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
gf0012-aust    this is my last on this.   6/10/2009 10:21:33 PM
title was not meant to be dismissive, just that I don't want to get stuck in a loop of differences of opinion.

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    gf0012 reply   6/11/2009 1:22:28 AM

title was not meant to be dismissive, just that I don't want to get stuck in a loop of differences of opinion.




 I didn't take it that way at all. You have way more class than that even when I know you disagree. This is the way a professional writes and I respect that. In fact, the differences of opinion are good as I know we both have valid points for all to consider.

 

-DA 

 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    He's a professional, you are an amateur.    6/11/2009 9:30:02 PM
despite your claims to the contrary. Robo-snake has nothing to do with this kind of discussion. it doesn't even approach within the magnitude of the type problems covered inn this topic.

When you confuse the land simple for the aviation complex and reach desperately for examples that have no bearing oin discussion then you are not knowledgeable.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/12/2009 2:12:52 AM

despite your claims to the contrary. Robo-snake has nothing to do with this kind of discussion. it doesn't even approach within the magnitude of the type problems covered inn this topic.

What claims to the contrary? And coming from the person who referenced Robot-Ants? LOL you are hilarious.


When you confuse the land simple for the aviation complex and reach desperately for examples that have no bearing oin discussion then you are not knowledgeable.
Herald

You are the only one confused. I gave you context. It's YOU who mentioned Robot Ants. I actually showed an autonomous UCAV demonstration. So what I claimed already exist. If you spent as much time actually reading and participating in the discussion instead of trolling behind my post you wouldn't make such a public spectacle of yourself.  Who cares though. Feel free to continue another one of your own self to self strawman arguments. You will look equally silly as you did when you tried to convince people civilian merchants should practice EOF/Security with rocket launchers.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Ants are the representation of a hive mind.or how an robot air offense would really work.....   6/12/2009 11:38:29 AM




despite your claims to the contrary. Robo-snake has nothing to do with this kind of discussion. it doesn't even approach within the magnitude of the type problems covered inn this topic.



What claims to the contrary? And coming from the person who referenced Robot-Ants? LOL you are hilarious.







When you confuse the land simple for the aviation complex and reach desperately for examples that have no bearing oin discussion then you are not knowledgeable.


Herald




You are the only one confused. I gave you context. It's YOU who mentioned Robot Ants. I actually showed an autonomous UCAV demonstration. So what I claimed already exist. If you spent as much time actually reading and participating in the discussion instead of trolling behind my post you wouldn't make such a public spectacle of yourself.  Who cares though. Feel free to continue another one of your own self to self strawman arguments. You will look equally silly as you did when you tried to convince people civilian merchants should practice EOF/Security with rocket launchers.




-DA

That's more or less the Herald Trap I wanted you to trip. Your done poster, you don't even have a clue as to what you discuss. For the rest of us, do I need to describe swarming as to how it overloads an IADS? We've used it twice against the Iraqis and blanked them. In its UAV version, the data net, shares a distributed intelligence across the entorte package so that eaxch machine doesn't have to xcarry the whole burden of the attack, just like each ant (or bee) doesn't have to carry the burden for the hbive or colony mission.
 
Anyway, I really just wanted to drive home the point that there are those who know what they discuss and there are those who don't. Make up your own minds. I'm satisfioed that I know which class set. where the poster belongs.
 
Herald
 
   
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Stuck on Stupid   6/12/2009 12:48:18 PM
There is no Herald trap so stop fooling yourself. You don't have the composure or patience to do that. You referenced falsely how much memory it takes to code an Ant...

Herald12345    How many lines of code to program an ant?    6/10/2009 2:41:22 AM
Something like 2.5 terabytes?

And we go whoopee over 25 gigabytes in a telemetry system? 

Somebody has been smoking that hemp.
 
...and I told you that it is false and a strawman without any context as it depends on what you are trying to emulate. Then I went on to show you two UCAVs demonstrating an autonomous engagement against threat IAD. So you can try and twist and manipulate words as much as you like. If you were thinking about hive minds and such then just say what you mean and dispense with all the nonsense and personal BS. Again, if you want to keep looking like a fool then go right ahead.

The only thing trapped is your brain with this childish grudge you carry on. In other words...



...now if you have something to say about IADs or tactics then do that. But don't try to derail the thread because EVERYBODY can see and some have even written that you are in a strawman circular argument with yourself. Amateurs are people such as yourself who haven't worked in or studies long enough defense issues to know that if you ask 5 experts about a thing you will get 5 different answers and when those answers differ the amateur gets indignant and hostile most often because he can't support his argument on merit. Unlike you, when I disagreed with another professional, there was no anger and we simply settled on the fact that our opinions differ. Control your emotions Padawan and then maybe you wont seem like such an amateur.

