The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 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       4/11/2009 12:35:52 AM


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.



 
Like I told you Herald. I'm not going to get into a personal contest with you. If you want to discuss this, get the chip off your shoulder and "discuss". Or if you are not clear about something I'm saying, "ask".  Otherwise you are back up to your old needlessly confrontational digital chest beating and I'm not interested. I've made my points VERY CLEAR. So what I'm asking of you should not at all be difficult.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    General Reply   4/11/2009 1:45:44 AM

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.
 
Hey Darth, what's a UCAV? 

OK, again, lets dispense with the vitriol and ego and get a few concepts straight. For the benefit of those tracking this little digression, I'll elaborate on my position. All a UAS/UAV is, is a reusable uninhabited aircraft with its own propulsion system.  A UCAS/UCAV is a subset of that and adds the capability of delivering lethal or non-lethal weapons. This excludes things like BM's and CM's ect. The method of control or level of autonomy has nothing to do with it. So even an RQ-1 when armed technically becomes a UCAV by the USAF own definition. 

My "suggestion" that it can be turned into an air to air capable aircraft isn't a suggestion at all. It's something I've seen in real life and thanks to YouTube, you can see it too. In 2002 a RQ-1 tried to Shoot Down a Mig-25 over Iraq. So, lets see.

FACT CHECK 
1. The Predator  when armed falls under what the USAF defines as a UCAV

2. Predators have carrier live air to air weapons in combat

SO the DoD has already crossed the threshold of a air superiority UCAV years ago. 
 
 

Hey Darth, what's Air Superiority?

Well Air Superiority is one of the core competencies the USAF uses to define it's role in a conflict. Thusly, Air Superiority is actually a CONDITION and not really platform specific. It's a condition that can be achieved by the integration of platforms and weapons. The conditions for Air Superiority basically permits the Blue Land, Sea and Air Forces to operate at a given time and place without PROHIBITIVE interference from the opposing force.

FACT CHECK 
So not only is the Predator/Reaper a UCAV, they can depending on the circumstances perform Air Superiority missions. 




 




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.  
 
Perhaps you might want to hold off on the laughter and just focus on what I'm trying to explain to you. Just a suggestion.


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. 

That has nothing to do with anything. Obviously we should not use Predators to conduct CAP sorties over the Taiwan strait. But over an Iraq "no fly zone", already have. And why does it have to have maneuvering ability? There are several ways to answer that but the only right way all the time is METT.

 

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?
 
You could use one of several programing languages. Or none at all. The data collected by the APG-81 could be interpreted and acted on off site. 

 

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..

 
No need to get sarcastic. Unless you think the DoD would not do this. Because we do! Lots of DoD weapons and platforms use radio links. This is nothing new. Heck, just consider GPS. 
 

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.   

The Real EW world isn't as easy to exploit against a competent opponent as people think. I know that because I've done it many times. Nothing can ever be 100% secure.
 
 
 
 
 

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.    

The only thing wrong is you have allowed your ego to push your judgement outside the bounds of normal forum behavior and you are digressing back to you standard MO of asserting your view as fact and responding to any different view with extreme vitriol. 
 

That is why AUTONOMY is the holy grail of Unmanned Combat Aerial Systems.

In your opinion. But in reality, there are several control methods we use in combat with AUTONOMY being just one.
 
I know which terms I use and why.

Great! Now try explaining them without thoroughly offending people and you will be doing great things.
 
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

I'm sorry but I'm afraid that I'll have to decline discussing political issues with you until you can demonstrate some sort of objectivity. Calling Obama Interregnumist and me "Poster" doesn't give me any confidence that you would consider anything different from your view no matter what I said so I'll not waste my time. But you are more than welcome to read discussion between myself and others who know how to do this.
 

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    O dpojn'tcvare about your word games.   4/11/2009 3:04:04 AM
Provide data for your arguments, poster, since the arguments themselves are prima facia incompetent and based on your false assumptions and statements with nothing substantive credible or even remotely based on reality to back those assertions  up.
 
Also do not address me, I now ignore that as not relevant. Address the points that youm keep trying to avoid.
 
Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs especially thatg ridiculois statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.
 
Justify your faith in Gates and the interregnumist.
 
Justifyu your assumption that YOU know better than qualified professionals what they need to do to create autonomous lying machines or that you even know how such machines are desoigned built proofed and used.
 
Thiis has now become a test of your qualifications to actually have an opinion worth comsodoering on thio subject, poster. 
 
