The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 21, 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
sentinel28a       4/9/2009 11:03:51 PM
I ran across this in the latest Combat Aircraft magazine:
 
"Schwartz [USAF CoS Norton Schwartz] is in a delicate situation on the F-22.  Both the Bush and Obama teams have consistently opposed producing more than 183 F-22s (because of a forced move by Congress last fall, the actual number now scheduled is 187).  '183 Raptors is not the ceiling on the low end,' Schwartz told lawmakers on Capitol Hill.  But he also told them the 381 Raptors wanted by his predecessor is 'too high.'  Schwartz said in an aside to reporters that a 'sweet spot' for procurement of the Raptor might be 243 aircraft...the delicacy arises because Schwartz was chosen for the job precisely because he is not a fighter pilot.  Fighter pilots ruled the USAF for decades.  Gates wanted a different perspective."
 
On UAVs:
 
"When he chose to discuss the first thing on his mind on taking office, Schwartz picked UAVs...'the combat contributions of unmanned aircraft systems...have surpassed all expectations and hold even greater promise for the future,' said Schwartz.  These words reflect Gates' views--dangerously so, in that they imply Schwartz may be simply saying what is convienent.  The usefulness of UAVs is beyond dispute, but some wonder if Gates hasn't gone overboard on UAVs and if Schwartz isn't simply mimicking his boss."
 
The article was written by Robert Dorr, a very respected aviation historian and expert.  (And a nice guy...I've met him.)  I find it interesting that Schwartz, who was apparently picked by Gates to end the reign of the Fighter Mafia (Schwartz is a career C-130 driver, both gunships and SF transports), also agrees that 243 F-22s is the way to go.  Yet Gates thinks that 187 will do it.  Which is closer to the truth on this? My guess is Schwartz, who actually talks to the fighter pilots who hang it out on the tip of the spear.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    What Strawman?   4/10/2009 10:41:13 AM
You aren't looking at the complete picture, WP
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.

 


The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!
 
However: I know where we are. He blows a lot of smoke with hos usual claims to secret knowledge.I wasn't kidding when I said we were having trouble matching the stimulis response of an amoeba in a computer and that there was trouble pairing that up with sensors, when we were aiming for the intelligence and sense response of an ant.
 
The poster doesn't understand how complex multiple sensory systems are to build and assemble to make them user friendly to a rather stupid computer. Its easy for men because we are self programming and we can, up to our filtered processing limits, sort critical information out, far faster than any machine and make decisions on the fragmented data. A computer, being stupid, doesn't have the advantage of a half billion years pf land animal experience that set the "noise" filters for us to sort out that critical information in less than a second. .
 
He, the poster, confuses simple feedback with autonomous learning and experience. A damaged plane program that pilot assists the controller by reorienting FBW inputs to pre-programmed parameters is not a pilot who sees the wing snap off and has to use what he/it knows to apply torque forces to maintain his thrust line.A computer doesn't recognize that. A Human has to write it out for it as instruction for it. If this happens, then this.
 
What we are trying to do is write software that allows a computer to LEARN to self correct and then we can download that "experience" as we teach it and pass it on.as instruction to the machines we build.
 
Computers are stubborn. They don't want to learn. Reminds me of too many people.
 
Herald 
   
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/10/2009 11:07:15 AM

You aren't looking at the complete picture, WP


Computers are stubborn. They don't want to learn. Reminds me of too many people.

Herald 
 
Sad to say you are very correct - some people watch way too much Star Trek to understand that even the most powerful computers are less capable than an ant. 
 
One of the first projects  - SPASM utilized a laser toting Firebee armed with a laser guided bomb - which was released to hunt down a simulated radar site and destroy it.  SPASM was sucessful but never went beyond the lab stage.  This was because the testng grounds were too specialized and SPASM could not be applied to an open combat situation without getting lost.
 
Another was an Army project intended to use AI programming, advanced video optics and new computer hardware to recognize tanks - a precusor to a super smart anti-tank missile.  They trained the system to recognize tanks in a wide variety of video presentations until it was about the 98% level in the lab.  Once they put it in the field they found it was unable to recognize any vehicle much less a tank.  The reason was simple - they trained it to recognize tanks in a variety of cloudy/sun lit views.  The computer learned to distinquish between a cloudy and sunny day - not to recognize tanks.
 
