Question:
Is there “real” need for new aircraft platforms i.e. advanced fighters or bombers?
jake_1977_77
2009-01-19 09:05:12 UTC
With accelerated development of advanced avionics and stand off munitions, is there “real” need for new aircraft platforms i.e. advanced fighters or bombers? Or are existing platforms coupled with new advanced avionics and stand off munitions capable of performing existing and future USAF missions? Provide examples if you know of any.
Six answers:
mzJakes
2009-01-19 09:16:02 UTC
While stand-off weapons make for a good first-strike and are an excellent choice against a stationary target, there will always be the need for aircraft to penetrate enemy defenses for ground support and target selection in any dynamic war zone. And for these missions to be successful, the aircraft have to stay ahead of the capability of air defense systems.
rwr_tdy
2009-01-19 19:13:19 UTC
Short answer is: Yes.



If you think of airplanes in terms of your home computer it makes sense. Not matter what after market stuff I put into my Pentium 4 machine it will never perform equally with something on the shelf down at my local electronics store.



Some "legacy" aircraft do lend themselves to newer "after market" weapons/avionics (e.g. MC-12) but you reach a point in which it is not a viable weapons platform for the mission you want it to do (e.g. B-1, F-117).



So my question back would be: what good is a stand-off weapon if the platform is increasingly less airworthy and unable to penetrate an enemy's ever increasingly sophisticated air defense before it could launch a stand-off weapon? You have to increase the size of the stand-off weapon to compensate for distance but now it's too heavy to put on the old airplane or the possibilty of it not reaching the target greatly goes up.



Future weapons systems (for the most part) are based on what the Intel community/national leadership sees as future threats from which future requirements arise. Bottom line is you want to be able to counter a future threat before it is realized. The acquisition cycle is approximately 10 years and can be longer for a totally new capability(e.g. stealth).



With regards to fighters, you can't put a magic box on F-16/15/18 and make it a credible threat against the latest Russian fighter with thrust vectoring and stealth technology. You could develop a newer missile but like computers, once it would hit the market it's obsolete.
flybboy
2009-01-19 19:59:57 UTC
To the Marine Corps, yes there a reason. We've been using the f/a-18 since the 70's. The plane itself was created in the late 60's. that more than 30 years. Need an upgrade! That's why will be using the F-35B sometimes in the next five years.



The Navy, well they have an upgraded f-18 called super hornet, they want to get smaller plane that can take off vertically. So they adapted the f-35C, but a different version from the Marine Corps. It was larger wing than the Corps version.



I read about a new stealth bomber the Air Force was making, resembling so much like the B2 Spirit.
2009-01-19 17:16:35 UTC
Well, the B-52 will probably have a total service life of roughly 90 years, so I guess that avionics, etc. have improved. The C-130 has also been around forever.



Still, fighter technology is rapidly increasing. I would venture to say that the age of the Pilotless War is on the immediate horizon...so I would not be surprised if the F-35 is the last of a dying breed.
MikeGolf
2009-01-19 17:34:27 UTC
Yes there is a need. If for on other reason that the art of shooting down these airplanes is also advancing. For example the SU-33 was designed specifically to shoot down out F-15s and F-16s.



Another thing to remember is that our F-15s are literally falling apart in mid-air due to their age.



We do not want the Air Force to repeat what happened to the Army in Iraq. Initially, in Iraq we had almost 100% attrition in vehicles because they were worn out and literally began falling apart.
mash4t
2009-01-19 17:19:33 UTC
Although I think there is no real need for new planes for actual mission use, I think that it is important to continue developing them for the technology that is developed in their design. I think that new civilian technology is the reason we should continue development of new weapons.


This content was originally posted on Y! Answers, a Q&A website that shut down in 2021.
Loading...