You've made it become such a test by the amoujnt of venom you've expressed and the insistance that you know best. 
 
Prove your qualifications by demonstrating that you know what you discuss.
 
Peovide data. provide proof. provide something besides your usual attempts to obfuscate, divert, or run away from the points raised in negation.
 
Otherwise you must accept that you do not have a case and that you do not know enough to generate one.
 
This is not a personal debate.
 
Herald
 
 

 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Proofread for typos, DUMMY!    4/11/2009 11:21:05 AM

Herald12345   I don't care about your word games.   4/11/2009 3:04:04 AM
Provide data for your arguments, poster, since the arguments themselves are prima facia incompetent, and based on your false assumptions and statements with nothing substantive, credible, or even remotely based on reality to back those assertions up.
 
Also do not address me; I now ignore that as not relevant. Address the points that you keep trying to avoid.
 
Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.
 
Justify your faith in Gates and the interregnumist.
 
Justify your assumption that YOU know better than qualified professionals, what they need to do, to create autonomous flying machines, or that you even know how such machines are designed, built, proofed, and used.
 
This has now become a test of your qualifications to actually have an opinion worth considering on this subject, poster. 
 
You've made it become such a test by the amount of venom you've expressed and the insistence, that you know best. 
 
Prove your qualifications by demonstrating that you know what you discuss.
 
Provide data. provide proof. provide something besides your usual attempts to obfuscate, divert, or run away from the points raised in negation.
 
Otherwise you must accept that you do not have a case, and that you do not know enough to generate one.
 
This is not a personal debate.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       4/11/2009 11:33:12 AM
Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.
 
That didn't work out so hot the one time they tried it.
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber    UCAV   4/11/2009 11:44:55 AM
UCAVs will have a greater impact on the F35 build-out numbers than it should in the F22. The F22s job can not be performed by a UCAV, but UCAVs are already filling the strike role which is 90% of what the F35 is made for. In terms of legacy aircraft allot of F16s and Strike Eagles will be in the bone yard over this v. F15Cs (we need every air superiority airframe we can get because it is a very thinly stretched asset.
 
No data exists to support replacing the F22 with drones. That technology isn't on the near horizon and anybody who says it is mistaken. The Air Force's internal audit said they needed another 60 F22s. They should get them.
 
PS: nobody says build 400 F22s but the 243 the Air Force requested.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 12:13:14 PM

Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.

 

That didn't work out so hot the one time they tried it.

I agree THAT TIME. But that isn't the point. The loss of a single Predator is inconsequential to what's important here. THEY TRIED IT. And that wasn't the only time. The implications are huge. Also, why so emotional? What did you find to be ridiculous? Are you able to articulate your feelings? You seem to be contradicting your own post when you say what I said about Predators as air to air capable and then you repost a video I already showed confirming the fact?

Phaid, at one point AIM-7's didn't work well either if you recall. The technology and tactics were matured and now we have AMRAAM, R-77 and METEOR. Are you suggesting that there is no future for air to air capable UCAVs? A lot of what's been discussed here was my opinion. However, this latest stuff is fact.

FACTS:

1. I gave you the definition of Air Superiority

2. I Gave you the definition of what a UCAV is

3. I Showed you a working air to air capable UCAV shooting at a live opponent 
 

Again, Air Superiority is a condition independent of the platforms that create it which also aren't always fighters.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 12:27:05 PM

UCAVs will have a greater impact on the F35 build-out numbers than it should in the F22. The F22s job can not be performed by a UCAV, but UCAVs are already filling the strike role which is 90% of what the F35 is made for. In terms of legacy aircraft allot of F16s and Strike Eagles will be in the bone yard over this v. F15Cs (we need every air superiority airframe we can get because it is a very thinly stretched asset.

 This statement is not entirely correct. The F-35 is not a single role fighter. It's a multirole design and will be used by the majority of users as primary air to air platform.

No data exists to support replacing the F22 with drones. That technology isn't on the near horizon and anybody who says it is mistaken. The Air Force's internal audit said they needed another 60 F22s. They should get them.

 The SecDef overrides the USAF. It's up to Congress now. And you are wrong about when you say no data exist to support replacing F-22's with Drones. Thats actually happening now with some of the ISR roles UAV's are taking.  If you are referring to replacement after then end of service life and basing that on technology then you are wrong there as well. The F-22 itself could easily be converted to be a Drone. There is a long history of that. What do you think this is...

