USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability

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 NEXT

DarthAmerica Y. Pestis reply... 6/13/2009 12:52:39 AM

Darth,

Did I miss something here? I thought I only saw 1 demonstration of a UCAV against simulated IADS. Sorry if I missed a post or missed something in a post. A few questions concerning the 2 UCAVs demonstration/demonstrations that was not clear to me: Was this one demonstration with 2 UCAVs or two separate demonstrations with 1 UCAV showing the capability to strike IADS? If the demonstration was with 2 UCAVs -were the UCAVs operating independantly of each other or were they working in concert with each other (ie sharing, analyzing, and developing a shared strategy from jointly collected data, autonomously)?

Apologies again if I'm asking questions that have already been answered.

Thanks

Take a look...

Boeing X-45A J-UCAS Program Receives Prestigious Aerospace Industry Award

Darryl Davis (left), Boeing vice president of Global Strike Solutions, receives the X-45A's Aerospace Industry Award from Ron Van Manen, director of civil aeronautics for award sponsor Qinetiq. (Neg#: DVD-1150-027)

Click image to view Photo Release.

These images are available for editorial use by news media on: boeingmedia.com

PARIS, June 14, 2005 -- The Boeing [NYSE: BA] X-45A J-UCAS (Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems) program received the prestigious Flight International Aerospace Industry Award for 2005 in the category of Missiles and Military Aviation.

Held in conjunction with the Paris Air Show, the awards cover twelve categories representing military and commercial aerospace. Darryl Davis, program manager during the majority of the X-45A flight test program, and now vice president of Boeing Global Strike Solutions, accepted the award on behalf of the Boeing/DARPA/Air Force/Navy J-UCAS team.

"We met the challenge to develop an autonomous unmanned aircraft capable of handling complex combat missions," said Davis. "We've set a very high mark in the unmanned arena and I believe that together with our DARPA, Air Force, and Navy teammates we've charted a clear path for the future."

Ever since its first flight on May 22, 2002 the X-45A has accumulated a series of unprecedented aviation milestones. As the first autonomous unmanned aircraft designed from inception for weapons capability, the X-45A has ushered in a new era of aviation. The two X-45A demonstrators have flown coordinated simulated combat missions and recently surpassed 52 total flights.

Also acknowledged during the awards ceremony was George Muellner, vice president and general manager of Boeing Air Force Systems. Muellner was president of Boeing Phantom Works when the X-45A program was initiated.

"This award also recognizes Boeing's advanced research and development organization, Phantom Works, which has been tasked to take on high-risk projects and bring them to fruition," said Muellner. "Clearly, the X-45A is an excellent example of concept development and flight test, followed by a seamless transition to our Air Force Systems business unit."

During its remarkable flight test program, the X-45A:

Flew with a T-33 X-45A surrogate aircraft to successfully demonstrate integration of an unmanned X-45A with a manned aircraft in air-traffic-controlled airspace.
Demonstrated the first autonomous release of a 250-pound inert Small Smart Bomb, which scored a direct hit from an altitude of 25,000 feet.
Operated together with another X-45A unmanned aircraft, under the control of a single pilot-operator in a coordinated flight, successfully completing the first ever multiple air vehicle control flight demonstration.
Demonstrated increased sophistication in a test where two X-45As departed in succession and entered coordinated flight over the test range. The air vehicles flew successfully in several different multi-vehicle flight configurations, verifying their ability to autonomously enter and exit in coordinated flight based on pre-identified points.
Confirmed "beyond-line-of-sight" control after an autonomous takeoff from Edwards AFB, with an X-45A controlled by a pilot-operator in Seattle, Wash., nearly 900 miles away using UHF SATCOM.
Demonstrated dual vehicle flight mission capability in February 2005 when two X-45As flew a simulated combat mission during their 'milestone' 50th flight. The X-45As flew a simulated combat air patrol profile and determined how to deal with pop-up ground threats in a reactive Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission.

