Thread: Successor to F-22 by 2025

Originally Posted by wellman

well i think that unmanned aircraft is olny a good idea for UAVs. the idea that and unmanned fighter or bomber is flying around somewhere bothers me a little.

What do you call an MQ-9 Reaper? It's basically an unmanned bomber flying around with Hellfires, and we've been using them for years.

BTW, not to be picky, but an "unmanned aircraft" is the same thing as a UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle).

Makes more sense to me to move to flights of UAVs quarterbacked by manned "superfighters" and AWACS. Hell, you could even do it for air superiority couldn't you?

-dale

Originally Posted by dalem

Makes more sense to me to move to flights of UAVs quarterbacked by manned "superfighters" and AWACS. Hell, you could even do it for air superiority couldn't you?

-dale

I like that idea; sort of a "super AWACS" with a bunch of UAV's at it's disposal. You would probably need at least one operator per UAV, so that would limit the size of the flight to however many consoles you could squeeze into a B-707 airframe. Or, better yet, take a B-747 airframe, and configure it at a "mother" ship for dozens of UAV's.

Originally Posted by Jimmy

YES! Bring it on! It would need a bigger airplane though, the 707 is pretty much full to the gills as it is.

Jimmy what in your opinion would make an ideal airframe for a state of the art new AWACS platform? The 777, the 747, something else entirely?

Originally Posted by Stitch

What do you call an MQ-9 Reaper? It's basically an unmanned bomber flying around with Hellfires, and we've been using them for years.

That mission doesn't require split second reactions, etc etc. If a Reaper picks up on a possible target, there are human analysts who make the decision to strike or not, the machine itself doesn't. With its mission, that's fine. You have the time to do that. Air combat doesn't necessarily have that kind of time. It literally is an environment where waiting a few seconds (to accommodate latency inherent in a remote-controlled system) IS the difference between getting schwacked and being the winner. The other alternative is some sort of AI or giving the aircraft the ability to fire based on a simple yes/no ID matrix...that there's no WAY the US will go that route anytime soon. Maybe someday we'll be able to field something along one of these lines...but not now, and not anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Stitch

I like that idea; sort of a "super AWACS" with a bunch of UAV's at it's disposal. You would probably need at least one operator per UAV, so that would limit the size of the flight to however many consoles you could squeeze into a B-707 airframe. Or, better yet, take a B-747 airframe, and configure it at a "mother" ship for dozens of UAV's.

YES! Bring it on! It would need a bigger airplane though, the 707 is pretty much full to the gills as it is.

Originally Posted by TopHatter

Jimmy what in your opinion would make an ideal airframe for a state of the art new AWACS platform? The 777, the 747, something else entirely?

Sadly, most of my commercial flights have been on 737s or smaller. Overseas trips have been on military jets, aside from when I was a kid.

As self-serving as it sounds, something like the 787 would be fantastic. Both engine designs would produce plenty of power for mission systems and would have FAR better reliability over the current TF-33 or even the CFM-56 other 707-derivatives use. Plus added thrust and fuel economy would improve climb rate (which is dismal) and unrefueled range/orbit time. Aside from engine benefits, something about that size would really open up the main deck. The mid-section where all the scopes are is pretty cramped at the best of times. Fill up all 40 seats (training mission or going on a trip somewhere) and there's no room left at all. Now a lot of the room is taken up by hardware that will (in some cases) be going away with the Block 40/45 upgrade, but some of these airframes are still pushing 40 years old. When they do need to be replaced, there aren't many options.

I'm more familiar with Boeing, so I'll run through that list. 737 is just too small. We couldn't fit half our scopes in there. 747 is just too big...talk about overkill! The E-3 is already a heavy beast and needs a long runway. 767 is ending. I think it would've been the airframe of choice a few years ago. I know that's what they were looking at for the E-10, and the Japanese AWACS looks pretty nice inside (4 consoles across vs our 3, and they still have a wider aisle). 777 is still too big. 787 becomes the natural choice, as it's the most comparable to what we have now, and the 767...plus the obvious improvements.

In any case, it's so far off the Air Force isn't even looking at a replacement yet. The airframes are still solid, there are hundreds of spare engines, and money is scarce, to say the least. The E-3 is going to be around for a long time.