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




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

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

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62   NEXT
Softwar       4/13/2009 4:54:40 PM



The kind of link you speak of does not exist.  You played with a computer to computer commo link - but did it pass real time video, radar, IR, vehicle air data, location and allow for two way traffic for command linkage - all encrypted and unjammable?  Yeah sure Darth, and I played with the Forbin project.  Oh, sorry - you are not DP literate - just think of it as an advanced AI concept that backfired.



 Wrong, the kind of link I spoke of does exist, I've used it. One day, I'll post pictures and video of it in action.



Now multiply that by the number of vehicles you want to fly in a combat zone. 



 



Sorry - we don't have the bandwidth.  Sat link maybe ....not.  Even worse on the bandwidth and can loose contact if high g runs are required.  So - autonomous is the only way to go.  Sad to say - even Boeing, Northrup, Lockheed, the US Navy and USAF agree with me.  Too bad you are not in the five sided building - you could tell them all about your miracle communcations system.




Again, BTDT, Softwar are wrong. Used it. Too bad you never have seen it yourself.




-DA 







 




Sorry Darth - I don't beleive you and never will until you post those so-secret pictures.  You would also have to post the specs and the form of encryption to make it convincing.  So - go ahead and try to prove it.  I am sure that Harris or Ft. Meade will take an interest as well. 
 
Until then - I will continue to post real facts - not something made up.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 5:00:25 PM


Sorry Darth - I don't beleive you and never will until you post those so-secret pictures.  You would also have to post the specs and the form of encryption to make it convincing.  So - go ahead and try to prove it.  I am sure that Harris or Ft. Meade will take an interest as well. 

 

Until then - I will continue to post real facts - not something made up.



I don't care if you believe me. Say so and move on. Just try next time to understand basic definitions of terms the next time so we don't spend 100 post explaining to you what air superiority and UCAVs are. Or that Predators can and have carried a2a weaponry.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/13/2009 5:02:54 PM
Well, in addition to The Obamination and SecDef Gates saying it, now we have SAF Donley and CoS Schwartz saying it.
 
Stick a fork in it, the F-22 program is done.
 
----------------------------------
 
Moving Beyond the F-22

By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz
Monday, April 13, 2009; A15

The debate over whether to continue production of the F-22 Raptor has been one of the most politically charged and controversial budget issues in recent memory, spawning lobbying efforts that include contractor-sponsored newspaper ads and letter-writing campaigns.

The F-22 is, unquestionably, the most capable fighter in our military inventory. Its advantages include stealth and speed; while optimized for air-to-air combat, it also has a ground attack capability.

We assessed the issue from many angles, taking into account competing strategic priorities and complementary programs and alternatives -- all balanced within the context of available resources.

We are often asked: How many F-22s does the Air Force need? The answer, of course, depends on what we are being asked to do. When the program began, late in the Cold War, it was estimated that 740 would be needed. Since then, the Defense Department has constantly reassessed how many major combat operations we might be challenged to conduct, where such conflicts might arise, whether or how much they might overlap, what are the strategies and capabilities of potential opponents, and U.S. objectives.

These assessments have concluded that, over time, a progressively more sophisticated mix of aircraft, weapons and networking capabilities will enable us to produce needed combat power with fewer platforms. As requirements for fighter inventories have declined and F-22 program costs have risen, the department imposed a funding cap and in December 2004 approved a program of 183 aircraft.

Based on different warfighting assumptions, the Air Force previously drew a different conclusion: that 381 aircraft would be required for a low-risk force of F-22s. We revisited this conclusion after arriving in office last summer and concluded that 243 aircraft would be a moderate-risk force. Since then, additional factors have arisen.

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

We support the final four F-22s proposed in the fiscal 2009 supplemental request, as this will aid the long-term viability of the F-22 fleet. But the time has come to close out production. That is why we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Softwar, a caution.    4/13/2009 5:13:38 PM
There is two way data streaming between controller and object in telemetry. Its called by various names such as authentication, reread, readback, etc  and so forth depending on which method is used but the gist of it is that the object receiving instructions questions the transmitter to make sure that first it is the right transmitter, and second that it reads the instructions properly.
 
There are three ways to waldo.
 