Under a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency contract, Boeing is currently building three larger X-45C aircraft capable of cruising at 0.85 Mach at 40,000 feet, with a 4,500-pound payload. The 'C' version will have an increased mission radius of 1,300 nautical miles. Future mission scenarios could evolve with unmanned aircraft complementing manned strike aircraft. Unmanned aircraft would be capable of eliminating preplanned targets as well as previously unknown threats, clearing the path for manned aircraft and thus saving lives and assuring mission success.

...this should answer the question. Keep in mind this is 2005 and to state of the art has evolved well beyond this now. Remember, these are the technologies being demonstrated in the public domain half a decade ago.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/13/2009 12:59:02 AM

Two Boeing X-45As Complete Graduation Combat Demonstration
Boeing Co
Aug 10, 2005, 17:03

ST. LOUIS: Two Boeing Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) X-45A unmanned aircraft successfully completed a graduation exercise when they flew their most challenging simulated combat mission today at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.

Boeing Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems X-45As prepare to launch on a recent mission at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Two X-45As completed a critical combat demonstration flight August 10. (photo: Boeing)
"We pushed the X-45As to their limits and they responded brilliantly," said Darryl Davis, Boeing Global Strike Solutions vice president. "This incredible X-45A program made aviation history and laid the foundation for our X-45C, which will become a critical weapon in our military's arsenal."

For test flights 63 and 64, the X-45As departed from the base, climbed to altitude, and autonomously used their on-board decision-making software to determine the best route of flight within the "area of action" or AOA. The pilot on the ground approved the plan and the two unmanned vehicles entered the AOA, a 30 by 60 mile area within the test range, ready to perform a simulated Preemptive Destruction-Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses mission. The mission involved identifying, attacking and destroying pre-identified ground-based radars and associated missile launchers before they could be used to launch surface-to-air missiles. dt

Mark Witsken, a Boeing X-45A test pilot, simulates a test flight from a station console at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Witsken was the pilot on the program's graduation combat demonstration flight August 10. (photo: Boeing)
During the test flight, the X-45A unmanned aircraft faced a simulated "pop-up" threat, used evasive maneuvers to avoid it, and autonomously determined which vehicle held the optimum position, weapons and fuel to attack the higher priority simulated target. Once the pilot authorized the attack, the unmanned aircraft simulated dropping weapons on the target. After engaging and destroying a second simulated target, the two X-45As completed their mission and safely returned to Edwards. defencetalk.com

A Boeing Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems X-45A demonstrator flies over a test range recently near Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. Two X-45As completed their graduation combat demonstration flight August 10.(photo: NASA)
The next step for Boeing is to build and flight test three X-45C aircraft, two mission control elements, and integrate the J-UCAS Common Operating System (the software used and tested on the X-45A may be offered as a candidate for functionality in the development of the J-UCAS Common Operating System ). The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight test scheduled to begin in 2007. It will be 39 feet long with a 49-foot wingspan, cruise at 0.80 Mach at an altitude of 40,000 feet, carry a 4,500 pound weapon payload, and be able to fly a combat radius of more than 1,200 nautical miles. defencetalk.com
Winner of a 2005 Flight International Aerospace Industry Award, the J-UCAS X-45 program is a DARPA/U.S. Air Force/U.S. Navy/Boeing effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Navy and Air Force. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.

X-45 Milestones

April 1998 - Phase One Technology Demonstration Contract Awarded

March 1999 - Phase Two Technology Demonstration Contract Awarded

September 2000 - Build of First X-45A Vehicle is Completed-45A Completed Block 1 Software Demonstrations

October 24, 2001 - X-45A First Low-Speed Taxi Test

April 20, 2002 - X-45A First High-Speed Taxi Test

May 23, 2002 - X-45A First Flight

November 21, 2002 - X-45A Air Vehicle 2 First Flight

December 19, 2002 - X-45A first flight with landing gear retracted and takeoff/landing on hard surface runway

February 28, 2003 - X-45A Completed Block 1 Software Demonstrations

November 3, 2003 - X-45A Began Block 2 Software Flight Demonstrations

January 23, 2004 - X-45A communicated with a manned T-33 aircraft while in flight

