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: USAF CoS Prefers F-35, UAS and NGB. Also say USAF has enough TACAIR capability
DarthAmerica    5/27/2009 10:45:26 PM
U.S. Air Force Chief of Staff Norton Schwartz said increasing production rates for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and developing the next-generation bomber are at the top of his wish list of projects to fund if the service had more money. SOURCE: h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=aerospacedaily&id=news/SCHWARTZ052009.xml&headline=Schwartz%20Wish%20List:%20Boost%20F-35,%20Plan%20NGB Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on the Air Force?s $160.5 billion fiscal 2010 budget request May 19, Schwartz said service leaders felt they had enough tactical aircraft capability despite Defense Secretary Robert Gates? plans to halt F-22 Raptor procurement at 187 aircraft. The Air Force chief said the service?s leadership believed it was a ?prudent opportunity to accelerate the retirement of older aircraft.? The FY ?10 budget calls for retiring 250 F-15s, F-16s and A-10s, enabling the Air Force to redistribute more than $3.5 billion over the next six years to modernize combat air forces into a ?smaller but more capable force,? Schwartz and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley told lawmakers in joint written testimony. Schwartz did say more money would make it easier and faster to upgrade remaining legacy aircraft and make modifications to the F-22 until the F-35 starts rolling off the line in large numbers. Schwartz said the Air Force would like to see F-35 production boosted to at least 80 aircraft and perhaps as many as 110 per year before the F-16s start retiring in large numbers. Committee members, including Chairman Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) and Rep. John McHugh (N.Y.), the senior Republican on the panel, worried about producing and flying an aircraft while it was still being tested. Donley conceded budget constraints compelled the Air Force to make some difficult calls. If there was more money ?we might have made some different choices,? Schwartz added. But both leaders insisted the Air Force was not short-changing itself. The chief of staff said his wish list also included developing plans for the future long-range strike capability. ?We need, through the QDR [Quadrennial Defense Review] and the NPR [Nuclear Posture Review] to get our secretary of defense comfortable with the parameters of what we propose for that platform.? Gates canceled funding for a next-generation bomber study, which Schwartz said was of concern to the Air Force ?Once we get him comfortable with the parameters ? range, payload, manned, unmanned, nuclear, non-nuclear, low observable, very low observable ? then we need to proceed aggressively with that program.? Schwartz said the Air Force also needs to explore using additional automation in unmanned aerial systems (UAS) to reduce manpower. He noted that currently one crew operates a single UAS.
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
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   NEXT
DarthAmerica    Addendum    6/2/2009 4:06:18 AM

With the use of massive aerial refueling, sophisticated target acquisition systems, and smart, precision weapons, modern air powers are capable of engaging targets anywhere and anytime. Yet, ordnance release requires terminating the aircraft's mission to re-arm for the following mission. Flying to and from a distant battlespace poses a "bottleneck" for massive airpower operations.
According to Nir Padan, CEO of the Israeli company FAR Technologies, the Air-Borne Re-Arming concept is real and could dramatically enhance operational tempo of combat aircraft and particularly UCAVs. Israel Aircraft Industries (IAI) and FAR Technologies performed a successful technological feasibility study anddesign of the Air-Borne Re-Arming (ABRA) system. Padan says that airborne rearming could increase the yield from any fleet of strike aircraft, particularly in long range and extended duration missions, typical to those carried out by UCAVs. Padanadds that on the long term, this mode of operation will  require less missions, fewer takeoff/landing cycles, resulting in lower maintenance costs. A side benefit will be the improved safety and survivability of the operating bases and carriers. 

The system consists of a bomb storage and loading device , attached to a boom at carried by the cargo plane and a smart pylon carried by the attack aircraft, which obtains the weapon from the robotic arm, attaching it to the weapon's bay or external weapon carrying pylons. An aerial rearming aircraft such as a C-130C, can carry up to 16 MK-84 guided or unguided bombs or considerably more smaller weapons (C-17/5 may potentially carry 4-6 times more). Bombs can be stored in an external or internal bay. The robotic uses an extendable boom, operating from the cargo plane. Controlled by an automatic engagement control (AEC) and supported aerodynamic lift surfaces, the robotic weapon loader will transfer the ordnance from the cargo plane to the attack aircraft. The smart pylon may include sensors and a camera for day and night use. It will interface with the automatic engagement control (AEC) system to automatically activate ordnance on the pneumatic multi-action ejection mechanism and an active sway brace for mid-air operation. 

Based on the concept and technology, Professor Asher Tishler, from Faculty of Management, Tel Aviv University, conducted an analysis of the potential contribution of airborne rearming on 3 ? 9 hours bombing missions at ranges of 250 to 1,000 nautical miles from the operating base. For UCAVs, 12 ? 30 hour mission durations were analyzed.
The analysis demonstrated a dramatic improvement and increase of operational tempo, resulting in the number of attacks executed and target killed without increasing the aircraft fleet. Improvement of up to 100% was demonstrated for short range attacks and over 200% for extended range operations. Since aircraft do not have to return to base to rearm, the density of the attacks could be increased, resulting in faster target neutralization (time required to drop a set number of bombs on target could be reduced by up to 70%). Fielding Airborne Rearming systems could introduce new economies for air forces, where fewer resources can perform more missions, resulting in lower acquisition and maintenance costs. Other attributes of airborne rearming are more flexible use of forward operational bases, (as aircraft can takeoff without loads) and higher survivability of the home base and strike aircraft (reducing pressure from operating bases). 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    S^2 D^2   6/8/2009 1:01:04 AM
Any telemetry link can be defeated. Any control can be compromised.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/8/2009 1:37:27 AM

Any telemetry link can be defeated. Any control can be compromised.