 

What do you think it means when LM says that they can deliver a Unmanned F-35 in the statements I posted earlier. The technology to do this is not new and if we are willing to use existing aircraft designs all that remains is to develop an appropriate control system. 

 

PS: nobody says build 400 F22s but the 243 the Air Force requested.


Gates says no, I'll give you 187 based on the priorities set by the last two administrations and threats that actually exist. 

-DA 


 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 1:01:15 PM
I am tired of incompetence.
 
A quick technical analysis of the MQ-9B Reaper.
 
Data is from the USAF:
 
General Characteristics
Primary Function: Unmanned hunter/killer weapon system
Contractor: General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, Inc.
Power Plant: Honeywell TPE331-10GD turboprop engine
Thrust: 900 shaft horsepower maximum
Wingspan: 66 feet (20.1 meters)
Length: 36 feet (11 meters)
Height: 12.5 feet (3.8 meters)
Weight: 4,900 pounds (2,223 kilograms) empty
Maximum takeoff weight: 10,500 pounds (4,760 kilograms)
Fuel Capacity: 4,000 pounds (602 gallons)
Payload: 3,750 pounds (1,701 kilograms)
Speed: cruise speed around 230 miles per hour, (200 knots)
Range: 3,682 miles (3,200 nautical miles)
Ceiling:
up to 50,000 feet (15,240 meters)
Armament: Combination of AGM-114 Hellfire missiles, GBU-12 Paveway II and GBU-38 Joint Direct Attack Munitions.
Crew (remote): Two (pilot and sensor operator) 
Unit Cost: $53.5 million (includes four aircraft with sensors) (fiscal 2006 dollars)
Initial operating capability:  October 2007
Inventory: Active force, 10; ANG, 0; Reserve, 0
 
Expanded data>
 

Sources, various: 

GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

  • Builder:General Atomocs Aeronautical Systems Incorporated
  • Crew(remote): 2 (Pilot/controller plus a sensor operator)
  • Landing Type: runway
  • Launch Type: runway
  • Power Plant:  Honeywell TP331-10T  turboprop engine, 950 shp (712 kW)
  • Fuel Capacity: 1815 kg (4,000 lb)
  • Length: 11 m (36 ft)
  • Wingspan: 20 m (66 ft)
  • Height: 3.8 m (12.5 ft)
  • Empty weight: 2223 kg (4,900 lb)
  • Max takeoff weight: 4760 kg (10,500 lb)

PERFORMANCE

  • Service ceiling: 15 km (50,000 ft)
  • Operational altitude: 7.5 km (25,000 ft) 
  • Endurance: 14?28 hours (14 hours fully loaded) 
  • Range: 5,926 km (3,200 nmi, 3,682 mi)
  • Payload: 3,750 lb (1,700 kg)
  • Maximum speed: 482 km/h (300 mph, 260 knots)
  • Cruise speed: 276-313 km/h (172-195 mph, 150-170 knots)

ARMAMENT

  • 6 Hardpoints
    • 1,500 lb (680 kg) on the two inboard weapons stations
    • 500?600 lb (230?270 kg) on the two middle stations
    • 150?200 lb (68?91 kg) on the outboard stations
  • Up to 14x AGM 114 Hellfire  air to ground missiles can be carried or four Hellfire missiles and two 500 lb (230 kg) GBU-12 Paveway laser-guided bombs. JDAM in the future is also possible, as well as the AIM-9 Sidewinder .

SENSORS

  • AN/APY-8 Lynx II radar
  • MTS-B

COST

  • Unit cost: USD 10.5 million for one aircraft with sensors
Now an aircraft designed for air to air combat, lives and/or dies by its radar.


What is an AN/APY-8-Lynx II radar?
 
 
It is a Synthetic Aperture Radar. 
 
What is a SAR?
 
 
Now let's look at the drone.
 
 
 
You will note a few things almost immediately.
-First that the missing nose hump covers the uplink satellite dish that serves as the main telemetry channel transmitter/receiver to the bird. 
-Second that the bird has a multi-sensor electro-optical turret underneath its nose that is not to dissimilarin form and function fro what you woulsee on say an Apache helicopter.
-Third you see a canoe shaped section of the aircrft's nose. Gee, I wonder what could be in there? (SARCASM)
 
Now let's look at the whole bird in the air, shall we?
 
 
 
Notice that turboprop in the back?
 