A rule of thumb for gauging computer intelligence - it will only be true AI when the computer understands what "maybe" means. 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/10/2009 12:23:19 PM
Interesting news article that shows exactly how Gates got this insanity through -- he forced the military leadership to sign gag orders so that they couldn't voice opposition to his decisions:
Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that? 
So yeah, you won't see a lot of new news about the Air Force's reaction to their request for 60 more Raptors being denied -- because they are prohibited from discussing it.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    That ties in with the Newsweek article I cited earlier.   4/10/2009 12:38:36 PM

Interesting news article that shows exactly how Gates got this insanity through -- he forced the military leadership to sign gag orders so that they couldn't voice opposition to his decisions:

Then came the election.  Many applauded President Obama?s decision to retain Bush?s Secretary of Defense to ensure wartime continuity.  What few bargained for was that the first three months of the Obama presidency would give Gates a chance to craft what Senator Carl Levin has called a ?novel? approach to the defense budget.  Gates kept Bush-Rumsfeld holdovers in crucial program analysis posts and formed a small team to cut the budget in secret, a technique he mastered as CIA director.  Next, in February 2009, Gates did what no previous Secretary of Defense had done.  He directed top uniformed officers to sign non-disclosure agreements pledging not to talk about the budget process ? even to other senior officers in their services.  Can you picture even a famous budget cutter like Caspar Weinberger or an experienced legislator like William Cohen making a demand like that? 


So yeah, you won't see a lot of new news about the Air Force's reaction to their request for 60 more Raptors being denied -- because they are prohibited from discussing it.



Gates has a well known reputation as that article described. He earned it.
 
He earned it.
 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/10/2009 12:58:31 PM

The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!


 
It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.


1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF

2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents

3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces

3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 
 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    DA Reply   4/10/2009 1:17:15 PM
1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF
 
Your opinion - not shared by a host of others - as demonstrated by the various postings, articles and sources here.

2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents

Your opinion - clearly not shared by a multitude of others - including the Russians and the PLA.

3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces

N/A - we are doing the same - sometimes using assets such as the IW capability of the Raptor.

3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 
 
There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    Darth    4/10/2009 1:50:59 PM

1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF
 

Your opinion - not shared by a host of others - as demonstrated by the various postings, articles and sources here.





2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents



Your opinion - clearly not shared by a multitude of others - including the Russians and the PLA.




3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces



N/A - we are doing the same - sometimes using assets such as the IW capability of the Raptor.




3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 

 

There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.




 


I agree with Softwar's response. In fact Darth you have not provided a single item of evidence that the 187 aircraft can do the work of some 400 aircraft performing those duties today. You have provided an unsupported opinion which must be judged against other data and history.
 
Your posts have been informative but mostly not pertinent to the conversation at hand. The question remains how many airframes do we need to perform the air superiority tasks in the USAF mission.
 
Check Six
 
Rocky

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    ?We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way?    4/10/2009 2:22:17 PM
I have already put the USAF air superiority aircraft inventory into a historical context with my earlier posts. History of our air superiority fleet is that they have been worked harder than planned in the 90's through today. Those requirements aren't going to change IMV. On the question of how many F22s are needed, here is what the USAF Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz had to say about the number of F22s our nation needs (note I have included the link and all of the article for further context. Nobody has to "google it"):
 
htt**p://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/F22s021709.xml

U.S. Air Force Gen. Norton Schwartz, the chief of staff, says more stealthy F-22s are needed ? though less than the 381 required by the service in recent years - yet he has stopped short of identifying how many more.

?We looked at this in a dispassionate and analytical way? and produced a number that ?I feel is credible,? Schwartz said during a Defense Writers? Group breakfast this morning in Washington. The general said he would not release his new number until presenting it to Defense Secretary Robert Gates - but he noted he would not disagree with statements from Navy Adm. Michael Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, who told Congress 60 more F-22s were needed.

This would include orders of about 20 aircraft per year for three years. Lockheed Martin currently has orders for 183 of the twin-engine aircraft.

