The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 25, 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: 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     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15   NEXT
warpig       6/16/2009 2:49:41 PM

Now cut the CRAP and address the point.

 

Herald




What IS your point?
 
To hasten the process I'll take a stab at what your point might be, and maybe you can provide course correction and we can go from there.
 
It seems like maybe you're saying that no UCAS has yet demonstrated operation in some scenario of "X" level of complexity.  It further seems like you conclude form this that UCASs are... I don't know, perhaps worthless, perhaps incapable of ever replacing manned aircraft in those scenarios of "X" or greater complexity (and maybe therefore it's of no value at all?), perhaps incapable of currently replacing manned aircraft in those scenarios of "X" or greater complexity, perhaps something else...?
 
My response would be that of course at this time we can come up with scenarios that are more complex than any tested so far.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that all conceivable scenarios have been tested, or for that matter than any scenario fully representative of an actual battlefield has been tested, or even more simply yet, that any UCAS for the SEAD/DEAD mission has been operationally fielded yet.  That doesn't mean that in general UCASs 1) aren't still useful in those scenarios that are of less than "X" complexity, and 2) they won't continue to be developed and may at some future point become capable of successful operation in scenarios of "X" complexity.
 
I know that some have observed that DA uses the term "strawman" quite liberally, but Herald you really do seem to me to be the one who often argues from something akin to a strawman approach:  you seem to me to have jumped out quite a distance ahead in time/capability, set the bar, and returned to us to demand evidence of UCASs that are capable of beating that bar.  DA is going for that whole "vision" thing of what is going to happen by extrapolating from the present in light of the past, and you're talking about how it isn't yet completely developed.
 
"Don't hit me with negative waves so early in the morning.  Think that bridge will be there and it will be there.  It's a mother, beautiful bridge and it's gonna be there."
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    JFKY reply   6/16/2009 3:02:31 PM

So Bluewings/Darth again, just own up to the fact that you over-stated your case, we all do from time-to-time, and that machines have NOT been making decisions for THOUSANDS of years.  Machines have been in a position of deciding or recommending for several DECADES, not millenia.

Wrong. Logic can be HW based as well. I didn't overstate anything. The machine is still deciding what to do based on the governing rules. JFKY, seriously, take a EET course or read about the history of AI. You are wrong. You are making the most common mistake people make when dealing with this subject matter. I'm not talking about being able to arbitrarily just do things because the machine "feels" like it. I'm talking about feeding in an input of some kind, that input is interpreted and then based on that interpretation there is an output. That's a decision.

What you are referring to is called REASONING, not DECIDING. And yes, humans are a lot better at that than machines. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth and Herald   6/16/2009 3:12:02 PM
"Deciding" not "reacting" requires the agent to make a CHOICE, from options...the machines you describe did NOT decide between options, there was only ONE avenue open to them, given the physical laws that govern the Universe....the water clock did not CHOOSE to advance it's hour hand...the pressure of the water made it INEVITABLE...that's not "choice."  A water raising device doesn't CHOOSE to move water.....
 
So again, NO Darth machines have NOT been deciding for thousands of years.  I argue there is a fundamental difference between the flight control of an Israeli F-15 keeping the plane aloft after losing all but a few inches of one wing and many natural homeostatic processes...the flight controls evaluated the situation, simplistically, and opted for certain control surface positions....those positions adopted could have been different had the programming criteria been different, fundamentally different than a water clock, Archimedes Screw, or my GI Tract.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Darth and Herald   6/16/2009 3:12:14 PM
"Deciding" not "reacting" requires the agent to make a CHOICE, from options...the machines you describe did NOT decide between options, there was only ONE avenue open to them, given the physical laws that govern the Universe....the water clock did not CHOOSE to advance it's hour hand...the pressure of the water made it INEVITABLE...that's not "choice."  A water raising device doesn't CHOOSE to move water.....
 
