Rumsfeld gets a few points back for his call here.

It's time for the manned fighter and manned bomber era to end. We have the technology, and the craft are/will be more capable without the complications caused by carrying humans.

Good idea. This way, as soon as an adversary figures out how to jam controlling signals, we can lose the entire air force in the span of a few hours. Even better, if they can meacon and/or spoof control inputs, we can see how well our UAVs do when attacking us.

And here we have the crux of the matter--which the article doesn't even address. UAV's are superior in every way except that there's no human on board. Of course, they're superior because there's no human on board. And as the whole concept passes into reality, we see why the F/A-22 is being promoted. It actually has little to do with its two surface to ground and eight surface to air missiles. It has nothing to do with its original role, which is the only role described in the article.

The Raptor has the stealth, maneuverability and defensive systems to have a reasonable chance of surviving while hanging around a hotly contested battle front and it has the size and power generating capacity to control a squadron of unarmed fighters from on-board computers and transmitters. So equipped, it puts command and control telemetry in close proximity to the modern UAV without being nearly as vulnerable as a traditional AWACS. This proximity reduces the chance that the enemy can effectively jam the signals. And it carries a human who can assess whether control of the unarmed machines has been lost and whether they pose a risk to our troops on the ground.

Do we need nearly four hundred of them for this purpose? Do we need them as backup in case the UAV systems prove more vulnerable than we can now know to such jamming? Will producing a host of these airplanes now provide us with a mothball fleet that will keep us from having to design something else--or go to the trouble and expense of tooling back up for their production in the future? Will they be rendered obsolete by enemy technology any time soon?

I, for one, don't know. But these are the questions that need to be asked much more than whether, as a simple fighter, it is heavy and expensive. One thing I am sure of--the smaller, lighter JSF is unlikely to have the capacity to perform this command and control function any time soon.

If the enemy can do that, then that same enemy can JAM the many electronic coms, radars, and sensors used by manned aircraft as well. UCAVs are the future, pure and simple.

chance20_m:

If the enemy can do that, then that same enemy can JAM the many electronic coms, radars, and sensors used by manned aircraft as well. UCAVs are the future, pure and simple.

Agreed. But in the meantime, having a capable manned aircraft is desirable for providing a signal at close range, which while also jammable is much harder to jam, and in providing humans on site to assess the situation first-hand. And while a UAV is more capable, the F-22 has the performance envelope to keep up with them and take evasive actions, as well as the size to carry the equipment. The future isn't now, and the Air Force can't be blamed for wanting to hedge its bets while the technology delvelops and while we wait to see what actual battle experience will bring.

After all, the Air Force's job allows for few second chances. And they certainly can't postpone a war until better systems come along.

Again, whether this calls for nearly four hundred of these platforms is the question. Given a minimum of backup, this would provide C&C for not quite two hundred UAV flights--which is a lot, though not quite a superpower force.

Sorry. For those who are unfamiliar with the term as used, a "flight" is an operational group smaller than a squadron.

There's no reason why we need to control UAVs through a F-22 - or any other aircraft for that matter. Given a robust communications network, UAVs can be controlled from anywhere in the world. We're already doing that today - the Global Hawk flies all over the world but is operated from somewhere in Nevada.

- AS

chance20_m:

If the enemy can do that, then that same enemy can JAM the many electronic coms, radars, and sensors used by manned aircraft as well. UCAVs are the future, pure and simple.

If they jam the communications systems of a manned fighter plane, what you have left is a fully functional plane with a brain on board capable of deciding what to do as well as can be determined given the loss of some information. The pilot can make visual observations, assess threats, and engage in both dogfights and ground attacks.

If they jam the communications systems of an unmanned fighter plane, what you have left is an unguided, multimillion-dollar piece of hardware that will simply slam into the ground and be a complete loss.

So it is neither pure nor simple. Each has appropriate roles, and if we had to choose only one, we'd be better off with piloted planes, for the above reason. Unmanned combat planes are great for ground attacks and surveillance, but are not ideal for air-to-air combat. Finally, they don't have the ability to project as far. Consider that, with in-flight refueling, a mission can take off today from Kansas, drop bombs in Iraq or anywhere in the world, and land back at the same airbase it took off from. An unmanned vehicle could only engage in two-way combat when it is within range of a station capable of controlling it. Satellite communications have too much delay for controlling aircraft that are evading threats as well as attacking others, so anywhere too deep in enemy territory or otherwise out of range of a ground station (or near ground stations that might have to shut off their communications when coming under attack) is more accessible to manned vehicles, at least for engaging in regular combat, than to unmanned.

These are the reasons that the USAF is trying to find a way to do command and control from the immediate vicinity of the unarmed fighters, as well as the possibility that a signal close by can overcome interference. And that is the reason the USAF wants more F-22s, as the Slate commentator did not mention.

Unarmed fighters? Of course, I meant unmanned fighters.

Jamming is an exaggerated issue used by people unfamiliar with electronic communications. Modern systems with anti-jamming capability are extremely difficult to jam with current technology.

Besides, even current generation of UAVs do not "simply slam into the ground and be a complete loss" if they lose the comm link. The Global Hawk, for example, can autonomously return to a nearby base and land itself if it loses contact with operators.

All of the other issues you raised - satellite comm delay, in-air refueling, comm range - can be solved by better UAV autonomy or a next generation satellite comm network. Whether hot-dogging fighter pilots want to admit it or not, it is only a matter of time before they are bested and replaced by a computer dork obsessed with Jane's fighter jet simulations.

- AS

I believe the USAF considers "a better", "next generation" and "a matter of time" to be scarier words and phrases than you do. You are certainly right, but they don't want the first generation of unmanned fighters to be such a major disaster that it become politically unfeasable to progress to the future you describe. Especially since that would give some potential enemy or another a chance to steal a march on us.

acptulsa:

Unarmed fighters?

<imagines some kind of air war in which fighter pilots decide to toss aside their fancy missiles, climb out on the wing, and "fight like real men," in hand-to-hand single combat without weapons, 25000 feet above the ground and racing along at Mach 1...>

Yeah, I gave myself funny Jackie Chan mental images when I realized my typo. Then I proceeded to think about the Typhoon pilots in WWII tipping the wings of V-1s to throw their gyros off, and the Soviet pilots from earlier in the war chewing rudders up with their propellers.

Anyway, we're certainly past that stage. I think those who feel having command and control in the immediate vicinity of unmanned fighters either don't realize how fast things happen in a modern dogfight, don't realize the Chinese have shot down a satellite that was 450 miles up (one of their own, I admit, but still...), or both.

Make that "...having command and control in the immediate vicinity is not necessary..."

You'd think I'd have learned to re-read before I post by now...