Even some republicans are against keeping the F22
Kalyan Rachakonda previously banned as GeneralGrievous, lordtyranus, zendari, winnar111, etc.
Kalyan Rachakonda
36 Caroline Drive
Hopewell Township, NJ 08525
(609) 333-0411
Originally posted by: BarrySotero
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?
No - he cut 2 billion form missile defense as well (like was sent to Hawaii because of North Korea). It was a tough call for the chairman "humm missile defense or ACORN....missile defense or ACORN - I know I'll cut missile defense!"
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: AndrewR
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
Do you have any references for those engagements? I don't doubt your recitation of the circumstances, but I'm not familiar with the exercise in detail (remember reading some fluff about it but that's all). Do you know offhand what radar the Eagles were using or which unit was flying them?
Also, more modern radars can be designed/used in such a way as to preclude detection by RWR gear or other passive detectors. Not saying that's what happened, but it's something to consider.
Regardless, the fact that the EaglesFnd we shouldn't aim for parity. The goal is air dominance, not air superiority.
I do not know what radars were in the Eagles or where the engagement took place. The information was via Red Flag scuttlebut from Nellis. The talkers were the ground controllers, not the Eagle drivers.
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Originally posted by: senseamp
You can laugh, but even the current drones have great degree of autonomy, and the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on this F-22 boondoggle are many times over the annual R&D budget of Silicon Valley companies. You are going to tell me all this R&D could not have gotten good enough AI to win an air-air fight with a 5:1 or 10:1 numerical advantage and ability to pull many more G's than a human could without worrying about pilot safety?
As of now, Yes.
Regardless of what you have seen in the movies, AI is still in it's infancy.
For it to be able to engage a human opponent in a dog fight, you would need a level of AI and computing power that is probably decades away from being developed.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
That may be, however wouldnt that simulate how these would be used in combat against other nations?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Originally posted by: senseamp
These are dodo birds. Drones are the future of military aviation. Every penny we spend on the F-22 just keeps us stuck in the past. That's money we should be spending on developing new drones. F-22 is a giant welfare program, just like Space Shuttle, ( and just like our healthcare system.) Basically designed to funnel maximum amount of money out of Americans' pockets.
That is until the enemy figures out a way to jam the signals & take out our satellites. Then we have no planes or trained pilots. But we saved a bunch of money....
AI can fly those planes too when out of signal reception.
So our AI so advanced that it can actually perform air to air combat all on it's own?
I'm impressed
With a fraction of the cost of making F-22, we could bring it to that level or above.
Plus with a 10-1 numerical advantage over an F-22 due to cost, it doesn't have to be all that smart.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
That may be, however wouldnt that simulate how these would be used in combat against other nations?
Russia has AWACS, as does China.
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Originally posted by: senseamp
These are dodo birds. Drones are the future of military aviation. Every penny we spend on the F-22 just keeps us stuck in the past. That's money we should be spending on developing new drones. F-22 is a giant welfare program, just like Space Shuttle, ( and just like our healthcare system.) Basically designed to funnel maximum amount of money out of Americans' pockets.
That is until the enemy figures out a way to jam the signals & take out our satellites. Then we have no planes or trained pilots. But we saved a bunch of money....
AI can fly those planes too when out of signal reception.
So our AI so advanced that it can actually perform air to air combat all on it's own?
I'm impressed
With a fraction of the cost of making F-22, we could bring it to that level or above.
Plus with a 10-1 numerical advantage over an F-22 due to cost, it doesn't have to be all that smart.
Yeah.....ignore that it took several years at the annual attempt to have a robot drive a truck down a relatively simple course, cause our buddy here says not to worry we'll have jets flying themselves next week.
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
That may be, however wouldnt that simulate how these would be used in combat against other nations?
Russia has AWACS, as does China.
And you expect them to find F-22s? In this case AWACS was used in an offensive fashion. It allowed the F-22s to not turn on their radar until they had to shoot according to Engineer. The radar on the other planes were unable to find the F-22s on their own until it was too late.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
That may be, however wouldnt that simulate how these would be used in combat against other nations?
Russia has AWACS, as does China.