 
Now notice this:
 
 
 
Its called a SAILPLANE or in the old days a GLIDER.
 
 
It was designed to maximize the use of lift to carry payload and to have minmal sink rate so that wind alone would generate enough lift to overcome gravity and drag.
 
Let's look at a few UAV aircraft shall we?
 
 
 
 

 
 
 
 
 
Cutaway of that bird.
 
 

 
 
How about the Israelis?
 
 
 
HERMES.
 
 
 
HERON.
 
Notice the sailplane like wings, the E/O sensor  turrets and SAR canoes, the satellite comm aerials and uplinks?
 
Notice that all of these birds are designed to cruise at anywhere from 200-400 knots or around 100 to 200 meters/second at altitudes of 15,000 to 35,000 feet? (3300 to 10,500 meters) ?
 
Notice that these birds are designed to look down and talk and listen up?
 
Now I don't know about some of you, but we build to purpose and we don't try to exceed the designed purpose unless we stumble into an unforeseen capability.
 
There are no current plans to turn these powered sailplanes into combat capable air to air platforms. I refer you back to the Homeland Defense robot interceptor study previously cited as to what an off the shelf air combat UCAS optimized for the air to air interceptor mission might look like. It has a big honking air search and target tracking radar in its nose and the kilowatts to power it. It also has the THRUST and ACCELERATION from its engines to SHOVE an AMRAAM or Sidewinder as a first step lainch platform so that the missile doesn't lose a significant fraction of its flyout potential and thus has a larger NEZ with which to work.
 
Like I said, I don't like incompetence.
 
Herald
.    
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

RockyMTNClimber       4/11/2009 1:06:19 PM


UCAVs will have a greater impact on the F35 build-out numbers than it should in the F22. The F22s job can not be performed by a UCAV, but UCAVs are already filling the strike role which is 90% of what the F35 is made for. In terms of legacy aircraft allot of F16s and Strike Eagles will be in the bone yard over this v. F15Cs (we need every air superiority airframe we can get because it is a very thinly stretched asset.

 This statement is not entirely correct. The F-35 is not a single role fighter. It's a multirole design and will be used by the majority of users as primary air to air platform.

Yes, many of our partners in the F35 program will be using the F35 as their only fighter. For US however, UCAVs can perform many of the strike roles we intend the F35 for today, and ever more capability tomorrow. No UCAV can perform the F22s/F15C's air superiority role today.

No data exists to support replacing the F22 with drones. That technology isn't on the near horizon and anybody who says it is mistaken. The Air Force's internal audit said they needed another 60 F22s. They should get them.




 The SecDef overrides the USAF. It's up to Congress now. And you are wrong about when you say no data exist to support replacing F-22's with Drones. Thats actually happening now with some of the ISR roles UAV's are taking.  If you are referring to replacement after then end of service life and basing that on technology then you are wrong there as well. The F-22 itself could easily be converted to be a Drone. There is a long history of that. What do you think this is...


For the near future that is a case where you have been proved wrong Darth. I'd go into the long description of what an air superiority fighter's role is but that will just take to much time here so let me ask you this: when will a UCAV be able to sniff a Blackjack out of the McKinley range (Alaska) in a solid vicious winter storm? Empirical Answer: No Time Soon!

What do you think it means when LM says that they can deliver a Unmanned F-35 in the statements I posted earlier. The technology to do this is not new and if we are willing to use existing aircraft designs all that remains is to develop an appropriate control system. 


Darth, the F35 isn't even real yet! It is still in prototype stages! Production is barely starting to for advanced prototyping! It is illogical to bet on a technology that isn't here and won't be here in any significant numbers for another 5 years! That is the current program. Umanned F35s are ten years out and most likely will never happen because it would be allot better to design a smaller less expensive overall system than convert this one, IMV. I look forward to advances in technology but closing a open production line because of what might happen in 10+ years is not in our best interest. Finally, I will go out on a limb here and predict that total F35 numbers are cut by 25-40% within 18 months of today.


 
PS: nobody says build 400 F22s but the 243 the Air Force requested.
 
Gates says no, I'll give you 187 based on the priorities set by the last two administrations and threats that actually exist. 

You have me on this one Darth! A political choice has been made. We know the USAF's internal audit required another 60 F22s to fulfill their mission of protecting the Continental US, and provide sufficient numbers of air superiority airframes for ongoing threats. This is over ridden by Obama and Gates. That doesn't mean it is wise.