Sound, light, and coded pulses over cable either light or electric current are the three. If someone tells you different he is a liar. Two way traffic is dependent on those means. That sets the byte transmission rate and the bandwidth requirement. That is just physics.   You want as much autonomy as possible to restrict the amount of telemetry exchange you need and the bandwidth you use.
 
Simple os better than complex. Short is better than long. In pother words the enemy is RDFing you and then he mimicks you as he decrypts you. Or he just crowds you out with his own shouting. Tjhere is only sao much baqndwifth to spread across the spectrum amnd only so much hopping you can do. As you are aware the more you encrypt, the greater the error rate and the data dropout.
 
This is what I mean about that poster taking the rest of us as ignorant.
 
Shrug. This is just more data that destroys his claims to secret knowledge.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 5:20:14 PM

First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.

WOW, this is exactly what I have been saying for the last 200 post.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.

More of my words almost verbatim.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.

Looking from a broader view? Where did we hear that before?
The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.

Indicating low risk and adequate coverage

 

Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

Hmm, anyone wanrt to wager UCAV will be competing to take this role?

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.

Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force

Confirmation of a point I've been making for the past few days. I agree 100%
 

-DA

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 5:22:34 PM







You have yet to counter me with anything other than your opinion and thinly veiled insults. Also, this is not a peer review or PDR. It's a simple discussion of a decision from the SecDef that you two can't refute with anything more than your opinion.



 



So go ahead and pat yourself on the back. When more objective posters who actually aren't beating their chest start to chime in, I'll consider things from another point of view. Otherwise, you two are once again coming up far short.



 



-DA







Darth,

 

I challenged you on the SSN reference, the RF link, the operational uses, your assertion that the unmanned bomber would be around in 2018 and a wide variety of other things.  I even tried to throw you a bone to save yourself from wetting all over the place by pointing out the SPASM project.  (You might want to use your TOP SECRET decoder ring access at the SCIF to find out about SPASM.) 

 

I did not mention political considerations - you did.  I did not suggest UAVs could substitute for the F-22 - you did.  I did not contend that there is an unjammable - totally secure - communicaitons link which can allow for bi-directional information flow to control a UCAV in flight - you did.

 

I have challenged you on technical matters, quizzed you on projects that you should know about and tested your knowledge of the Gates proposal - all of which you failed.  About all I get now out of your postings - is the hot air blast of a bruised ego.

 

So you failed.  So what?  I won't think any less of you even if you had the stones to admit it.


More insults from you I see. You haven't challenged me on JACK. You can't. You didn't even provide any support for your argument, you didn't know the definitions of air superiority, UCAV or UAV. When I showed you, you dishonored yourself by not acknowledging it. By contrast, I readily told you, hey, I never heard of SPASM. At least not by that name. There was no ego. But instead of simply explaining it as I do for you, you continued to mock and insult. Your reference to "Top Secret" decoder rings further illustrate your indignity. That's fine, if thats the way you have to present yourself. I'm better than that.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/13/2009 5:26:52 PM
And by the way, it is not "zero information content" to point out the logically correct statement that if all UCAS are a subset of UAS, then calling something a UAS does *NOT* exclude it from also being a UCAS.
 
Actually, what typically *IS* zero informaton content is droning on and on over all sorts of meaningless or non-sequitor concepts that do not add to the discussion at all, e.g. (and all this is just within the last 24 hours):
 
But I do care that:
-you demonstrate that you know little about information warfare.
-you know nothing about economic warfare.
-you know little about current threats.
-you know next to nothing about uninhabited aerial systems.
-you do not understand aircraft attrition as a function of usable airframe hours.
-you are not current as to how the US technology tree works.
-you don't know how an air force works.
-you don't know how a navy works.
-you don't know the first thing about the resources of the Earth or the competition for the resources thereof.
-you don't know how to read a map.
-you cannot present an enemy viewpoint battlespace analysis.
-you don't know the difference between an assertion and a proof.
-you equate proper skepticism with the personal attack.
-you claim that your own personal attacks are not to be weighed in the balance of evidence, as to judging the meroits of your arguments and the (lack of) competence exhibited thereof:.
-you deny that the same rigor of proof applies to you when you demand others coinform to it, nay when you assert that they "have not proved you wrong" when the error is  "you continue to fail to prove your thesis is correct.
 
