SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NEXT

DarthAmerica Phaid reply 4/9/2009 1:47:50 PM

It will also be a hell of a lot cheaper in the long run than recapitalizing the bulk of the TACAIR fleet as well. IIRC turning TOMCATs to BOMBCATs cost ~2.5-3 billion for just 210 planes and that was really not even as extensive. I also think not going F-35 hurts our preferred method of coalition warfare and would have disastrous consequences for our defense industry. An F-35 is many times more effective in it's role compared to legacy platforms.

Just to clarify, when I say "recapitalize the bulk of our tactical jet fleet with inexpensive updated-4th-gen airframes", I mean buy new updated-4th-gen airframes (new-build F-16 Block 60+).

Agree about the Bombcat, but that was a stopgap due to bad procurement decisions in the early 90s -- in fact, kind of a parallel to the situation I see happening now. We didn't go ahead with the A-6F and stopped the F-14D because we thought we'd get the A-12. Then the A-12 fell apart, and suddenly we were left with no long range carrier strike, so we had to quickly wire up 30-year-old F-14As to drop LGBs. They worked well over Afghanistan, but the maintenance effort required to keep their sortie rate up in 2001 was nothing short of herculean. I can see the same type of thing happening ten years from now as a result of Gates' decision.

Can you elaborate on this? I'm asking because suppose we do get the force Gates wants. Ten years from now, we would have significant F-35's in the arsenal and they would be a mature platform. Because they are multirole and capable of almost all TACAIR roles, where do you see a shortfall such as the one the A-12 cancellation left us with?

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Hidden authority appeal. 4/9/2009 1:53:09 PM

Didn't anyone read about what I wrote about self contained robots, antennas, and INFORMATION EXPLOIT PATHS?

I know that some of us think we can BS our way through on this topic, but get a CLUE!

You can't BS about stuff like this, not if somebody even knows basic electronics and about the exploits possible.

Herald

Quote Reply

RockyMTNClimber No more air superiority fighters needed? 4/9/2009 2:05:16 PM

The No Fly Zones of the 21st Century are not going to be like the No Fly Zones of last decade. This decades no fly zone is over Pakistan, Africa and Iraq looking for Taliban and AQ not SAMs and Migs.<Darth

UAVs aren't adequate for air superiority, and they won't be for many more years. The fundamental argument still comes down to how many dedicated air superiority airframes we need. Based upon the last 10 years and projecting against potential threats, 187 F22s +170 30 year old F15Cs, just isn't enough.

Happy to disagree.

Check Six

Rocky

Quote Reply

Phaid DA 4/9/2009 2:06:54 PM

What I mean is that I see the F-35 playing the same role the A-12 did: we halt working, low-risk programs in the near term (A-6F and F-14D then, F-22 now) in favor of a new program (A-12 then, F-35 now). The new program doesn't pan out, and we're left with a major capability shortfall.

If the F-35 works as advertised and is delivered on time and on budget then I don't really see such a shortfall happening¹. However, I don't believe that will be the case, and that is why I disagree so strongly with Gates' decision. If nothing else, we should at a minimum keep the F-22 line open until we know for sure how well the F-35 will work and how much it will cost.

¹ this is not to take away from my opinion that even if the F-35 works as advertised, it would still be more efficient to instead buy more F-22s and new F-16s, for the reasons I mentioned earlier in this thread.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 4/9/2009 2:07:03 PM

Appeal to the crowd and character assassination its called when the shouter has no facts to rebut the plain stated case on its merits.

I do have to correct you on a couple of points, SW. When a properly designed ballistic missile decouples from its ground support cables it is a self contained robot that flies on its internal guidance. Some of them will have guidance updating mid-phase or will read radio-location beacons to correct for drift error as they debus their RVs, but most don't.

There is thus no antenna vulnerability to exploit to misdirect such a war rocket. To may knowledge there is no EW way to spoof such a self-contained weapon within the Earth's atmosphere.

Guided missiles are another story.

In addition to other science fiction things we must be careful about when we make assumptions and declare things, we don't exactly burn missiles out of the air as much as we exploit information paths that the enemy builds in his missiles to disable them. We've done this as spoofing for a long time with self protection jammers and other active countermeasures, but now we can build it into the radar which has the power at last to do more than just spoof. We can cook pilots at range, if the enemy aircraft isn't radio opaque for example.

