The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.

Yet some programs would grow. Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

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       4/9/2009 4:33:34 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. 

Again, you can't make a case without aiming at your personal dislike for me. Don't worry, I'll make this all clear for those interested. Criminal acts, "piracy" for instance, is a lot like what happened on 9/11. We aren't prepared to deal with the threats posed by these kinds of non-state threats. Thats because we don't have a force light enough, numerous enough or applicable to so after the people who do these things Softwar. Again, you are focusing too much on platforms and not systems level events. We didn't get hit on 9/11 or any other time because we didn't have the right platforms. We got hit because the way we orient those platforms and systems they work in are too focused on threats that don't exist outside of military fiction writers imaginations. Think about what you write before you call someone who is far more familiar with the wars that are actually happening a clown. As we speak the next deployment cycle for me and those like me is gearing up. 


Think about it as if you have two parallel problems. One is killing you slowly right now, the other one happening over a much longer period  maybe. Which one gets priority? Our defense resources are not limitless.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 5:04:26 PM







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?













 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.


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*. 


OK, but why is that a problem for you? Just disagree if you are so inclined? Why take it personal or get offended? 


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.


I never said in complete or total detail. My knowledge is broad because I've been serving for the majority of the last 2 decades. I have been commissioned before and reenlisted by choice as an NCO to allow me to get closer to the action and also to facilitate my civilian employer. Contrary to popular believe the Reserves and the Guard are not just one weekend a month for Officers and because of my career choices in the last few years I have family and financial reasons for not wanting to add the additional responsibility of remaining commissioned for the remainder of my service. But make no mistake, the NCOs that serve today are not like past times. Education levels and professional achievements on the civil side are quite impressive. We are fortunate and unique in this. I had the pleasure to meet my UK, S Korean, Georgian, Ozzie, Romanian, Kuwaiti, Iraqi counterparts and I have to say at the NCO level there are huge differences that any American would take pride in. That isn't a knock on our allies. It's just to let you know not to underestimate the NCO's and enlisted. I have kids working for me who are going for advanced degrees that are many times more challenging than the degrees held by the Generals in command!



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.


What I'm saying here isn't anything super detailed or complicated and remains very general in nature. If it seems that I know more than some of the more vocal dissenters here consider why that may be and demand that they do more than shout very loudly their disagreement. Some of them have gone off into digressions that have nothing to do with my argument or the issue which is what should the DoD's priorities be TODAY with respect to now and the future.


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.


Because the people I'm talking to here in a lot of cases have NOTHING to do with fighters or the DoD at all and the few who do are not fighter pilots either. I can't help that I know things better. Actually having been deployed, seen the enemy and how the USA wages war does give me a better understanding of the subject matter  in some respects than someone who has not. It's why I can get hired on as a consultant or military advisor because I have that experience. It's not to say I know everything, I don't. But I do have a broad enough understanding to discuss most subjects you would find on an open forum like this.


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



Because I've done more than just patrols Beazz if you pay attention to what I'm saying. I study these issued as a passion and I do not allow myself to get tunnel vision into one area of knowledge. I am not arguing with fighter pilots here about the best way to outmaneuver a Mig. I can't do that. But I can take a look at the kinds of operations we are running and determine where the emphasis needs to be with regard to funding priorities ect. Note the differences.


-DA




P.S. Mustang, we can fly UCAVs such as the ones I described in the next 5 to 10 years. But the price point and maturity of systems isn't yet at a point where we should be totally reliant on that path just yet. Again, when I used to talk to people here years ago about UCAVs and what would be happening by the end of the decade prior to the arrival of less mature posters who don't yet realize this isn't an ego contest or confrontation, people cried very loudly that things Reapers are doing now were not coming until next decade. Give this a few years and you will see this again.


 

 









 












 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Again with the secret knowledge.   4/9/2009 5:25:26 PM
Article.

quote:
 

Drone Future: No Dog Fights (Yet)

By Sharon Weinberger EmailDecember 18, 2007 | 2:48:50 PMCategories: Drones  

Stealth The latest Pentagon roadmap (available in PDF here), which covers 2007 to 2032, says drones over the next 25 years should be moving toward doing everything from surveillance to counter-mine warfare. So, is there anything drones can't do?

Yes. Air to air combat is not in the cards right now, according to Dyke Weatherington, deputy director for the Pentagon's Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) Task Force "There's really  no way that a system that's remotely controlled can effectively operate in an offensive or defensive air combat requirement," he said today at a Pentagon briefing to discuss the new roadmap.  "The requirement of that is a fully autonomous system, we don't have that level of autonomy yet and frankly in the roadmap that will take many years to get to."

What?! No unmanned dogfights? How can the Pentagon pull the rug out from under everbody's vision of drone death wars. Oh well, we'll always have Stealth, the awesomely bad drone movie.

On the other hand, Weatherington said that unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) may go into areas typically described as "high risk" missions for manned aircraft, like suppression of enemy air defense. Important, yes. Hollywood potential? Not so much.

Weatherington skirted questions over the recent Army-Air Force dust up over drone control, saying something about the need "to better synergize" UAV efforts across the services. I think "synergize" is Pentagonese for when the Office of the Secretary of Defense decides to stay out of interservice squabbles. Or something like that.

Intriguingly, the question of future unmanned bombers carrying nukes is unclear. Aviation Week & Space Technology's Amy Butler asked whether a future unmanned bomber could carry nuclear weapons, to which Weatherington said he'd get back to us on that one.

Now that's got movie potential. If unmanned bombers carry nukes, it'll inspire a whole new generation of Fail Safe types films.

Now once again, you cannot BS about this.


Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 5:51:22 PM

Now once again, you cannot BS about this.


Herald


There is a difference between me BS'ing and you not having the end to end knowledge of systems and advances in technology to know what is possible and what is not. Guarantee you are going to be one of the people with his mouth open next decade when info starts to leak out equivalent to the 1980's era F-19. I remember that and the reactions. It is very possible Herald in spite of what you think. Unless of course you think you know what goes on in the dark which you have already shown in this post and others you don't.

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       4/9/2009 6:29:23 PM




Now once again, you cannot BS about this.






Herald







There is a difference between me BS'ing and you not having the end to end knowledge of systems and advances in technology to know what is possible and what is not.^1 Guarantee you are going to be one of the people with his mouth open next decade when info starts to leak out equivalent to the 1980's era F-19. I remember that and the reactions. It is very possible Herald in spite of what you think. Unless of course you think you know what goes on in the dark which you have already shown in this post and others you don't.




 

-DA 


The poster's claims are just about done here.
 
I've been building a chain of evidence while he has claimed to seen things.
 
The problem is ego. The poster claims he has an understanding of systems from wall to wall. I don't have that, and I know a hell of a lot more about aircraft than he does.^1 
 
 
 
 
 
Now I don't pretend to be a genius. I'm just an average Human being doing the best he can with what he has. I"m letting evidence do the talking for me here. Now you can't BS data. Either you negate it or you accept it. I haven'[t seen one negation from the poster. Not one. Just claims of secret knowledge. What ten times in a row?
 
It doesn't pass the smell test. We have trouble matching the intelligence of an amoeba in our ,machines when our aim-point is the ant.
 
