F-22
-
i yesrterday just watch world guiness record. den they show the F-22. can anyone tell me more abt that plane?
-
http://www.lmtas.com/products/combat_air/f-22/index.html
F/A-22 Raptor – Air Dominance
for the 21st Century
No fighter in the world comes close to matching the F/A-22. By every measure, the Raptor represents extraordinary breakthroughs in maneuverability, stealth, sensor fusion – a wealth of parameters that define a new era in fighter capability.
The origins of the F/A-22 can be traced to the early 1970s, when the U.S. Air Force began studying concepts for replacement of its F-15 air superiority fighter. This became a formal program when the service requested proposals for an Advanced Tactical Fighter (ATF) in October 1985. The simple fact: New air and ground threats were looming that the F-15 would not be able to counter.
Now these threats will be defeated by the highly lethal and survivable F/A-22, with its balance of increased speed and range, enhanced offensive and defensive avionics, and reduced observability. The design of the F/A-22 also emphasizes reliability and maintainability of systems.
The F/A-22 is capable of flying and fighting against the most advanced integrated radar networks and dense surface-to-air missile environments in the world – now and in the future. A new generation of fighters is under development in several countries around the world today. The advent of these new fighters, as well as the continuing export of current air defense and adversary advanced fighter technology to the Third World, put the United States’ ability to gain and maintain air superiority, much less air dominance, at increasing risk. The F/A-22 will retain the competitive edge through innovations and technologies no one can match.
In early 2001, the U.S. Air Force introduced a concept called Global Strike Task Force in which the F/A-22 Raptor is the enabler for all other forces. The success of any major air-land operation – today and in the future – depends primarily on the United States’ preeminent ability to detect and destroy enemy fighters as well as attack high-value ground targets with precision weapons.
With the F/A-22, the era of U.S. air dominance – against all ground- and air-based threats – has begun -
F22, is it showing the way how
fighter jets should be designed?
seems like US is the only
country using internal weapon stations
for their latest jet design.
having internal weapon bay means less weapom\n the jets could carry as well as the no. of weapons it could carry? -
Heard that this model is highly maneuverable. Part of an Advance Tactical Fighter project or something..
Seems like the thruster end can be manipulated in diff directions to enable even harder and demanding curves and swoops for aerial manuevers. -
forget the F-22 as the future of air combat... sooner or later air combat will be dominated by UCAVs, once the technology matures, it is far cheaper to maintain, has greater abilities then the manned aircraft and is far less intensive on resources, capable of doing extreme manuvers that would kill a pilot outright.
-
frankly speaking, ucav is like real live simulation 'game'
-
scully next time swarm with UAV, then got a few elite manned pilots shoot down many UAV at one shot... wha like science fiction story like that.....
-
Not very likely, in a dog fight, the UCAV will be bound to win. Because with a pilot seperated from the aircraft, it frees the system to go faster, and push limits that would kill any human. While the "elite" pilot is struggling in his hunk of junk, the UCAV will be smaller, stealthier, and faster, flying circles around him and pulling 30 gee turns that he can never hope to match.
A properly flown UCAV, or even one with the AI programmed to be smart enough, has massive advantages over the old manned aircraft. If anything, it's the manned aircraft that will be shot down by the swarms if they every tried to take on the UCAVs of the future. -
the future is about CUAVs and Electronic Pulse Area weapons that destroy or damage the sensitive electronics in any other weapons or aircraft...
when the E weapons are out, warfare will be back to the good old days ... Dog fights... with aircraft not dependent on E-flight controls like the f16 and other new aircrafts.
