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

-----Original Message-----
>From: "K.H.Ranitzsch" <kh.ranitzsch@t-online.de>
>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@lists.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU
http://mead.CSUA.Berkeley.EDU:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l