^1 Assertions versus demonstrated reality.
 
Herald 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Ever hear of places like Skunk Works?   4/9/2009 6:47:14 PM

The poster's claims are just about done here.

I've been building a chain of evidence while he has claimed to seen things.

The problem is ego. The poster claims he has an understanding of systems from wall to wall. I don't have that, and I know a hell of a lot more about aircraft than he does.^1 





Now I don't pretend to be a genius. I'm just an average Human being doing the best he can with what he has. I"m letting evidence do the talking for me here. Now you can't BS data. Either you negate it or you accept it. I haven'[t seen one negation from the poster. Not one. Just claims of secret knowledge. What ten times in a row?

It doesn't pass the smell test. We have trouble matching the intelligence of an amoeba in our ,machines when our aim-point is the ant.


^1 Assertions versus demonstrated reality.


 

Herald 


 

Again,

You are assuming an aweful lot about things you cannot know about. You are quite incorrect in what you think we could put in the air and when. The question isn't even a matter of can we. It's will we given the manned fighter community dominance and resistance to chance and the fear of liability which is being eroded everyday in Pakistan.  If you stop beating your chest for a bit, calm down and discuss this like an adult, you might learn something or even teach something.  I've been building evidence on you too and believe me, you don't know nearly as much as you think you do. If you did, you would not be screaming so loudly for others to listen to you. Why would you care if some lowly "Staff Sgt" thinks a very active defense contractor could put an operational UCAV in the air NLT 2015 that would be fully capable of performing a2a combat missions. You care because you are not sure of yourself and you desperately what to get some of the more credible posters to back you up because without your resident fan club patting you on the back, you are nothing. The problem is, no one with any technical expertise or experience is going to back you up when you deny the reality that the technology exist now to put a a2a capable UCAV into combat in the next 5 to 10 years. Your arrogance is your unbecoming. Just keep in mind that this was years ago...

youtube.com/watch?v=wWUR3sgKUV8 

 
...Just keep thinking you know everything Herald. I'm completely and totally comfortable to agree to disagree with you on this...;)
 
-DA
 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 7:04:25 PM

UAV Helicopter Completes First Ever Autonomous UAV Helicopter Flight at Parc Aberporth


Rotomotion UAV Helicopter Impresses Audience despite 30 - 40 Knot Winds at Unmanned Systems 2008 Conference (25 ? 26 June 2008)


London, UK, 1st of July, 2008 ? ASM Europe Ltd announced today that the recently introduced fully autonomous unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) helicopter Rotomotion SR20 successfully completed the first rotorcraft flight ever conducted at the Parc Aberporth Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) flight facility.

This inaugural flight was accomplished during the Parc Aberporth Unmanned Systems 2008 Conference in spite of strong winds that caused problems for most fixed wing UAV demonstrations. The audience was impressed by the stability of Rotomotion?s SR20 UAV during take-off, various flight patterns, including a figure of eight, spiral ascent and hovering in one location, all the while seeing overcoat and hats whipping around in the background due to constant wind speeds exceeding 30 knots and gusts of up to 40 knots.


Rotomotion?s sophisticated Autonomous Flight Control System (AFCS) controlled the SR20?s entire flight, including take-off and landing, without any intervention from human personnel. The SR20 uses a 1.6kw electric engine powered by Lithium Polymer batteries. Rotomotion also offers larger, gas powered, UAVs for longer flight times and heavier payloads.


?This was the first opportunity for Rotomotion at this exciting UK UAS facility and conference,? stated Pietro Amati, Managing Director of ASM Europe, the UK-based distributor of Rotomotion. ?We are pleased to introduce our UAS to this audience in this fashion. It truly reflects Rotomotion?s advanced AFCS and UAS capabilities, furthering the cause and usefulness of Parc Aberporth?s UAV facility.?

According to many industry analysts, UAVs offer a myriad of new civil and paramilitary applications, including security surveillance over urban areas, search-and-rescue missions and environmental or infrastructure monitoring. But UAVs must first be cleared for use in civil airspace, which drove the establishment of the Parc Aberporth research-and-development center on the west coast of Wales. The facility is positioning itself as a center of excellence for both civil and military UAV development. 


The £20 million facility?s remote location on the UK?s Atlantic coast makes it ideal for testing UAVs in controlled airspace.


About Rotomotion

Rotomotion, located in Charleston, South Carolina, designs and manufactures easy-to-operate helicopter UAVs and flight control systems. Rotomotion systems are easy to transport and deploy and are the most affordable VTOL platforms for cameras and other sensor payloads in the industry. Deployed world-wide and used in a range of in-the-field applications, Rotomotion offers four models of helicopter UAVs, with payloads from 4.5 to 23 Kgs., endurance from 25 minutes to 4 hours, and electric, gasoline, and diesel or alcohol engine options. With experienced in-house UAV engineering and manufacturing resources, Rotomotion can rapidly produce custom designed solutions to solve any customers? requirements. For more information, visit rotomotion.com.


DARPA's Damage Tolerance

Challenge: The Joint Unmanned Combat Aircraft Systems (J-UCAS) program sponsored by DARPA was looking for a new approach to autonomously mitigate the effects of physical damage that could potentially occur in an air combat environment. They were looking for technology that would provide a new option for surviving the effects of an adversary's attack, allowing the air vehicle to sustain flight and potentially continue its mission. Athena Technologies, now part of Rockwell Collins, was awarded the contract.

Damage tolerance capability is crucial for unmanned combat aircraft systems (UCAS) operating in extremely hazardous, high-threat environments. The technology provides for virtually instantaneous, autonomous assessment of damage incurred followed by an immediate response that alters the flight control system to compensate for the effects of that damage.

Solution: Our technology is based on a unique, software-based approach to vehicle control that has been developed and evolved over the past decade. Its evolutionary string of control algorithms have been built on experience achieved using a variety of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). Efforts focused on airborne demonstrations of autonomous damage detection and recovery and the subsequent real time reconfiguration of the control laws needed to maintain vehicle stability and control. These adjustments enable air vehicles to complete their missions after incurring battle damage and allow them to safely return home. Specifically, our solutions offered:

  • Robust, general-solution techniques for implementing damage-tolerance and system-survivability features
  • Innovative strategies for avionics redundancy management that would be applicable to most air vehicles
  • Significant reductions in the cost to achieve first flight on new, dynamically challenging vehicles.

Results: We conducted a successful flight demonstration of damage tolerant flight control and autonomous landing capabilities on an unmanned subscale F/A-18 on April 18, 2007 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.

In June of 2008, Rockwell Collins, through newly-acquired Athena Technologies, completed another successful flight test of a significantly damaged unmanned F/A-18 subscale model air vehicle.

During the first flight test in June, nearly half of the airplane's right wing was ejected to simulate battle damage and in-flight failure. During the second flight, almost 60 percent of the airplane's right wing was ejected. Upon ejecting the wing section during both flights, Rockwell Collins' Automatic Supervisory Adaptive Control (ASAC) technology reacted to the airplane's new vehicle configuration, automatically regained baseline performance, continued to fly the plane, and then autonomously landed it using internal Inertial Navigation System/Global Positioning System (INS/GPS) reference only.

