B-21

PirateMk1 · Mar 11, 2016

RetiredUSN said:
Until computers become predictive, and they have.

There will always be pilots.

Computers can be made to not be as predictable as pilots. Pilots will be replaced simply because they cant handle the G forces the airframe can which is an impediment to the full utilization of the airframe.

Oozlefinch · Mar 14, 2016

Lord Tammerlain said:
As I understand it, the Air Force did not try to incorporate new cutting edge technology in the design but stick with already developed tech. The R&D should be fairly cheap, and easy allowing for the plane to be built for around the price and time frame announced (adjust for inflation).

If however during the development phase decisions are made to increase capability beyond the initial design then all bets are off

That is because this is evolutionary, not revolutionary.

The B-2 was a revolution when it came out, and as with any first generation aircraft it was more complex and expensive then planned. But the lessons learned from that project are going to make the going on this one much easier. This is true in everything, from battleships and aircraft carriers to missile defense systems, tanks, and conventional aircraft.

notquiteright said:
Then I can't help but wonder why an entire new air frame if it is just a follow-on... Off the top of my head I can't think of a 'new' project that didn't try to redesign the wheel. Perhaps you can think of one.

You can't?

Well, it is safe to say that every carrier built after WWII is simply an evolution and not a revolution.

Prior to WWII, most carriers were originally constructed as another vessel, then converted either during or after construction. This all changed after the war, when these conversions had all either been sunk in action, or retired at the end of the war and replaced with those specially built for the role during the war. And once the angled flight deck and CATOBAR became the standard, almost all carriers followed the same pattern.

The same with Battleships, from the end of the side blister until the last ones were built. Thick armor, three 3 gun turrets, etc, etc, etc.

Unless something is "first of a kind", almost everything that follows is simply evolutionary. Pretty much every cargo aircraft in the military can trace it's roots to the C-47. And the AC-130 of today is little more then an upgraded and improved AC-47.

Other then the F-117, B-2, F-35 and F-22, I find it hard to really think of any "revolutionary" major military equipment in the past 40 years. Not counting the low or limited production equipment that were largely experimental and never intended for large scale operational use. Like the USS Pegasus class ships. Only 6 were ever built, all but 1 only 11-12 years old (the oldest was 16 years old).

Oozlefinch · Mar 14, 2016

PirateMk1 said:
Computers can be made to not be as predictable as pilots. Pilots will be replaced simply because they cant handle the G forces the airframe can which is an impediment to the full utilization of the airframe.

And exactly how many "Gs" do you think the average bomber pilot has to pull?

You are aware that we are talking about a bomber right, and not a fighter? And no, I expect a drone bomber to happen in the same year we have 3 Decembers.

There is no way in hell we are going to place our nuclear forces under the control of a computer. No more then we will remove sailors from submarines and make then autonomous drones.

PirateMk1 · Mar 15, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
And exactly how many "Gs" do you think the average bomber pilot has to pull?

You are aware that we are talking about a bomber right, and not a fighter? And no, I expect a drone bomber to happen in the same year we have 3 Decembers.

There is no way in hell we are going to place our nuclear forces under the control of a computer. No more then we will remove sailors from submarines and make then autonomous drones.

What do you think a ballistic missile is? How about something nuclear armed, a little closer to actual aircraft, cruise missiles. We already put nuclear ordinance under computer control all the time. We push a button and boom happens several hours to several minutes. Drones are no different. One can say that drones are simply recoverable sub munitions armed advanced cruise missiles.

A low level bomber flying nap of the earth operations to further enhance and take full advantage their stealth characteristics, especially in interdiction and SEAD missions will need to pull some serious g's especially negative g's. You think a stealth bomber is going to be able to waltz into contested airspace, especially airspace with the latest and greatest detection technology. All stealth does is delay detection and solid target locks. Drones can fly lower better faster. Not knocking human pilots but drones are closing the gap quickly. Right now drones are equivalent to inexperienced average pilots with superior attention span and endurance. The gap narrows everyday.

