> I can’t imagine the frustration trying to use a touch screen to fly a fighter jet.
A war plane is something you have to operate while it's burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to controlling comms or navigation.
That’s really not how we design modern jet fighters. Air combat involves a huge number of tradeoffs and ejecting is now the correct response to a wide range of issues. For example, the F-35 so engine so engine failure is likely to result in a lost aircraft.
It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
PS: To be clear it’s possible their making the correct choice. I personally doubt it, but I don’t have access to the kind of classified documents to justify things in one way or another. An effective labor weapon for example might render vastly cheaper drone fleets ineffective.
Ejecting from an aircraft is an absolute last resort, and you stand a good chance of dying or being badly injured if you have to do it, and even if you survive the ejection, the parachute ride, and the landing, it's a better than even chance you're going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground. That's if you land on land of course -- if you land in the water you might just drown or never be found.
> it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground.
That’s simply not the reality of modern fighter jets. The vast majority of time is going to be spent flying over either open ocean or friendly territory. That’s been true even if you’re only looking at recent combat missions.
Anyway, single engine aircraft are always going to be at higher risk for mechanical failure, yet that’s the chosen design. Just look through this list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_accidents_and_incident.... In commercial aviation 4 crashes per year worldwide not that great, in military aviation 4 crashes a month worldwide is a very good month.
You're describing training flights, not combat missions. It is very common for aircraft to fly missions that are hundreds of miles long, most of which is over enemy territory. I used to sit in CDC on a CVN and watch the missions every day during Operation Southern Watch, which wasn't even really war -- but those pilots were flying over enemy territory for many hours every day.
Same thing in Afghanistan and Iraq, every flight was essentially over enemy territory for its entire duration -- surveillance, strike, and transport. You really don't want to bail out of an aircraft in the tribal areas if there's any way to get it home.
Modern aircraft are extremely reliable, they don't break often. Modern ejection seats are extremely reliable, they don't fail often. And yet, everything I posted above is exactly correct.
The essentially over enemy territory and wasn’t really a war are important qualifications. Compare the odds of a downed pilot avoiding capture in a WWII bombing mission over Germany with the majority of missions over Afghanistan and it’s clear they where contested territory. Still high risk, but also a very different situation.
Close Air Support is definitely a major role for the F-35, but you have troupes there so it’s contested territory. Patrolling no fly zones is currently much better suited for drone aircraft, but might become important again.
So yes exceptions exist, but you really don’t want to run air to air combat missions out of air force bases anywhere near contested airspace. The risk vs rewards very much favor longer flights with mid air refueling.
You can't patrol a no fly zone with a drone. Drones don't do air to air combat, the only real use of drones at this time is ground surveillance.
That may change some day in the future, but that's the reality now.
And the F35 can do CAS, sort of, but that's not really its role. We've got a whole host of fourth gen aircraft to do CAS as CAS is nearly always done in an environment where we have full air superiority.
Is this due to some fundamental change in warfare or just due to the fact that modern wars are typically a large country fighting a comparatively tiny and unequipped militia? Like, would it still be true if China and the U.S. actually went toe-to-toe?
High aircraft speeds combined with mid air refueling give nearly arbitrary ranges, add in and the risk associated with air defenses makes long distance attacks more common. You don’t want your air bases within easy striking distance of the enemy.
Several other factors are relevant for example prop aircraft can handle rough runways, but jets need a clean surface as they can suck debris into engines. So, even in the event of a US / China war, it’s not clear how long both sides would be capable of having effective air forces anywhere near each other.
> it’s better than even chance you’re going to be captured and beaten, tortured, or killed on the ground
Is demonstrably false. War is still an extremely unpleasant business, but the term acceptable losses applies even in peacetime.
Every mission training or otherwise is rolling the dice that the aircraft will be lost. Yet, they still send pilots up knowing those risks in preparation for war. Aircraft designs really do involve similar tradeoffs and injured, dead, or captured pilots really are part of the equation.
That’s really not what I was arguing about, if over the 50+ year lifespan of an aircraft it spends less than 10% of total flight time over enemy territory and ejecting over enemy territory has a 99% odds of capture.
Then overall odds of ejecting resulting in capture is way less than 50%. Further, if mechanical failure is expected to bring down say 15% of aircraft, then the odds of mechanical failure over enemy territory is low vs actually being shot down.
That said, actual odds are a little different as mechanical failure isn’t evenly distributed, and hours spent over disputed territory also risk capture etc. Still it’s clear that a low percentage of ejecting pilots are expected to be captured.
A pilot who ejects over enemy territory is almost certain to be captured. Obviously, a pilot who ejects on a training flight over Tonopah isn't going to get captured, and thus my statement about a pilot being captured would not apply to such a training flight where there is zero risk of capture. The numbers you've made up mean nothing, even if they were correct, which they aren't. Nearly no aircraft have a 50 year lifespan, and any aircraft shot down over enemy territory is going to end up with the pilot almost certainly either killed or captured, just as I said.