'Some contend Lockheed Martin's Joint Strike Fighter will be the last manned fighter jet as interest grows in unmanned aerial vehicles, but the corporation has already played with the idea of taking the man out of the fighter jet. 


If or when the fighter known as the F-35 is developed as a UAV, it could mean more missions for Sheppard Air Force Base. And, in spite of obstacles, it's probably not so much a question of if, but when, a developer creates an unmanned. 


"It's definitely feasible," said Phillip Coyle, a former Department of Defense director of operational testing and evaluation.' 

 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 7:07:48 PM
Keep in mind these are things that are being touted in public and have been for years!

ht*p://www.darpa.mil/j-ucas/x-45/videos.htm

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Because I know what an RFP is...   4/9/2009 7:28:41 PM
...I knew immediately something was wrong. Herald suggested that a air to air capable UCAV isn't possible before ~2020. The proof of this was a document BY STUDENTS that specifically asked for something in the ~2020 timeframe. That is pure Strawman because my point was that a2a capable UCAV's could be flying and IOC NLT 2014-2019 time frame with my 5 to 10 year prediction based on the state of the art and considering that there are huge sums on money in Black Programs I may be already be late. There is no technological limit that would prevent a MUCH EARLIER IOC as I said and backed up many times over. Anyway, here is the Document...

2005-2006 AIAA Foundation Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition

  1. RULES
 
  1. All groups of 3 to 10 undergraduate AIAA branch or at-large Student Members are eligible and encouraged to participate.
 
  1. Six copies of the design will be submitted; each must bear the signatures, names, and student numbers of the project leader and the AIAA Student Members who are participating. Designs that are submitted must be the work of the students, but guidance may come from the Faculty Advisor and should be accurately referenced and acknowledged.
 
  1. Design projects that are used as part of organized classroom requirement are eligible and encouraged for competition.
 
  1. The prizes shall be:
 

First place-$2,500;

Second place-$1,500;

Third place-$1,000. 

Certificates will be presented to members of the winning design team for display at their university and a certificate will also be presented to each team member and the faculty project advisor. One representative from the first place design team will be expected to present a summary design paper at an AIAA Conference in 2004. Reasonable airfare and lodging will be defrayed by the AIAA Foundation for the team representative. 

  1. More than one design may be submitted from students at any one school. Projects should be no more than 100 double-spaced typewritten pages and typeset should be no smaller than 10pt Times (including graphs, drawings, photographs, and appendix) on 8.5? x 11.0? paper.  Up to five of the 100 pages may be foldouts  (11? x 17? max).
 
  1. If a design group withdraws its project from the competition, the team chairman must notify the AIAA National Office immediately!
 
  1. SCHEDULE AND ACTIVITY SEQUENCES
 

Significant activities, dates, and addresses for submission of proposal and related materials are as follows:

  1. Letter of Intent — 17 March 2006
  2. Receipt of Proposal — 9 June 2006
  3. Announcement of Winners — August 2006
 

Groups intending to submit a proposal must submit a Letter of Intent (Item A), with a maximum length of one page to be received with the attached form on or before the date specified above, at the following address:

Student Programs Liaison

AIAA Student Programs

1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500

Reston, VA 20191-4344 

The finished proposal must be submitted (received) to the same address on or before the date specified for the Receipt of Proposal (Item B).

  1. PROPOSAL REQUIREMENTS
 

The technical proposal is the most important factor in the award of a contract. It should be specific and complete. While it is understood that all of the technical factors cannot be included in advance, the following should be included and keyed accordingly:

  1. Demonstrate a thorough understanding of the Request for Proposal (RFP) requirements.
 
  1. Describe the proposed technical approaches to comply with each of the requirements specified in the RFP, including phasing of tasks. Legibility, clarity, and completeness of the technical approach are primary factors in evaluation of the proposals.
 
  1. Particular emphasis should be directed at identification of critical, technical problem areas. Descriptions, sketches, drawings, systems analysis, method of attack, and discussions of new techniques should be presented in sufficient detail to permit engineering evaluation of the proposal. Exceptions to proposed technical requirements should be identified and explained.
 
 
  1. Include tradeoff studies performed to arrive at the proposed design concept.
 
  1. Provide a description of automated design tools used to develop the design.
  1. BASIS FOR JUDGING
 
  1. Technical Content (35 points)
 

    This concerns the correctness of theory, validity of reasoning used, apparent understanding and grasp of the subject, etc. Are all major factors considered and a reasonably accurate evaluation of these factors presented?

  1. Organization and Presentation (20 points)
 

    The description of the design as an instrument of communication is a strong factor on judging. Organization of written design, clarity, and inclusion of pertinent information are major factors.

  1. Originality (20 points)
 

    The design proposal should avoid standard textbook information, and should show the independence of thinking or a fresh approach to the project. Does the method and treatment of the problem show imagination? Does the method show an adaptation or creation of automated design tools?

  1. Practical Application and Feasibility (25 points)
 

    The proposal should present conclusions or recommendations that are feasible and practical, and not merely lead the evaluators into further difficult or non-solvable problems. Is the project realistic from a cost standpoint? Does the presentation include environmental impact studies (where applicable) and analysis of the function of the design in or for society?

  1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Homeland Defense Interceptor

1.0  Background

      Increasing funding and technological sophistication of international terrorist organizations make it very likely that the United States will be attacked from the air again.  This attack may involve aircraft ranging in size from large chartered or hijacked airliners to small autonomous cruise missiles.  At the same time, most current Air Force and Navy fighter aircraft will reach the end of their service life by 2020. The stealthy F-22 and F-35, designed primarily for operations against large, sophisticated air defense systems and high-performance fighters, are too expensive to be bought in sufficient numbers to provide adequate force projection assets while maintaining homeland airspace sovereignty.  A small, high-performance but low-cost homeland defense interceptor could fill this gap without drawing excessive funds away from offensive forces.  Approximately 1000 aircraft are needed to fill this requirement. 

      Strict budgetary constraints dictate that this aircraft will only be built if it is extremely affordable.  In order to minimize cost per aircraft, all practical measures must be taken to keep it as small and simple as possible without compromising mission performance.  The program will be titledHomeland Defense Interceptor (HDI).

2.0  Requirements

      2.1 Design a homeland defense interceptor, including an engine data package.

      2.2 The design should be cost effective and perform two design missions.  The first is a defensive counter-air (DCA) patrol mission.  Attachment 1 provides specific information on this design mission.  The second is a point defense interception mission.  Attachment 2 provides specific information on this design mission. 

      2.3 An intercept/escort mission will be evaluated. Attachment 3 provides specific information.

      2.4 Attachment 4 specifies minimum performance requirements.

      2.5 Attachment 5 specifies weapons carriage capabilities.

      2.6 Attachment 6 specifies engine design requirements.

      2.7 All reports shall be submitted electronically as MSWord documents or PDF files. 
       
       
       

3.0  Other Desired or Required Capabilities and Characteristics

      3.1 Crew of One (required).  All systems must be designed for one pilot operation.  Pilot and personal equipment weighs 250 lbs.  Pilot can control the aircraft remotely if the operational concept accomplishes positive threat identification and clearly addresses all communication bandwidth issues related to that approach.  An unmanned approach can remove any man/machine interfaces from the aircraft itself, but must address remotely piloted infrastructure issues in full detail.