So again, NO Darth machines have NOT been deciding for thousands of years.  I argue there is a fundamental difference between the flight control of an Israeli F-15 keeping the plane aloft after losing all but a few inches of one wing and many natural homeostatic processes...the flight controls evaluated the situation, simplistically, and opted for certain control surface positions....those positions adopted could have been different had the programming criteria been different, fundamentally different than a water clock, Archimedes Screw, or my GI Tract.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 3:52:21 PM

"Deciding" not "reacting" requires the agent to make a CHOICE, from options...the machines you describe did NOT decide between options, there was only ONE avenue open to them, given the physical laws that govern the Universe....the water clock did not CHOOSE to advance it's hour hand...the pressure of the water made it INEVITABLE...that's not "choice."  A water raising device doesn't CHOOSE to move water.....

 

So again, NO Darth machines have NOT been deciding for thousands of years.  I argue there is a fundamental difference between the flight control of an Israeli F-15 keeping the plane aloft after losing all but a few inches of one wing and many natural homeostatic processes...the flight controls evaluated the situation, simplistically, and opted for certain control surface positions....those positions adopted could have been different had the programming criteria been different, fundamentally different than a water clock, Archimedes Screw, or my GI Tract.

OK JFKY, our differences of opinion are noted. I do understand what you mean. You are in essence saying that the machines are designed to respond to some stimuli and that isn't the same as deciding between two different courses of action since the primitive machines only have a single option for a given input. I disagree with you still and the issue is more a matter of complexity of the decision rather than the decision itself. I've seen and sat through many of these arguments. Let me ask you this, does the F-15 FCS have the option to roll the aircraft 180 and pull the nose into a dive and crash the aircraft? No. It's programmed to maintain controlled flight and it chooses what it calculates to be the best position of the flight controls to do that. Not the second best, third best or other. It's a matter of complexity but it is not reasoning which is what you really are getting at. In other words, machines don't have irrational decision making capability. In general a machine HAS TO RESPOND CERTAIN WAYS to stimuli. I understand that limitation. In short, machines are limited to their programming. Which is why it's an AI.

 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       6/16/2009 4:07:56 PM




Now cut the CRAP and address the point.



 



Herald











What IS your point?

Weapon proof is NOT scripted training exercise and I'm still waiting (for a concrete example of a machine deciding.)

To hasten the process I'll take a stab at what your point might be, and maybe you can provide course correction and we can go from there.

Lets see.

It seems like maybe you're saying that no UCAS has yet demonstrated operation in some scenario of "X" level of complexity.  It further seems like you conclude form this that UCASs are... I don't know, perhaps worthless, perhaps incapable of ever replacing manned aircraft in those scenarios of "X" or greater complexity (and maybe therefore it's of no value at all?), perhaps incapable of currently replacing manned aircraft in those scenarios of "X" or greater complexity, perhaps something else...?

There are very simple carefully scripted missions which a robot can do.  If I send a robot into an unknown environement with a list of instructions, those very simple instructions only cover a set of options that are stimulus triggered.

My response would be that of course at this time we can come up with scenarios that are more complex than any tested so far.  I don't think anyone is suggesting that all conceivable scenarios have been tested, or for that matter than any scenario fully representative of an actual battlefield has been tested, or even more simply yet, that any UCAS for the SEAD/DEAD mission has been operationally fielded yet.  That doesn't mean that in general UCASs 1) aren't still useful in those scenarios that are of less than "X" complexity, and 2) they won't continue to be developed and may at some future point become capable of successful operation in scenarios of "X" complexity.
 
I can honestly say that a "swarm", that we send into am IADS which knows our telemetry protocols, is going to take very heavy casualties of our machines, moreso than any manned package we send in mixed in with them.   Who knows, the enemy IADS might actually win, and then what? How do we adap for round two? If we do like that other poster suhhests or that idiot, Gates; we would have no MEN, we sent in who saw what the enemy did, and can tell us when they get back. Remember Vietnam 1966?  How about Sinai 1973? We did send in recon and elint drones and what did they tell us? Not enough of much. We then sent in the Thuds and after the drivers got back with their tails shot off, presto, Wild Weasels!  Of course the Israelis repeated our mistakes and WHAMMO! Later they wised ip and they went into the EW business in a HUGE way, but you still see them doing old fashioned HUMINT on the ground and in the air trying to stay one step ahead of the enemy bozos. MEN. Machines are stupid. They cannot see what is important in real time if they've never seen it before. They certainly cannot choose what to do about it..
 