The burden of competence as well as the burden of proof is on you, poster.
 
----------
 
As to the trite discussion of definitions. That is relatively uninteresting, poster, since you still don't show me that you even have a clue as to what they actually do, or how they actually work.
 
Shrug. This would be called you nitpicking and desperately attempting to divert from the thesis, by some thesis reviewers who would at this point demand that you return to the heart of the thesis you crafted, and that your explain in detail the proofs (if any) that you have in support of it, or would peremptorily and rather brutally dismiss first your thesis,out of hand as a failed attempt, and then dismiss you as a candidate who has anything of merit to contribute to the subject discussed..
.
The peer  review process is rather brutal and not for the timid to enter into unless they have the stomach for it. There is no room for mere unsubstantiations, evidenceless assertions, or for incompetent presentations of fact. The case must be tight.
 
------------
 
More direct evidence, the poster generates, that the poster knows little or nothing about what is going on outside the very narrow scope of his own bias and quite limited experience.
 
The knowledge base just isn't there that her has to make correct data reads.
 
Shrug, I've generated enough data and supplied enough sources and analysis MYSELF HERE that if he wanted to try  he could attempt to make his case coherent. I'd destroy it easily, but at least he would have consistent accurate and on point data to try.
 
------------
 
The process is called peer review to see if the thesis or claim stated holds up to challenge. It does not. 
 
As for data, the claim that I have not repudiated or negayed dozens of superfocial claims or assertions and called the poster on numerous presentation errors has sixteen pages worht of evidence to show that thisd ;last assertion the poswter makes is a false one. 
 
Until the poster demonstrates a competent argument he has no case, and no grounds for claiming that he can even generate one.
 
That ois what peer revoew means. if he thinks there is anything personal in the process then he has not paid attention to the data based nature of the argument, not that he hyas from the beginning or he wou;d have generated a cpomposite whole case that starts from his premise. If he wants to know how such a case is built I suggest he read my presentation in isolation and see how it flows from a stated thesis on page two into the proof.
 
Being too personally involved in what looks more and more like an ego defense exercise I suspect he will not take the oppoirtunity to learn how to do a proper presntation of a case; and will instead assert some more off point and off topic presentations that have nothing to do with the budget, the nature of UCAS employment or the misunderstandings he continues to show about the way EW operates or how airpower is ermployed: much less the subjects of ":grand strategy" or the "big picture".
 
Nothing persional. This is a case study applied to competencyt of presentation.

So far the defense of thesis exercoise, as that poster mounts it, is a fail exercise.
 
Not opinion. Fact.
 
---------------
 
You have called for support? That is not the same thing as operating the things poster, nor is it the same as operating against countermeasures.
 
Once again you don't know what you are talking about. Your briefings may have included such things as time to employ limitations and terrain obstruction limitations but they sure didn't include such things as enemy exploit paths or possible enemy EW counters to use or you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes over and over again. You assume low intensity EW conditions which is the favorite mistake most fan-boys and amateurs make.
 
---------------
 
There has been no further air to air attempts you'll notice? You'll also notice that all of your examples are operator monitored and controlled as well as look down talk up or talk back?
 
In other words you still fail to prove a thing, poster.  All you do is catalog a series of drone approaches that all contain a man in the loop element and most of which have FAILED.
 
Keep trying. I'm drinking my coffee and enjoying the exercise.
 
---------------
 
Note how many exploit paths I can use to disrupt it?

All of these concepts rely on secure friendly telemetry in the battle-space and a stupid static enemy.. As tested as early as the Balkans IN WAR the telemetry fails the proof stage of concept. 
 
Posting without understanding isn't helping that poster make any kind of a legitimate case here.
 
Analysis indicates that he doesn't know exact systems limitations or integration issues involved.
 
It's called in plain English, information channel confusion, or what is true and not true and who is talking to what? 
----------------
 
Just an example of what you don't know, poster, just an example.
 
----------------
 
This is addressed at you poster. Read the payload and endurance specs as well as the operator support footprint and don't tell me you even know what that drone is.
 