      3.2   Maintenance (required).  The design must allow easy access to and removal of primary elements of all major systems.  Minimize requirements for unique support equipment.

      3.3 Structure (required):  Design limit load factors are +7 and -3 vertical g?s in the clean configuration with 50% internal fuel.  The structure should withstand a dynamic pressure of 2,133 psf  (M=1.2 at sea level).  A factor of safety of 1.5 shall be used on all design ultimate loads.  Primary structures should be designed for durability and damage tolerance.  Design service life is 12,000 hours.

      3.4 Fuel/Fuel Tanks (required): Primary design fuel is standard JP-8 or Jet-A (6.7 lb/gal).  All fuel tanks will be self-sealing.  External fuel tanks may be carried for design missions, but if carried, must be retained for the entire mission.

      3.5 Stability (required):  Unaugmented subsonic longitudinal static margin (S.M.) shall be no greater than 10% and no less than -10%.  A digital flight control system is mandatory for designs that are statically unstable in the longitudinal axis.

      3.6 Operation (required):  The aircraft must operate in all weather from existing NATO runways (8,000 ft), shelters, and maintenance facilities and from austere bases without support equipment.  The aircraft must be capable of all-weather interception and weapon delivery.

      3.7 Cost (required).  Flyaway cost per aircraft for a 1000 aircraft buy will not exceed $15 million in 2005 US dollars.  All practical measures will be taken to minimize total life cycle costs.

4.0  Measures Of Merit

      Designs will be evaluated on DCA and intercept mission performance (Attachments 1 and 2), escort mission radius (Attachment 3), other performance requirements (Attachment 4), weapons carriage (Attachment 5), and cost.  The following measures of merit will be reported for each design mission:

      4.1 Weight summary (GTOW, We, Wf, W/S, T/W, Wf /W) including external tanks, if used.

      4.2 Aircraft geometry and systems integration (wing and control surface area, fuselage size and volume, frontal cross sectional area distribution, wetted area, inlet and diffuser, landing gear, weapons carriage, sensor and avionics locations, crew station, etc.)

      4.3 Mission duration, radius or range, fuel burn by mission segment for each design mission.

      4.4 Take-off and landing distance for each design mission including standard day and icy runway balanced field length at sea level and 4,000 feet MSL.

      4.5 Performance at maneuver weight (50% internal fuel) for design mission loadings.

        4.5.1 Maximum Mach Number at 35,000 Ft.

        4.5.2 1-g Maximum Thrust Specific Excess Power Envelope

        4.5.3 5-g Maximum Thrust Specific Excess Power Envelope

        4.5.4 Maximum Thrust Sustained Load Factor Envelope

        4.5.5 Maximum Thrust Maneuvering Performance Diagrams

          4.5.5.1 10,000 ft

          4.5.5.2 30,000 ft

          4.5.5.3 50,000 ft

      4.6 Flyaway and total life cycle costs estimates must be provided for the system.  Include any support system costs and infrastructure improvement costs.  Show cost trades for aircraft buys of 100, 500, and 1000 units.

      4.7 A digital 3D model of the aircraft is required.  This model must be full scale and accurately depict the final design including location of all major subcomponents, fuel tanks, payloads, and crew.  A conceptual drawing package shall be submitted (separate from the report) using D-size (22? x 34?) format.

      4.8 An operational concept must be provided for an approach involving remotely piloted vehicles.  This concept shall include:  threat identification, threat tracking, target verification, target tracking, weapons integration, kill verification, collision avoidance, command and control infrastructure, loss of vehicle command and/or control, handling of enemy countermeasures, aircraft launch and recovery scheme, items/levels of redundancy required, and a benefits/limitations summary.  THIS ITEM IS NOT REQUIRED FOR A MANNED APPROACH.

5.0  Government Furnished Equipment (GFE)

      GFE will be used to the maximum extent possible.  GFE available or being developed for this aircraft is described in Attachment 7. 
 

Attachment 1

Defensive Counter-Air Patrol Mission

      Configuration:  (2)AIM-120 + (2) AIM-9 + M61A1 gun with 500 rounds 20mm ammunition

      Phase Description

      1 Take-off and acceleration allowance (computed at sea level. 59º F).

               a.  Fuel allowance for warm-up

               b.  Fuel to accelerate to climb speed at maximum thrust (no distance credit)

      2 Climb from sea level to optimum cruise altitude

      3 Cruise out 300 nm at optimum speed and altitude

      4 Combat air patrol 4 hours at best loiter speed and 35,000 ft

      5 Dash 100 nm at maximum speed at 35,000 ft

      6 Combat allowance:

      Fuel required to perform the following maneuvers at 35,000 ft with maximum thrust and fuel flow.

               a.  One sustained 360º turn (Ps = 0) at Mach = 1.2

            b.  One sustained 360º turn (Ps = 0) at Mach = 0.9

      After maneuvers, fire all missiles and retain gun ammunition.

      7 Climb/accelerate to optimum speed and altitude

      8 Cruise back 400 nm at optimum speed and altitude

      9 Descend to sea level (no distance credit or fuel used)

      10 Reserves: fuel for 30 minutes at sea level at speed for maximum endurance

 

      Note:  Base all performance calculations on standard day conditions with no wind.

 

Attachment 2

Point Defense Intercept Mission 

      Configuration:  (2)AIM-120 + (2) AIM-9 + M61A1 gun with 500 rounds 20mm ammunition

 

      Phase Description

      1 Take-off and acceleration allowance (computed at sea level and 59º F).

               a.  Fuel allowance for warm-up

               b.  Fuel to accelerate to climb speed at maximum thrust (no distance credit)

      2 Climb from sea level to 35,000 ft and accelerate to maximum speed

      3 Dash 200 nm at maximum speed at 35,000 ft

      4 Combat allowance:

      Fuel required to perform the following maneuvers at 35,000 ft with maximum thrust and fuel flow.

               a.  One sustained 360º turn (Ps = 0) at Mach = 1.2

            b.  One sustained 360º turn (Ps = 0) at Mach = 0.9

      After maneuvers, fire all missiles and retain gun ammunition.

      5 Climb/accelerate to optimum speed and altitude

      6 Cruise back 200 nm at optimum speed and altitude

      7 Descend to sea level (no distance credit or fuel used)

      8 Reserves: fuel for 30 minutes at sea level at speed for maximum endurance

 

      Note:  Base all performance calculations on standard day conditions with no wind.

 

Attachment 3

Intercept/Escort Mission 

      Configuration:  (2)AIM-120 + (2) AIM-9 + M61A1 gun with 500 rounds 20mm ammunition 

      Phase Description

      1 Take-off and acceleration allowance (computed at sea level and 59º F).

               a. Fuel allowance for warm-up

               b.  Fuel to accelerate to climb speed at maximum thrust (no distance credit)

      2 Climb from sea level to 35,000 ft and accelerate to maximum speed

      3    Dash out at maximum speed at 35,000 ft

    4    Escort for 300 nm at minimum practical airspeed.  Retain all weapons.

      5 Climb/accelerate to optimum speed and altitude

    6    Cruise back at optimum speed and altitude

      7 Descend to sea level (no distance credit or fuel used)

      8 Reserves: fuel for 30 minutes at sea level at speed for maximum endurance

 

      Note:  Base all performance calculations on standard day conditions with no wind.