But remember there has to be an exploit path. Mister Faraday is very much still with us.

Herald

Granted that ballistic missiles do not have antennas to exploit - and the warheads are much more hardened than say an AAM or land attack missile. However - the F-22 AESA can be used against sensitive electronics and it is not limited on antenna entry points. This is especially true of unsheilded or commercial grade products where there are exploits available. Simple induction of current flow or distortion of the chip memory can result in unpredictable results. A very good example is the unsheilded computers onboard the former Russian space station which malfunctioned.

Of course, generation 1 guidance systems - e.g. clock work mechanical systems - are not vulnerable but much less accurate.

The IW aspects of a powerful AESA combined with the CPU even alows for true hacking into networks without antennas using various unsheilded entry points such as nodes and even fiber optic relays. This is one reason for rad hardened chips in your ballistic missile guidance and warhead assembly.

All physics is local SW. In this case you have to be on top of the launch site at almost point blank range, so its rather pointless. Your window is less than 30m seconds to cause an induction path. Aluminum shells are also kind of good shields when there is a fiberglass sandwich included. Additionally the reason for keeping our war rockets underground or underwater is to Faraday them. The command inputs that feed them their launch data until they fly is from on site stored media and control systems that is independent of the rest of the environment. Once the lids open and the bird's in the air its to late to do anything about them except KYAG.or apply kinetics and pray.

In other words while its nice to say that the ICBM rocket is a huge flying antenna just aching for a radio beam to ground short its guidance, it isn't any such thing.

Herald.

Quote Reply

Beazz 4/9/2009 2:20:21 PM

In the end - there is no convincing Darth. So I best leave him to the US Army to deal with (thats if he is not using their networks to post here at SP - in which case the CID might give him a call). In the end - he is perfectly willing to loose fighter pilots and have a ground war start instead of listening to any argument to the contrary.

Softwar,

It's sad that you and Herald are incapable of having a debate based on facts rather than your politics. The fact is that neither of you are capable of making your case and are showing a complete misunderstanding of the subject matter altogether. Softwar, your reference to CID is simply laughable and indicative of how little you really understand. Neither of you are worth a single keystroke outside of you local fanclubs on this website. Again, I challenge you on facts. When you are actually capable of responding in kind and learn how to share an opinion without insulting your audience, then you will start to appreciate the benefit of a forum. Grow up. Try to be like Warpig, Phaid or GF. I'm sure both have different opinions compared to mine, but neither of them are diving into the realm of personal insults as both of you two are. Bluewings is absolutely right that some of you behave like clowns in the face of peers. Consider that. Especially Herald. You would think getting pimp slapped of the boards would have humbled him. Warpig was right.

-DA

DA,

Why is it when Herald and others counter your views with what to me seems to be a well thought out reasoned approach to what they say, it is simply *opinion* and therefore not vald. But when you counter with your superior expertise it is *fact*?
Seems to me that *facts* are in the eyes of the beholder huh?

I also wonder how it is that you claim to be in the Army, but yet when debating other members on this forum who appear to be well versed and actually work in other areas like Naval, USAF, shipbuilding, airplane building, aerial warfare, naval warfare,missiles, rockets, etc., that you not only are an expert in all things Army, but you are an equally qualified expert in all those areras as well? How do you know more then those that actually work in the aircraft industry, served in the USAF, USN etc, about what they best need or don't need? Do you know how outright silly it would sound for some F15 jockey to be on this board stateing with absolute certainty everyday how many tanks the Army needed and how they best should be useing them? I would be sitting here asking myself the same thing about them as I do now about you. I'd be asking myself what the hell does some F15 pilot know about how the Army should be conducting it's business and how and what it needs to fight. I now ask the same thing about some Army guy that is doing that exact same thing about not only the USAF but the USN as well.

I find it virtually impossible for someone of the rank you claim to be in the Army to have so much overwhelming unchallenged knowledge of all things of every branch of the US military. I would think even a member of the Joint Chiefs would have a hard time grasping all the detailed absolute knowledge you claim to have on all subject matter relating to all things military.