-
Witht the birth of the SAM misslies in the 1950s people were heralding the end for manned planes, well that didn't happen. UAVs present a variety of problems especially sinces its unmanned it would require an open comms channel to it controller at all times. Wouldn't this channel be easily jammed by conventional means already available. Furthermore wouldn't the controll staion for such a UAV squadron be extremely vulnerable not only does the equipment for controlling the UAVs need to be specialise but the equipment for programing them needs to be specialized. Also for a dogfight don't pilots rely on 360 degree vision by turning their heard and all that, would the UAV be so flexible in terms of vision, of course you could mount cams to cover all angles but that would mean bigger uavs, also to mount weapons and all that the UAV just gets bigger. After a while the UAV is not much cheaper then a conventional fighter nor is it much smaller.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Not very likely, in a dog fight, the UCAV will be bound to win. Because with a pilot seperated from the aircraft, it frees the system to go faster, and push limits that would kill any human. While the "elite" pilot is struggling in his hunk of junk, the UCAV will be smaller, stealthier, and faster, flying circles around him and pulling 30 gee turns that he can never hope to match.
A properly flown UCAV, or even one with the AI programmed to be smart enough, has massive advantages over the old manned aircraft. If anything, it's the manned aircraft that will be shot down by the swarms if they every tried to take on the UCAVs of the future.
The age of independent AI is not upon us yet and i believe what you mentioned is still pretty much sci fi. Of course i'm not ruling out UAV for specialized missions, but for interdiction, interception, and any mission where the mission is dynamic, present tech just don't measure up yet -
I seriously doubt this. In a dogfight, the UCAV is bound to lose. 1) The human brain still has the advantage in dogfights. AI will not be able to deduce the next move an opponent may make, and AI simply responds according to how it is programmed to react to a certain maneuver. 2) Pulling 30G turns creates its own problems. Unless the operator of the UCAV has a view which is superior to one in a manned aircraft, pulling 30Gs will end up with the UCAV not knowing where it is pointing.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Not very likely, in a dog fight, the UCAV will be bound to win. Because with a pilot seperated from the aircraft, it frees the system to go faster, and push limits that would kill any human. While the "elite" pilot is struggling in his hunk of junk, the UCAV will be smaller, stealthier, and faster, flying circles around him and pulling 30 gee turns that he can never hope to match.
A properly flown UCAV, or even one with the AI programmed to be smart enough, has massive advantages over the old manned aircraft. If anything, it's the manned aircraft that will be shot down by the swarms if they every tried to take on the UCAVs of the future.
In the foreseeable future, UCAVs will still be operated by humans. Do not forget that point, unless you are talking about Star Wars technology. -
Our aversion to UCAVs replacing pilots is more of traditionalism then actual logic. In fact, most fighter pilots themselves admit that UCAVs can provide a lot more capabilities then they can. It's not in the far future at all, it's only a matter of time. After all, the longivity of the combat airframe as a concept is not dependent on the pilot being on the loop, but the ability to bring munitions to the enemy. And if cruise missiles or UCAVs do the job better and at lower cost and risk, manned combat aircraft will eventually go, they are currently persisting on their conceptual inertial, rather then actual innovation. Once that's gone, we dun need to stap humans in aircraft and force them to go throught he same insane manuvers their system has to preform to survive.
Such technology is closer then you think, already, harderned electronics and advanced AI has heralded the way for the maturation of UCAV technology. The pilot is about to be pushed out of the loop, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, but to embrace it.
As in human brain is better, I dun see how in a dog fight. Sure, a human can probably think smarter, but dogfights dun require much brain, just point your aircraft in the right direction and shoot. And in that case, an aircraft with superior turn capability will win out, and not to mention one that is faster. If a UCAV can pull 30gs and accelerate and turn way faster then any manned ATF in a dogfight, there's no way the human can win. Even in air combat simulators, AI opponents can already give you a hard time, and that's just a game.
The manned aircraft is a senile system that is become outdated as more technologies start to rise, esp in long range smart munitions. There's just little sense in spending increasing money just to increase crew survivability and such when the actual tatical ability of the manned aircraft to wreck increased damage has actually increased little with the massive increase in cost. Like carriers outmoded the battleship in force projection, the UCAV is about to push the manned aircraft out, when the technology matures. There's no question about it. -
Originally posted by redrooster79:
You are wrong on almost all counts. What is actual fact, is that UCAVs are considerably smaller (30 percent) then manned aircraft, and the elimination of the meat from the system means that it frees up space used for life support and all that other rubbish for sensors, weapons and engines.