You'd be surprised at exactly how much you don't know.
----------------
 
When the poster has something credible: it will be noted. Until then, obsolete data will be so described and correctly explained.
 
---------------
 
It or something very much like it has been seen in Kandahar, poster.  Still has nothing to do with what I an discussing. You are desperately grasping at straws and plucking nothing but thatch. Just how uninformed do you think some of us are?
 
 
Quote    Reply

VelocityVector    Warpig   4/13/2009 5:39:20 PM

Well, in addition to The Obamination and SecDef Gates saying it, now we have SAF Donley and CoS Schwartz saying it.

Stick a fork in it, the F-22 program is done.
----------------------------------
Moving Beyond the F-22

By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz

Monday, April 13, 2009; A15

 
. . .
Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.

. . .

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.


We've moved beyond the explicit programming paradigm for air dominance.  Anything that can be presented and decided upon by a human pilot in that context can be handled by a rules-driven machine.  F-35 and phased attrition should provide plenty of time to implement the next round.  0.02
v^2

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Out of context, much?.   4/13/2009 5:41:45 PM

And by the way, it is not "zero information content" to point out the logically correct statement that if all UCAS are a subset of UAS, then calling something a UAS does *NOT* exclude it from also being a UCAS.

 

Actually, what typically *IS* zero informaton content is droning on and on over all sorts of meaningless or non-sequitor concepts that do not add to the discussion at all, e.g. (and all this is just within the last 24 hours):

 


But I do care that:

-you demonstrate that you know little about information warfare.

-you know nothing about economic warfare.


-you know little about current threats.

-you know next to nothing about uninhabited aerial systems.


-you do not understand aircraft attrition as a function of usable airframe hours.

-you are not current as to how the US technology tree works.

-you don't know how an air force works.

-you don't know how a navy works.

-you don't know the first thing about the resources of the Earth or the competition for the resources thereof.

-you don't know how to read a map.

-you cannot present an enemy viewpoint battlespace analysis.

-you don't know the difference between an assertion and a proof.

-you equate proper skepticism with the personal attack.


-you claim that your own personal attacks are not to be weighed in the balance of evidence, as to judging the meroits of your arguments and the (lack of) competence exhibited thereof:.


-you deny that the same rigor of proof applies to you when you demand others coinform to it, nay when you assert that they "have not proved you wrong" when the error is  "you continue to fail to prove your thesis is correct.


 

The burden of competence as well as the burden of proof is on you, poster.

 

----------

 


As to the trite discussion of definitions. That is relatively uninteresting, poster, since you still don't show me that you even have a clue as to what they actually do, or how they actually work.

 

Shrug. This would be called you nitpicking and desperately attempting to divert from the thesis, by some thesis reviewers who would at this point demand that you return to the heart of the thesis you crafted, and that your explain in detail the proofs (if any) that you have in support of it, or would peremptorily and rather brutally dismiss first your thesis,out of hand as a failed attempt, and then dismiss you as a candidate who has anything of merit to contribute to the subject discussed..


.


The peer  review process is rather brutal and not for the timid to enter into unless they have the stomach for it. There is no room for mere unsubstantiations, evidenceless assertions, or for incompetent presentations of fact. The case must be tight.



 

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

 


More direct evidence, the poster generates, that the poster knows little or nothing about what is going on outside the very narrow scope of his own bias and quite limited experience.


 

The knowledge base just isn't there that her has to make correct data reads.


 

Shrug, I've generated enough data and supplied enough sources and analysis MYSELF HERE that if he wanted to try  he could attempt to make his case coherent. I'd destroy it easily, but at least he would have consistent accurate and on point data to try.


 

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

 


The process is called peer review to see if the thesis or claim stated holds up to challenge. It does not. 

 

As for data, the claim that I have not repudiated or negayed dozens of superfocial claims or assertions and called the poster on numerous presentation errors has sixteen pages worht of evidence to show that thisd ;last assertion the poswter makes is a false one. 


 

Until the poster demonstrates a competent argument he has no case, and no grounds for claiming that he can even generate one.