Originally posted by: Fear No Evil
Its amazing that this is the ONE thing Obama can cut from the budget. There isn't a SINGLE PENNY of waste anywhere else in government. THIS is the only thing that he is against. I wonder if the plane was built by UAW if that would change his mind?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.
Bad analogy. Flying is not easier than driving; the sparsity of terrain obstacles and reduced traffic are offset by the need to maintain three dimensional surveillance of airspace, the attention requirements of avionics equipment (communications, navigation, weather reporting, etc.), and the necessity of maintaining attitude control. When's the last time you had to worry about holding a specific altitude in your car while trying to spot another automobile that might be descending into your path? Autopilots reduce the pilot workload, freeing him to concentrate on more than just keeping the aircraft straight and level and they reduce the physical fatigue of flight, they don't fly the plane.
I wasn't disagreeing on the value of drones, I was just commenting on your analogy.Originally posted by: senseamp
I disagree with your assessment that it's not easier than driving from AI point of view. But even if it was harder, I'd rather take my chances with Moore's law, which says that in the years it took to develop F-22 the computational ability increased several orders of magnitude, instead of plowing most of my budget into a program that is going to take decades and may or may not be relevant when completed. Put even a fraction of the amount of money spent on F-22 into AI research instead of spreading it to politically favored contractors, and you are going to be better off with drones than F-22 in a much shorter time.Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.
Bad analogy. Flying is not easier than driving; the sparsity of terrain obstacles and reduced traffic are offset by the need to maintain three dimensional surveillance of airspace, the attention requirements of avionics equipment (communications, navigation, weather reporting, etc.), and the necessity of maintaining attitude control. When's the last time you had to worry about holding a specific altitude in your car while trying to spot another automobile that might be descending into your path? Autopilots reduce the pilot workload, freeing him to concentrate on more than just keeping the aircraft straight and level and they reduce the physical fatigue of flight, they don't fly the plane.
I disagree with your assessment that it's not easier than driving from AI point of view. But even if it was harder, I'd rather take my chances with Moore's law, which says that in the years it took to develop F-22 the computational ability increased several orders of magnitude, instead of plowing most of my budget into a program that is going to take decades and may or may not be relevant when completed. Put even a fraction of the amount of money spent on F-22 into AI research instead of spreading it to politically favored contractors, and you are going to be better off with drones than F-22 in a much shorter time.
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
I wasn't disagreeing on the value of drones, I was just commenting on your analogy.Originally posted by: senseamp
I disagree with your assessment that it's not easier than driving from AI point of view. But even if it was harder, I'd rather take my chances with Moore's law, which says that in the years it took to develop F-22 the computational ability increased several orders of magnitude, instead of plowing most of my budget into a program that is going to take decades and may or may not be relevant when completed. Put even a fraction of the amount of money spent on F-22 into AI research instead of spreading it to politically favored contractors, and you are going to be better off with drones than F-22 in a much shorter time.Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
...
At this point, however, I would put more emphasis on remotely piloted drones with multiple discrete communications options to reduce the hazard of jamming, and limit "AI" to a safe holding routine in case of control dropout. Just the old technician musing...
"Boots on the Ground" resolve conflicts, air power alone cannot. Drones eliminate only one source of potential casualties.Originally posted by: JeepinEd
While on the surface, remotely piloted drones seem like a great idea, I have some reservations.
First, if we don't have to worry about losing lives, would this make us more prone to resolving conflicts by force?
While I'm not familiar with the type of technology used to communicate with drones, what happens if a spy or another nations manages to hack the communications "key" for lack of a better word? Could they then take control of the drones, or render them useless?
I'm also curious,
I understand that without a pilot, a drone would be able to outperform any current aircraft, but what kind of "Lag" do they have? In other words, what is the time span between the time the video feed from the drone reaches the operator and the operators response reaches the drone? Especially if the operator is thousands of miles away.
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
"Boots on the Ground" resolve conflicts, air power alone cannot. Drones eliminate only one source of potential casualties.Originally posted by: JeepinEd
While on the surface, remotely piloted drones seem like a great idea, I have some reservations.
First, if we don't have to worry about losing lives, would this make us more prone to resolving conflicts by force?
While I'm not familiar with the type of technology used to communicate with drones, what happens if a spy or another nations manages to hack the communications "key" for lack of a better word? Could they then take control of the drones, or render them useless?
