5 ms·

Your comment made me wonder: if nowadays air battles are being decided based on stealth, long-range sensors and long-range AA missiles, why aren't we seeing a r

Your comment made me wonder: if nowadays air battles are being decided based on stealth, long-range sensors and long-range AA missiles, why aren't we seeing a resurgence of cheap prop planes such as the Hawker Fury? I mean, the price of a single F22 Raptor is speculated to be around $180M, while the price of a single Hawker Fury was established to be around $55k. Although a F22 may dominate all technical criteria, it loses heavily on cost and the amount of resources that need to be spent to get one up and running. Moreover, it appears that the cost of building a single F22 is enough to build, maintain, man and train a hefty number of complete squadrons, which could also be equipped with the same long-range sensors and weaponry.

Retric 9y ago
That's what modern drone aircraft are. They cost more than 55k because of inflation, but also because the sensor systems satellite uplink etc are a large chunk of the overall costs. Still at 4Million a pop the MQ-1 Predator's are cheap. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predato... It's successor is 16 million but it's larger and "An MQ-9 with two 1,000 pounds (450 kg) external fuel tanks and one thousand pounds of munitions has an endurance of 42 hours."
- herdrick 9y ago
  at 4Million a pop the MQ-1 Predator's are cheap Less than the pilot alone: https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-train-a-fighter-pilot-in-different-air-forces-throughout-the-world https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-train-a-fight...
ranger207 9y ago
We are seeing a resurgence of prop planes, but only for low-intensity roles. [1] However, low and slow planes are vulnerable to cheap MANPADs [2], and in the event of a near-peer conflict (ie, US vs China), they simply can't operate on the front lines. A ~$600,000 Sidewinder from an F-22 can shoot one down with ease, but a cheap prop plane simply doesn't have the sensors for shooting back. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_syste...
adolph 9y ago
Yes, aside from unpiloted aircraft, there is a current Air Force project/competition for a prop driven light attack aircraft. One of the competitors is a crop duster conversion. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/amp27751/oa-x-light-aircraft/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/amp27...
- mcguire 9y ago
  You have to have some sort of admiration for something called an "Air Tractor" (http://802u.com/ http://802u.com/).
twelve40 9y ago
Among other things, you still need speed, even with long-range weapons. And speed is expensive, once you get into supersonic and beyond, you need special materials etc etc
mikeash 9y ago
I don't think a Fury, even a hypothetical one that's been modified with modern sensors and weapons, would ever prevail against an F-22. Let's say you put identical missiles on both. Once in range, both fire. The F-22 can then turn around and get back out of range before it's hit. The Fury is essentially motionless, and will be shot down. Repeat ad infinitum.
- ceejayoz 9y ago
  Sure, but you can afford to field 2,700 Furies against that F-22, which will quickly run out of ammo and return to base, while the remaining 2,690 Furies are running around machine gunning your ground troops. (Sure, this is a bit contrived... but even 100-to-1 probably still makes sense. Iran's already taking this sort of low-cost approach with small speedboats intended to go up against US aircraft carriers.)
  - dunmalg 9y ago
    >you can afford to field 2,700 Furies against that F-22 You can't just divide the cost of a Fury into the cost of an F-22 and assume that's even remotely reasonable as a fieldable proportion. The limiting factor isn't the cost of building the planes, it's the logistics of coming up with with enough fuel, pilots, maintenance, and ground facilities to keep them flying. There's nobody who couldn't afford something better that could afford to field maybe 3:1 vs the F-22. The salesman for Burt Rutan's little gun-armed midget ARES fighter/attack plane liked to tell people to "imagine how the Falklands War would have been different" if the British Harriers had been faced with waves of hundreds of ARES planes.... completely failing to address the fact that Argentina couldn't possibly train enough qualified pilots to sit in those hundreds of cockpits.
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      Hence my statement that it's a bit of a contrived example. Fuel's relatively cheap for a prop plane, one pilot would manage more than one drone aircraft at once, maintenance is dramatically easier and cheaper on a prop plane, etc.
  - 9y ago
j9461701 9y ago
Something other people haven't brought up but I think is important: Military aviation is still in the exponential part of the technology S curve. Each new generation isn't just a little better than the previous one, it is massively better and embodies some new piece of technology the previous generation is nearly helpless against. The Fury is multiple such technology leaps out of date, and as a result is basically helpless in the sky. Consider: The Sea Fury has a maximum takeoff weight of 6,600 kg. The F-22 has a maximum takeoff weight of 38,000 kg. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it carry 6 times the weapons/sensors/gadgets? A revolution in engine technology. The Sea Fury's skin is made from duralumin, and sticks out like a sore thumb on radar. The F22's skin is made of a composite material that makes it nearly invisible to radar. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it operate with impunity against radar? A revolution in materials technology. And so on and so on. The F22 embodies something like five separate revolutionary technologies, any one of which would enable it to defeat nearly unlimited numbers of Furys. But all put together and it's - well, the Furys become so outdated they're almost not even worth killing.
- gaius 9y ago
  Unlimited? It doesn't carry the stores. At 10:1 the F22 would have to watch helplessly as a few of them slipped through. What's it going to do, ram them? Worse with the F35 which has no gun and can only carry 2 missiles without losing stealth.
  - j9461701 9y ago
    >Unlimited? It doesn't carry the stores. The F22 is nearly 2000 km/h faster than the Sea Fury, and the turn around time is said to be on the order of 20 minutes. In the time it takes the Sea Furys to go to the target, do their business, and go home you're looking at 3+ F22 sorties each hitting a nearly guaranteed 12 kills (maximum anti-air missile load with twinning racks) plus however many they can kill with 480 rounds of 20mm cannon fire. So yes, damn near unlimited. That's what happens when the enemy can kill a dozen pilots every 20 minutes with no fear of retaliation. You get a bloodbath. >Worse with the F35 which has no gun and can only carry 2 missiles without losing stealth. Why do people who know nothing about planes instantly forget that fact the moment the F-35 is brought up? The F-35A does have a cannon, while the F-35B and C have the option for an external cannon pod. The F-35 can carry four missiles in its internal bays, not two.