The top four-star USAF general further said it is a ?sign of a healthy institution? when it is ?willing to revisit its own beliefs.?

Gates has ordered a quick-turnaround review of major Pentagon programs ahead of submission of a fiscal 2010 budget. In this review, Gates has directed eight teams to look at the following areas: tactical aircraft, mobility, shipbuilding, network centric capabilities, rotary-wing systems, missile defense, irregular warfare and nuclear capabilities, according to an industry official. Gates is said to be placing an emphasis on technologies that can help with ?irregular warfare,? or nontraditional warfighting capabilities, as the Pentagon expects continued battles against non-state actors and insurgent forces for many years.

Such a rebalancing of the military force could prompt senior leaders at the Pentagon to assume more risk in traditional warfighting areas, such as air-to-air combat or lead-in operations in the opening hours of a major theater war. Leaders are now looking at how much risk is appropriate for the capabilities offered by systems such as the F-22, Schwartz said. The general notes that any added systems the Air Force wants in the FY ?10 budget will be paid for with suggested cuts by the service.

The new F-22 analysis presumes deliveries of operational F-35 Joint Strike Fighters will commence as planned in 2013 and 2014 without delay.

Schwartz defended the F-22?s mission capability (MC) rates. Pentagon acquisition chief John Young criticized the low MC rates last fall, noting that Raptors are ready for a mission around 62 percent of the time, if its low-observable requirements are met (DAILY, Nov. 20). Reliability goes up above 70 percent for missions with lower stealth demands.

Schwartz said the F-22?s performance is ?respectable,? especially when compared with the first-generation stealthy F-117 and the B-2 bomber. ?These are not numbers to be scoffed at,? he says.

Young also has criticized plans to spend another $8 billion on the F-22 to modify it from its air-to-air role to also take on ground targets. Schwartz noted that this block upgrade plan has been in the works for a long time.

Schwartz was cool on the notion of developing an export version of the F-22. Japan has expressed interest in buying the system, but the so-called Obey Amendment, named after the top House appropriator who drafted the language years ago, prohibits foreign Raptor sales.

Citing the cost associated with developing an export variant, Schwartz said, ?I don?t see that in the cards now.?

Photo: USAF
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    OI understood perfectly,poster.    4/10/2009 3:03:45 PM



The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!






 

It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.







1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF




2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents




3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces




3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 

 




-DA 
 

Naw, poster you got caught in your own doubletalk. You didn't know what you were discussing, you mixed apples and rocks and now you resort to the personal attack again-to wit.
 
"You fucked up."
 
Well poster, this isn't an ego contest. You lost that rpound wjhen I demnonstrated that you are off point and irrelevent. This is a discussion now aboutr what you don't know.

Your latest fallback is to claim that Global Haek and Predator are UASes in the force.
 
Are they? 
 
Do you know what a   "man in the loop"  is?
 
Answer is no.
 
A continuously monitored drone is not autonomous. It can't even properly be called a drone. What it is, is a teleoperated and monitored aserial system. The man is still there, just not in the aircraft.
 
Now..........
 
1. I demomnstrated by coverage analysis what a minimum air dominance force would look like
2, Here and eleswhere I showed that Gates has a very unsavory reputation to trumpet whatever line the bozos in power want to adopt for the moment of political expediency.
3. I demonstrated that the poster, here, lnows less about robotics and aircraft than I know about the insode of my own nose. 
4. I demonstrated here that the poster will go to enormous lengths to try and belittle opponents and doismiss them with word tricks when he knows he's lost the argument on points and on FACTs.
5. The poster said I made technical mistakes. I challenged him to show these mistakes.
6. His lame effort? Skunk Works. Then he trots out off po0int and not even re;levant to the discussion BS that he tries to foist off proving artioficial intelligence efforts exist and that these are open source examples that proves it, and whan I in a few simple [aragraphs explain the citations ion their proper context he still trumpets that this TRASH that he dug up proves something.
7. We have a roadmap for robots.
 
