7 ms·

You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire / designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability. In my (potenti

You are right for sure. But they have never had a 4th gen (fly by wire / designed to be aerodynamically unstable;) fighter with this capability. In my (potentially uninformed) opinion, It is definitely a big milestone because it opens the door to 5th gen fighters becoming UCAVs - almost like making the GPS guided JDAM weapon out of a 1960s dumb bomb by "bolting on" the JDAM module as a cheap aftermarket kit.

dogma1138 10y ago
That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.
- sandworm101 10y ago
  Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.
  - dogma1138 10y ago
    Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack option. The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment. The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even want to provide CAS roles in general. The USAF offered the US army to take the A-10 fleet in house the Army doesn't want it since logistically it can't really support fixed wing aircraft at this point, maybe the marines would take it in. The A-10 isn't expensive, it's probably the most cost efficient aircraft the US has produced since WW2, it's simply not a sexy Gen 5 FBW doodad.
    - gaius 10y ago
      Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. But is too expensive to ever risk danger-close. Whereas A-10's have had mortars fired over them in certain circumstances...
      - dogma1138 10y ago
        The USAF is going to have plenty of F-35's to spare, and it it can carry standoff munitions for CAS, not unlike light attack aircraft which you aren't going to be placing into direct line also. The A-10 was designed to take a beating, it has redundancies on top of redundancies, and armored cabin and fuel tanks, you can blow half of it's tail and it will still land (tho an F-15 has landed with 1 wing ;)). Light attack/trainers are OK but they aren't in the same league.
  - Tloewald 10y ago
    It's not clear to me how tough this plane would be (especially relative to the A-10).
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      Tough is open to debate. In some ways the A-10 is a very delicate plane. It's radar profile and low speed make it a bit of a sitting duck in certain situations. It can survive ground fire, but not from modern radar-guided AAA. The scoprion is interesting, once you get past the new look. It's got roughly the same capacity, size and costs of the A-10. But it's a little faster, flies higher, and of course lacks the legendary 30mm. The second seat (either flown or removed for space) adds lots of EW potential that would make it more likely to not be shot down than the A-10. And there might be room for a fancy big gun in that internal bay. I;m most impressed by it's 5-hour loiter/CAS time. Like I said, the concept has potential.
      - dfsegoat 10y ago
        I wouldn't describe it as delicate - these things are meant to make it home after taking multiple direct hits from 23mm+ or a hit from a man-portable AA missile - and they have tested that durability: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-story-of-killer-chick.html http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-st... http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a.jpg http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a...
        sandworm101 10y ago
        Nobody would debate that the A-10 is a beast. If you are going to be raked with ground fire it's where you want to be. But we have to look at the entire mission profile. The A-10 is slow, making it more susceptible to shoulder-fired missiles, causing it to have to fly higher on the way to and from the mission. Higher means greater exposure to radar-directed weapons, not the A-10's strong game. Or it can fly lower, reducing its range and requiring airfields closer to the fight, airfields which are more difficult to protect. Flying low also reduces tanker options. There are a hundred factors. The evaluation of weapon systems really does require a committee.
- kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
  They don't like it because it isn't a ticket to a cushy lobbyist position in the industry since Fairchild is gone and isn't a source of new contracts to siphon of tax dollars. They cook up all sorts of BS excuses about the costs of special support equipment for A-10 (already paid for) while blissfully ignoring the massive waste blown away on JSF and F=22.
nopzor 10y ago
fly by wire (necessary for aerodynamically unstable aircraft) shouldn't really make autonomous/unmanned flight harder, should it? the computer _already_ knows how to translate "pilot intent" into stable flight.
- dfsegoat 10y ago
  I was more trying to say that - to my knowledge - they had never done this with a fly-by-wire fighter. The QF-4 (previous aerial target system) was all hydraulic / analog systems.

dogma1138 10y ago

That's one of the current proposals for the A-10, since there are plenty of people in the armed forces that want to keep it for CAS, the air force doesn't like it as much since it's not "sexy" but the marines, infantry, and armor troops that are saved by CAS love the old ugly thing.