That being said, I think it is like SW said, you may very well indeed be a troll and not who you claim to be at all. The more I read from you, the more it simply does not add up. As for Herald getting *pimp slapped* off the boards as you put it. He was not banned for his message or views, but rather the manner in which he delivered it. From where I am sitting, his views come across as more factual then yours and in general are quiet detailed in the subjet matter he claims to be, and is obviously very well knowledgeable in. Seems to me from where I sit, your version of *facts* is you are an expert and have experience in apparently every thing to do with the US and foreign militarys so if you say it, therefore it is and you're not required to prove anything because it's *classified* and only you are in the *need to know bases*. If anyone else with expertise in a given area states how they see it, then what they say is simply *opinion* and therefore summaryly dismissed by you as irrelevant.

Beazz

Quote Reply

Softwar Herald - Yes but... 4/9/2009 2:35:22 PM

In other words while its nice to say that the ICBM rocket is a huge flying antenna just aching for a radio beam to ground short its guidance, it isn't any such thing.

Herald.

I agree but... A ballistic missile during ascent can be vulnerable to EW - no antenna required. Granted the F-22's first AESA success was knocking down a Sidewinder in flight - not very well sheilded - but it did disable the seeker guidance system. No antenna but plenty of chips to screw with. Sure - AAM and cruise missiles are thin skinned - but some ballistic missiles are as well. Also if you don't design the access hatches correctly - they might as well be windows instead. Our Chinese pals found this out the hard way.

I am think in terms of using the AESA to perform a broad-frequency EA functions, such as damaging electrical components and sensors. This is not unknown in the HPM of HERF world and AESA can pump out the power in a narrow enough beam from the required distance to disable a laser ring gyro if the shielding sucks.

Don't get me wrong - it won't work on a Trident or Topol M but it might work on the patchwork - off the shelf - crapola inside a No Dong or Shahab.

Radiation Hardening Emerges as Must-Have Protection

Aviation Week & Space Technology May 28 , 2007 , p. 70

Miniaturized electronics using increasingly smaller voltages are key to packing more capability into advanced aircraft, sensors and communications networks--but they're on a collision course with nature.

In addition to solar flares and radiation belts in space, these advanced devices are threatened by new electronic pulse weapons, bursts of microwaves from powerful new radars and proliferation of small nuclear weapons.

A blast of radiation could "turn on every transistor" in a target area, says George Nossaman, director of advanced digital systems at BAE Systems. And if every transistor in a 40-million-circuit electronic package were turned on, it would demand "so much power that it burns out little pieces of the circuit that supplies power." The effect is called "rail span collapse" or latching. There also can be temporary effects such as destroying pieces of computer memory even while processing continues.

Beyond military concerns, researchers contend that as commercial aircraft electronics moves toward 90-, 65- or even 45-nanometer electronic components, systems operating above 30,000 ft. will begin to experience problems from transients and upsets caused by natural radiation.

"Someone's going to have to address [microtechnologies] that go into future airliners," says Ian McDonald, program director for advanced digital systems at BAE Systems' Manassas facility. "They're going to have to find ways to mitigate radiation effects and enhance redundancy because natural radiation will start impacting aircraft and even the laptops you put on your desk at sea level."

TECHNIQUES FOR ECONOMICAL solutions are beginning to trickle out of the esoteric, classified and very expensive world of reconnaissance and intelligence-gathering satellites, however. Researchers at a Virginia-based BAE Systems semiconductor chip foundry believe that technology developed to harden components for space can make a relatively cheap transition to Earth's atmosphere.

If they can be used for terrestrial missions, and if they can be built in the hundreds of thousands instead of a few thousand, cost would plummet. BAE Systems analysts contend that if hardened components are planned into new systems from the start, it should increase total cost by less than 5%.

"What if the North Koreans took their only nuclear bomb and blew it up in space over their own territory?" Nossaman says. Even if satellites aren't affected immediately, the resulting effect "pumps the radiation belts up, and if you haven't built a satellite that can handle the exposure, its lifetime goes to maybe four or five months with economic consequences we don't want."

It's not just satellites that are in jeopardy. There's a whole new class of vulnerable systems including air and missile defenses, classified communications that make network-centric operations possible, sensitive intelligence-gathering systems and the small computers used by special operations forces.

The threat to next-generation electronics is even more insidious, organic and inevitable. The reduction in the size of electronic equipment and components means that some circuitry is becoming microscopic and requires only minute amounts of power to function. As a result, even a relatively small spike of errant energy could cause an upset in vital equipment.

Researchers also realize they have reached the point in electrical component miniaturization that electromagnetic energy--produced naturally by the Sun--could create the same destructive effect in microelectronics that high-power microwaves (HPM) create in today's less vulnerable, higher-voltage circuitry.