Retric 9y ago

That's what modern drone aircraft are. They cost more than 55k because of inflation, but also because the sensor systems satellite uplink etc are a large chunk of the overall costs. Still at 4Million a pop the MQ-1 Predator's are cheap. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predator https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Atomics_MQ-1_Predato... It's successor is 16 million but it's larger and "An MQ-9 with two 1,000 pounds (450 kg) external fuel tanks and one thousand pounds of munitions has an endurance of 42 hours."

herdrick 9y ago
at 4Million a pop the MQ-1 Predator's are cheap Less than the pilot alone: https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-train-a-fighter-pilot-in-different-air-forces-throughout-the-world https://www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-train-a-fight...

ranger207 9y ago

We are seeing a resurgence of prop planes, but only for low-intensity roles. [1] However, low and slow planes are vulnerable to cheap MANPADs [2], and in the event of a near-peer conflict (ie, US vs China), they simply can't operate on the front lines. A ~$600,000 Sidewinder from an F-22 can shoot one down with ease, but a cheap prop plane simply doesn't have the sensors for shooting back. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embraer_EMB_314_Super_Tucano [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_syste...

adolph 9y ago

Yes, aside from unpiloted aircraft, there is a current Air Force project/competition for a prop driven light attack aircraft. One of the competitors is a crop duster conversion. http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/amp27751/oa-x-light-aircraft/ http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/aviation/news/amp27...

mcguire 9y ago
You have to have some sort of admiration for something called an "Air Tractor" (http://802u.com/ http://802u.com/).

