Re: [GZG] [OFFICIAL] Question: was Re: [SG3]: What if?

[Eric Foley <stiltman@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

-----Original Message-----
>From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <kh.ranitzsch@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Binhan Lin schrieb:
>> The US Air Force is fighting tooth 
>> and nail to hang on to the dwindling supplies of human manned aircraft 
>> as remote piloted vehicles take over 50% of their missions.

>Though it has been found that a UAV that has capabilities similar to a 
>modern fighter or bomber does not come that much cheaper than a crewed 
>plane. The costs for the aircraft body, propulsion system, ammunition 
>etc is similar, electronics may be more costly because it needs better 
>telecommunications gear. You do save in life-support systems and in the 
>synergy of a smaller platform. Certainly a major UAV has become too 
>expensive to be seen as expendable.

That's got a lot less to do with the real cost of materials and assembly and a lot more to do with the ratio of money spent on R&D to the money spent to actually build the things.  The published figures on the stealth bomber were something to the tune of a billion or two a plane, and we only ordered 21 aircraft.  If at some point the Pentagon had said, "Okay, R&D finished now, we're wildly ahead of everybody else with this thing, build us some more of them on this spec" then that cost per plane would go down wildly.

I realize I'm a completely lay commentator on this, but the only explanation I can come up with that's consistent with the facts here is that institutionalized graft in key congressional districts is a lot more of the motivator for this kind of thing than actual desire to build the best national defense.  Our nuclear arsenal and that of our military peers has pretty much eliminated the likelihood in modern times that we'll ever fight another conventional armed force that's actually able to give us a standup fight, so we have the luxury to tolerate such inefficiency... at least, until the budget hawks start circling.

>> Would a WWI biplane work as well as an F-22 Raptor?  The difference in 
>> spotting, propulsion, material and weapon technology is so vast that 
>> they really aren't comparable, and yet only 90 years separates the two 
>> levels of technology.

>Though it isn't clear that technological change will continue at that 
>pace. Aircraft speeds, for example, haven't increased significantly for 
>almost 50 years.

There's a lot of different reasons for that, most of them based on the basic makeup of a modern aircraft.  We've been able to go Mach 2 for most of that time period, and that's largely the limit that the combination of the aerodynamics of jet propelled aircraft and the endurance of human pilots to turn them will allow over relevant atmospheric altitudes.  SR-71s were able to go about half again that fast but couldn't turn without either killing the pilot, ripping the wings off, or both.  Evidently our defense planners in their infinite wisdom have decided to go to stealth rather than rockets' speed for these things, likely because of the political judgment that other nations would get rather jittery if we kept sending up planes or bombers that can't be easily distinguished from a ballistic missile on satellite detection.

Change a few of these variables and the pace of technological change could increase.

Eric

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l