 

That ois what peer revoew means. if he thinks there is anything personal in the process then he has not paid attention to the data based nature of the argument, not that he hyas from the beginning or he wou;d have generated a cpomposite whole case that starts from his premise. If he wants to know how such a case is built I suggest he read my presentation in isolation and see how it flows from a stated thesis on page two into the proof.


 

Being too personally involved in what looks more and more like an ego defense exercise I suspect he will not take the oppoirtunity to learn how to do a proper presntation of a case; and will instead assert some more off point and off topic presentations that have nothing to do with the budget, the nature of UCAS employment or the misunderstandings he continues to show about the way EW operates or how airpower is ermployed: much less the subjects of ":grand strategy" or the "big picture".

 

Nothing persional. This is a case study applied to competencyt of presentation.





So far the defense of thesis exercoise, as that poster mounts it, is a fail exercise.

 

Not opinion. Fact.


 

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

 


You have called for support? That is not the same thing as operating the things poster, nor is it the same as operating against countermeasures.

 

Once again you don't know what you are talking about. Your briefings may have included such things as time to employ limitations and terrain obstruction limitations but they sure didn't include such things as enemy exploit paths or possible enemy EW counters to use or you wouldn't keep making the same mistakes over and over again. You assume low intensity EW conditions which is the favorite mistake most fan-boys and amateurs make.


 

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

 


There has been no further air to air attempts you'll notice? You'll also notice that all of your examples are operator monitored and controlled as well as look down talk up or talk back?

 

In other words you still fail to prove a thing, poster.  All you do is catalog a series of drone approaches that all contain a man in the loop element and most of which have FAILED.


 

Keep trying. I'm drinking my coffee and enjoying the exercise.


 

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

 


Note how many exploit paths I can use to disrupt it?





All of these concepts rely on secure friendly telemetry in the battle-space and a stupid static enemy.. As tested as early as the Balkans IN WAR the telemetry fails the proof stage of concept. 


 

Posting without understanding isn't helping that poster make any kind of a legitimate case here.


 

Analysis indicates that he doesn't know exact systems limitations or integration issues involved.


 

It's called in plain English, information channel confusion, or what is true and not true and who is talking to what? 



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

 


Just an example of what you don't know, poster, just an example.


 

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

 


This is addressed at you poster. Read the payload and endurance specs as well as the operator support footprint and don't tell me you even know what that drone is.

 

You'd be surprised at exactly how much you don't know.


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

 

When the poster has something credible: it will be noted. Until then, obsolete data will be so described and correctly explained.

 

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

 

It or something very much like it has been seen in Kandahar, poster.  Still has nothing to do with what I an discussing. You are desperately grasping at straws and plucking nothing but thatch. Just how uninformed do you think some of us are?

 



Warpig, those were specific negations addressed to specific off-point issues that that poster raised that were off his topicand MINE. Each reply  addressed a quoted or immediate post preceding it.
 
Do you want to say that they repetitive? That they do not drive at the central counter-thesis?  Do you even know what the counter-thesis is?
.
I stated it clearly enough. "I was trying to establish if the other poster knew enough to competently defend what he discussed."
 
That was it in a nutshell.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Out of context, much?.   4/13/2009 5:47:19 PM




Well, in addition to The Obamination and SecDef Gates saying it, now we have SAF Donley and CoS Schwartz saying it.



Stick a fork in it, the F-22 program is done.


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

Moving Beyond the F-22


By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz



Monday, April 13, 2009; A15


 

. . .


Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.




. . .


Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.






We've moved beyond the explicit programming paradigm for air dominance.  Anything that can be presented and decided upon by a human pilot in that context can be handled by a rules-driven machine.  F-35 and phased attrition should provide plenty of time to implement the next round.  0.02

v^2





Respectfully V^2. while I agree that the software goal is that, we still have lots of hardware integration and actual machine intelligence issues to resolve before we autonomize the kill/no-kill decision. CREF the article on controller errors and data dropout issues. Human fraticide is bad enough. Computers are stupid.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/13/2009 5:54:33 PM




Well, in addition to The Obamination and SecDef Gates saying it, now we have SAF Donley and CoS Schwartz saying it.



Stick a fork in it, the F-22 program is done.


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

Moving Beyond the F-22


By Michael Donley and Norton Schwartz



Monday, April 13, 2009; A15


 

. . .


Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.




. . .


Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.






We've moved beyond the explicit programming paradigm for air dominance.  Anything that can be presented and decided upon by a human pilot in that context can be handled by a rules-driven machine.  F-35 and phased attrition should provide plenty of time to implement the next round.  0.02

v^2






 
Wow, that seems a much more bold statement than even DA is suggesting for our near future.  I do not claim to be in a position to dispute that, but it seems to me there remains very much yet to prove in order for that to be confirmed.
 
Like I've said before, I'm not sure that we "need" more F-22s, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable with the risk reduction that would come along with producing something like 60 more.  However, I suspect that much of my gut reaction comes from having a very USAF-centric experience base.  Sadly, I doubt that any so-called "savings" from not making more jets will be added to whatever other programs might be more critically needed in the Big Scheme of Things.  I fear the "F-22 Dividend" will just disappear from the defense budget altogether.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/13/2009 6:08:49 PM


Warpig, those were specific negations addressed to specific off-point issues that that poster raised that were off his topicand MINE. Each reply  addressed a quoted or immediate post preceding it.

Do you want to say that they repetitive? That they do not drive at the central counter-thesis?  Do you even know what the counter-thesis is?

I stated it clearly enough. "I was trying to establish if the other poster knew enough to competently defend what he discussed."

That was it in a nutshell.


Well, it seems to me what has been going on for the last 300 posts is similar to what has gone on in other threads involving DA and/or you (and note it's not necessarily both):  It's not thesis/conter-thesis, but rather it's DA has a thesis and you have a thesis.  DA may occasionally directly address your thesis, and you may occasionally directly address his thesis, but mostly the two of you are addressing the other's comments from the point-of-view of your own thesis and not the other's.  Discussion of UCAS is a prime example.  DA never once said that UCAS could *completely* replace manned fighters with autonomous UCAS that are better at the air dominance mission than manned fighters within 5-10 years, yet that's constantly the thesis you are aiming your comments toward refuting.  Based on my not-inconsequential knowledge I can confirm to myself that you are right regarding most of what you say, but also I can confirm to myself that DA is right regarding most of what he says, because the two of you are often talking about two similar, yet different subjects.

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    V^2 and Warpig reply   4/13/2009 6:09:55 PM

Wow, that seems a much more bold statement than even DA is suggesting for our near future.  I do not claim to be in a position to dispute that, but it seems to me there remains very much yet to prove in order for that to be confirmed.

 
Here is my opinion of this aspect with regard to software. I believe we are at a point where a basic rule driven machine could be developed and perform some limited air to air missions.  Especially BVR. For instance. If the UCAV can gather or receive the target data on enemy aircraft. It could "decide" based on the "rules" that targets above or below a certain Latitude are hostile and then position itself to fire a weapon at that target. Thats just one case.  Of course being a computer and bound by rules, a human exposed to that rule may discover a pattern and develop a tactic to counter it. But it's possible IMHO. Of course we could write pseudo code for a lot of cases which would be exhaustive as I'm sure you understand my point.

 

Like I've said before, I'm not sure that we "need" more F-22s, but I'd certainly feel more comfortable with the risk reduction that would come along with producing something like 60 more.  However, I suspect that much of my gut reaction comes from having a very USAF-centric experience base.  Sadly, I doubt that any so-called "savings" from not making more jets will be added to whatever other programs might be more critically needed in the Big Scheme of Things.  I fear the "F-22 Dividend" will just disappear from the defense budget altogether.


The budget will shrink I agree. But even so, thats 13 billion, that would otherwise have had to come from somewhere else which would represent and even larger percentage of spending on a platform the USAF admits it doesn't need in more numbers.

-DA 

 

 


 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       4/13/2009 6:28:20 PM




First, based on warfighting experience over the past several years and judgments about future threats, the Defense Department is revisiting the scenarios on which the Air Force based its assessment. Second, purchasing an additional 60 aircraft to get to a total number of 243 would create an unfunded $13 billion bill just as defense budgets are becoming more constrained.


WOW, this is exactly what I have been saying for the last 200 post.