March 20, 2004 - X-45A Drops First Weapon

April 18, 2004 - X-45A releases an inert GPS-guided weapon on a ground target

May 27, 2004 - Two X-45A aircraft taxied together

Aug. 2, 2004 - Two X-45A aircraft demonstrate unmanned coordinated flight

Oct. 21, 2004 - X-45A Began Block 3 Software Flight Demonstrations

Nov. 10, 2004 - Boeing receives first X-45C engine

Nov. 12, 2004 - X-45As continue coordinated flights

Dec. 9, 2004 - X-45A completes its first "Beyond Line-of-Sight" flight

Quote Reply

Y. pestis 6/13/2009 1:26:42 AM

Darth,

Thanks, that answers my questions

Very impressive.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Static targets that were pretaped and radiating. 6/13/2009 2:52:20 AM

Not the same as going into the silent unmapped unknown and in a changing in realtime IADS.

Helps if you KNOW, doesn't it?

Herald

Quote Reply

warpig 6/13/2009 10:21:54 AM

Not the same as going into the silent unmapped unknown and in a changing in realtime IADS.

Helps if you KNOW, doesn't it?

Herald

A very unreasonable criticism, for at least two reasons:

1) It was basically a proof-of-concept initial test, not OT&E development of TTPs for an operational weapon system. It doesn't have to show it is untouchable and devastatingly effective against the toughest imaginable threat to demonstrate that it most certainly has significant, realistic potential that can be realized through further development and improved future systems.

2) There is no such thing in this world--and your favorite threat, China, absolutely will NOT be within any decade soon--a solely or even mostly mobile IADS where the various tracking and engagement units are mainly mobile, pop-up threats that are *unmapped* prior to engaging them or being engagement by them. Our ability to geo-locate these IADS components is phenomenal and extremely rapid. While there will always be the possibility of pop-up threats, and in general that possibility is increasing as threat IADS grow more modern and sophisticated, that is *not* the sole threat and in most cases that is only a low-probability (although high pucker-factor when it occurs) threat. The standard case certainly is and will remain for quite some time yet, primarily fixed component IADS networks.

Relocatable threats, yes. Silent, unknown, unmapped, changing in real-time, mobile threeats, no, not really.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/13/2009 1:59:04 PM

If I may add...

Its a lot easier to lose a UCAV to a threat IAD, study the causes of that loss, MODIFY the software in

the surviving UCAVs to counter the enemy tactic, and then send them back into the fight. Than it would be for a threat to either solicit or design new hardware to cope with the UCAVs new behavior.

Also, unlike human pilots who have to shed blood to learn the lessons, then sweat to teach it to other humans over time, the robots can apply the fix immediately and simultaneously to all platforms without expending any of the effort or time. In other words, when MS, Apple or Linux OS fail and the company develops a fix. The patch goes to all platforms based on data collected from the one that had the problem first.

It's like saying, that the old TOPGUN and IRON HAND training and tactics once developed are immediately known to all aviators the instant it is ready. Or even that after a single USAF pilot learns how to destroy a SAM site or shoot down a MIG, his methods are instantly known and most importantly IMMEDIATELY REPEATABLE anywhere by anybody. That's a very big and tangible benefit.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Warpig reply. 6/13/2009 2:50:18 PM

Not the same as going into the silent unmapped unknown and in a changing in realtime IADS.

Helps if you KNOW, doesn't it?

Herald

A very unreasonable criticism, for at least two reasons:

Relocatable threats, yes. Silent, unknown, unmapped, changing in real-time, mobile threeats, no, not really.

1. The radars and FCS vans are mobile too.

2. Proof of concept is that you can jerry rig something like a two element 200 Anti-Awacs shot (1999) and prove that it might be possible. Weapon proof is that you can test under replicated battle conditions (2005) which the X-45s most certainly did not do.

3. The Iraqis were relatively EW DUMB. Mask mimic, decoy. The Russians tried to teach them, but the Iraqis didn't learn. Let's HOPE the PRC's didn't learn either.

Herald

Quote Reply

warpig 6/13/2009 3:18:07 PM

Relocatable threats, yes. Silent, unknown, unmapped, changing in real-time, mobile threeats, no, not really.