 

Attachment 4

Minimum Performance Requirements/Constraints

Criteria Requirement

Mission Performance

    Intercept Mission Radius 200 nm

    DCA Mission CAP endurance at 300 nm radius 4 hrs

Performance at Maneuver Weight (50% Internal Fuel) for (2)AIM-120 + M61A1 gun with 500 Rounds 20mm Ammunition

    ? Maximum Mach Number at 35,000 ft Mach 2.2

    ? 1-g Specific Excess Power? Military Thrust

      ? 0.9M/Sea Level 200 ft/sec

      ? 0.9M/15,000 ft 50 ft/sec

    ? 1-g Specific Excess Power? Maximum Thrust

      ? 0.9M/Sea Level 700 ft/sec

      ? 0.9M/15,000 ft 400 ft/sec

    ? 5-g Specific Excess Power? Maximum Thrust

      ? 0.9M/Sea Level 300 ft/sec

      ? 0.9M/15,000 ft 50 ft/sec

 

    ? Sustained Load Factor? Maximum Thrust

      ? 0.9M/15,000 ft 5.0 g?s

    ? Maximum Instantaneous Turn Rate at 35,000 ft ...............................................................18.0 deg/s

 

Attachment 5

Required Maximum Weapons Carriage Capability

      Air-to-Air Loading

                  -  (2) AIM-120 + (2) AIM-9 + gun + ammo

                  -  (4) AIM-120 + gun + ammo

                  -  (4) AIM-9 + gun + ammo

 

 

Attachment 6

Engine Cycle Requirements

    1.  The engine must provide adequate installed thrust for all portions of the design missions.  The engine data package must include all parameters necessary to completely describe the engine cycle and geometry.

    2.  Aircraft System Requirements:

       a. Electrical and hydraulic systems require 50kw of power.

       b. Environmental control systems and the avionics liquid cooling system require 2% of engine mass flow.

    3.  It is highly desirable that the engine utilized is a non-developmental item (NDI).  A derivative of the engine should currently be in production or forecast to be in production by 2010.

 

Attachment 7

Government Furnished Equipment

      Item Volume, ft3 Weight, lb Cost, K$ (2005)

Avionics

      ? Base Suite

            - ICNIA1 3.0 100 200

            - 3 x MFDs 1.5 20 60 

            - Head-Up Display 1.6 35 20

            - Data bus 0.5 10 10

      ? ECM Equipment

            - INEWS2 3.0 100 500

 

Flight and Propulsion Control System

      Vehicle Management System 1.0 50 200

Fire Control Systems

      ? IRSTS3 2.0 50 300

      ? Active Array Radar 6.0 450 1000

 

Systems and Equipment

      ? Electrical System(2 engines) 4.0 300  50  

                  (subtract 80 lb, 1 ft3 and $10k if one engine is used)

      ? Auxiliary Power Unit (APU) 2.0 100 50

      ? Ejection Seat 8.0 160 100

      ? OBOGS4 1.0 35 10

      ? OBIGGS5 1.0 35 10

 
 

Air-to-Air Weapons

            AIM - 9M Sidewinder Missile

            Launch weight: 191 lb

            Length: 9.6 ft

            Max span: 2.1 ft

            Body diameter: 0.4 ft

            Launcher rail weight: 50 lb

            Launcher rail length: 9.2 ft

 

            AIM - 120 AMRAAM

            Launch weight: 327 lb

            Length: 12 ft

            Max span: 2.1 ft

            Body diameter: 0.6 ft

 

            M61A1 20 mm Cannon

            Cannon weight: 275 lb

            Length: 74 in

            Max diameter: 10 in

            Ammunition feed system (500 rounds) weight:  300 lb

            Ammunition drum length: 25 in

            Diameter: 25 in

            Ammunition (20 mm) 0.58 each

                             Returned casings                      0.26 each

 

Integrated Communication, Navigation, and Identification Avionics

Integrated Electronic Warfare System

Infrared Search and Track System with laser ranging

Onboard Oxygen Generation System

On-Board Inert Gas Generation System

 

Intent Form

2005/2006

AIAA FOUNDATION

Undergraduate Team Aircraft Design Competition

Request for Proposal: Homeland Defense Int 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 7:56:08 PM

Autonomous UCAVs in a Synthetic Battle Field

Steve Alexander, Alex Sisti

Air Force Research Laboratory

Kuo-Chi Lin

University of Central Florida

Keywords: genetic algorithm, UCAV, artificial

intelligence, rule-based

ABSTRACT

One may conceive of various methods of controlling

autonomous UCAVs. In this paper, we present a genetic

algorithm approach that works by evolving sets of rules.

The rules are represented by connections between binary

encoded sensors and binary encoded control strings. We

used a 21x21 grid to represent the battle field, and used ten

UCAVs in each run of the simulation. Fitness of a control

string was based on the performance of the group of

UCAVs within the simulation. We found that significant

improvement in group behavior was achieved after 100

generations of evolution.

INTRODUCTION

One approach to controlling a group of UCAVs is to

use a set of rules that maps sensory information to control

commands, which are subsequently executed by the UCAV.

In order to develop a suitable rule set by hand, one must

consider the set of every possible combination of sensory

inputs that a UCAV might receive, given a defined area of

interest and a group of UCAVs with which to interact. For

each arrangement, a rule must be defined that tells a UCAV

what maneuver to execute based on what it can ?see? with

its sensory equipment. Depending on the number of

UCAVs, the complexity of their sensors and the size of the

area, there may be a prohibitively large number of

combinations to consider.

Instead of defining each rule manually, we propose to

search through the space of rule definitions using a genetic

algorithm (GA) approach. This allows sensory information

to be automatically tied to a set of commands, forming a

rule set for all possible sensory input combinations, without

any help from the model developer. The programmer is no

longer concerned with whether it is ?good? for a UCAV to

turn left when approaching another UCAV from the front,

or if UCAVs should stay a certain distance apart from one

another to cover more ground. The definition of an

appropriate fitness function for the employed GA is enough

to cause these rules to surface on their own.

GAs have been used for a wide variety of applications,

and are generally useful for solving optimization

problems[1-2]. These algorithms are modeled after the

process of evolution observed in biology. The process of

using a GA begins with the instantiation of a random

population of individuals. This population is then scored

using a fitness function defined by the user. Individuals

(each solution is an ?individual?) within the population that

receive higher scores are deemed more fit, and are

consequently selected as parents for the next generation.

Operations such as mutation and crossover are performed to

change the underlying data of the individuals. Finally, a

new generation of individuals is produced from these

individuals, and the process repeats until a suitably fit

individual is generated, or a specified number of generations

have elapsed.

Figure 1. Flow chart of a genetic algorithm.