Witht the birth of the SAM misslies in the 1950s people were heralding the end for manned planes, well that didn't happen. UAVs present a variety of problems especially sinces its unmanned it would require an open comms channel to it controller at all times. Wouldn't this channel be easily jammed by conventional means already available. Furthermore wouldn't the controll staion for such a UAV squadron be extremely vulnerable not only does the equipment for controlling the UAVs need to be specialise but the equipment for programing them needs to be specialized. Also for a dogfight don't pilots rely on 360 degree vision by turning their heard and all that, would the UAV be so flexible in terms of vision, of course you could mount cams to cover all angles but that would mean bigger uavs, also to mount weapons and all that the UAV just gets bigger. After a while the UAV is not much cheaper then a conventional fighter nor is it much smaller.
But what is important, is not the size, but the ability of the UCAV to remove the element of human risk from the picture and free up mission capability to do things no humanely possible if there was some meat in the system. If you have to select between two systems, one that risks a pilot that takes millions to train, whose lifespan in battle is measured in hours in an aircraft that at best can make 9+ gees and with a maximum speed of 2.5 mach and enduarance limited by the pilot against a system which only risks the system itself, can be pushed to limits that would kill any human, and not to mention carry more space for engine, weapons and sensors that would have been taken up for life support instead.
If managed, the vulnerabilities of UCAV systems actually present a cast increase in tatical ability over the manned aircraft. Even your supposed 360 degree view is highly misleading. The issue here is not view, but situtational awareness. (BTW, adding cams dun increase system size much at all, dunno where your flawed logic come from). If the 21st century concept of sensor intergration is put into the UCAV, which I'm sure the amerians will do, what the UCAV operator will get is not a multiple screen view like a secuity system, but a single, unified three-dimentional display of easy to grasp information showing the situtational display in detail that no oxygen starved pilot pulling gees can ever hope to grasp.
Air combat is fought like a video game. If you put the gamer in the cockpit and force him to go through all of the motions his control unit has to go through versus one that is sitting outside the system and can see the big picture immediately without having to look around and glance and displays and HUDs, logic tells you who's going to win. The pilot has to see his target, read weapons status, endure manuvers and at the same time digest all this in order to fight. The UCAV operatior just has to look at the information coming in from the sensor network (does not even have to be sesnors on his system) point his aircraft and shoot. Game over. -
A matter of time means its in the future. UCAVs has its value in strike roles, not dogfights. You have confused the design priorities of the UCAV.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:Our aversion to UCAVs replacing pilots is more of traditionalism then actual logic. In fact, most fighter pilots themselves admit that UCAVs can provide a lot more capabilities then they can. It's not in the far future at all, it's only a matter of time. After all, the longivity of the combat airframe as a concept is not dependent on the pilot being on the loop, but the ability to bring munitions to the enemy. And if cruise missiles or UCAVs do the job better and at lower cost and risk, manned combat aircraft will eventually go, they are currently persisting on their conceptual inertial, rather then actual innovation. Once that's gone, we dun need to stap humans in aircraft and force them to go throught he same insane manuvers their system has to preform to survive.
Such technology is closer then you think, already, harderned electronics and advanced AI has heralded the way for the maturation of UCAV technology. The pilot is about to be pushed out of the loop, and there's nothing anybody can do about it, but to embrace it.
As in human brain is better, I dun see how in a dog fight. Sure, a human can probably think smarter, but dogfights dun require much brain, just point your aircraft in the right direction and shoot. And in that case, an aircraft with superior turn capability will win out, and not to mention one that is faster. If a UCAV can pull 30gs and accelerate and turn way faster then any manned ATF in a dogfight, there's no way the human can win. Even in air combat simulators, AI opponents can already give you a hard time, and that's just a game.
The manned aircraft is a senile system that is become outdated as more technologies start to rise, esp in long range smart munitions. There's just little sense in spending increasing money just to increase crew survivability and such when the actual tatical ability of the manned aircraft to wreck increased damage has actually increased little with the massive increase in cost. Like carriers outmoded the battleship in force projection, the UCAV is about to push the manned aircraft out, when the technology matures. There's no question about it.