sandworm101 10y ago
Likely A-10 replacement, imho. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Textron_AirLand_Scorpion Strait-winged, turbofan, six wing hardpoints and an internal bay, extended loiter time, only $20mil+$3k/hour operating costs ... this thing has serious potential.
- dogma1138 10y ago
  Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. The A-10 can't be replaced by effectively a trainer with a light ground attack option. The A-10 is a flying tank, it's main gun is very useful for CAS and it can carry a lot of armaments and more importantly take a lot of punishment. The A-10 is simply not sexy, the air force doesn't want it, it might not even want to provide CAS roles in general. The USAF offered the US army to take the A-10 fleet in house the Army doesn't want it since logistically it can't really support fixed wing aircraft at this point, maybe the marines would take it in. The A-10 isn't expensive, it's probably the most cost efficient aircraft the US has produced since WW2, it's simply not a sexy Gen 5 FBW doodad.
  - gaius 10y ago
    Might as well go with an F-35 then, it can carry more stuff. But is too expensive to ever risk danger-close. Whereas A-10's have had mortars fired over them in certain circumstances...
    - dogma1138 10y ago
      The USAF is going to have plenty of F-35's to spare, and it it can carry standoff munitions for CAS, not unlike light attack aircraft which you aren't going to be placing into direct line also. The A-10 was designed to take a beating, it has redundancies on top of redundancies, and armored cabin and fuel tanks, you can blow half of it's tail and it will still land (tho an F-15 has landed with 1 wing ;)). Light attack/trainers are OK but they aren't in the same league.
- Tloewald 10y ago
  It's not clear to me how tough this plane would be (especially relative to the A-10).
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    Tough is open to debate. In some ways the A-10 is a very delicate plane. It's radar profile and low speed make it a bit of a sitting duck in certain situations. It can survive ground fire, but not from modern radar-guided AAA. The scoprion is interesting, once you get past the new look. It's got roughly the same capacity, size and costs of the A-10. But it's a little faster, flies higher, and of course lacks the legendary 30mm. The second seat (either flown or removed for space) adds lots of EW potential that would make it more likely to not be shot down than the A-10. And there might be room for a fancy big gun in that internal bay. I;m most impressed by it's 5-hour loiter/CAS time. Like I said, the concept has potential.
    - dfsegoat 10y ago
      I wouldn't describe it as delicate - these things are meant to make it home after taking multiple direct hits from 23mm+ or a hit from a man-portable AA missile - and they have tested that durability: http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-story-of-killer-chick.html http://warthognews.blogspot.com/2011/07/from-archives-oif-st... http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a.jpg http://i155.photobucket.com/albums/s314/Lethal_014/EMLandv1a...
      - sandworm101 10y ago
        Nobody would debate that the A-10 is a beast. If you are going to be raked with ground fire it's where you want to be. But we have to look at the entire mission profile. The A-10 is slow, making it more susceptible to shoulder-fired missiles, causing it to have to fly higher on the way to and from the mission. Higher means greater exposure to radar-directed weapons, not the A-10's strong game. Or it can fly lower, reducing its range and requiring airfields closer to the fight, airfields which are more difficult to protect. Flying low also reduces tanker options. There are a hundred factors. The evaluation of weapon systems really does require a committee.
kevin_thibedeau 10y ago
They don't like it because it isn't a ticket to a cushy lobbyist position in the industry since Fairchild is gone and isn't a source of new contracts to siphon of tax dollars. They cook up all sorts of BS excuses about the costs of special support equipment for A-10 (already paid for) while blissfully ignoring the massive waste blown away on JSF and F=22.

nopzor 10y ago

fly by wire (necessary for aerodynamically unstable aircraft) shouldn't really make autonomous/unmanned flight harder, should it? the computer _already_ knows how to translate "pilot intent" into stable flight.

dfsegoat 10y ago
I was more trying to say that - to my knowledge - they had never done this with a fly-by-wire fighter. The QF-4 (previous aerial target system) was all hydraulic / analog systems.