1. The radars and FCS vans are mobile too.

3. The Iraqis were relatively EW DUMB. Mask mimic, decoy. The Russians tried to teach them, but the Iraqis didn't learn. Let's HOPE the PRC's didn't learn either.

Yes, I realize what mobile is, and that SA-20 battalions (for example) can theoretically arrive at a new position, set up, link into the IADS network, and be ready to engage tracks in as little as 10 minutes. However, there are plenty of reasons (spelled by the letters ELINT, COMINT, and IMINT) why we will often be able to know where they are even if they try fighting that sort of mobile defense. I am not saying that doesn't increase the threat, just that it does not mean we're screwed or even that UCASs must be screwed. In fact, in some ways it could actually be to our advantage for them to be moving around, as that can actually increase our collction opportunities in some ways and actually make their network more vulnerable, not less. Additionally, many threat air defense networks just won't be up to that level of capability for quite some time.

Quote Reply

warpig 6/13/2009 3:25:59 PM

I meant to add that sadly, every indication I've ever seen shows the Chinese have demonstrated they are every bit the equal (superior?) to the Soviet's REC capabilities, in particular along the methods that rely more on craft and deception rather than mere brute force jamming. And then there's the whole new cyberwarfare arena that the Chinese have jumped right into with both feet.

Quote Reply

FJV 6/13/2009 3:50:35 PM

I read this as a spin and PR article.

With the spread of spin and PR in the defence industry it may very well become next to impossible to tell whether a new weapon system will be good or crap.

Some of the stuff they put out now fools an awful lot of non-technical people. In my opinion they need to be only slightly better at their spin and they will be able to fool an awful lot of technical people. They are probably not doing this, because it is not needed.

The thing is: What happens when non-technical politicians start to make decisions on what they believe is the thruth, but is actually PR spin?

By "cleverly" switching emitters on and off you could "steer" the X45 of the article example into a SAM killing zone. Or should that be "Cause the UAV to autonomously create it's flight path into a SAM killing zone"?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Good points by WP and FJV. 6/13/2009 7:01:50 PM

I read this as a spin and PR article.

With the spread of spin and PR in the defence industry it may very well become next to impossible to tell whether a new weapon system will be good or crap.

The thing is: What happens when non-technical politicians start to make decisions on what they believe is the thruth, but is actually PR spin?

By "cleverly" switching emitters on and off you could "steer" the X45 of the article example into a SAM killing zone. Or should that be "Cause the UAV to autonomously create it's flight path into a SAM killing zone"?

Its something I call flash dotting and others call pinball; but you have to be a bit more clever than just that. You can input a false ELINT image to them if you establish a localized launch point in time and know what probable axis they are coming.through. Depends on the previous deception picture you can generate. You have to be clever though. It takes a lot of subtlety to fool a nation that used the moon as a tracking radar bounce mirror to monitor enemy rocket tests and launches long before we had the DSP network. We, post Pearl Harbor, are not easily fooled at the ELINT game. HUMINT we are still very gullible and that is something that stll involves such error events such as incompetent bias drivwe analysts, and politics driven fools (Gates), and over-optimistoc technically unqualufied types who pseudo-analyze a small segment of a giant picture spout their opinion and call it fact.

Let's look at a very small sample that is the huge PRC bandit puzzle........:

The example: let's play the pre-surveyed hardstand and mobile SAM game. The PRCs have surveyed in and poured roads to, and concrete pads, for more than a dozen "SAM" sites for which they don't have equipment. Why? Some of the sites are actially blocked radar LoS by mountains and buildings! Why? They should not have the capacity to make the HQ-7 and HQ 9 systems that some of those sites require for coverage for YEARS. WP is right. It will be ten years before we see that sparse coverage actually densify. Why pour now and show us? If you are going to use hardstand sites why even use cross country TELs? Why? Why try to steal Israeli Green Pine and our AN/MPQ 53s and 65s when you already stole Big Bird, Tin Shield, Flap Lid, Top Dome, Top Steer, Clam Shell, and almost everything else Russian which is almost as good? Why?

You are the analyst. How much of that stupidity, is Chinese attempts to copy by leapfrog what they don't have the tech base for or the understanding yet how to make, how much is local city politics (that one apparently botched empty site near Beijing?), how much is PLA politics (The PLA clowns are trying to export some of these SAM systems.), and so forth?

