> A: X-45C, which is supposed to be flying in 2008. But thats if it isn't doomed by the cancellation of the J-UCAS program.

1. 2008 isn't currently
2. the X-45 was cancelled
3. the X-45 can perform certain missions that the F-35 can't, but to say it can replace all the functionality of the F-35 is absurd.

Boeing may try to resurrect it for the Navy competition but that's far from a sure thing

> And less of a political risk if one is shot down.

absolutely agree, which is why there always be a place for them in the future

but sometimes there is also a political risk to a mission failing. ie if you launch the attack you better make damn sure it succeeds

> No not really. Even if a UCAV needs a pilot, it would be flown from the ground much like a Predator drone.

yes i'm aware they can/will be flown from the ground

but sometimes that isn't feasible.

the signal may be jammed, any vehicle that is transmitting is not stealth and is more vulnerable to detection/interception, heck, the Chinese may fry the control satellite with a giant frickin laser. What then?

> Most people already believe f-35's replacment will be unmanned

back in the 60's or so Britain believed that manned aircraft were obsolete and redirected all resources to developing missiles. How'd that work out?

People have been predicting the death of manned aircraft for a long time, kind of like people have been predicting we'll run out of oil in 10 years for the last 60 years. It may happen some day, but not yet.

Posted by: mpiv at November 16, 2006 10:32 AM

LOL! Do you even read DefenseTech or watch the Military channel?

1. there are currently no UCAVs that could perform the F-35's mission

A: X-45C, which is supposed to be flying in 2008. But thats if it isn't doomed by the cancellation of the J-UCAS program.

2. the UCAV program is also overbudget and is severely behind schedule

A: Says who, you?

3. UAVs aren't any cheaper to operate than manned planes

A: Maybe not cheaper to operate, but cheaper to build. And less of a political risk if one is shot down.

4. There will always be missions that will require a human in the cockpit

A: No not really. Even if a UCAV needs a pilot, it would be flown from the ground much like a Predator drone.

UCAVs will complement the F-35 and F-22, not replace them

A: Most people already believe f-35's replacment will be unmanned.

Posted by: JH at November 16, 2006 03:20 AM

> could easily be replaced with UCAVs

1. there are currently no UCAVs that could perform the F-35's mission

2. the UCAV program is also overbudget and is severely behind schedule

3. UAVs aren't any cheaper to operate than manned planes

4. There will always be missions that will require a human in the cockpit

UCAVs will complement the F-35 and F-22, not replace them

Posted by: mpiv at November 15, 2006 05:14 PM

We need that robo-sentry for the Chaos I mean Mexican border. An invasion is an invasion any way you look at it, armed or not.

Posted by: JH at November 15, 2006 02:58 PM

F-35 is over budget and could easily be replaced with UCAVs.

Posted by: JH at November 15, 2006 02:56 PM

> Dems = more F-22s?

but wait, I thought the dems were going to cut F-22s? (http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002939.html)

I love the F-22 and would love more of them . . . but not if it meant jeopardizing the F-35

1. The F-35 is FAR more relevant to the GWOT than the F-22 ever will be. It has better sensors and electronics and it was designed from the ground-up as a ground-attack plane. The F-22 design team initially had the motto "Not one pound for air-to-ground". It's great, but it will never be half the ground-attack/CAS plane the F-35 is.

2. Our carriers desperately need an improved attack force. To be the centerpiece of our global power projection, the Super Hornet sucks. It's slow, has very short legs and isn't stealth. In fact we have no carrier-based stealth assets which could be quite a problem. The F-35 is faster than the Super Hornet (in real life since it doesn't have to carry so many draggy fuel tanks to get even modest range), has far better range (not as much as the Tomcat, but still a great improvement), is probably more manoueverable and has this little thing called stealth.

3. Our allies
The new Russian and Chinese planes coming online are almost reaching parity and sometimes exceeding the older teen-series fighters. It is critical that we get our allies something that they feel confident will defeat these latest planes.

The F-22 is banned from export at the moment and even if it wasn't, it is too expensive for all but an elite group of countries.

The F-35 represents our best chance to offer affordable security. It may be no F-22 in air-to-air, but it far outclasses everything else in the sky

However many of the nations lining up to buy the F-35 are under severe monetary and time restrictions. Any move that delays/slows down production or reduces the number of planes bought is going to cause the price to skyrocket and push delivery dates embarrassingly far back.

4. Practicality
The F-35 is cheaper to buy, cheaper to maintain, and cheaper to run (one engine), which means we can fly more missions for the same amount of money.

There may be a handfull more F-22's ordered, but it will never reach the thousands like the F-35 COULD (both domestically and foreign). This means in the end the F-35 will be far more relevant to world security than the F-22 ever will be and it is vital that the program be kept on track both time- and budge-wise

Posted by: mpiv at November 15, 2006 02:01 AM