Virtually every key electronic system--including aircraft flight controls and sensor packages--will soon need some level of radiation hardening, researchers say. A rough rule of thumb among industry specialists is that the generation of electronics in the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter will not be affected. However, designs being readied for future aircraft and unmanned combat aircraft could require redesign and modifications to compensate for their sensitivity to high-power emissions.

"If you plan on putting an unmanned combat aircraft up at 60,000 ft., you may have concerns," says Nossaman. "Embedded electrical components in the skin--spread out over the surface of an airship or aircraft wings--wouldn't have any natural shielding. It has to be a consideration."

There's also the issue of proliferation of nuclear weapons.

A nuclear explosion produces electromagnetic effects across the spectrum from light to gamma rays. What's called a "prompt dose arrives all at once at the speed of light," Nossaman says. "Electromagnetic pulse (EMP) is a subset of radiation effects that include gamma rays, visible light, X-rays and infrared that all have different effects. The electromagnetic waves induce voltages on wires with what's called system-generated EMP. The immediate voltage effect is followed by a lot of debris--parts of atoms, protons, ions, electronics and heavy nuclei--that can burrow into your electronics."

In the last 20 years, the area of a typical transistor has dropped a factor of 100. Radiation effects, as a result, have alarmingly scaled upward.

"While a proton hitting a transistor was once like putting a pea in a barrel, the pea is now striking a grain of sand," Nossaman says. "To maintain the integrity of your circuits and to operate through natural and nuclear effects is remarkably difficult. We've had to redesign transistors and circuits and the unique, underlying processes that counter radiation effects."

For example, circuits can be designed so that when a spike of voltage reaches a predetermined level, it is shunted aside to devices that can absorb more of the current. Shielding and filtering also help protect power lines from surges. But the last level of defense is electronics designed to continue functioning despite the radiation effects of a bomb or solar flare. Systems will need to be designed to turn the power off and back on without having to reboot. That way, a missile tracker could remember where it was and resume following a target after the wave of energy passes.

"We are talking about our products becoming more practicable for air-breathing platforms," Nossaman says. "We think in the future that new radiation-hardening requirements for aircraft will be specified." Moreover, the Missile Defense Agency already has specifications for the entire missile defense complex, including missiles and ground-based radars.

Another emerging problem is anticipating the destructive effects of HPM weapons--enemy or friendly--that may be in combat within a few years. For example, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radars can be used as directed energy weapons. They are already being installed in the Pentagon's most advanced, long-range surveillance and fighter aircraft.

Foes of the U.S. also will have access to some of these new HPM technologies. Business competitors such as Russia, Sweden, Italy, China, France, the U.K. and Germany have AESA radars and HPM weapons under development or in some cases on sale in the world market. Russia is developing an AESA radar for its new MiG-35 (variant of the MiG-29), and the Tor-M1 air defense system newly delivered to Iran has a passive ESA. Thales has completed flight-testing of an AESA radar antenna intended for its Rafale fighter.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Let me try this. 4/9/2009 3:07:43 PM

I agree but... A ballistic missile during ascent can be vulnerable to EW - no antenna required. Granted the F-22's first AESA success was knocking down a Sidewinder in flight - not very well sheilded - but it did disable the seeker guidance system. No antenna but plenty of chips to screw with. Sure - AAM and cruise missiles are thin skinned - but some ballistic missiles are as well. Also if you don't design the access hatches correctly - they might as well be windows instead. Our Chinese pals found this out the hard way.

The Sidewinder has an antenna on it that is highly vulnerable to light. Radio is light.

That gray thing is the antenna lens cap. Your eye is a light antenna. If I shine X-rays into it you will see flashes as the X-rays destroy your optic nerves and the receptor sites on your retina.

Now then, a properly focused radio beam will do the same to an IR detector, or to your eye; if it's shined into your "eye" or IR detector as it deposits its energy as heat overburden. That is the exploit path. That is how a radar destroys an IR missile. It blinds it.

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica BEAZZ reply... 4/9/2009 3:24:26 PM

DA,

Seems to me that *facts* are in the eyes of the beholder huh?

