"Dennis Johnson" wrote in message
. ..

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:FoKij.35256$Ux2.29488@attbi_s22...
I hope this means accelerated funding and deployment of the F-22 and
F-35, but I fear otherwise.

I'm not sure it makes sense to continue putting money into warplanes that
have pilots on board. There are huge disadvantages to carrying a person.
The airplane must have redundant systems for safety and reliability, and
often those redundant systems also have backup systems. The weight
penalty for the life support systems, including the cockpit, ejection
seat, and pressurization system are considerable. The potential
acceleration of the airplane must be greatly reduced due to the frailty of
the human on board.

A warplane without a human on board could be much lighter, faster, more
maneuverable, and dramatically cheaper. To some extent, we already have
this: cruise missiles and UAVs.

Because they are so cheap, relatively speaking, the US could flood an
enemy with dozens or hundreds of them. With modern bomb technology, only
a few of them would have to get through to accomplish most targeting
objectives.

I think the Air Force is moving in this direction, but far too slowly
because the leadership is made up mostly of pilots and there is a strong
unconscious desire to eliminate pilots. There is too much of the World
War I, scarf blowing in the wind, romantic notion of fighter pilots.

We now have an Air Force far more than adequate to defend against present
threats. I would like to see the billions of dollars spent on an F-22
roll-out and for an F-35 design to be spent on developing uncrewed
warplanes instead. I think this trend is inevitable, it's only a question
of when.

Best,
Dennis Johnson


They have already cancelled quite a few projects involving manned aircraft
in favor of UAV's with Boeing getting the nod after losing the F-35
contract. Actually the military ordered less F-35's then they originally
planned so they could buy more UAV's.