I really don't know how to respond to your point that dogfights are just pointing in the right direction and shooting. On one hand you may have got the essence correct, but on the other hand that is an extremely simplistic and ignorant way of putting it. I won't justify the point.
GAME AI remains what it is. It is a damned GAME. Basically the computer responds to the moves a human pilot makes. It is extremely easy to fool the computer by making maneuvers which only a human can - as only the human brain can. If that is what dogfighting is all about, anyone could be an ace.
Manned aircraft senile? Thats the biggest folly anyone can make. Humans should never allow computers to fight for them. The rate of progress for using computers in war is miles ahead of the technology for protecting the computers. I stress that computers are prone to failing. There will never be a computer which will not fail. -
Wrong on all counts?? Flawed Logic?? thats a pretty high pedestal you are standing on.Originally posted by SingaporeTyrannosaur:You are wrong on almost all counts. What is actual fact, is that UCAVs are considerably smaller (30 percent) then manned aircraft, and the elimination of the meat from the system means that it frees up space used for life support and all that other rubbish for sensors, weapons and engines.
But what is important, is not the size, but the ability of the UCAV to remove the element of human risk from the picture and free up mission capability to do things no humanely possible if there was some meat in the system. If you have to select between two systems, one that risks a pilot that takes millions to train, whose lifespan in battle is measured in hours in an aircraft that at best can make 9+ gees and with a maximum speed of 2.5 mach and enduarance limited by the pilot against a system which only risks the system itself, can be pushed to limits that would kill any human, and not to mention carry more space for engine, weapons and sensors that would have been taken up for life support instead.
If managed, the vulnerabilities of UCAV systems actually present a cast increase in tatical ability over the manned aircraft. Even your supposed 360 degree view is highly misleading. The issue here is not view, but situtational awareness. (BTW, adding cams dun increase system size much at all, dunno where your flawed logic come from). If the 21st century concept of sensor intergration is put into the UCAV, which I'm sure the amerians will do, what the UCAV operator will get is not a multiple screen view like a secuity system, but a single, unified three-dimentional display of easy to grasp information showing the situtational display in detail that no oxygen starved pilot pulling gees can ever hope to grasp.
Air combat is fought like a video game. If you put the gamer in the cockpit and force him to go through all of the motions his control unit has to go through versus one that is sitting outside the system and can see the big picture immediately without having to look around and glance and displays and HUDs, logic tells you who's going to win. The pilot has to see his target, read weapons status, endure manuvers and at the same time digest all this in order to fight. The UCAV operatior just has to look at the information coming in from the sensor network (does not even have to be sesnors on his system) point his aircraft and shoot. Game over.
The present technology would probably allow simple missions for UAVs. Dropping smart Munitions and probably standoff attacks like launching phoenixes. The day you would see an AI in a UAV beat a pilot in a dog fight is still very far away(note that i did not say never). Imagine the hardware and the soft ware required for such a combat UAV. First the hardware, then the armour needed for the hardware, then the system backup which probably would have to be stored in a separate compartment. It is still a lot of space.
. Also to provide the virtual 3d environment that you described how much more equipment would you require to be mounted on the UAV. present simulations are simulations, not live data fed from the field. in order to present the controller the required information imagine the equipment required.
Take not that i mentioned combat UAVs would be smaller i didn't say it would be so large so that it would be the same size as conventional fighters. but imagine the equipment that is required for a self-sufficient UAV that is able to intepret situation accurately would be emitting so much radar and comms that it would be an easy target for missles.
Also you did not answer my other points. If the UAV is remote controlled wouldn't the matter of jamming the comms signals be all too simple. Also the 3d environment you mentioned would mean a large control center for a single plane, so how much space do you need for a squadron. And will it all be centralized, if so, wouldn't it be very vulnerable. To make it less vulnerabvle you would need backup controll centers, more space, more money.
AI and technology is not at the required level for a self contained UAV and a remote controlled one has too many weakness, too many bottlenecks.
