One step closer to Skynet...

"ttyymmnn" (ttyymmnn) 10/05/2016 at 10:32 • Filed to: planelopnik

2

21

The proposed !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! isn’t autonomous, but I’ll be damned if this doesn’t look like something right out of The Terminator . The Valor was selected by the US Army for further development as part of the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! (FVL) program. Bell is also working on the !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , a smaller autonomous version “designed to combine unparalleled capability with unprecedented flexibility to execute a wide array of mission sets, including electronic warfare, ISR (Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance), escort, C4 (Command, Control, Communications, and Computers), persistent fire missions and tactical distribution.” The Vigilant could be coming to a terrorist near you by 2023. The Valor is expected to take its maiden flight in 2017.

Tristan > ttyymmnn 10/05/2016 at 10:34

1

It looks like a less-stable V-22.

Comes over to help work on your car and only drinks beer > Tristan 10/05/2016 at 10:37

1

That’s like saying a car is a more crashy Mustang.

CB > ttyymmnn 10/05/2016 at 10:40

0

I think military is the one place where autonomy shouldn’t be, especially if the machine has control over its own weapons.

ttyymmnn > CB 10/05/2016 at 10:44

2

Give it time. In the continuing effort to keep soldiers from dying in battle (which, to be honest, is what they got themselves into when they enlisted), drones and autonomous vehicles will only become more prolific. In fact, I’m going out on a limb to predict that the F-35 may be America’s last manned fighter. There is a difference between drones, which require a human operator, and autonomous aircraft, which are programmed and sent out to do their mission. I’m in favor of the former, and fear the latter. Some say taking the human out of the loop is safer. I feel that taking the humanity out of the loop will lead to disaster, as if war is even humane in the first place.

Tristan > Comes over to help work on your car and only drinks beer 10/05/2016 at 10:46

0

Or like saying a plane is a more crashy Osprey?

Rock Bottom > Tristan 10/05/2016 at 10:48

0

So you’re a rotorcraft dynamicist?

Tristan > Rock Bottom 10/05/2016 at 10:52

1

*armchair rotocraft dynamicist with a teeny splash of V-22 experience. Translation: I’m just poking fun and I have no idea what the hell I’m talking about.

I’ll see myself out.

ttyymmnn > Tristan 10/05/2016 at 10:59

2

http://oppositelock.kinja.com/flying-the-osprey-is-not-dangerous-just-different-vet-1716798052

Rock Bottom > Tristan 10/05/2016 at 11:45

1

It’s ok, I’m just a tilt-rotor fanboi for no reason other than I think they’re neat-o!

Tristan > Rock Bottom 10/05/2016 at 11:55

1

I still think they’re neato, I was just in AFSOC when the CV-22 first showed up. I was a huge fan of the MH-53 Pave Low, so I was instantly biased when its successor came along... Then there were the early crashes, the less-than-sufficient tech data, the poor performance on their first trip to the ‘Stan, the extremely low lifecycle of components. The vast majority of those kinks have been ironed out now, though.

Spaceball-Two > ttyymmnn 10/05/2016 at 11:55

3

Needs more plasma cannons.

Grindintosecond > ttyymmnn 10/05/2016 at 12:27

0

We’ve got a bunch of fifteen-year-olds running the military technology. The A-10 kicks ass and works and is amazing at it’s job that it was designed for. The F-35s have VTOL! so obviously that must be better, because, hell look at the Harrier and how cool that was, right? Actually? Ask a Harrier pilot. They’ll tell you how much of a capability nightmare anything with multi-function and multi-role ability truly is to operate. Just because it’s cool and can do many of the same things in one platform does not make it better. It often makes things worse. Here we have tilt-rotor....for what purpose? speed? Honestly the result of the Osprey is a expensive device they can’t decide on how to use it. They’re trying desparately to find a place. They want to use it on the carrier fleet instead of their C-2 cargo plane and in the end it will carry less and not go as far. A great thing for a Pacific fleet with distances farther than the range of that thing.

Cool shit does not mean better shit. We might outspend ourselves on cool shit and out cool ourselves on the battlefield and get nothing done.