First of all you are either lying or mistaken. That's clearly out of bias. If you read my responses, I clearly state that i am offering my opinion which is based on my military experience. So your post is invalid on that account. Second, if Herald and Softwar would get over the fact that we do have political differences and simply post their opinions and not personally insult me, then the nature of the thread would be a lot more user friendly. Note that the forum as a whole was a lot more conducive to debate and people were actually able to have friendly disagreement without threads going personal when Herald was banned. So consider this. If you have a particular question on WHY I think something, you simply just ask and I'll explain myself. Doesn't mean we have to agree. But we should at least show some sort of respect for the fact that people do have different views. Again, my view is that we have more than enough air superiority platforms. Will have more than enough for the next 20 years. Meanwhile, the nature of warfare is changing and our opponents aren't stupid. They recognize our dominance and seek asymmetric means to get around that dominance. For lack of means to control their SLOC over the next 20 years, the PRC has gone to things like AshBMs to counter NAVAIR. For lack of adequate military force to oppose U.S. foreign policy, Russia has chosen to act at a time where our GROUND COMBAT fORCES are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan. They are using that as leverage to defeat our coalitions and ABM technologies. Somalian pirates are now holding a U.S. Hostage because we lack the depth of coverage and presence ships like LCS would give. Ships like DDG-1000 suck funds away from Burkes which have the ABM capabilities we need to shoot down DF-21s. The DoD needs to refocus and reorient on the threats we will face and are facing in the 21st Century. All of these ISR and EW capabilities the F-22 possesses that posters are talking about can also be taken advantage of in other platforms like the F-35. There aren't many air forces that can put up more than one or two dozen interceptors to oppose us. In many cases a single carrier air wing would be enough to wipe out in total the red air. Yet in Africa right now, you have millions of disconnected people with a gripe and an AK and nothing to lose by supporting AQ. The same story applies to many other theaters. Meanwhile, realistically at best, China can send out 200-300 4th Gen fighters with capabilities far below ours and then with severe limits outside of GCI coverage. The same is true with their SAMs. An F-22 wing going at the PLAAF would utterly thwart any attempt at a direct confrontation and still have some F-22's left for other things.

We have posters claiming that UCAVs aren't mature enough for this or that. Well I can tell you that is laughable. Sure, just ike any new program they aren't perfect. But the USA could field IOC UCAVs in the next 5 years capable of doing ANY mission a manned fighter does. That is of course my opinion and I am in a position to know that. Feel free to disagree of course as this is an opinion based on technologies I've seen some of which are freakin public knowledge.

So yes, fact is in the eye of the beholder. I've been blessed to behold a lot. That is why I have the opinions that I do. If you disagree, hey, no harm no foul. I'm just a dude on the internet. But I look forward to the fascinating post that will come in the next 5 to 10 years as technologies people can imagine come to light and go operational much faster than most think.

Just like ODS showed the trend of Air War to go more toward BVR and PGMs with dramatic increase in battlespace effectiveness. Watch whats going on over the skies of Pakistan and the ME. You are getting a sneak preview of the next decade right now. We are in Beta, if you understood my post, you know what I'm referring to. I know some do...;)

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Send in the F-22's... 4/9/2009 3:31:48 PM

Petraeus: US will increase presence near pirates

Apr 9 03:16 PM US/Eastern By BRIAN SKOLOFF Associated Press Writer

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) - The head of the U.S. Central Command says the American military will increase its presence near the Horn of Africa within 48 hours.

Gen. David Petraeus spoke in West Palm Beach, Fla., on Thursday as a hostage standoff with pirates continues off Africa.

He did not give specifics, but said more ships would be in the area because "we want to ensure that we have all the capability that might be needed over the course of the coming days."

Somali pirates tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama on Wednesday, but the crew took control of the vessel back. The armed pirates escaped on one of the ship's lifeboats, taking the Maersk captain hostage.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP's earlier story is below.

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP)—The head of the U.S. Central Command says the American military will increase its presence near the Horn of Africa within 48 hours.

Gen. David Petraeus spoke in West Palm Beach, Fla. on Thursday as a hostage standoff with pirates continues off Africa.

He did not give specifics, but said "we want to ensure that we have all the capability that might be needed over the course of the coming days."

Somali pirates tried to hijack the U.S.-flagged Maersk Alabama on Wednesday, but the crew thwarted the attempt. The armed pirates escaped on one of the ship's lifeboats, taking the Maersk captain hostage.
Copyright 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Quote Reply

benellim4 4/9/2009 3:36:46 PM

History, it seems, is cyclical. During the 90s and through most of this decade we had a force designed to fight the last war, i.e. the Cold War. We were prepared for the last war. I'm afraid we're doing the same thing in reverse.

