Premier US Jet has major shortcomings

[LTC8K6]

Assertion: The airplane is proving very expensive to operate with a cost per flying hour far higher than for the warplane it replaces, the F-15.

Facts: USAF data shows that in 2008 the F-22 costs $44K per flying hour and the F-15 costs $30K per flying hour. But it is important to recognize the F-22 flight hour costs include base standup and other one-time costs associated with deploying a new weapon system. The F-15 is mature and does not have these same non-recurring costs. A more valid comparison is variable cost per flying hour, which for the F-22 in 2008 was $19K while for the F-15 was $17K.

Assertion: The F-22 has never been flown over Iraq or Afghanistan.

Facts: The F-22 was declared operational in 2005, after air dominance was achieved in the South West Asian Theater of conflict. Due to the absence of air-to-air or surface-to-air threats in these two theaters, stealthy air dominance assets were not an imperative.

 

[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.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

Lets scrap the only airframe we have that other countries won't have access to, barring spying obviously, for easily 10-15 years until we can design another airframe.

Both the F22 and F35 are the production versions of programs that started in the 90's. It took 10-15 years before these jets hit production runs. I don't know about you, but personally I'm in the camp of wanting to have a technological edge in addition to better quality pilots/mechanics.

Keep the F22.

 

[Moonbeam]

The future of warfare is in computer games like Mech Warrior where countries will vie with each other to destroy each other without destroying property values on the ground. Victory will be about bragging rights and the bad guys will resort to gold farming.

 

[dphantom]

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 is correct. It was a realistic war fighting test in that our most likely potential adversaries do not have a similar AWACs capability. So essentially, our side is shooting blind mice.

 

[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....

 

[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.

 

[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 Eagles were unable to spot the Raptors is an enormous boost to the argument in favor of the Raptors. The Eagle, bless its aluminum heart, is no longer unmatched in the sky by the latest from Sukhoi, and we shouldn't aim for parity. The goal is air dominance, not air superiority.

 

[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

 

[AndrewR]

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

As someone pointed out above, it's not 20-1 but more like 5-1. Regardless of the number, though, there is a lot more to consider than the cost of the aircraft. For each aircraft, you have to train a pilot and maintain facilities for equipping, maintaining, and supplying the aircraft. All of those functions require people -- maintenance, POL (fuels and lubricants), ammo, communications, intelligence, etc.

So, for every squadron of F-22s, you want to equip 5-6 squadrons of F-16s? Over the mere number of people, you're talking about an additional air base to house all those aircraft and to operate safely -- greater footprint, many more support personnel. Plus, with 5-6x more aircraft, you need that many more aerial refuelers (more bases!) and controllers to coordinate all that activity. Since our aircraft always operate with electronic warfare support, you have to add 5-6x more of those aircraft, which are in chronically short supply to begin with.

Given that one of the biggest cost factors in military budgeting these days is personnel costs, the money you save with a cheaper airframe is quickly erased over a lifecycle cost if you procure more aircraft than the more expensive airframe. Obviously there's a limit, and you can't have a single point of failure. However, we simply cannot afford to maintain huge numbers of people anymore.

Lastly, your assertion that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority, while not flawed, sidesteps the fact that technological advantage when combined with skill is unstoppable. American pilots are at or near the pinnacle of proficiency when considered as a group because of the rigorous training and regular flight hours they receive. Other militaries are seeing the benefit of such training and are incorporating it into their regimens. There's the parity you mentioned. If we then throw the technological advantage of the F-22 into the equation, we win. Referencing the F-22/F-15 exercise, you cannot kill what you cannot see, and the first to see generally wins. That "seeing" part falls squarely into the realm of technological advantage.

 

[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.

 

[dphantom]

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.

You have any experience in the development of such AI systems that could defeat a man-based weapon system to support your claims?

 

[Mani]

Originally posted by: KMFJD


It's not every day that a president threatens to veto his own defense spending bill.

But that's the rare position President Obama finds himself taking after senators made an 11th hour addition of $1.75 billion to buy seven F-22 fighter jets whose price tag has ballooned to about $350 million apiece.

The fifth generation fighter jet has been overtaken by the newer F-35, critics argue, and Obama wants to keep with the recommendation of former President George W. Bush and cap the purchase at 187 jets.

The president's not alone in opposing the change. He's also got the Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Service Committee, Sen. Carl Levin, and his former GOP rival Sen. John McCain -- a war hero himself -- on his side.

But with jobs on the line, other senators are putting up a fight for the F-22.

Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga., whose state would lose at least 2,000 jobs should the cap be imposed, pushed for the seven extra F-22's to be built.

"While the administration is emphasizing winning current conflicts, its stance regarding the F-22 does not adequately account for other kinds of threats," Chambliss said.

But the F-22 requires 30 hours of maintenance for every hour of flying time and costs the taxpayer about $44,000 an hour to fly, according to confidential Pentagon test results.

"This plane has never flown over Iraq or Afghanistan -- the two wars that we are in," McCain said.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote to senators Monday to express their dismay at the 11th hour addition.

"We strongly believe that the time has come to close the F-22 production line. If the Congress sends legislation to the president that requires acquisition of additional F-22 aircraft beyond fiscal year 2009, the secretary of defense will strongly recommend he veto it," the letter said.

Gates earlier said the insertion of more money, into the already $680 billion defense budget, for F-22s posed a "big problem" for him.

Analysts say it would be unprecedented for a defense secretary and chairman of the Joint Chiefs to urge the president to veto their own defense bill.

But they, and Obama, have made clear that they view such expenditures as wasteful.

"We do not need these planes. That is why I will veto any bill that supports acquisition of F-22s beyond the 187 already funded by Congress," Obama said in a letter Monday to senators. Source

[/b]

Yet more proof that republicans don't oppose government spending - they just oppose it when it's not theirs.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: dphantom

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.

