Saturday, November 22, 2008

Forum :: Other :: Forums are not dead!!!

Page 1 of 1 Forums are not dead!!!
Author	Oldest to Newest
Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 12 June 2005 12:59 PM I'm glad I finally decided to become a memeber because before everyone abandons the forums I have alot of questions for evryone here. For this post though I would like to ask: What does everyone think of the unmanned versus manned military vehices debate? Leave me something! Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 15 June 2005 6:40 AM Well, if we are going to have forums, we should at least start flamming people for posting things in the wrong section :) I am fascinated by UAV's and UCAV's, and I'd steal your thunder and post something in weaponry, but it would be a bit rude. Go on, be controversial, you know you want to! Post Reply

Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 15 June 2005 10:24 AM Well I can see the use of unmanned military vehicles in support roles, but I would prefer that a man is in combat, because a government has to take a second look at the causlties before they just jump right in with UCAVs and unmanned vehicles. I think that politicians would be more likely to engage in an action without a man being in danger. Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 16 June 2005 6:19 AM If we are talking about the first generation of UCAV's, then we are really talking about America. The fact that no pilot will be shot down when an UCAV runs afoul of air defenses means a lot in terms of public opinion. Witness the circus that erupts every time you loose a plane. The only one I can remember that didn't seem to attract a lot of attention was the interesting one(the F-18 shootdown). In terms of an air war, persistance is the buzzword of the moment. Having an aircraft take of, travel to a target and attack it is sooo retro these days. Being able to see a target as soon as it appears (With any one of three layers of UAV) and drop something nasty on it right away is a job that can only be done by UCAV's. The US is already having troubles doing this with F-15's over Afghanistan. The ammount of tanker support that they require limits how many aircraft can be on station, and crew fatigue is the limiting factor on how long they stay there. A UCAV of about the same weight as an F-15 would carry 20-30% more fuel just because you dont need a cockpit. The range would be further increased because you can optimise the design for a single role, rather than having to give a manned fighter bells and whistles to keep the pilots alive in as many situations as possible(Not that I'm suggesting a large UCAV is expendable, they still cost the same as a manned craft of similar size). And changing the pilot on a UCAV means handing the joystick and keyboard to someone else! ATM a manned aircraft can still do more things more often, and UCAV's are not going to be cheaper anytime soon, but for long missions in areas where getting to a downed pilot will be hard, I can see them gaining a lot of favour. Air Force still wants sex machines like the F-22, but I thing they would be better employed as the sharp end of a UCAV wedge. Post Reply
Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 29 June 2005 11:32 PM Look all I'm saying is that. War has to be a last restort. If Washington has a plane that is unmanned and can drop bombs any where in the world without citizens crying out about down pilots, won't the US be a little less cautous about going to war. Please don't preached to me about the second gulf war, Australia went with us. Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 30 June 2005 1:02 PM I wasn't going to preach. My post had to do with the practicalities of UCAV vs a manned aircraft, not whether either should be there in the first place. America doesn't loose that many aircraft anyhow. I see UCAV as extensions of guided weapons, it still drops a warhead, but most of the weapon comes home afterward. I will only start to get worried when they start putting AI into tanks and have 17 year olds piloting by keyboard and mouse! Post Reply
Sickle1001 Joined: 06 June 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 07 August 2005 6:41 PM Just wondering your opinion on this Nimrod, if the US goes ahead and buys the UCAV, will Australia and other allies, decrease their JSF procurement for UCAVs? Post Reply
Nimrod1001 Joined: 04 February 2005 Posts in this thread: 4	Posted on 17 August 2005 10:23 PM Not for Australia. The F-111 and Hornet fleets that the JSF will replace are running out of parts and airframe hours respectively. While there are good amounts of spares for F-11's sitting at the Boneyard, they are still expensive beasts and will be rtired before JSF enters service. The Hornets fatigue life is a little harder to solve, as they are A and B models, and quite old now. The Hawk trainers we bought may help to keep up pilot hours without stressing the airframes, but still, 2015/20 is the maximum before we need to have them completely replaced. Earlier would be better. The upshot of this is that we do not really have the luxury of waiting until UCAV type vehicles are ready. We need something that deliveries can start on very soon. Even the JSF, very far along it's development path, is still a few years short of when we would want to buy them, assuming Lockheed Martin gets everything done on time. Further delaying the replacement of the strike and fighter fleets is just not going to happen because we don't have the time. That being said, we are already seriously toying with the idea of buying Global Hawk for survielance roles, and we are very keen to take up other forms of UAV. http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200508/s1439576.htm The defense minister had this statement about replacing manned platforms. I think that the JSF will not be a UCAV killer anyway. While it probably won't ever be guiding UCAV's by itself, due to it only having one seat, having a mixed force of UCAV's, with JSF acting as communication relays and sensor platforms around the strike area, would be something we can impliment in the future. I don't know about other countries and what they might purchase, but for us, time is the relaevant factor. I suspect that the fifst couple of generations of UCAV will cost more than manned fighters, so JSF will still be bought. Post Reply
Libra1003 Joined: 01 April 2006 Posts in this thread: 1	Posted on 01 April 2006 5:56 PM Nimrod I am new to this web group I was curious as to why australia and I think your military is way underrated, but anyway dont understand why your airforce doesnt buy the superhornet to replace your current f-18's and replace your f-111 with an F-15 equal to the model F-15K its very adavanced and has the range and payload I think would you could replace the f-111 very nicely with, if I were your givernment Iw ouldnt even waste the money on the JSF. I am really sorry ours is and I live in the US I think the f-18 e/f and f-18 f is the most underrated fighter made today and I dont see where the JSF has anything over it maybe some slight stealth but thats it. Post Reply
1

Copyright © 2003 - 2008 deagel.com. All Rights Reserved.