twelve40 9y ago

Among other things, you still need speed, even with long-range weapons. And speed is expensive, once you get into supersonic and beyond, you need special materials etc etc

mikeash 9y ago

I don't think a Fury, even a hypothetical one that's been modified with modern sensors and weapons, would ever prevail against an F-22. Let's say you put identical missiles on both. Once in range, both fire. The F-22 can then turn around and get back out of range before it's hit. The Fury is essentially motionless, and will be shot down. Repeat ad infinitum.

ceejayoz 9y ago
Sure, but you can afford to field 2,700 Furies against that F-22, which will quickly run out of ammo and return to base, while the remaining 2,690 Furies are running around machine gunning your ground troops. (Sure, this is a bit contrived... but even 100-to-1 probably still makes sense. Iran's already taking this sort of low-cost approach with small speedboats intended to go up against US aircraft carriers.)
- dunmalg 9y ago
  >you can afford to field 2,700 Furies against that F-22 You can't just divide the cost of a Fury into the cost of an F-22 and assume that's even remotely reasonable as a fieldable proportion. The limiting factor isn't the cost of building the planes, it's the logistics of coming up with with enough fuel, pilots, maintenance, and ground facilities to keep them flying. There's nobody who couldn't afford something better that could afford to field maybe 3:1 vs the F-22. The salesman for Burt Rutan's little gun-armed midget ARES fighter/attack plane liked to tell people to "imagine how the Falklands War would have been different" if the British Harriers had been faced with waves of hundreds of ARES planes.... completely failing to address the fact that Argentina couldn't possibly train enough qualified pilots to sit in those hundreds of cockpits.
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    Hence my statement that it's a bit of a contrived example. Fuel's relatively cheap for a prop plane, one pilot would manage more than one drone aircraft at once, maintenance is dramatically easier and cheaper on a prop plane, etc.
- 9y ago

j9461701 9y ago

Something other people haven't brought up but I think is important: Military aviation is still in the exponential part of the technology S curve. Each new generation isn't just a little better than the previous one, it is massively better and embodies some new piece of technology the previous generation is nearly helpless against. The Fury is multiple such technology leaps out of date, and as a result is basically helpless in the sky. Consider: The Sea Fury has a maximum takeoff weight of 6,600 kg. The F-22 has a maximum takeoff weight of 38,000 kg. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it carry 6 times the weapons/sensors/gadgets? A revolution in engine technology. The Sea Fury's skin is made from duralumin, and sticks out like a sore thumb on radar. The F22's skin is made of a composite material that makes it nearly invisible to radar. How do you take a plane like the Sea Fury, and let it operate with impunity against radar? A revolution in materials technology. And so on and so on. The F22 embodies something like five separate revolutionary technologies, any one of which would enable it to defeat nearly unlimited numbers of Furys. But all put together and it's - well, the Furys become so outdated they're almost not even worth killing.

gaius 9y ago
Unlimited? It doesn't carry the stores. At 10:1 the F22 would have to watch helplessly as a few of them slipped through. What's it going to do, ram them? Worse with the F35 which has no gun and can only carry 2 missiles without losing stealth.
- j9461701 9y ago
  >Unlimited? It doesn't carry the stores. The F22 is nearly 2000 km/h faster than the Sea Fury, and the turn around time is said to be on the order of 20 minutes. In the time it takes the Sea Furys to go to the target, do their business, and go home you're looking at 3+ F22 sorties each hitting a nearly guaranteed 12 kills (maximum anti-air missile load with twinning racks) plus however many they can kill with 480 rounds of 20mm cannon fire. So yes, damn near unlimited. That's what happens when the enemy can kill a dozen pilots every 20 minutes with no fear of retaliation. You get a bloodbath. >Worse with the F35 which has no gun and can only carry 2 missiles without losing stealth. Why do people who know nothing about planes instantly forget that fact the moment the F-35 is brought up? The F-35A does have a cannon, while the F-35B and C have the option for an external cannon pod. The F-35 can carry four missiles in its internal bays, not two.