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
gf0012-aust       6/18/2009 8:50:54 PM

Don't think I can trust UAS until they can operate on a full simulated battlefield against a peer or near-peer threat. Lets see some UAS at Red Flag performing SEAD, DEAD, CAS, or CAP.

gf0012-aust said: I think the big test will be Blue Flag, Red Flag will come much later. Going WVR unmanned vs manned is going to involve a lot more than just queueing up for shot slots at Red Flag as it will involve significant planning and doctrine changes. (At least thats my understanding based on chats with our US liaison officers)
Darth said: IMHO, the biggest challenge will be defeating the built in institutional resistance. You have got to sell the idea to the key decision makers up the chain who's responsibility it will be to facilitate the development. If they aren't on board then the progress will be sabotaged with delay after delay as the USN did to themselves with regard to UAS. Fighter Pilots need to be made to understand that this is not a threat to their art but rather the evolution thereof. These decisions won't necessarily have tangible consequences during their careers but could have potentially lethal consequences for the pilots following in their footsteps is the USA doesn't take clear lead and dominance in this sub set of air warfare. There is always a place for a man in the cockpit. That doesn't mean the cockpit always has to remain inside the aircraft though.
and, again, IMO, that will be validated via Blue Flag type input before Red Flag

 

-DA

 





 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Neither example was REAL   6/19/2009 2:25:21 AM







 



If the runway is long enough and you are three axis stable you can glide anything in, even with a jet powered glider, which is what Global Hawk is













Refuted. The teleoperator used lake bed runways and his TV view of the horizon because he couldn't control sink rate to spot the landing at the correct speed  and rollout run after a hot touchdown. He cut thrust as a Human decision to let natural drag forces slow the aircraft and then he recetracked the bird's flightpath to bleed speech






 



Why don't you do better and research what you cite so that you understand exactly what happens? Notice the MASSIVE Human intervention for an otherwise minor aircraft problem? Human pilot would have diverted and flown her in hot onto a long runway. Wait! He did!






 



I have to show you the BASICS so that you comprehend?. I thought you at least knew how aircraft were controlled. 













Sheesh.



 



Herald














 


Strawman. You asked for examples of UAS recovering after major battle damage/malfunction and I gave you two examples. This isn't a comparison of how a human woulda, coulda or shoulda done it. This is PROOF that UAS in distress are recoverable, the technology to do that is maturing and processes are in place. Everything that human did, could be studied, the judgement calls that prompted the decisions analyzed and then coded into an update. Under those circumstances an AI would be able to do the same thing. That was the point.







-DA 

And you thus prevaricate about what they actually showed (cref proper explanation provided)and proved..

Prevaricate means to lie.. 

Now if you want to prevaricate and claim a proof that is not there, go right ahead. Your  proof was based on your ignorance of what actually happened. A computer premodeled test of floight dynamics on that F-18 was not a real wporld demomnmstration of battle damage. Shoot the drone and then try to bring it back. The GH was a minor me3chanical fault that was a routine glideback that shouldf be possible with any Human piloterd aircraft with so moinor a hickup
 
Yopu've failed to prove anything except the depth of your ignorance on subjedct since you didn't understand what was described. Guess that comes from you not being an engineer.
 
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



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