"U.S. Air Force Wants Low-Cost, Disposable Warplanes" Topic

"The U.S. Air Force is planning to field low-cost, unmanned "disposable" warplanes in the near future, designed to complement manned aircraft in the aerial battlefield. Unmanned aircraft can be purchased in greater numbers, growing the size of the Air Force's tactical aircraft fleets, and can be sent on missions too hazardous for manned aircraft…"

Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

'Cause the advent and study of advanced weapons like actual combat lasers, railguns, hypervelocity rounds/missiles, and such are beginning the end of the manned aircraft force….

The sheer cost in resources to maintain much less field the Air Force is a serious issue. With the ever shrinking manning pool and the lack of upgrades….

Yeah, the future force is seriously the other direction from what it looks like now. The only people not listening to Captain Obvious are the people making the decisions. So no decision is made and the result is a force that gets older by the minute supported on toothpick platforms of infrastructure with a tightening budget focused on high-tech it can't afford (looking at you F22 and F35) that it doesn't want to admit are looking redundant and largely obsolete.

'unmanned "disposable" warplanes' = drones

To say "unmanned" is a little bit of a misnomer. Somewhere, someone is flying the drone. The Air Force calls its drones RPA's (remotely piloted aircraft). But yes, you are fundamentally correct.

Agree!… but the article speak about real planes….

Amicalement
Armand

What is a "real plane"?

Drones come in all shapes and sizes and operate based on aerodynamic principals. Wing spans range from just a few inches to over a hundred feet. Larger drones like the RQ-4 Global Hawk are remotely flown by real Air Force pilots. I guess my point is that drones are real planes flown by real pilots. Maybe at some point in the future Artificial Intelligence will play a role. The cost savings are many fold when you take the human out of the cockpit and fly the aircraft remotely.

A Predator is only the size of a Cessna, that's barely a 'real airplane'.

If we were hanging weapons on a Global Hawk or similar, then we'd be talking about what I think the USAF is trying to do.

Why is a Cessna "barely a real airplane"? I'm missing your point. What does size have to do with how you define what an airplane is? I think something is being lost in translation.

Back in the 80's there was a proposal to use a vast armada of semi ultra light aircraft, each to carry a couple of rocket pods, to overwhelm enemy defenses. Cheap to build, maintain, low radar signature and easy to teach a person to fly, the only downside was where were you going to find the pilots that would be ready to fly a second mission if they survived the first.

Unmanned armed drones networked with manned F-35's or Raptors can be a cost-effective force multiplier, not only as wingman but also decoys to soak up enemy anti-aircraft missiles.

So we've got a small industry already converting F-16s into remote piloted target drones.

A few more mods and you have a "cheap" drone that can actually do most any mission to some degree.

Glup!…

Amicalement
Armand

Yeah, it has taken some time to figure out that the battleships and bombers of the previous generation are giving way to newer tools. No one in the cockpit means a craft that doesn't have to have all support systems necessary for a pilot. AI isn't there yet, but that only really matters for air-to-air engagements, which are something of a rarity. And a horde of cheap, pretty good fliers should be just fine to discourage enemy pilots. Especially if those RPAs can pull maneuvers a pilot can't. (Plus, it's not like we won't have the skilled pilots for those missions that call for them.) It also drives the cost of casualties *way* down and makes it much easier to continue prolonged military actions.

Why is a Cessna "barely a real airplane"? I'm missing your point. What does size have to do with how you define what an airplane is? I think something is being lost in translation.

A Cessna 172 weighs 1700lbs empty, 2450lbs gross. Yes, ~800lbs useful load.

Not militarily useful (and barely useful in a civilian sense, since two people my size with baggage would max one out).

AI isn't there yet, but that only really matters for air-to-air engagements

I would argue that AI for air-to-air is probably an easier task than air-to-ground. Particularly in the area of target identification and classification.

Not militarily useful (and barely useful in a civilian sense,

That depends on what you use it for. I have flown military aircraft that were smaller than a Cessna 172 and others that had fuel loads of over 150,000 lbs. I have flown slow flying gliders and aircraft which I sat on turbo jets which have accelerated me faster than the speed of sound. Whether I was flying a no engine glider or piloting a 4 engine jet across the Indian Ocean; all airplanes basically fly the same. You use whatever type ( and whatever size) aircraft that is appropriate for the given mission.

If UAVs can be controlled remotely from the ground, the enemy can take them over via hacking. A piloted aircraft is a closed circuit. Pilots are gonna be around for a while, if not forever.