Present problems.
 
a. sensor inputs have to be Human interpreted. The artilects are still too stupid to recognize a tank from a house.
b. the onboard autopilot still has to have everything written out for it or it will crash itself doing something stupid. A Human has to be there on standby to reset defaults or fly the damn thing of ot blunders into weather.
c. bandwidtrh hasn't gone away.
d., We haven't even addressed what is going to happen in an EW environment, soldier guy. Blowing up some stooges in a camp along the Afghan/Pak border is not the same as trying to pierce a Russianb style air defense where one of the things on the table WILL BE attacks on satellite uplinksl. That is why I mentioned that PRC microwave facility. 
 
Seems the poster isn't [repared to do anything except assert, assert, assert, bully, name call, insult and then when cornered at ;last as to his incompetent evidence, says that he's seen secret stuff?.
 
I don't hide my cards. I can demolish such an argument as the poster presented to date without having to claim secret knowledge (*which he by the way does bnot have as evidenhced by his presentation to now^1).  
 
Let's see what other ego defense tricju he troies to use as he tries to explain away why a 187 Raptor force leaves us no operational reserve or makes up for the aircraft (I believe the actual number is now 160 "Golden Eagles") of about 300 Eagles that will soon be airframe restricted as their rated hours have been used up.
  
I'm waiting for that explanation.     
 
Maybe he'll surprise me and actually have a factual argument instead of assertions and insults?.
   
Herald
 
^ I laid a "land mine" awhile back that he stepped on. That is why I know positively that he doesn't have a clue. Back about four pages ago for the rest of you.  
 
 
 
.
 
 
 
 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I understood perfectly,poster. (cleaned ip version.   4/10/2009 3:15:52 PM








The man said that the UCAS was capable of taking the on the role of a strike bird in a hostile defended environment in five years and then trotted out the X-45 as a visual example of what he meant. The X-45 is a proof of concept autonomous aircraft development platform where Boeing is trying to develop a free of outside control artificial pilot to operate that machine. I TAKE the poster at his evidence. He claims that in five years we will have a success in the field capable of doing what that bird is intended to demonstrate. Its not my fault that he doesn't even know what he tried to say!














 



It is your fault for getting what I said confused with your own desire to turn a casual debate into a personal ego contest. You F'd up. You are also wrong about the timeline for the availability of UAV and UCAVs capable of kinds of operations I'm speaking of. Just as you are wrong to assume such a platform has to be completely autonomous. Rather than going off the deep end and getting personal, why don't you actually try having a discussion. Bottom line is this is my opinion and I've provided ample support for it for a reasonable person to at least understand the points I'm making even if ultimately for their own reasons they disagree. Also, you are being disingenuous about the X-45 posting. I posted that to give some context to the kinds of things that are possible. I mentioned that long after we started off on this digression and after you used a Student Project as proof for your assertion that a real UCAV would not be possible until ~2020. Below are the views I have shared here.

















1. The DoD can accomplish it's mission with a 187 Raptor USAF










2. The most likely conflicts between now and 2025 DO NOT include near peer opponents










3. Even our Near Peer Opponents are seeking asymmetric means to counter our forces










3. Working operational UCAVs are in the force now and by 2014 could even be conducting the full range of missions performed by manned fighters including air to air missions. Just to avoid confusion I mean the destruction of enemy aircraft. 



 










-DA 

 





Naw, poster you got caught in your own double talk. You didn't know what you were discussing, you mixed apples and rocks and now you resort to the personal attack again-to wit.

 

"You fucked up."


 

Well poster, this isn't an ego contest. You lost that round when I demonstrated that you are off point and irrelevant. This is a discussion now about what you don't know.





Your latest fall back is to claim that Global Hark and Predator are UASes in the force.


 

Are they? 

 

Do you know what a   "man in the loop"  is?


 

Answer is no.

 

A continuously monitored drone is not autonomous. It can't even properly be called a drone. What it is, is a teleoperated and monitored aerial system. The man is still there, just not in the aircraft.

 

Now..........

 

1. I demonstrated by coverage analysis what a minimum air dominance force would look like

2, Here and elsewhere I showed that Gates has a very unsavory reputation to trumpet whatever line the bozos in power want to adopt for the moment of political expediency.


3. I demonstrated that the poster, here, knows less about robotics and aircraft than I know about the inside of my own nose. 