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 10/05/2016 at 12:50

0

Yes, the entire raison d’être of the V-22 is speed. The need for such an aircraft was demonstrated (disastrously) in Operation Eagle Claw, when the US tried to rescue the Iranian embassy hostages. That was the impetus behind revisiting the tilt rotor concept, and it was only when the technology caught up with the concept that it became possible. The V-22 has proven to be an effective, capable and reliable platform in the role for which it was designed. That said, the idea of using it for COD is silly, but the Navy is facing an aging fleet of C-2s and the cost of maintaining two systems (the C-2 and the V-22) is prohibitive. Like the F-35 and the A-1o, we simply can’t afford to have both. So, the military is taking the approach that both the V-22 and F-35 are systems of the future, while the A-1o and C-2 are systems of the past. Honestly, I don’t envy the bean counters who have to find the money to support these programs. I have no doubt that the F-35 will mature into an effective platform. Will it be as good at one job as the A-10? Almost certainly not. But will it be able to function in the future, integrated combat space? Yes. The A-10 will not.

As for the Harrier, that is another tested system that has matured into a very effective aircraft, giving the Marine Corps an aircraft that can operate from amphibious assault ships and provide cover to Marines on the ground. The VTOL F-35 will do the same thing.

Now, you raise an excellent point, and it’s a lesson we should have learned with Robert McNamara and the F-111. No single aircraft can or should satisfy the varied needs of three different branches of the military. But it’s the reality we face now with the JSF, and we’re stuck with it, for better or worse. At least we are not like the British, who have gone all in on the F-35 and retired their Harriers, leaving them nothing at all to fly from their carriers.

Yes, it is possible that we are getting ourselves into trouble trying to put all our eggs into one basket. Lessons of the past seem not to have been learned, or at least seem to have been ignored. Honestly, I think the gravest mistake we have made was stopping production of the F-22. We should have 1,000 of them instead of less than 200. The F-25, for all its technological prowess, will still need the cover provided by the F-22. And to continue to develop the F-35, and upgrade its systems to work with the F-35, will be terribly expensive. But that’s where we are.

Rock Bottom > Tristan 10/05/2016 at 13:10

1

Yeah everyone loves the Pave Low, it’s left some big shoes to fill! And I’ve noticed that most guys who spend a lot of time in flying blenders are slow to embrace new platforms. Several years ago I was working for the NASA Rotorcraft Research branch and we were visited by a bunch of Huey pilots from the Georgia ANG (I think...). They were a few months away from being moved to Blackhawks and they were super pissed about it! None of them wanted to be stuck in a Crash-hawk that they were convinced was incapable of autorotation. Now that I think about it, they may have had a point...

leicester > Spaceball-Two 10/05/2016 at 16:43

2

“Hey, just what you see pal!” 

Spaceball-Two > leicester 10/05/2016 at 16:45

1

40 watt range?

gmporschenut also a fan of hondas > ttyymmnn 10/05/2016 at 23:56

0

Alittle disappointed when it was announced no development of the V-44

ttyymmnn > gmporschenut also a fan of hondas 10/06/2016 at 00:16

0

V-44? Is that twice the X-22?

Grindintosecond > ttyymmnn 10/06/2016 at 11:02

1

“As for the Harrier, that is another tested system that has matured into a very effective aircraft, giving the Marine Corps an aircraft that can operate from amphibious assault ships and provide cover to Marines on the ground. The VTOL F-35 will do the same thing.”

I’ve flown with a few ex-harrier guys. Every one of them has commented that the VTOL ability takes very much away from its actual battlefield ability. They can’t carry many pieces of weaponry because the engine takes up so much weight. They check on in Iraq with “one piece” while the F-15's check on with eight. All because of that ability to do VTOL, which, they never really used in a combat environment. Think about this. Logistics of servicing these planes while operating in forward zones and unimproved areas for which they were designed. Big trucks of fuel and ordinance. biiiig fuel trucks moved that far forward.

To go back to the A-10 not working in an integrated future, well, it very well could if they wanted it to. A simple avionics upgrade to F-35 spec would not be difficult at all and cost far less. It cannot loiter. It cannot service in a close in area for extended periods of time. It cannot withstand large caliber ground fire. My recent simulator partner is from the A-10 program and does not see any replacement nearly as effective coming.

If they do nix the A-10,they will have a reduction of gorund support. IF they replace the COD with the V-22, they will have a marked difficulty in cargo volume and range in the pacific.

I know they need to replace product with newer product due to age, but replacing with stuff they’re trying to justify vs. effective replacements is , I think, a very wrong direction. Modernized A-10. Modernized COD. If they really want to use VTOL in the fleet service, make one big enough with range far enough to do the same job or better.

Pick up a copy of BOYD by Robert Coram , if you havent already, great source for showing decision errors by generals.

SkyNet > ttyymmnn 10/06/2016 at 11:06

1

ttyymmnn > Grindintosecond 10/06/2016 at 11:19

0

All good points.

If you’d like to read a terrific book about historical mistakes, check out The March of Folly by Barbara Tuchman. It’s the book that got me absolutely hooked on history.