-DA 



Check Six
Rocky





 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 1:20:28 PM
HERALD CAN YOU NOT REFER TO ME AS INCOMPETENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER PLETHORA OF PERSONAL INSULTS YOU USE HERE.


Thank You. I'll give you the same courtesy. If you disagree fine, but do it without being disrespectful. If you cannot, I'll forward any post by you with such content/behavior to the Moderators.


-DA  
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 1:24:11 PM




Justify your assertions as to your claims about UCAVs: especially that ridiculous statement about Predators as air to air combat capable aircraft.



 



That didn't work out so hot the one time they tried it.





I agree THAT TIME. But that isn't the point. The loss of a single Predator is inconsequential to what's important here. THEY TRIED IT. And that wasn't the only time. The implications are huge. Also, why so emotional? What did you find to be ridiculous? Are you able to articulate your feelings? You seem to be contradicting your own post when you say what I said about Predators as air to air capable and then you repost a video I already showed confirming the fact?




Phaid, at one point AIM-7's didn't work well either if you recall. The technology and tactics were matured and now we have AMRAAM, R-77 and METEOR. Are you suggesting that there is no future for air to air capable UCAVs? A lot of what's been discussed here was my opinion. However, this latest stuff is fact.




FACTS:




1. I gave you the definition of Air Superiority




2. I Gave you the definition of what a UCAV is




3. I Showed you a working air to air capable UCAV shooting at a live opponent 

 




Again, Air Superiority is a condition independent of the platforms that create it which also aren't always fighters.







-DA 
IN BOLD, notice.
This is an example of the standard personal insult and the personal attack, the poster uses.
 
Notice that in the rest of the post there is no technical discussion at all? The meat of the posting was an attempt to belittle and demean the person. I think that some now can see what this actually means about the tactics of the cited poster.
 
Not able to argue merits on a level playing field, the poster persists in the long habits he's established in trying to shift the argument off point and in trying to either red herring, or resort to the ad hominem or directly attack the person of his "opponent", which in this case is totally wothout merit, since the "opponent" is qualified by posted evidence to have an opini9on while the poster as we wade deeper into this debate has long since proved not to have the remotest understanding of subject based on reading the evidence that the poster has submitted..
 
Once again, I emphasize, no credible data or even the rudiments of system analysis of the topic but just conjecture, personal attack, unsubtantiated opinion , and frankly, bad manners has he presented..
 
 Where is the proof of the poster's assertion again?
 
Summary:
 
1. I supplied cut and paste definitions of terms.
2. Secretary Gates says so.
3. A Predator drone controller (Human) tried to fire a Sidewinder at a Foxbat WVR and missed.
 
Pardoin me but even a superfical read of the last 14 pages shows who really has a clue here. it isn't the poster who asserts with no proof, no data, and no REAL understanding of what is NOW going on here. 
 
Where os the beef? And I'm not talking about cows. 
 
Herald
 
 
 
.  
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 1:40:21 PM
I don't like limiting myself to thinking things never change.


It is completely feesible with modifications for an MQ-9 to carry an AMRAAM aloft and park that aircraft in an orbit where you wish to deny use of the air to enemy forces. The MQ-9 would not even need to carry the sensors necessary to guide the weapon. Through Datalinks, the MQ-9 could act as a shooter using information from off board sensors as Current manned aircraft do. At high altitude, there would be plenty of target sets this UCAV/AAM combo could threaten during an air superiority mission. Would this be an adequate substitute for manned fighters? In some situations, yes. That answer changes to YES with a purpose built platform like an F-4, Mig-17, F-16 or F-35 modified to fly unmanned.

People reading this need to understand the proper context of what I'm saying. I know that the technology is new, need improvement and will not replace our manned fighters for a whole lot of reasons as soon as it could. I do not deny that. What I deny is that it is not POSSIBLE. I'm not sure why anyone familiar with the technologies involved would say it's not possible. That's probably why people who are familiar are not saying that at all. This technology is progressing very rapidly and we should expect to see some exciting things next decade. Things like the Predator C for instance...

link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; padding-top: 6px; padding-right: 10px; padding-bottom: 6px; padding-left: 10px; background-position: initial initial; ">Jet-powered Predator C makes first flight and gains funding support
link background-repeat: no-repeat; background-attachment: initial; background-color: initial; font-size: 11px; background-position: 0% 100%; ">

General Atomics Aeronautical Systems flew its jet-powered Predator C unmanned aircraft system for the first time in early April, chief executive Thomas Cassidy has told Flight International.