They are not monoliths and they are not ten feet tall, but what they do is confusing and extremely dangerous.

Did youy hear about the PRC bandit sub and the USS McCain this week? Near Subic Bay that was. The PRC bandits owe us a towed array and an apology. Why were they inside the Philippine MEZ agains? Why were we chasing them?

Questions, questions, questions.......... Now let's see. Yes I have 'opinions' and my opinions are therefore only equal to a certain 'landlubber's' who wouldn't know a Song from a country line dance; or a Neuron from a Barracuda..

Herald

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/15/2009 8:13:18 PM

That reply was precisly what makes you an excellent analyst and, if you JUST lay out the cold hard facts, an impressive teacher. We are all reading the forum and we all see the issues (most of us do). You carry your points well and would be 10x or 20x more effective if you JUST backed off on who is uninformed or misguided etc.... Some people will never get the fact that they come across as ignorant, biased, delusional, incompetent, or any other adjective you can name. Telling them that does NOT CARRY THE DAY. You value truth no?? Than speak it, back it by facts and logic and you win. Maybe you carry on so (in anger) because you think the rest of us can't see the error or lack of logic in others? Don't worry so much about that. Anger does not win. Cold hard dispassionate logic does and you can be VERY good at that. Play your strengths we would ALL LOVE TO SEE THAT

Agreed. However in this case, ANYONE, who is arguing that UCAV's will not be up to the task of confronting these modern IADS is simply not discussing reality. Unmanned systems will play a huge role in any future conflict against this kind of foe. Those roles will be much more close to what manned fighters are doing through 2020 and beyond that they will start to displace manned fighters directly in some cases. Air to air combat will be part of the capability set of future unmanned systems. All of the necessary technologies exist right now to make this possible including the AI and COMMS and will improve considerably through the next decade.

Right now, we could field an experimental UCAV fighter in a little as a few weeks by modifying an existing design and a purpose built design suitable for IOC could be deployed in the 2015 timeframe. Such a machine could be reliably remotely piloted or run by an AI.

-DA

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 6/15/2009 8:44:33 PM

-DA

the technology/capability was done 3 years ago. in absolute terms its been demonstrated years ago via QF mods.

I don't have a doubt about UAS stepping into some traditional manned roles - I do have a strong reservation about the capacity for an AI only managed asset being ready for nuke weapons delivery or for combat air to air (UAS vs Manned) in that timeframe.

Ground controllers don't have the same spatial awareness triggers - and there are miles and miles of legal issues to get around.

eg compare the example of manned pilots being persued and prosecuted for duty of care issues when they strike targets covered off by the Vienna Conventions. Think of the considerably extrapolated number of people that would be dragged in if it was a ground control managed event. The legal prosecution chain would go on for miles.

Everyone has a variation of JAG related concerns re this capability - and thats aside from the very known technical limitations of AI capability. Again, USMil has been strongly involved with AI management developed by CSIRO in Australia.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/15/2009 9:16:28 PM

the technology/capability was done 3 years ago. in absolute terms its been demonstrated years ago via QF mods.

I'll deal with the nuke/UAS combo in the dedicated thread as I believe it to be significant enough to be discussed separately. If done, it would require specialized UAS that cost more as a result of hardening and security features. The air to air UAS vs manned thresh hold has been crossed on several occasions now. The only thing missing now is refinement.

Ground controllers don't have the same spatial awareness triggers - and there are miles and miles of legal issues to get around.

The legal issues are no more difficult than those that face Predators and Reapers today. As far as spacial awareness, not necessary beyond what you get with a commercial flight sim if the emphasis is on BVR. Pilots don't see much in a BVR fight anyway and are using the aircrafts avionics to extend their situational awareness several tens of km. WVR is a more challenging issue but by no means insurmountable. appropriate inputs feeding the signal processor would help.

The AI for this is doable.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 I doscuss reality. 6/15/2009 10:43:25 PM

-DA

Machines have no decision making ability at all.

Herald

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 NEXT

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us