along the lines of military aviation....

[stroker]

aside from cost, why would the Air Force NOT find it useful to install the autopilot capability from UAV's to recently retired Tac Air planes (Eagles, Falcons, etc.) to use them as lead "drones"? Seems to me that if you're the local Air Defense Artillery commander and you see a wave of 75 or 100 US aircraft coming at you (verified by radar signature as legitimate fighters or attack aircraft) that you'd HAVE to respond with all the SAMs you've got on the launchers? Wouldn't that make the US command's job of identifying targets for Wild Weasels much easier without risking pilots? The fact that those drone Falcons/Eagles could drop JDAMs, etc. (and a BUNCH of them) would make them quite valuable on an initial attack, would it not?

[Insomniac]

aside from cost, why would the Air Force NOT find it useful to install the autopilot capability from UAV's to recently retired Tac Air planes (Eagles, Falcons, etc.) to use them as lead "drones"? Seems to me that if you're the local Air Defense Artillery commander and you see a wave of 75 or 100 US aircraft coming at you (verified by radar signature as legitimate fighters or attack aircraft) that you'd HAVE to respond with all the SAMs you've got on the launchers? Wouldn't that make the US command's job of identifying targets for Wild Weasels much easier without risking pilots? The fact that those drone Falcons/Eagles could drop JDAMs, etc. (and a BUNCH of them) would make them quite valuable on an initial attack, would it not?

If they're risking all of them to SAMs, then the intelligence they will be gathering better be well worth it. You're talking about spending a lot of money on something that you expect to get shot at (and possibly shot down).

[Joelski]

Most all strikes are carrier based. In order to run that man UAV fighter/bombers, you'd need a large airfield installation. You'd probably also need in-air refueling capability in spite of having and air base relatively close. You'd have to figure the logistics of getting all those aircraft outfitted and certified, training ground based flight staff, and positioning those assets. That would likely take one carrier out of rotation just to move the planes overseas. When you add it all up, it'd be cheaper to invest in more Raptors and pilot training for carrier based raids.

[Andrew Longman]

Much of the cost justification for retiring the older planes is maintenance cost and time.

The newer plane take a fraction of the time to turn around, require less maintenance in general and are much simpler to train technicians on.

Keeping them in service just to use as bait probably isn't as cost effective as using purpose built UAVs for the same role.

[Ankf00]

The newer plane take a fraction of the time to turn around, require less maintenance in general and are much simpler to train technicians on.

Keeping them in service just to use as bait probably isn't as cost effective as using purpose built UAVs for the same role.

this

[cameraman]

using purpose built UAVs for the same role.

I thought we already had these and used them on the night of the first major attack on Iraq:confused:

[coolhand]

aside from cost, why would the Air Force NOT find it useful to install the autopilot capability from UAV's to recently retired Tac Air planes (Eagles, Falcons, etc.) to use them as lead "drones"? Seems to me that if you're the local Air Defense Artillery commander and you see a wave of 75 or 100 US aircraft coming at you (verified by radar signature as legitimate fighters or attack aircraft) that you'd HAVE to respond with all the SAMs you've got on the launchers? Wouldn't that make the US command's job of identifying targets for Wild Weasels much easier without risking pilots? The fact that those drone Falcons/Eagles could drop JDAMs, etc. (and a BUNCH of them) would make them quite valuable on an initial attack, would it not?

As others have said it is not any cheaper, and perhaps more expensive to do this. PLUS the capabilities are much less. Just flying bait into a SAMs cross hairs can be done with a cheaper purpsoe built UAV.

USAF and the USN have plenty of other solutions to beat IADs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEAD


Part of the problem with using UCAVs for first strike aircraft is that in order for it to remain low observable it needs to be emissions silent. Thus operators cannot keep tabs on what it is up to and you have to hope its pre-programmed mission works. There are probably other issues they have thought of we don't know about.