I'm also curious,
I understand that without a pilot, a drone would be able to outperform any current aircraft, but what kind of "Lag" do they have? In other words, what is the time span between the time the video feed from the drone reaches the operator and the operators response reaches the drone? Especially if the operator is thousands of miles away.
Spread Spectrum communications and control encryption make it extremely unlikely that control of the drone could ever be seized; the primary worry is control interruption through broad spectrum jamming, hence the safe "holding pattern" or fly home routine in case of such interruption.
The time lag of "thousands of miles" is negligible at lightspeed.
Relays don't have to be at orbital altitude; drones can relay to drones in a flexible ad hoc network, which can minimize the number of nodes between control and priority mission drones and minimize control lag.Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Interesting.
I understand that the signal travels at the speed of light, but doesn't it have to go through several relays before it reaches the operator? If we're just relying on a satellite as the relay point, the US and China have proven how easy it is to take them out.
As far as broad spectrum jamming, this goes back to my point of having piloted aircraft. In a time of war, do we want all our fighters to suddenly decide they're going home because the enemy has figured out a way to jam communications?
I am a big fan of technology, but I think there is a point where you can become overly reliant on it. A better balance would be High tech manned fighters, such as the F-22 in conjunction with remotely operated drones.
Originally posted by: CallMeJoe
Relays don't have to be at orbital altitude; drones can relay to drones in a flexible ad hoc network, which can minimize the number of nodes between control and priority mission drones and minimize control lag.Originally posted by: JeepinEd
Interesting.
I understand that the signal travels at the speed of light, but doesn't it have to go through several relays before it reaches the operator? If we're just relying on a satellite as the relay point, the US and China have proven how easy it is to take them out.
As far as broad spectrum jamming, this goes back to my point of having piloted aircraft. In a time of war, do we want all our fighters to suddenly decide they're going home because the enemy has figured out a way to jam communications?
I am a big fan of technology, but I think there is a point where you can become overly reliant on it. A better balance would be High tech manned fighters, such as the F-22 in conjunction with remotely operated drones.
If the enemy figures out an effective to jam communications on the modern battlefield, our AWACS reliant F-22s would also be inhibited.
And Bingo! Drones (in the near future) can be an effective front line weapon, backed by manned aircraft. Improving technology will allow increasing reliance on drones, as manned aircraft become less and less a front-line option and more a close-control platform for particularly critical missions.
In the Not-So-Humble opinion of the old technician...
edit: change of time frame in final paragraph.
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: senseamp
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: EagleKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
...
Well F-22s wont fly solo. In the trials a pair of F-22s took out 8 F-15s before the F-15s even knew they were in the area. A flight of 4 could theoretically kill 16. I guess what I am saying is what does it matter if this thing is so dominant the worlds best is destroyed before it even knows it is there? At that rate the only thing holding the F-22 back is its weapon load.
Realize that the F22 had AWACS & ground control support.
The Raptors did not have to activate their radar until time to fire.
The Eagles had to rely on their own radar to find the Raptors and were unable to because of the stealth characteristics and lack of radar use for radiance detection.
The engagement was rigged in favor of the F22 to demonstrate how well it could work with the AWACS.
That may be, however wouldnt that simulate how these would be used in combat against other nations?
Russia has AWACS, as does China.
And you expect them to find F-22s? In this case AWACS was used in an offensive fashion. It allowed the F-22s to not turn on their radar until they had to shoot according to Engineer. The radar on the other planes were unable to find the F-22s on their own until it was too late.
Well, you are assuming Russians or Chinese are only going to use fighter plane radars, and not AWACS and ground radar in combat?
Originally posted by: senseamp
Flying is easier that driving, there are no obstacles to go around in the air, that's why we have auto-pilot, but no auto-driver. Also, if we keep plowing money into ineffective/defective programs like F-22 instead of AI research, we'll be stuck with 25 year old technology, and give our enemies an opportunity to catch up to us on the cheap using modern technologies. Look at space shuttle, we plowed so much money into it and maintenance of it that we had nothing left for other space vehicles, and now often have to hitch a ride on Soyuz to get to the ISS.