I know that some have observed that DA uses the term "strawman" quite liberally, but Herald you really do seem to me to be the one who often argues from something akin to a strawman approach:  you seem to me to have jumped out quite a distance ahead in time/capability, set the bar, and returned to us to demand evidence of UCASs that are capable of beating that bar.  DA is going for that whole "vision" thing of what is going to happen by extrapolating from the present in light of the past, and you're talking about how it isn't yet completely developed.

It was DA who suggested that the UAS meant that we don't need as many or any more manned air superiority platforms or even as many tactical aircraft. I just took him at his word and am now in the process of demolishing him on his supposition since he doesn';[t know what he discusses.. I don't have to restate the obvious. You can use throwaway aircraft that you can afford to lose to nibble away at an IADS onion until you run the enemy out of rockets and radars, but that is a far cry from opportunity strikes and being able to conduct a programmed air campaign inside that IADS, using robots over TIME. With attrition rates of 3x to 10 x of a manned fleet how are you going to pay for that attrition? A pilot can bring back a shot up plane. Our air force is legendary for it. Name one instance of a successful return by a shot up UCAS. Name one.  At one hundred million bucks every Global Hawk that goes down due to engine stall or goofed up in flight maneuver or close SAM miss, it gets a bit  a bit expensive don't you think?. Kind of makes me want to install a million dollar pilot if he can bring it back, even fifty percent of the time. Decisions, decisions, decisions......or
ALL PHYSICS IS LOCAL  

"Don't hit me with negative waves so early in the morning.  Think that bridge will be there and it will be there.  It's a mother, beautiful bridge and it's gonna be there."

Use the robots where they belong, but don't come and tell me what they can and can't do when you don't have a f---ing clue is all I'm saying.. THAT is all I'm saying. Computers cannot and do not think..

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 4:35:55 PM

One of the advantages of having a human at the controls of an aircraft when things go wrong is that we have the ability to adjust and intelligently work around a problem ? the tales of valiant airmen bringing home planes that have no right to still be flying are myriad. Now it seems that the humble, computer-controlled UAV is set to learn such skills too. Flight control and navigation systems provider Athena Technologies recently demonstrated the damage tolerant flight control and autonomous landing capabilities on a subscale F/A-18 UAV. See the videos here,link target="_blank" style="color: #3366cc; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; ">here and link target="_blank" style="color: #3366cc; background-color: transparent; text-decoration: none; ">here.

The objective of the test was to prove that adaptive flight controls could regain baseline aircraft performance after the aircraft had sustained simulated battle damage and then safely land the aircraft autonomously with only the onboard INS/GPS functionality of Athena?s GuideStar 111m for navigation.

The demonstration involved a subscale F/A-18 UAV, powered by a turbojet engine, that sustained wing battle damage simulated with the in-flight ejection of an aileron. Athena?s damage tolerant controls detected the damage in flight and adapted to the new air vehicle configuration for the effects of the lost aileron, recovering the baseline vehicle performance. The vehicle then successfully landed in the damaged state with Athena?s INS/GPS-only autonomous landing system within a few feet of the target touch down point on the airfield runway.

Damage tolerance is an enabling capability for increasing the mission reliability of UAVs and Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles (UCAVs) operating in hazardous and high-threat environments. The technology provides for real-time autonomous accommodation of damage, followed by an adaptation process that alters the flight control system to compensate for the effects of the damage. During the flight test, Athena demonstrated a capability that could be applicable to all military aircraft operating in combat environments. The technology is also relevant to any vehicle, manned or unmanned, including civilian aircraft, that might sustain physical damage or failures that impact controlled flight.