EXPERIMENT

To test the hypothesis, we decided to take a simple case

in which a group of UCAVs is flying in a specified twodimensional

area. In one experiment, the field size used

was a 21x21 grid. UCAVs were placed in the grid at the

edges in a regularly spaced configuration, then allowed to

move based on randomly initialized rules. These rules are

encoded by the connections between four sensors and a 30-

bit control command string. The UCAVs are only allowed

to move in one of four directions, as shown in figure 2. For

Initialize Population

Evaluate

Select

Crossover/Mutate

Generate New Population

this experiment, we did not take into account factors such as

turning radius, and acceleration, so that the UCAVs? can

perform maneuvers such as a 180o turn within one time step.

We plan to improve the realism of the model in future work.

Figure 2. A UCAV over the area of interest. Arrows show

the directions in which the UCAV can move, and the

directions from which sensory inputs are obtained. The

sensors? ranges are shown in figure 3.

Control of UCAV

UCAV Sensors

The sensor output is a 4-bit binary set that represents

events in the [front, right, back, left] regions, respectively.

The grid points along diagonals (at the boundaries of the

range of individual sensors) are detected by both of the two

nearest sensors.

This representation of the sensors on a UCAV is not

intended to reflect the configuration of any current or

proposed future unoccupied air vehicle, but rather has been

chosen somewhat arbitrarily to provide a framework in

which to carry out this experiment. This sensor

configuration allows the model UCAVs to detect other

UCAVs and area boundaries in time to avoid them at the

next time step by changing direction.

left (l)

front (f)

back (b)

right (r)

Figure 3. A UCAV with visual representation of its sensors

and their ranges. Sensor ranges are two squares along

vertical and horizontal axes, and one square along the

diagonals.

Since four bits represent the sensors, there are sixteen

possible combinations of sensory inputs. Hence we made

the sensor value, S, an integer varying from zero to fifteen,

given by:

S = 23*f + 22*r + 21*b +20* l

where f is the front sensor input, r is the rear sensor input,

and b and l are the back and left sensor inputs, respectively.

the above equation simply translates sensor inputs from

binary to decimal format. Table 1 shows sensor values S

and the corresponding events that cause these values.

Table 1. Sensor values and their corresponding events

S Events S Events

0 None 8 f

1 l 9 f, l

2 b 10 f, b

3 l, b 11 f, l, b

4 r 12 f, r

5 r, l 13 f, r, l

6 r, b 14 f, r, b

7 r, l, b 15 f, r, l, b

Control String

The control string is a 30-bit binary string, which

consists of fifteen pairs of 2-bit control as shown in table 2.

It is thirty bits because there are sixteen possible values for

S, fifteen of which map to one pair of bits in the control

string. The one that does not map to a pair of bits in the

control string is S = 0. In this case, no action is taken; the

UCAV does not turn. It simply moves one grid point in the

direction it is currently facing.

Table 2. List of 2-bit commands and the corresponding

actions to be taken by a UCAV

bits motion bits motion

0, 0 front 0, 1 right

1, 0 left 1, 1 back

The formula to pick out the control bits from the control

string is given by [bit 1, bit 2] = [(2*S)-1, 2*S]. For

example, if UCAV u is within the range of UCAV v?s front

sensor, then v?s front sensor will have a value of 1. We will

assume that all of v?s other sensor values are 0. This means

that v has a sensor string of [1,0,0,0]. This translates to a

sensor value of S = 8. UCAV v will have some control

string C. Let us suppose that

C = 101100011011000100110100111011. Since S = 8, the

corresponding control command is given by the 15th and

16th bits of C. In this case, (0,1) is the command code. This

translates to a right-hand turn. This is an example of a

control string that contains an effective command, since

UCAV v will turn right to avoid a collision with u.

However, this string was randomly chosen, so it is not likely

that all or even most other bit-pairs contained within the

command string will produce favorable mappings from

sensory inputs to UCAV maneuvers.

Table 3 shows an example of how a command string is

decoded. ?Events? correspond to detections made by a

UCAV?s sensors. The ?Sensor? column of Table 3 refers to

the binary representation of the events for that time step.

?S? is the decimal sensor value, translated directly from the

binary representation. The ?Bits? column shows which bits

of the command string are used in mapping S to a

maneuver. The ?Motion? column shows the values of the

selected bits for each combination of possible events. In the

?Direction? column of the table, we have the direction in

which the UCAV will move at the following time step,

based on the values of the bits selected from the command

string.

Table 3. Decoding a command string. The command string

used for this example is

00,01,11,11,11,00,00,01,10,01,00,10,01,10,00.

Events Sensor S Bits Motion Direction

None 0000 0 None N/A f

b 0001 1 1,2 (0, 0) f

l 0010 2 3,4 (0, 1) r

l, b 0011 3 5, 6 (1, 1) b

r 0100 4 7, 8 (1, 1) b

r, b 0101 5 9, 10 (1, 1) b

r, l 0110 6 11, 12 (0, 0) f

r, l, b 0111 7 13, 14 (0, 0) f

f 1000 8 15, 16 (0, 1) r

f, b 1001 9 17, 18 (1, 0) l

f, l 1010 10 19, 20 (0, 1) r

f, l, b 1011 11 21, 22 (0, 0) f

f, r 1100 12 22, 24 (1, 0) l

f, r, b 1101 13 25, 26 (0, 1) r

f, r, l 1110 14 27, 28 (1, 0) l

f, r, l, b 1111 15 29, 30 (0, 0) f

Simulation

The fitness of each individual (control string), which

represents its performance, is decided by how much field

the UCAVs can observe within certain period of time. A

UCAV?s sight range is shown in figure 4. A UCAVcan

observe 25 grid points. Notice that this is separate from the

UCAV?s sensor range. Sensor range is used to determine

whether or not other UCAVs or area boundaries are near.

Sight range is used to determine what portion of the area of

interest has been recently observed, and is used in the

determination of a UCAV?s fitness.

The fitness value is defined as the average new grid

points covered by the 10 UCAVs within 25 step times. This

average is calculated as the total number of new grid points

covered by all UCAVs divided by number of time steps.

After 25 time steps, all grids are reset as unobserved. The

procedure is repeated four times within a single simulation

run, giving a total simulation time of 100 time steps.

Initial positions of 10 UCAVs are shown in figure 5.

This is just one of many possible starting configurations. It

is not difficult to place the UCAVs anywhere in the area of

interest at the beginning of the simulation.

During the simulation, if two or more UCAVs collide

with each other, they are ?killed? and essentially removed

from the simulation. They are also removed if they leave

the bounded area in which the simulation is taking place.

This has the effect of reducing the number of collisions that

occur, and it also keeps the UCAVs in bounds, since having

less UCAVs means that less ground can be covered.

However, this is dependent on the size of the area as well,

since a smaller number of UCAVs may be able to cover just

as many new grid points as a larger number of UCAVs

when the area is small. This also depends on the sight range

of the vehicles, since decreasing the sight range is

essentially equivalent to increasing the number of grid

points in the grid space.

Figure 4. The grid points that a UCAV can see. A

UCAV?s sight range is different from its sensor range.

Figure 5. Visual representation of the battle area. UCAVs

are shown in their starting positions.

It is important to note that all 10 UCAVs in a given run

of the simulation have the same control string. This means

that our population of control strings must be evaluated in

sequence, one for each simulation run. Using the same

control string for all of the UCAVs means that the behavior

of each of the UCAVs should be identical to that of all other

UCAVs, given an identical set of sensor readings.