It is becoming very apparent that we have a country with a billion people and an economy that has been supporting a record build up of its armed forces. It will become a competitor in the near term. We are not likely to fight China like we have fought insurgents. In fact, we are not likely to use the Army at all, unless things really go south on Formosa.

I also strongly believe that we will not have the political will to fight another Afghanistan, much less Iraq, for another 15 to 20 years. So that leave two types of wars. A "cold" war with our favorite near term competitor and much smaller wars, assistance actions really, keeping governments stable and keeping our near term competitor from gaining influence. (What China is doing in Africa has so many parallels to what the Soviet Union did there and in South America as to not be funny. The only difference is the motivation.)

I see a two-tier force structure needed.

Tier One a kick ass conventional force. This requires modern destroyers (not DDG-1000), BMD, and 5th generation fighters to check China's conventional build up. (We have some slop in this right now, but it is not much and our conventional power seems to be on the wane.) The USAF and USN should lead this based on the threat area.

Tier Two is a kick ass non-conventional force. This requires UAVs (which the Army should operate for itself), airlift, sealift, and small groups of highly trained men who can operate with other nations who don't possess a lot of technological sophistication. Off the shelf solutions should be the order of the day, mainly because they can then be transferred to friendly governments as low cost force multipliers. This isn't necessarily manpower intensive because you're not deploying a 100,000 troops at a time. You're deploying at most battalions, and more likely companies, and even more likely platoons to interact with host nation forces. Usually, the smaller the better. The less people used the less likely the current government is seen as a puppet of the "imperialist Americans."

Seems to me Gates wants a force that will fight wars like Iraq and Afghanistan in the future. Reading the political tea leaves this seems to me to be the least likely scenario for the use of force.

The problem with cutting F-22 production, in the above vision is simple. We project our forces all over the world. We are at the mercy of the tyranny of distance. One hundred and eighty-seven F-22s might be enough, if we are only fighting in one place and we have the time to get all the F-22s in one place before the enemy acts. The problem with this is it requires the enemy to be accommodating, which they rarely are. The other problem is one of the aircraft's life-cycle. As the F-22s age, they will require more spare parts, but fewer spare parts will be available, which will inevitably lead to cannibalization. Now you have less than 187 planes because you're using one or two just to keep a third aircraft flying. So while it seems like a good idea now to stop production, it is not likely to be a good idea in 15 to 20 years. With the F-15 at least the production line is still open. With the F-22 the production line will have been shut down for over a decade. In the mean time, there will be many many more Flankers produced, probably thanks to the PRC who will shamelessly sell copies when they figure out how to produce a jet engine worth a damn, spreading to two-bit air forces like Venezuela.

Logistics folks, logistics. The Army can't fight the unconventional war without air and sea superiority to get them their. The USAF and the USN can't provide that unless it gets the tools needed to provide that superiority not just now, but in 15 or 20 years in the future.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Educate yourselves..... 4/9/2009 3:47:28 PM

Gavial proposal for RFP Air Defense Drone.

quote:

Executive Summary
In response to the Request for Proposal [1] from the AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft
Design Competition, VersaCorp Aerospace from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University proudly
presents Gavial, a next generation Unmanned Combat Aerial Vehicle, Homeland Defense Interceptor (UCAVHDI).
The Gavial meets the design mission requirements of providing superior operational capability while
maximizing cost-effectiveness in all facets of the design.
The Gavial is designed primarily for supersonic performance. This led to the use of a highly swept
cranked arrow wing with a blended fuselage. Primary control is provided by canards and a single vertical
tail. The Gavial also utilizes a single engine in the 35,000 lb thrust class. Missiles are stored externally on
under-wing hard-points, and rail launched. The flyaway cost of the Gavial is ?$15,000,000, with ?half of that
being for materials and systems.
The Gavial is capable of performing three distinct missions, each contributing significantly to the aircraft?s
overall mission of ensuring homeland security. The streamlined fuselage is equipped with the M61-A1 Vulcan
20mm Gatling rotary gun which is driven by the aircraft?s hydraulic system and has a maximum rate of
fire of up to 7,200 shots per minute (SPM), providing the Gavial with excellent lethality during dog-fighting
and pinpoint attacks. The wing undercarriage is capable of carrying a maximum of four AIM-120 advanced
medium-range air-to-air missile (AMRAAM), four AIM-9 Sidewinder missiles, or a combination of two AIM-
120 missiles and up to two AIM-9s. Such arsenal versatility optimizes the Gavial?s performance in the RFP
specified Defensive Counter-Air Patrol (DCAP), Intercept/Escort and Point Defense Intercept missions.
The option of mounting three 660 gallon exterior fuel tanks provides the capability of fulfilling the DCAP
missions four hour loiter requirement. As a supersonic performer, the Gavial is designed to minimize drag
and maximize maneuverability at the design altitude of 35,000ft, out-performing many operational features
of modern fighters. The inclusion of the most advanced radar and UCAV communications systems, including
a portable next-generation ground station, maximizes mission effectiveness while simultaneously decreasing
the overall cost of the aircraft and completely eliminating pilot risk. This highly survivable and versatile
aircraft highly exceeds many of the RFP requirements with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) date of