Your optimism with UAV is admirable but i am almost tempted to say you have been so seduced by technology that you have been dragged out of context and out of reality. But reality is technolgy has not stepped up to what you envisioned. -
yeah to add on that, computers have become so complex that there is not one single chip without a flaw in it. so would you trust tons of bombs and ammunition to a machine with even that bit of flaw.Originally posted by EXCO:Manned aircraft senile? Thats the biggest folly anyone can make. Humans should never allow computers to fight for them. The rate of progress for using computers in war is miles ahead of the technology for protecting the computers. I stress that computers are prone to failing. There will never be a computer which will not fail. -
Later got doomsday scenario....all the robot aeroplane all go crazy and start a war by accident,,,,then the whole world say bye bye
-
Ah ha, I never said any system would be flawless in preformance at all times, much less the UCAV. As a matter of fact, no system, human driven or not, will be error free. It was by your own flawed logic and lack of understanding of my stated points that you assumed that the UCAV was superior becos it was infailable. Not quite. And another leap of faith you ask us to take is to assume that human error is somehow not as threatening as equipment failure and hence a manned unit will be suprior. Hardly, go ask all the jokers who suffered friendly fire or flew their aircraft into mountains.
What matters is that this percentage be driven down to acceptable levels, and it will be, if it has not been already done.
What the UCAV is in fact, a system that fills in the role of the combat aircraft, and that is the concept of bringing munitions to target in battlespace. And it does that job, far cheaper, with less logisitcs, and with far lower risk to life then any manned combat aircraft can.
The point stands. The way things are going, UCAVs are going to eveuntally replace the manned combat aircraft. As the combat aircraft replaced the war airship. -
By the way, if anybody who think that UCAVs cannot prevail against manned aircraft better think twice. A US demostrator target drone survived 50 dogfights against F-15 aircraft. And not to mention would have shot down many of those F-15s had they been more then just target drones.
-
onli 1 problem ..........wad if the building that have the ucav pilots pilot the ucav kanna bomb......
-
Said and done, I have never stated that any UCAV would be unfailable. But tireless AI relying on electronic sensors would probably be far more reliable then battle weary pilots who have to digest sensor output info who drop on friendly troops.Originally posted by redrooster79:yeah to add on that, computers have become so complex that there is not one single chip without a flaw in it. so would you trust tons of bombs and ammunition to a machine with even that bit of flaw.
To scoff at the UCAV as not being able to be trusted with weapons is like scoffing at cruise missiles for carrying their warheads. As a matter of fact, if anything, these things are probably far more reliable and safer then meat in airframe airborne combat units. A UCAV is after all, basivally an extremely smart reusable cruise missile, be it human controled or not.
What is apparent here however, is that your fragile line of reasoning cannot be trusted. -
It obviously a vulnerability, but then again, it's like saying "what if the aircraft carrying pilot is kanna hit?" these are vulnerabilites that have to be managed.Originally posted by duotiga83:onli 1 problem ..........wad if the building that have the ucav pilots pilot the ucav kanna bomb......
One thing for sure. UCAV operators will be far cheaper to train, easier to find, and not to mention protect. For a combat pilot, you are literally throwing a million dollar investment into great peril in fragile piece of metal hurtling through the air in a threat enviromnent. Appeals to testorone, but not very smart in the light of safer ways of getting firepower to the enemy via the air. You tell me which one is a greater vulnerability. -
might as well all in unman mode, shiops, tanks....etc....all rely on driods n robots.......
-
Why not? And besides that's the trend in the future, at least in america's stragety: to reduce the amount of human operators in the battle space. There's also a trend going on to seperate the sensors from the firing platform, using sensor network intergration instead. This is the 21 century boyo, time for lots of change to take advantage of emerging technology. To be traditionally retentive and conservative about such thing gives you flawed logic to argue for the contuined usefullness of manned platforms.
-
u gain some , u will lose some. nothing beats actual situation awareness. With this tech, ppl tend to be 'lazy' n complacement. argue all u wan. even u say is gd, is not 100% gd.