This decision has increasingly become a zero-sum game. Within a fixed Air Force and overall Defense Department budget, our challenge is to decide among many competing needs. Buying more F-22s means doing less of something else. In addition to air superiority, the Air Force provides a number of other capabilities critical to joint operations for which joint warfighters have increasing needs. These include intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, command and control, and related needs in the space and cyber domains. We are also repairing years of institutional neglect of our nuclear forces, rebuilding the acquisition workforce, and taking steps to improve Air Force capabilities for irregular warfare.


More of my words almost verbatim.

It was also prudent to consider future F-22 procurement during the broader review of President Obama's fiscal 2010 defense budget, rather than as an isolated decision. During this review, we assessed both the Air Force and Defense Department's broader road maps for tactical air forces, specifically the relationship between the F-22 and the multi-role F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which is in the early stages of production.


Looking from a broader view? Where did we hear that before?

The F-22 and F-35 will work together in the coming years. Each is optimized for its respective air-to-air and air-to-ground role, but both have multi-role capability, and future upgrades to the F-22 fleet are already planned. We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.




Indicating low risk and adequate coverage

 


Much rides on the F-35's success, and it is critical to keep the Joint Strike Fighter on schedule and on cost. This is the time to make the transition from F-22 to F-35 production. Within the next few years, we will begin work on the sixth-generation capabilities necessary for future air dominance.


Hmm, anyone wanrt to wager UCAV will be competing to take this role?

Make no mistake: Air dominance remains an essential capability for joint warfighting. The F-22 is a vital tool in the military's arsenal and will remain in our inventory for decades to come. But the time has come to move on.


Michael Donley is secretary of the Air Force. Gen. Norton Schwartz is chief of staff of the Air Force




Confirmation of a point I've been making for the past few days. I agree 100%

 




-DA






DA,
Come on. You know full well anything these guys say has to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of how nice and neat their statements are. Just a few short months ago a couple guys that held those jobs felt 100% different then them and they got fired for it. So is it surprising the next 2 guys are marching lock, stock and barrel in line with what Gates and OBama wish?
Even you, as someone who agrees with them has to realize this. From a realistic viewpoint, Gates has destroyed the credibility of anyone that he chose as a replacement for these gentlemen when the new conclusions just happen to NOW fall in line with what him and Obama wish and coincedentally are complete reversals of the views of their predecessors. One can only assume those men are simply lapdogs with no pride at all and willing to say anything for a job.
After reading that info Herald posted about Gates a while back, I think it is safe to say that Gates is simply a male prostitute and he is now in the process of hiring new male prostitutes to further his and his bosses agenda. It truly is a sad day for our military and this nation.
 
Beazz
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/13/2009 6:47:49 PM

DA,

Come on. You know full well anything these guys say has to be taken with a grain of salt, regardless of how nice and neat their statements are. Just a few short months ago a couple guys that held those jobs felt 100% different then them and they got fired for it. So is it surprising the next 2 guys are marching lock, stock and barrel in line with what Gates and OBama wish?
 
You mean Gates Bush wish BTW. And no, I don't take it with a grain of salt. I do realize its a big change, affects a lot of career paths and not everyone will agree though.

Even you, as someone who agrees with them has to realize this. From a realistic viewpoint, Gates has destroyed the credibility of anyone that he chose as a replacement for these gentlemen when the new conclusions just happen to NOW fall in line with what him and Obama wish and coincedentally are complete reversals of the views of their predecessors. One can only assume those men are simply lapdogs with no pride at all and willing to say anything for a job.

No, I don't see it that way. Nor has anyone demonstrated that.

After reading that info Herald posted about Gates a while back, I think it is safe to say that Gates is simply a male prostitute and he is now in the process of hiring new male prostitutes to further his and his bosses agenda. It truly is a sad day for our military and this nation.


Beazz

Herald is about as biased as you could get so for now I don't take what he has to say about other people very seriously especially considering the level of disrespect he has shown me. Moreover, your characterization of Gates as a Prostitute to me suggest that you aren't very objective either although I respectfully disagree. But the issue I'm interested in has nothing to Gates personality or sexual behavior. I'm simply interested in the rational for more Raptors and thats it. But it's not a sad day for us. I'm in the MIlitary and we do not see this as sad. At least not from my point of view.

-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