2020 and a flyaway cost of $15 million.

This is a paper exercise by people who are learning how to do this for real, not somebody who claims to have seen something.

It is what is possible within our technology tree NOW. Note the date. Interception at the border of our airspace is SIMPLE. Now try to tell me UCAS air combat in a war-zone where you are sending in mixed strike packages is going to be something we will see in five years?

Just try to tell me that.

Herald

Quote Reply

Softwar Send in The Clown... 4/9/2009 4:15:15 PM

Darth wrote:

SEND IN THE F-22s

Petraeus: US will increase presence near pirates ...

Don't you think that to be callous considering that an American is being held hostage? I would scold you for posting something that even Hillary says is a "criminal" act as compared to an act of war. Dealing with 3rd world bandits is not tangling with an S-300 at close range.

I know... I know ... you contend we will never have to deal with an S-300 and so what if we lose a few pilots in aging fighters... we will win anyway.

Frankly, I would rather not tempt fate but you would rather ride your bike and bally-ho that you will be the one putting your life on the line. Say - where were you for 9/11? Why didn't you stop the 767s with your 9mm pistol? Why indeed where there no fighters up in time to stop any of the airliners? The answer is easy - the same shortsighted policy driving the F-22 cancellation now pursued an "it can't happen" policy of degrading US air defense to nil.

Quote Reply

Beazz 4/9/2009 4:24:06 PM

DA,

Seems to me that *facts* are in the eyes of the beholder huh?

Well DA, I have no reason to lie. I openly admit I have NO expertise in any of the subject matter being discussed and make no apoligy for it. The problem I have with what you say is just what you said above, *OPINION, based on your military experience*. You openly claim to be a Staff Sgt in the Army, and nothing whatsoever wrong with that. I have a hard time grasping how *that* experience gives you all this deep unchallengeable knowledge into all aspects of aerial warfare, missile warfare and naval warfare? How does what you did in Iraq give you any first hand knowledge of everything the USAF and USN need, and how they use it in complete and total detail? It just makes no sense whatsoever.

Even the Joint Chiefs of staff has representatives from each branch of the military, and for good reason. Aside from the political aspect of it, there is the very real and practical reason. That being that an Army general knows more about the Army, how it operates and what it needs to do it then some Navy admiral and vice-versa. But in your case, you seem to know more then all the people on here that actually work in or have been in other branches of the service or fields that clearly deliver weapons tech to these branches.

You cannot simply keep claiming your *experience* in every single area of miltary activity that exists and expect people to buy it. How can an Army Staff Sgt know more about fighters and their requirements then those that actually use them and build them, more then Naval craft then those that actually use them and build, more about missile tech and how it is used then the actual people who do this for a living? Maybe there is a perfectly reasonable explanation for your complete and total in depth expertise on every single thing related to not only the US military, but all foreign ones as well. But as of yet, I at least have not seen it or missed it when you made it public.

As this thread relates to airplanes, I simply do not see how your experience in Iraq out on patrols gives you any insight into how many air superiority fighters the USAF may or may not need. It simply makes no logical sense whatsoever DA.

Take care,

Beazz

Quote Reply

mustang22 4/9/2009 4:31:22 PM

DA,

Seems to me that *facts* are in the eyes of the beholder huh?

-DA

But the USA could field IOC UCAVs in the next 5 years capable of doing ANY mission a manned fighter does.

I guess we don't need the F-35 after all.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 NEXT

	News As History - November 23, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us