The demonstration highlights the challenge and importance of the ability to autonomously land an air vehicle that has sustained damage. This powerful capability can potentially save the military the significant expense of lost UAVs and better protect US proprietary technology. More importantly, when applied to manned aircraft, the combined technology solution can save lives.

Athena?s flight control systems are used today to control and autonomously land hundreds of UAVs in operation in Iraq and Afghanistan. Athena's controls technology is based on unique algorithms that have been developed and evolved in one and a half decades of use. The company?s evolutionary suite of control algorithms has been built on experience achieved on a variety of UAVs and flying over 160,000 hours in combat theater. Athena packages its controls technology with sensors and hardware, offering complete solutions through its GuideStar family of flight control and navigation products.

Athena Technologies was founded in 1998, and produces the GuideStar family of versatile, compact and cost-effective flight control systems for applications such as commercial aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), target drones and missiles.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) sponsored the demonstration which was held on April 18, 2007 at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.




It seems that for just about every one of Heralds disagreements, there is a public demo proving the concept. 

-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/16/2009 5:33:59 PM
It seems that for just about every one of Heralds disagreements, there is a public demo proving the concept. 

buts thats why the use of public material to support POV is always a challenge.  eg how many UAV's has the US publicly admitted to losing?  

I am going to exercise occupational privilege here not to score a debating point, but because I know you know what I do.  I can tell you point blank that the loss rate is higher than the released date.  if everyone just accepted the public material then it would be a binary debate - its not, and you know its far more complex than that.

I don't say this to "win" a point, but to add the reality check to the strength of everyone making a stand just based on whats in the Public Domain.

Anyone who works in this space knows that the public material can be and often is - somewhat creative in its message.  The proof of life arguments can't always be entertained via the internet - and thats why empirical statements need some strong caveats applied at the end. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 5:46:49 PM


It seems that for just about every one of Heralds disagreements, there is a public demo proving the concept. 

buts thats why the use of public material to support POV is always a challenge.  eg how many UAV's has the US publicly admitted to losing?  

I am going to exercise occupational privilege here not to score a debating point, but because I know you know what I do.  I can tell you point blank that the loss rate is higher than the released date.  if everyone just accepted the public material then it would be a binary debate - its not, and you know its far more complex than that.

I don't say this to "win" a point, but to add the reality check to the strength of everyone making a stand just based on whats in the Public Domain.

Anyone who works in this space knows that the public material can be and often is - somewhat creative in its message.  The proof of life arguments can't always be entertained via the internet - and thats why empirical statements need some strong caveats applied at the end. 

 
And likewise you know me as well. I HAVE TO USE PUBLIC POV HERE. I'm not at all disputing the loss rate of UAVs. As I shown, we have personally recovered them before. The issue is this ridiculous suggestion that because UCAVs aren't perfect that they don't work. Herald often FAILS at context and makes blanket assertions out of spite. Each and every one of which I can counter with something from the real world. All of this spin about AI not working, Machines Being Stupid, Telemetry being vulnerable ect and so forth is just plain wrong. Is UCAV technology mature yet? NO. Will it be, absolutely. Is it mature enough to matter over the battlefield now? Yes. These are the real questions.
If Herald or anyone else what's to discuss something specific, then he should do so minus the spin and vitriol. Although he is improving somewhat on the later thankfully. 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    We don't have the means to do a remote diagnosis and immediate wounded duck song and dance.   6/16/2009 6:03:53 PM







It seems that for just about every one of Heralds disagreements, there is a public demo proving the concept. 




buts thats why the use of public material to support POV is always a challenge.  eg how many UAV's has the US publicly admitted to losing?  




I am going to exercise occupational privilege here not to score a debating point, but because I know you know what I do.  I can tell you point blank that the loss rate is higher than the released date.  if everyone just accepted the public material then it would be a binary debate - its not, and you know its far more complex than that.




I don't say this to "win" a point, but to add the reality check to the strength of everyone making a stand just based on whats in the Public Domain.




Anyone who works in this space knows that the public material can be and often is - somewhat creative in its message.  The proof of life arguments can't always be entertained via the internet - and thats why empirical statements need some strong caveats applied at the end. 