The next-generation surveillance and attack UAS completed the first flight with "absolutely no problems", Cassidy says. "It was ready to go again right after it landed."

Cassidy declines to reveal details about the secretive aircraft's features or performance. Since 2005, General Atomicshas been internally developing the Predator C in anticipation of a US Air Force requirement for a next-generation UAS, but federal funding is likely to appear shortly.

Brian Bilbray, a California congressman, has asked to insert $26 million in an unnamed appropriations bill for the Predator C, citing personal interest from Gen David McKiernan, commander of US and international forces in Afghanistan.

"Predator C will provide the USAF and other customers with an additional covert capability, enhanced by much higher operational and transit speeds for quick response and quick repositioning for improved mission flexibility and survivability," Bilbray says.

It is understood that Duncan Hunter, another California congressman, also plans to submit a similar request for government funding for the Predator C.

Cassidy says the first flight, originally scheduled for the third quarter of last year, was delayed by several months due to technical and regulatory issues. In 2006, he described the Predator C as having a new wing-form and stealthy features.

The programme is moving forward even as the US Department of Defense plans to buy at least 66 MQ-9 Reapers (Predator Bs) over the next two years, as it seeks to establish 50 permanent orbits of Predator- and Reaper-class UAS. 


Just keep in mind the USAF had on it's mind the possibility of deploying an unmanned bomber by 2018.

 
-DA 



 

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up on the Predator as an Air to Air combat weapon.   4/11/2009 1:43:36 PM

HERALD CAN YOU NOT REFER TO ME AS INCOMPETENT OR ANY OF THE OTHER PLETHORA OF PERSONAL INSULTS YOU USE HERE.







Thank You. I'll give you the same courtesy. If you disagree fine, but do it without being disrespectful. If you cannot, I'll forward any post by you with such content/behavior to the Moderators.







-DA  
You did not read properly poster, I said   your presentation is incompetent.
 
What I am proving (and quite successfully) is that you are UNQUALIFIED to have an opinion on this subject.
 
And as to personal; attacks and insults, such as the one I pointed out that you aimed at Phaid, I wouldn't be trying to draw attention to myself, poster.
 
 Now, that you have protested that you've been caught in the open with no fdata or qualified opinion of merit on subject would you like to address the air defense and offense coverage issues, your numerous technical errors that I've exposed, the aging and needed replacing air fleet, the moral terpitude as extensivley reported of Mister Gates, the incompetence of the decision making process in the defense budget that requires the signing of non-disclosure agreements that would muzzle RETIRING officers as well as active duty personnel, etc.
 
In other words.if the caser being built up isn't true, poster, why the THREAT language and the useless bullying tactics?
 
Why not argue the data and porive that you are capable of presenting an argument of merit worthy of consideration?
 
Where are your facts? I've read fourteen pages from you and I was/am able to summarize it succinctly..

1. Poster said so.
2. Gates said so.
3. You (insert name) have an emotional problem and I'm not going to discuss politics. 

Never mind that procurement is a POLITICAL decision.
 
 
which the poster obviously also does not understand oin the slightest degree.
 
Herald

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/11/2009 1:52:04 PM
Predator C—$26,000,000
In July 2008, I took a trip to Iraq and Afghanistan to assess the current conditions on the ground.  In a meeting with General David D. McKiernan, Commander of International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and Commander, U.S. Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A), he emphasized that the most important tools needed to successfully conduct operations are more ?eyes in the sky,? also known as unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV).   Most importantly, this request will help save lives through better intelligence gathering and greater strike capabilities.  Furthermore, Predator C means more jobs contributing to San Diego?s local economy.  Predator C will provide the USAF and other customers with an additional covert capability, enhanced by much higher operational and transit speeds for quick response and quick repositioning for improved mission flexibility and survivability. This request was made by General Atomics with the verbal support of General David D. McKiernan prior to the official request being made.

 
h*tp://www.house.gov/apps/list/press/ca50_bilbray/BilbrayContinuesCommitmentToTransparency.html


Cutting the 60 F-22's saves at least $9,000,000,000. Enough to but over ~300 + new Predator/Reaper system for instance. I'm not saying we need that many, I'm just putting the savings into context. It's money we could and should use to win the wars we are in rather than the wars people wish we were in. 



-DA 
 
 
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