on earth so should the decision makers.

Cheap cost - If UAV's are going to be assumable to being lost the overall cost of losing a lot of these things is not worth it. How many jets have we lost in the last 3 conflicts?

Potential for high maneuverability - There is no need for this because current UAV's will not survive a visual engagement. There is no way for a reconn camera to give the "operator" enough SA to win the fight.

Other drawbacks to UAVs is ECM. The possibility of radio interference even if small, is still there. What happens if 24 UAV's each carrying 6 JDAM just go down over Pakistan while enroute to Iran or some other target. Now a unknown country has 144 JDAMs to sell or reverse engineer. Not to mention the fact that 144 DMPI's all went untargeted.

UAV's have a place. UCAV's don't. That's just a fighter pilot talking but no fighter pilot wants to lose their job to a frickin robot. As long as there are pilots in ranks there will be manned aircraft. I don't care if its the smart decision or not, its the right decision.

Enthusiast Joined: Nov 21, 2005 - 12:24 AM Posts: 65

Magnum, I knew your feelings about UCAVs but you have a missconception of the UCAV system.

First, No UCAV is FULLY autonomus, is only a weapons mule, the ucav mission is to transport the weapons to where it must be released, to where? simple to where the intelligence gps coodfinates needs or to where the command/recon plane located and marked the targets -allways a human is on the red button, this human could be an F-22 Pilot or a WSO or a commander on an AWACS-, the SAM treats are bits of data on their databse just loaded before t/o, another question are radio-emissions and stealth, all UCAVs working as wapons mule dont TX any data they only ear the RF channels assigned to its controller (in ground or in a recon plane or ucav), also ucav are much smaller and are much easier to provide with stealth capabilities.

The question is about the bomber role of the F-22/35s, is outdated.

(Seems you saw the STEALTH movie, there is a lot of time to see an fully autonomus ucav).

Did you knew that a very succefull SUICIDE ucav has been used a lot?: The AGM missile Tomahawk, which is in fact a non reusable-suicide UCAV.

If you're a fighter pilot enjoy your work, maybe you'll be the last generation of fighter pilots.

P.D. I read some where about an MQ-9 loaded with Amraams to serve as scort of AWACS -the predator function is to release the AIM-120 enoug close to defeat an incoming threat, also navy carriers study the same tactic-.

Forum: Air Power

F-22A and F-35A/C bomber roles obsolete/unjustified?