 

And likewise you know me as well. I HAVE TO USE PUBLIC POV HERE. I'm not at all disputing the loss rate of UAVs. As I shown, we have personally recovered them before. The issue is this ridiculous suggestion that because UCAVs aren't perfect that they don't work. Herald often FAILS at context and makes blanket assertions out of spite. Each and every one of which I can counter with something from the real world. All of this spin about AI not working, Machines Being Stupid, Telemetry being vulnerable ect and so forth is just plain wrong. Is UCAV technology mature yet? NO. Will it be, absolutely. Is it mature enough to matter over the battlefield now? Yes. These are the real questions.

If Herald or anyone else what's to discuss something specific, then he should do so minus the spin and vitriol. Although he is improving somewhat on the later thankfully. 


-DA
















Who is the spin doctor? I said use the robots where they fit, but don't claim abilities that they don't have, and don't lie about what I said, which you just did..

You do that a lot, poster, twist words in a futile attempt to recast tour false argument. Do that for your own statements. Don't try to recast mine into what I never said.
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/16/2009 6:09:15 PM
AI not working, Machines Being Stupid, Telemetry being vulnerable ect and so forth is just plain wrong. Is UCAV technology mature yet? NO. Will it be, absolutely. Is it mature enough to matter over the battlefield now? Yes. These are the real questions.
Agree with this.  But, the AI is certainly not in a state where its able to be deployed all around.  eg unmanned vs manned WVR fighter combat
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 6:14:01 PM
RE: Remote diagnostics "wounded duck" song and dance.


You are wrong. It's possible to monitor, detect, correct and even PATCH SW in mid flight during missions autonomously.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 6:20:26 PM



AI not working, Machines Being Stupid, Telemetry being vulnerable ect and so forth is just plain wrong. Is UCAV technology mature yet? NO. Will it be, absolutely. Is it mature enough to matter over the battlefield now? Yes. These are the real questions.

Agree with this.  But, the AI is certainly not in a state where its able to be deployed all around.  eg unmanned vs manned WVR fighter combat


Agree RE: WVR. But the gap os closing technologically speaking.

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       6/16/2009 8:46:41 PM

Qld researchers use mobile phone to fly pilotless plane

By Jonathon Hall

Posted 38 minutes ago

The QUT Unmanned Aircraft System in flightlink pointer; " />

The QUT Unmanned Aircraft System in flight (QUT)

Queensland researchers have developed a system allowing them to use mobile phone technology to fly pilotless planes.

In April, researchers from the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) completed a successful flight of a small pilotless plane over Kingaroy in Queensland's South Burnett region.

Professor Rod Walker says the test was one of the first in the world to use mobile phone technology to send data to a computer in the US controlling the plane.

He says as more businesses use wireless technology, it has created a shortage of radio spectrum.

Professor Walker says that prompted his team to examine the possibility of using mobile phones to send information.

"Technically it's possible to use one of these more advanced phones to control an aircraft pretty much anywhere in the world," he said.

He says they are now gearing up for another test with a manned aircraft in Brisbane next month.

"With the connectivity to the internet you can now control machines and in this case an aircraft," he said.

"There's really many other devices that you could control remotely pretty much from anywhere in the world.

"I guess that's kind of exciting in some ways and possibly also scary in others.

"As well that we will be able to develop such a far reaching impact on our mobile devices."


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Mechanical faults?   6/17/2009 1:17:28 AM

RE: Remote diagnostics "wounded duck" song and dance.







You are wrong. It's possible to monitor, detect, correct and even PATCH SW in mid flight during missions autonomously.







-DA 

This ain't a code fix problem that causes loss of aircraft, and you'd be lying if you said it was. Its a controlled flight problem.
 
But dig your own grave. Here's the shovel.
 
EXAMPLE:
 
 
 
No feedback of lift and drag forces to be felt so the "pilot" could correct for loss of thrust and glide her in. CRASH.
 
You are just too easy to defeat. No logical mind at all.
 
Want to go another round or are you going to LEARN?

 
 

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