4. I demonstrated here that the poster will go to enormous lengths to try and belittle opponents and dismiss them with word tricks when he knows he's lost the argument on points and on FACTs.

5. The poster said I made technical mistakes. I challenged him to show these mistakes.

6. His lame effort? Skunk Works. Then he trots out off point and not even cites stuff not  relevant to the discussion BS that he tries to foist off proving artificial intelligence efforts exist and that these are open source examples that prove it, and when I in a few simple paragraphs explain the citations in their proper context he still trumpets that this TRASH that he dug up proves something.

7. We have a road map for robots.


Present problems.
a. sensor inputs have to be Human interpreted. The artilects are still too stupid to recognize a tank from a house.
b. the on board autopilot still has to have everything written out for it or it will crash itself doing something stupid. A Human has to be there on standby to reset defaults or fly the damn thing of it blunders into weather.
c. bandwidth hasn't gone away.
d., We haven't even addressed what is going to happen in an EW environment, soldier guy. Blowing up some stooges in a camp along the Afghan/Pak border is not the same as trying to pierce a Russian style air defense where one of the things on the table WILL BE attacks on our satellite uplinks. That is why I mentioned that PRC microwave facility. 
 
Seems the poster isn't prepared to do anything except assert, assert, assert, bully, name call, insult and then when cornered at last as he has been as  to his incompetent evidence, says that he's seen secret stuff?.

I don't hide my cards. I can demolish such an argument as the poster presented to date without having to claim secret knowledge (*which he by the way does not have as evidenced by his presentation to now^1).  

Let's see what other ego defense trick he tries to use as he tries to explain away why a 187 Raptor force leaves us no operational reserve or makes up for the aircraft (I believe the actual number is now 160 "Golden Eagles") of about 300 Eagles that will soon be airframe restricted as their rated hours have been used up.

I'm waiting for that explanation.     

Maybe he'll surprise me and actually have a factual argument instead of assertions and insults?.

Herald

^ I laid a "land mine" awhile back that he stepped on. That is why I know positively that he doesn't have a clue. Back about four pages ago for the rest of you.  



Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 7:41:33 PM
No, it's clear to me you don't understand. So lets just agree to disagree before things get too out of hand. I'll be responding to some of the other posters and perhaps that might put things in context for you.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 8:01:41 PM

I agree with Softwar's response. In fact Darth you have not provided a single item of evidence that the 187 aircraft can do the work of some 400 aircraft performing those duties today. You have provided an unsupported opinion which must be judged against other data and history.

Your posts have been informative but mostly not pertinent to the conversation at hand. The question remains how many airframes do we need to perform the air superiority tasks in the USAF mission.

Check Six
Rocky



That's the problem then. What you and Softwar are doing is confusing my point. Which is I DO NOT BELIEVE WE NEED 400 Raptors to do the job in the first place. It's my belief that 187 Raptors plus the F-15s we have from now until 2025 plus the F-35s once they enter service are enough to deal with ANY realistic threat between now and 2025. That means Norks, PRCs, Russians and Iranians if need be.  I've taken a look at ORBATS and the capabilities of the threats and I can't find a scenario where the outcome is not in our favor because of 60 more Raptors. Thats not the same as saying 187 Raptors can do the job of 400.
 
-DA
 


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    herald reply   4/10/2009 8:15:13 PM

There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.


That's not true at all. Reapers are UCAV's. Operating autonomously is not required to be considered a UCAV. It's UNMANNED or UNINHABITED. It's certainly a combat vehicle and its waging real war inside Pakistan proper. As far as I'm concerned that's a UCAV. If however you can show a definition that says UCAV's must be autonomous then I strongly disagree. Even if you are right, it is a semantic issue. It's like arguing if an AK is a Gun or Rifle. Yes there is a technical definition, but in common speak it doesn't matter.