You're adding in all kinds of things that have no bearing on the discussion and don't mean anything in the context of the discussion. And the numbers you made up are silly.
Individual fighters don’t, but widely adopted designs from the 70’s and after stuck around. The F-16 family is currently expected to be in service for 75 years though it’s only reached 42 years at this point. F-15’s have done 45 years at this point and “We intend to maintain the F-15C fleet through the 2020s.” Suggesting 55+ with a fair amount of uncertainty. F-14 was introduced in 1974 and ironically enough is still in use by Iran. Hell the F-4 entered service in 1961, and is still used by Japan.
As to what you said, nearly certainly killed or captured isn’t it’s better than even chance. You can quibble about meaningless numbers chosen to convey meaning not specifics, but as your making a different statement clearly you agree a small percentage of total elections are expected to result in capture. Death and serious injury is a much greater risk, but again overall risks for the lifespan of the design is what’s important, the US military will sacrifice far more lives than the a most few hundred F-35 pilots we are talking about. As demonstrated by the decision to double down on manned aircraft in the first place rather than try and make a air to air combat capable drone.
The F14 is not in service anymore. Iran has probably less than 10 that are actually flyable, and they've been so heavily modified as to be mostly not recognizable as F14s anymore. The only other actual airframes that are anywhere near a 50 year lifespan are the B-52s, and they've been totally redesigned and rebuilt multiple times over those years.
There are no F15 airframes over 45 years, there are no F4 airframes over 45 years. The F15 production line is still open, there are 7 F4s still in service and they are a heavily upgraded version that wasn't produced in 1984 -- and those 7 leave service next month. You're confusing first date of production with the actual production dates of the aircraft still flying in order to make up a point that isn't even accurate as you've stated it.
Anyway, you just keep making up stuff so I'm going to leave this discussion here for now.
I mentioned that in my post, Individual fighters don’t
However, again for any future readers it’s irrelevant how long an individual aircraft is in service from a design perspective. What’s relevant is the what people using that design use it for, and this how long. Bullets for example are single use. However, individual designs can be used for very long periods of time as long as their serial useful, specific aircraft designs for the same criteria where you can see some of them manufactured for 20+ years.
As the other point was dropped I will take this as you conceding the argument. ;-)
No, I'm not "conceding" anything. Your goalpost moving straw man arguments from a position of total ignorance of the subject aren't worth addressing anymore.
The situation can escalate very quickly in a fighter jet so that leaving the last resort to late could be fatal. Encouraging ejection may be a good idea when the pilots natural inclination is always to stay with the plane.
> It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
What is the basis for saying that? From what I understand, the U.S. military is investing very heavily in unmanned aerial vehicles, including having F-35's control large numbers of them.
It's the drone boogeyman again. They are cheap because I can buy them in a brick and mortar store. Surely the military can just buy tens of thousands of them.
>It’s basically been decided that we are going to spend silly money keeping a small number of absolutely cutting edge aircraft flying rather than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
Well, you're missing the fact that there will be thousands of F-35s on earth (500 already built). Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) which are basically primarily to bully some ground troops than F-35s despite them only costing $40 million a pop. After all they are cheap. Because you see, the brick and mortar store sells them, so they must be cheap even when they are not.
>than thousands if not tens of thousands of of likely more efficient but less capable possibly drone aircraft.
In a war less capability might mean the total loss of all aircraft. You only need a few F-35s and some anti air support on the ground and the drones will be shot down. Yes, you might be able to execute a saturation attack but once you lost your entire fleet how are you going to respond to the counterattack? Oh right, with your own 5th generation fighter that matches the F-35.
Honestly, the biggest benefit of drones is that you can equip your infantry with loitering munitions and thereby reduce the need for conventional CAS provided by a conventional air force. This isn't a stupid lets build ten million drones swarm buzzword bingo to scare some people who barely know anything about the capability of military weapons. That's nonsensical. It's like plastering machine guns everywhere because "cheap". As if militaries only care about stockpiling weapons with no logic behind mission objectives.
Yep, that 40 million really is cheap. An apples to apples comparison puts 200 MQ-9 for 8 billion vs 600 F-35’s for 400 billion. So about 40 Million vs 667 Million.
But that’s just the start, the MQ-9 costs about $3,600 per flight hour vs ~35,000 per hour for the F-35. Though that slightly favors the F-35 because training an F-35A pilot costs a little over 10 million dollars.
That said, the MQ-9 is designed for a very different role so per aircraft numbers are deceptive. F-35’s have a much higher payload, higher top speed, stealth etc.
> Meanwhile there are less drones like MQ-9 Reaper (200 built) [...] costing $40 million a pop.
Prices like this for military equipment are deceptive. They're not $40mil a pop. They're the product of an $8 billion project. The build price is probably less than $100k... or at least it would be if a military contractor wasn't absolutely creaming it.
A war plane is something you have to operate while it's burning, or while you're bleeding on it, or while you can't see properly because it's full of smoke or someone just blinded you with a laser. The adoption of touch screens in this sort of cockpit seems misguided. Particularly for anything related to controlling comms or navigation.