You have any experience in the development of such AI systems that could defeat a man-based weapon system to support your claims?

Fire and forget missiles, hello?

 

[0marTheZealot]

Originally posted by: AndrewR

Originally posted by: 0marTheZealot
I've read accounts that these new fangled jets are a step back from where we should be going. Air battles are about to reach a level of parity not seen since WW2 because nations are close to developing jets on par with the F-16 and F-18. This means that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority. The F-22 is a step back because you can field 20 F-16s for the price of one F-22. It was an interesting read, coming from a retired Air Force colonel I believe it was.

As someone pointed out above, it's not 20-1 but more like 5-1. Regardless of the number, though, there is a lot more to consider than the cost of the aircraft. For each aircraft, you have to train a pilot and maintain facilities for equipping, maintaining, and supplying the aircraft. All of those functions require people -- maintenance, POL (fuels and lubricants), ammo, communications, intelligence, etc.

So, for every squadron of F-22s, you want to equip 5-6 squadrons of F-16s? Over the mere number of people, you're talking about an additional air base to house all those aircraft and to operate safely -- greater footprint, many more support personnel. Plus, with 5-6x more aircraft, you need that many more aerial refuelers (more bases!) and controllers to coordinate all that activity. Since our aircraft always operate with electronic warfare support, you have to add 5-6x more of those aircraft, which are in chronically short supply to begin with.

Given that one of the biggest cost factors in military budgeting these days is personnel costs, the money you save with a cheaper airframe is quickly erased over a lifecycle cost if you procure more aircraft than the more expensive airframe. Obviously there's a limit, and you can't have a single point of failure. However, we simply cannot afford to maintain huge numbers of people anymore.

Lastly, your assertion that skill and not technological advantage will be responsible for air superiority, while not flawed, sidesteps the fact that technological advantage when combined with skill is unstoppable. American pilots are at or near the pinnacle of proficiency when considered as a group because of the rigorous training and regular flight hours they receive. Other militaries are seeing the benefit of such training and are incorporating it into their regimens. There's the parity you mentioned. If we then throw the technological advantage of the F-22 into the equation, we win. Referencing the F-22/F-15 exercise, you cannot kill what you cannot see, and the first to see generally wins. That "seeing" part falls squarely into the realm of technological advantage.

Like I said, I was just relaying information I read based on what an Air Force colonel (I believe it was) wrote in a magazine. I make no such assertations on the F-22's efficiency or lack of.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: dphantom

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.

You have any experience in the development of such AI systems that could defeat a man-based weapon system to support your claims?

I think he saw Terminator a few weeks ago. No other experience is necessary.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: dphantom

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

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.

You have any experience in the development of such AI systems that could defeat a man-based weapon system to support your claims?

Fire and forget missiles, hello?

Ah, guidance systems does not equal to AI.

 

[dphantom]

Originally posted by: JeepinEd

Originally posted by: dphantom

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.

You have any experience in the development of such AI systems that could defeat a man-based weapon system to support your claims?

No, but I think he saw Terminator a few weeks ago.

Evidently. You'd think high schoolers (or what amounts to one) would know the difference between AI and guidance packages.

 

[CrimsonWolf]

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.

:laugh:

 

[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.

 

[Arkaign]

Originally posted by: dphantom

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 is correct. It was a realistic war fighting test in that our most likely potential adversaries do not have a similar AWACs capability. So essentially, our side is shooting blind mice.

That is also identical if we had swapped the planes. The F22 is not a full stealth aircraft, and it would be found by US Navy radar or AWACS if the roles were reversed in the test. F15 with AWACS & Ground Control/Radar, F22 with nothing.

Cooked-up test FTL.

 

[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?

 

[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.

 

[Arkaign]

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.

There's actually not that much involved in air combat. Yes, humans have pretty much got it mastered, but unfortunately they are also pretty fragile, and require a lot of systems to keep them alive and connected. Those systems add weight and take up valuable space, and the limitations of the human body severely limit the turning abilities of aircraft. Free of the human component, even the airframe of an F16 can withstand turns that would cause death if a human were present.

As for the AI element, applying it to an aircraft would be one of the easiest elements. It's not even proper AI, it's just setting rules and having the computer able to follow mission parameters. You're not going to be asking the computer if it likes the color of the sky, merely to advance to a target, avoid enemy projectiles and weapons, and to destroy the requested target.

With a properly focused program, it should be less than a decade from concept to reality.

 

[JeepinEd]

Originally posted by: Arkaign

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.

There's actually not that much involved in air combat. Yes, humans have pretty much got it mastered, but unfortunately they are also pretty fragile, and require a lot of systems to keep them alive and connected. Those systems add weight and take up valuable space, and the limitations of the human body severely limit the turning abilities of aircraft. Free of the human component, even the airframe of an F16 can withstand turns that would cause death if a human were present.

As for the AI element, applying it to an aircraft would be one of the easiest elements. It's not even proper AI, it's just setting rules and having the computer able to follow mission parameters. You're not going to be asking the computer if it likes the color of the sky, merely to advance to a target, avoid enemy projectiles and weapons, and to destroy the requested target.

With a properly focused program, it should be less than a decade from concept to reality.

Things never go as planned.
Unless you have an AI program that can take unforeseen events and come up with a new plan on the spot, it won't do much good. I can see robotic bombers, which are programmed to reach a destination and drop it's payload, but an AI program than can simulate the thought process and gut instinct of an ace fighter pilot is a whole other ball game.

Unless I'm mistaken, there is also something in the Geneva Convention, which prohibits automated machines from making the decision of whether or not to shoot.