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     Newest to Oldest

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? 


 
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 my

 
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
 
 
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

 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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