Meanwhile, in the real world, more Unmanned Systems keep coming and coming. P.S. rather than riding in my shadow, why don't you get some guts, man up and post something original. ANYBODY, can be a critic.

-DA 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Y. pestis       6/13/2009 12:02:28 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
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Did you read the title on that Youtiube, poster.    6/13/2009 12:26:39 AM
Unstick yourself so that it no longer applies to you. Quit springing Herald traps, quit pretending., and realoize  I don't bully. I don't take orders from you, and its obvious again that you don';t even begun to understand what I discuss.
 
How in heck's name can you claim to be knowledgeablein artifical intelligence if you don't even know how a distributed information , memory and processing network works? Hmmmmmm?
 
I forgive you your usual other crap, since its obvious that aside from some book learning you don't know a damn thing about aircraft and rockets, but if you claim to be familiar with artilects or artificial intelligence logics or how telemetry works you haven't written one word that shows that you even know how such logics and systems work, much less what is involved.
 
Please don't claim that you do. Asode form point and clicl on a menu driven aid program that may have task assisted you, you really have no idea.
 
Herald
     
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Did you read the title on that Youtiube, poster.    6/13/2009 12:32:40 AM
Unstick yourself so that it no longer applies to you. Quit springing Herald traps, quit pretending., and realize  I don't bully.or succumb to bullies, I don't take orders from you, or your worthless advice, and its obvious again that you don't even begun to understand what I discuss.
 
Example;
 
 
How in heck's name can you claim to be knowledgeable in artificial intelligence if you don't even know how a distributed information , memory and processing network works? Hmmmmmm?
 
I forgive you your usual other crap, since its obvious that aside from some book learning you don't know a damn thing about aircraft and rockets, but if you claim to be familiar with artilects or artificial intelligence logics or how telemetry works you haven't written one word that shows that you even know how such logics and systems work, much less what is involved.
 
Please don't claim that you do. Aside from point and click on a menu driven aid program that may have task assisted you a few times, you really have no idea at all.
 
Herald
     
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/13/2009 12:41:48 AM

Move over, Buck Rogers

X-45 is showing it has the mettle to fly toughest missions

BY WILLIAM A. BARKSDALE

An X-45 aircraft releases an inert Global Positioning System?guided bombThe night is eerily calm, the darkness foreboding. A U.S. pilot pulls on a G-suit and helmet and climbs into an aircraft not knowing what the future holds. As the jet climbs over the desert skies, adrenaline is pumping because this is for real.

The highly trained airman has entered another world, one where thousands of lights dart up from the ground with no warning, each one seemingly aimed his way. This would be the greatest fireworks show ever witnessed if it were not deadly. It's no game. It's warfare, it's dangerous, and there's nowhere to hide.

Known as Suppression of Enemy Air Defense, the mission is simple. Fly into harm's way and become human bait, a target for air defenses. Once the ground missile site turns on its radar and prepares to launch a strike, the chaos begins. If the threat can't be destroyed, other pilots will die.

SEAD takes a unique breed, a special type of warrior--and Dick Ewers fits that description. As a U.S. Marine Corps aviator in Vietnam, he flew the mission in his F-4 Phantom and still remembers it well.

"When you fly SEAD, you're the first guy in and you're getting shot at. I'd say 90 to 95 percent of the airplanes we lost were due to a ground threat," Ewers said. "SEAD was and is a very lethal mission in which you can lose a lot of people if you don't plan it right. It's not something you want to do without a lot of friends helping you."

Retired from the Marine Corps since 1989, Ewers now works as a NASA research pilot at Dryden Flight Research Center at Edwards Air Force Base, Calif. One of his assignments is to "fly chase" on an advanced experimental aircraft known as the X-45, and it takes him right back to some very harrowing moments in Southeast Asia.

"When I was in Vietnam, I lost three of my closest squadron mates due to enemy ground fire," recalled the fighter pilot. "If we'd had an unmanned combat vehicle like the X-45 flying then, a lot of pilots might have been saved."

* * *

As the first unmanned air vehicle designed specifically for SEAD, and with the potential to deliver a revolutionary improvement in effectiveness, the Joint Unmanned Combat Air System X-45 is being watched closely by many in the defense industry.

The X-45 is a Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, U.S. Air Force, U.S. Navy, and Boeing Integrated Defense Systems program that also involves NASA. Boeing developed and built two X-45A demonstrators and is working on an X-45C demonstrator. The program's purpose is to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned combat air system for the military.

"This is a revolutionary aircraft because it is designed to think and act like aviators do without having an aviator control it," said U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. James "Pee Wee" Wertz, 452nd Flight Test Squadron commander and Global Vigilance Combined Test Force director at Edwards. "No one has to move a stick and throttle to tell this airplane what to do. As a matter of fact, its auto

 
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