 

Herald


It's always a sword vs shield circular argument. The key is the quality of the intel assets supporting the ECCM effort.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I'm the one with the sword.   6/8/2009 10:15:36 AM
And I know how to use it. I only need to succeed ONCE.
 
Argument CLOSED.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/8/2009 5:49:15 PM

And I know how to use it. I only need to succeed ONCE.

 

Argument CLOSED.

 

Herald


Not true at all. That's why there are redundancies and continuous updates to ensure physical and electronic COMSEC. You need to keep succeeding and that is no guarantee. That's like saying if you lose your ANCD once, then its all over when in fact there are contingencies to deal with that.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/8/2009 7:13:18 PM
Similarly, its like saying that GPS jammers make JDAMs ineffective. The key is the ability of your ISR effort and countermeasures.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    John Walker   6/8/2009 7:40:27 PM




And I know how to use it. I only need to succeed ONCE.



 



Argument CLOSED.



 



Herald







Not true at all. That's why there are redundancies and continuous updates to ensure physical and electronic COMSEC. You need to keep succeeding and that is no guarantee. That's like saying if you lose your ANCD once, then its all over when in fact there are contingencies to deal with that.




-DA 

As I said this argument is over.

Herald
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/8/2009 8:37:56 PM





And I know how to use it. I only need to succeed ONCE.




Argument CLOSED.



 


Not true at all. That's why there are redundancies and continuous updates to ensure physical and electronic COMSEC. You need to keep succeeding and that is no guarantee. That's like saying if you lose your ANCD once, then its all over when in fact there are contingencies to deal with that.





As I said this argument is over.


Herald



Well, there you have it.  Everything people have been dreaming up regarding UCAVs for the last several decades is all moot, or worse it actually is all wasted effort barking up the wrong tech tree.  You see, what everyone (except one person) has forgotten is that all the KY-58s (or whatever) in the world can't protect you from compromise from within.
 
Okay, someone call the guys at General Atomics and all the rest, and let them know that UCAVs are not possible.  Also, can someone give a shout out to the Predator and Reaper crews, and let them know we won't be using them anymore?  I bet there are some pilots mighty glad to hear they won't be stuck "flying" for three years from a desk behind a couple computer monitors, after all!
 
And no one should bother posting anything else, this argument is FINISHED.
 
ENDIT.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/8/2009 9:01:14 PM
Below is a good read on some of what really happens in the spy vs spy like ECM vs ECCM battles. As you can see, it's never as clear cut as bit logic. The side with the best most comprehensive approach to ensuring the integrity of the system will most likely win the EW fight...




Iraq and GPS: Some Frequently Asked Questions

Richard B. Langley

Dept. of Geodesy and Geomatics Engineering

University of New Brunswick

<lang@unb.ca>

13 March 2003

1. If a war starts with Iraq, will GPS be turned off or will there be a global

reduction in available accuracy?

Prior to 2 May 2000, the accuracy afforded users of the GPS Standard Positioning

Service (SPS) was purposefully degraded through a policy and technique known as

Selective Availability (SA). The use of SA gave military users of GPS a position

accuracy advantage ? one it did not wish to share with potential adversaries. SA was

effected by manipulating or dithering the output of each GPS satellite?s active atomic

clock. This clock controls the generation of all of the satellite?s signals and hence the

measurements made by a GPS receiver. SA was imposed at a level which would yield a

stated SPS horizontal (latitude and longitude) accuracy of 100 metres or better 95 percent

of the time for any point in the world during a measurement interval of one day. On 2

May 2000, by presidential decree, the level of SA was set to zero. SPS users immediately

saw a quantum jump in positioning accuracy with factors of 5 to 10 improvements. Even

a simple handheld receiver can now often yield horizontal position accuracies of 5

metres.

When SA was set to zero, the United States Government stated that it had no intent to

ever use SA again. According to the Interagency GPS Executive Board, the U.S.

government agency that manages GPS, there has been no change in this policy. The

decision to effectively switch off SA came four years after the adoption of a government

policy document which stated, in part, that it was the government?s intention ?to

discontinue the use of GPS Selective Availability (SA) within a decade in a manner that

allows adequate time and resources for our military forces to prepare fully for operations

without SA.? Basically, this meant that the military would develop measures to prevent

the hostile use of GPS to ensure that the U.S. retains a military advantage. But it was to

do this in a manner which would not unduly disrupt or degrade civil use of GPS. The

number of civil GPS users far exceeds the number of military users and is estimated to be

in the tens of million
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    GF tried to tell you politely and you missed it, so I will bluntly.....   6/8/2009 9:11:55 PM












And I know how to use it. I only need to succeed ONCE.









Argument CLOSED.







 






Not true at all. That's why there are redundancies and continuous updates to ensure physical and electronic COMSEC. You need to keep succeeding and that is no guarantee. That's like saying if you lose your ANCD once, then its all over when in fact there are contingencies to deal with that.












As I said this argument is over.





Herald









Well, there you have it.  Everything people have been dreaming up regarding UCAVs for the last several decades is all moot, or worse it actually is all wasted effort barking up the wrong tech tree.  You see, what everyone (except one person) has forgotten is that all the KY-58s (or whatever) in the world can't protect you from compromise from within.

 

Okay, someone call the guys at General Atomics and all the rest, and let them know that UCAVs are not possible.  Also, can someone give a shout out to the Predator and Reaper crews, and let them know we won't be using them anymore?  I bet there are some pilots mighty glad to hear they won't be stuck "flying" for three years from a desk behind a couple computer monitors, after all!

 

And no one should bother posting anything else, this argument is FINISHED.

 

ENDIT.



The PRCs have our telemetry protocols. ALL of them.

Herald
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23   NEXT



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