Oozlefinch · Mar 15, 2016

PirateMk1 said:
What do you think a ballistic missile is? How about something nuclear armed, a little closer to actual aircraft, cruise missiles.

If you can't tell the difference, there is no point to even try to have this conversation.

Yea, you believe drones are the second coming, I am aware of that. However, notice how nobody in the military seems to take that seriously.

PirateMk1 · Mar 15, 2016

Oozlefinch said:
If you can't tell the difference, there is no point to even try to have this conversation.

Yea, you believe drones are the second coming, I am aware of that. However, notice how nobody in the military seems to take that seriously.

Drones are NOT the second coming. But they are and will be exceptionally important as part of a cohesive whole, to help multiply force projection mass AND velocity by orders of magnitude.

The military doesn't take anything seriously. Until they do. By the way, they do on this subject. Now. Right now. Very seriously. They have problems with shortages of operators now, which the main reason for the big push in much more automation. Drones can help multiply airframes with out multiplying crew. Instead of 1 bomber 1 crew, its 1 crew and 5 bombers.

By the way the cruise missile analogy is a good one because much of the technology that went into cruise missiles is applied and applies to drones. The Tomahawk cruise missile was outfitted in its earlier iterations for nuclear warheads and were designed to be launched from a variety of platforms including bombers and ships and attack subs. Terrain following guidance techniques and software, miniature turbines, and control actuators amongst many things that apply to drone design. Military has been working on drones of all sorts including tanks since before WWII. The current drones are simply a evolutionary iterations of previous attempts. Hell the predator and raptor platform are based on an early 80's drone recon platform from general atomics. They are actually pretty old airframe designs.
I remember my dad telling me stories from his time in the navy dealing with the wayward drones.

Oozlefinch · Mar 16, 2016

PirateMk1 said:
Drones are NOT the second coming. But they are and will be exceptionally important as part of a cohesive whole, to help multiply force projection mass AND velocity by orders of magnitude.

The military doesn't take anything seriously. Until they do. By the way, they do on this subject. Now. Right now. Very seriously. They have problems with shortages of operators now, which the main reason for the big push in much more automation. Drones can help multiply airframes with out multiplying crew. Instead of 1 bomber 1 crew, its 1 crew and 5 bombers.

By the way the cruise missile analogy is a good one because much of the technology that went into cruise missiles is applied and applies to drones. The Tomahawk cruise missile was outfitted in its earlier iterations for nuclear warheads and were designed to be launched from a variety of platforms including bombers and ships and attack subs. Terrain following guidance techniques and software, miniature turbines, and control actuators amongst many things that apply to drone design. Military has been working on drones of all sorts including tanks since before WWII. The current drones are simply a evolutionary iterations of previous attempts. Hell the predator and raptor platform are based on an early 80's drone recon platform from general atomics. They are actually pretty old airframe designs.
I remember my dad telling me stories from his time in the navy dealing with the wayward drones.

Nobody in the military takes drones very seriously, because they are not a valid replacement for piloted aircraft. Hell, if a nation like Iran can interdict the signals to one of our drones and force it down, what do you think a nation like Russia or China could do? There is a reason why the military uses them for selective targets. They are cheap, but also highly vulnerable.

And no, the technology of a cruise missile is highly different. A drone is "live control", with a real human operating it. A cruise missile is a "fire and forget" weapon, and once launched takes off on it's pre-programmed course with no further human interaction. They operate by inertial navigation, digital terrain mapping, and GPS, following a precisely pre-computed flight path with no deviations. All of these are completely different then that of a drone (other then both are flying).

And yea, drones are nothing new. But they are highly limited, to this day still mostly used for recon or special strike missions. They simply lack the ordinance for any other uses. Increase the ordinance, and you increase the size and weight. And then loose the main advantage of them being cheap. And ultimately that is one of the reasons they have been used so much lately, they are cheap. The same way that a prior President loved to use Tomahawks rather then piloted aircraft. Tomahawks had the advantage of being cheaper then a piloted aircraft, and none of the embarasment of having others show off a captured pilot (or their body).