Genetic Algorithm Setup

The genetic algorithm we used for this experiment

incorporated the following parameters. The number of

individuals (bit strings) in a population was 30, the

crossover rate was 90%, and the mutation rate was 5%.

This mutation rate means that each bit in the control string

has a 5% probability of changing from 0 to 1 or vice versa.

We used proportional selection to determine which

individuals would be parents for each generation. In

proportional selection, a probability of selection is assigned

to several ranges of scores. Then the individuals are

selected at random, given these probabilities. Higher scores

are given higher probabilities of selection.

RESULTS

We ran the GA for 100 generations, keeping track of

the maximum, minimum, mean and standard deviation of

the fitness of the control strings. The results are displayed

in figure 6.

Figure 6. Maximum, minimum, mean, and standard

deviation of fitness in each generation.

The overall best fitness obtained was 17.64. The control

string corresponding to the behavior that produced this

fitness score is:

01,00,10,10,11,10,00,10,01,00,00,10,00,01,00.

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

0 20 40 60 80 100

Generations

Fitness

max

min

std. dev.

mean

CONCLUSIONS

The overall fitness score of 17.64 represents a group of

UCAVs that covers all of the 441 grid points every twentyfive

time steps. Since the grid points are set to

?unobserved? every twenty five time steps, and the

simulation is run for 100 time steps, this means that it is

possible to observe four times the number of grid points in

the entire battle area. This is 441*4 = 1764. The fitness

score is simply the number of new points observed divided

by the number of time steps. This is how we know that

17.64 is the optimal fitness score for this particular

experiment.

Figure 6 highlights the fact that the maximum fitness

score in the first generation was actually quite near optimal

fitness. This suggests that the problem we have solved may

not be an especially difficult one. However, we feel that it

is a valid proof of concept, and that more difficult, related

UCAV control problems could be solved with the same

technique.

Essentially, this is a group of UCAVs that behaves

exactly the way we wanted it to. We designed the fitness

function so that the maximum number of grid points would

be covered, and this is the behavior that evolved. Although

this is a fairly simple case, it shows that useful group

behavior can be obtained through evolving rule sets.

FUTURE WORK

We plan to improve upon the realism of this simulation

as we continue to work on the problem of autonomous

UCAV control. In its current state, the program solves the

problem of performing reconnaissance over a specific area.

It focuses on the physical control of the UCAVs. In the

future, we want to add mission objectives as well. The level

of complexity we hope to reach is similar to that which is

described in [3]. We want to give the UCAVs more realistic

maneuvering, taking into account the fact that a fixed-wing

air vehicle has a limited turning radius. We want to make

the array of sensors more realistic by improving their range

and letting them sense things in more than four directions.

Clearly, it would be useful to add a third dimension to the

simulations. We could also model features such as no-fly

zones, SAM sites and enemy fighters.

All of these modifications add complexity to the

simulation, and most of them require the length of the

control string to be increased, since there are more inputs.

This means that a more realistic simulation will be

produced, but it will also increase the computation time

necessary to evolve a suitable plan, given a battle space.

REFERENCES

[1] Holland, J. H., "Adaptation in Natural and Artificial

Systems", University of Michigan Press, 1975.

[2] Goldberg, D. E., "Genetic Algorithms in Search,

Optimization, and Machine Learning, Reading", Addison-

Wesley. 1989.

[3] Grecu, D. and Gonsalves, P. ?Agent-Based Simulation

Environment for UCAV Mission Planning and Execution,?

Proceedings of the 2000 AIAA Guidance, Navigation and

Control Conference, Denver, CO (August).

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What a show.   4/9/2009 9:22:37 PM
1. Ahem, problems reading?   The RFP was a paper exercise, a gedankenexperiment for a hardware solution.;
 
Attend what I said:
 
Herald12345    Educate yourselves.....   4/9/2009 3:47:28 PM
 
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
  
I said people learning how to do this for real- a paper exercise, that is a study. Those students are far more qualified than some want to be. Their work is open source and citable, it covers what is pissible without giving away critical secrets. it was sponsored by the AIAA. If the poster had a clue of exactly what that means, he would be flat out embarassed.   
 
 
2. That South Carolina UAV developer is how far from me? Did you even read the paper I cited on the autonomous UCAS helo problem? Of course not. Preprogrammed figure eight flying is simple. Autonomous self routing using a a mechanical eye sensor ovwer an unknown course which is what I cited is a magnitude more difficult.
 
3. Video is a shibboleth without the technical commentary to show the limiters.
 
Those videos do not show an autonomous drone under free control. There is a Human riding close shotgun over those aircraft in each test, much like a Human rides shotgun over a Global Hawk or a Predator. He's called a controller. He's there to intervene when the Drone exceeds pre-programmed instruction limits or strays fromn the pre flight instructions which have to be laborously pre-written. There is no program that we can load into a machine that allows us to use a baseline software intelligence to just send it out to free enbgage in enemy airspace much less in our own air space. The best we can do is build a kind of super cruise missile as an ordnance carrier that will go in and shoot and then retire. Biut that means we have to write everything for the mission as instructions for launch and return. Do yoiu have any idea of the code involved? No.
4. What does a PILOT diagnostic and flight assist that augments or replaces his own inputs in a damaged aircraft have to do with a self directed heuristic learning robot pilot trying to decide missile evade protocols and how to execute a mission in the middle of a battle?

5. Skunk works? (SCOFF) Google that off the internet? Let me clue the poster in on something regarding artificial intelligence.....Ever hear of the BORG Lab?  
 
Come back when you have something concrete except DARPA videos and wrong citations. If the poster going to cite artificial intelligence and autonamous UCAS systems then cite those subjects and not the wrong subjects. Feedback systems and preplanned computerized autopilot routines are not autonomy Until the poster understands this nobody should take his assertions seriously. I don't, not when he doesn't even know what artificial intelligence is. 
 
6. And he should lay off the personal attacks. That is the tenth time the poster has tried to bully me and address me directly accusing me of mental illness. Why? he has to do something since he has not addressed the topic with correct evidence nor proven that he understands what he discusses..
 
If anyone is monitoring thois thread I hope that they understand that he attempts to provoke and that  I am being provoked but I won't take that bait. I simply note the tactics describe them and IGNORE them.
 
In summary the other poster has not proved his case. Far from proving it, he continues to demonstrate that he knows very little on topic, and what little he knows isn't even accurate.
 
I frankly don't know why he keeps digging a hole for himself. 
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/9/2009 9:54:17 PM
Herald, you're arguing a strawman of your own construction.
 
Please point to the post by Darth where he said anything about *AUTONOMOUS* UCAVs performing air-to-air (or even any other mission) with IOC within 5-10 years.
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/9/2009 10:12:58 PM
Darth, you've been a bit disingenuous yourself earlier on.  You seemed to basically admit it yourself that you're asking them to "prove" a case that essentially can't be "proven" in this venue... to the same level of detail that (I certainly hope) has been done inside the Pentagon.  That hardly seems to me to be an appropriate standard for any discussion here, and that certainly does seem like an appeal to authority, which I think is what Herald has tried to point out.  And OMG, I'm so tired of reading people say "I've presented facts, you've only presented opinions."  "No, I've presented facts, and you've only presented opinions."  "No, *I've* presented...."  Please just state your opinions/facts, rebut the other guy's opinions/facts, and there it is.
 