I agree with you that it is "UNLIKELY" that we would field a a2a UCAV in 2014. But it's absolutely possible and in fact has already been done since 2002. Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 

-DA 

 


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Nitpickery.   4/10/2009 10:53:14 PM



There are NO true UCAV units in operation.    The Reaper is a UAV not a UCAV since it is not operating in an autonomous mode as the proposed X-45 and X-47 experimental units are.  Unlikely that we will field a UCAV - especially the air to air role - by 2014.  Even the best estimates are for UCAVs to perform strike missions in the time frame you allocate if funding is made available and a selection made before the end of this decade.  We have yet to see a UCAV experimental model make an autonomous carrier landing much less take on a fighter in air to air combat.





That's not true at all. Reapers are UCAV's. Operating autonomously is not required to be considered a UCAV. It's UNMANNED or UNINHABITED. It's certainly a combat vehicle and its waging real war inside Pakistan proper. As far as I'm concerned that's a UCAV. If however you can show a definition that says UCAV's must be autonomous then I strongly disagree. Even if you are right, it is a semantic issue. It's like arguing if an AK is a Gun or Rifle. Yes there is a technical definition, but in common speak it doesn't matter.




I agree with you that it is "UNLIKELY" that we would field a a2a UCAV in 2014. But it's absolutely possible and in fact has already been done since 2002. Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 




-DA 



 







You didn't address the technical issues I raised at all, poster. You tried to bluff your way out of it again. Not addressed the deteriorating air fleet situation  or the technical issues about bandwidth, sensor issues, comm link vulnerability.. Tried to say that unmanned means something.


I don't care about those 'games'. What I care about is that you think you have something useful to say on this subject. I'm trying to tease that out of you, to see if you can even address the core of your arguments defects.


You think the predator is a UCAS. Its a man operated reconnaissance bird with a very limited usefulness as a close support weapon. it is more of a man operated opportunity assassination weapon. WQhat gives you the idea that such a bird which carries a few small air to surface weapons; has the payload capacity to  be turned into an air to air capable bird.


Of course unless we are going to quibble over if that Predator can be considered a UCAV. In which case I'm sure you would not disagree that the Reaper could be made to fire air to air weapons with relative ease. I'm not saying that would be the ideal platform, but it's doable very quickly. A more dedicated purpose built UCAV could easily take the shape of an F-16 with the life support equipment removed and a remote control system or A.I. added. F-35s could be similarly modified and statements by Lockheed will confirm that. If the USG and DoD so ordered, they could easily make the 2014 timeframe. With a proper program or project manager and of course the funding, I'd bet even sooner. 2014 though I sure about. 
 
 
On the face of it, that entire statement is so stupid technically across the board that it left me rolling on the floor with laughter.  
a. The Predator doesn't carry enough payload to loft or the right sensor fit to use anything but one or two  WVR weapons. it doesn't have the maneuvering ability (*energy reserve) to survive a simple BVR shot or the radar footprint to evade detection. 
b. Thje F-16 and the F-35 could loft such weapons. The birds carry the right kind of radars. Now what kind of program do I write for the computer that will allow it to use a ANAPG-81 to sort and ID tracks? What threat decisions do I write so that it will shoot/no shoot? Oh, I have to stiull have to have a Human for that? What about opportunity attacks like a ground unbit in trouble screaming for close air sipport? I still need a Human for that to decide?
 
Oh but I can put that guy on a van away from the "UCAS"   That makes the machine uninhabited, tight?
 
SARCASM. You just introduced a radio link exploit path. I will use that against you. A manned fighter cannot be easily telemetry spoofed because the pilot receives false data streams through hios antennas or ground paths. Nor can I reach inside his "brain" through his eyes with a virus or programming worm to wipe his memory. (at least not yet). I can attempt that with a UCAS through decades old brute force jamming.. What happens then?   
 
It crashes first computer and then aircraft, literally..
Or you lose uplink through data dropout or a suddenly missing satellite. No comms, the drone goes stupid and default aborts. Afghanistan or Pakistan ain't the real EW world.  
 
There are dozens of detail things wrong with your blanket statement poster. I only needed to negate the most salient and glaring ones to prove that you have nothing to contribute on point to be taken seriously.    
 
That is why AUTONOMY is the holy grail of Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems.
 
I know which terms I use and why.
 
Still haven't tried to credibly refute the data presented on Gates aznd the Interregnumist  or the actual minimum coverage needs requiements either, poster.
 
Herald
 
 
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