I've found this whole thread fun to read, though.  I like to think of myself as someone who is pretty black-and-white and logical, but I see what I think are good arguments for each of the various positions (and there are more than just two).  I confess I do not see a clearly superior position so far, but also admit that may be due to my own ignorance more than anything else.
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/9/2009 10:34:33 PM

Darth, you've been a bit disingenuous yourself earlier on.  You seemed to basically admit it yourself that you're asking them to "prove" a case that essentially can't be "proven" in this venue... to the same level of detail that (I certainly hope) has been done inside the Pentagon.  That hardly seems to me to be an appropriate standard for any discussion here, and that certainly does seem like an appeal to authority, which I think is what Herald has tried to point out.  And OMG, I'm so tired of reading people say "I've presented facts, you've only presented opinions."  "No, I've presented facts, and you've only presented opinions."  "No, *I've* presented...."  Please just state your opinions/facts, rebut the other guy's opinions/facts, and there it is.

I've found this whole thread fun to read, though.  I like to think of myself as someone who is pretty black-and-white and logical, but I see what I think are good arguments for each of the various positions (and there are more than just two).  I confess I do not see a clearly superior position so far, but also admit that may be due to my own ignorance more than anything else.

 

 
Yeah, I admit that. But I caught myself after I thought about it and thats why I made the comment that this is all opinion after all because no one can seriously "prove" anything one way or the other since obviously that data is classified and too much to post here even if it wasn't. However, I would like people to at least discuss or support their opinion about specific threats they see that would overwhelm our Raptor force. For instance, The DPRK AF essentially has no chance against our Air Force. Neither would the Cuban Air Force. But perhaps the Pakistani AF in some nightmare scenario might be able to for example. Something very cursory and within the scope of the thread topic on an open forum. And without all the drama about people being stupid, staff sergeants intergumnist or whatever the hell that means ect. The way we used to do it on this site before certain behaviors became the norm and we got away from friendly even if spirited debate.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

LB    UAV Crash Rate   4/9/2009 10:56:45 PM
UAVs and UCAVs are getting more reliable and useful.  That said the last OSB study I recall showed Predator having a mishap rate of around 34 per 100,000 flight hours compared to about 3.4 for F-16s and F/A-18s.  The mishap rate for other nations UAVs is mostly significantly higher.
 
It's not clear that a UCAV is going to be replacing air superiority fighters anytime soon.  That aside UAVs remain much more expensive than is continually promised and this is before factoring in the fact that as of now they are roughly an order of magnitude more likely to crash than a manned fighter.  UAVs are not nearly as cost effective as some would have us believe.
 
The issue with how many F-22s are enough depends upon a number of assumptions within the analysis.  It would appear the conclusion that 187 is enough, whether one agrees with that or not, is near or at 'just enough'.  There seems to be very little to no reserve in case of anything unexpected such as an enemy tech breakthrough in some area, enemy attack of F-22 bases, legacy aircraft not being able to sustain projected thousands of flight hours, etc.  With this in mind even if 187 were "enough" it seems rather dangerous to provide no reserve and even more dangerous to actually not have a production line available to produce more air superiority fighters.
 
The F-35 is not an air superiority fighter and neither is the F/A-18E.  The F-22 can perform a number of missions beyond just air superiority fighter some of which alone might be worth having more than 187. 
 
The USN had it's carrier air wings gutted.  The F/A-18E/F is a nice aircraft but it does not have the range and loiter ability of the A-6 and F-14 it has "replaced".  Nor are there any KA-6 or S-3s anymore to tank the shorter range 18s so there are even less available for combat operations given they have to also operate as tankers.  The air wing is much smaller, with shorter ranged aircraft, more dependent on tanker aircraft the nation has less of, and with a much smaller ability to gather information due to the loss of all dedicated recon aircraft.  There is no plans for the USN to ever regain an air superiority fighter so the reliance upon the F-22 is greater than it appears.  This is not to say the F-35 and F/A-18 do not do air to air well but rather that a strike fighter can do many things well or very well but may not excell in any single area the way a dedicated aircraft can.
 
In fact both the F-35 and F/A-18E/F replaced 1970 designs in the F-16 and F/A-18 that themselves grew out of the high/low mix theory of systems that was created to justify buying less capable but "affordable" weapon systems.  The doctrine was flawed and is not needed today.  We do not require a "low" and indeed given the extremely high personnel costs it makes little sense to spend a bit less on a less capable airframe but still fund the rest of the air wing. 
 
What is ironic is the USN now only has the low from the high low mix.  USN carrier aviation will never recover from the cancellation of the NATF, upgrading the F-14 (the F-15 is supposed to fly for decades more), cancelling the A-12, and then not funding the A-6F.  There are no more long range aircraft on USN carrier decks.  It's a bit of a stretch for a nation of 300 million to rely on 187 aircraft with no margin of error.
 
Spending on national defense is a lot like spending on insurance in that one attempts to manage risk.  It's not difficult to make the case that even if 187 is just enough that having no reserve, no production line for any other air superiority fighter, the only other air superiority aircraft being upgraded F-15s with rather high flight hours, and a reliance on strike fighters to fill the mission, that prudence would dictate a reasonable cushion of additional F-22s to insure we actually do have at least 187.
 
If anyone asks in order to fund more F-22s one might suggest cutting USAF F-35As.  There will be significant numbers of F-35 B and C models, even the USAF has stated it will buy some number of Bs.  Frankly, the nation would be better served today with less F-16s and more combat coded A-10s and B-52s.  That is if the F-16 was not needed when the F-15 fleet gets grounded, again.
 
At some point the F-15 will have to be entirely replaced.  The aircraft that was supposed to do this was the F-22.  Now we are going to keep some F-15s flying for a few more decades.  What will replace them?  Why does anyone imagine that future replacement will cost less than an F-22? 
 
Congress should shove more F-22s down OSDs throat and pay for it by reducing force structure.  The USAF does not need the 1200 or so F-35As it wants.  We really can not afford to take risks in air superiority.  Our entire defense posture assumes air dominance.  If there is one area the nation should have more than 'just enough' it's in this core mission.
 
As an aside I'm not an F-22 fanboy.  Personally I'd cut about 1/3 of the aircraft in the USAF, redistribute the other 2/3rds to the US Army and USN/USMC, and disband the USAF.  The nation has 6 separate air forces today in the USAF, US Army, USN, USMC, SOCOM,  and USCG and has serious force structure redundancies it can no longer afford.  It's simply way past acceptable, not to mention affordable, to maintain this ridiculous structure.  It would be unconstitutional to disband the USN and given current operations the US Army is not going away.  Both these services operate almost every class, if not type, of aircraft the USAF operates. 
 
Given the nations history of rarely preparing for the next war by focusing on the last war fought our focus on COIN at the expense of high intensity full spectrum war is likely to bite us on our ass and get a lot of young men killed one day.  Personally I'd rather err in the risk analysis on the side of having a healthy reserve in terms of air superiority.

 
 
 
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



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy