The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 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: BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
maruben    6/12/2009 6:00:08 PM
Friday, June 12, 2009


BAE pitching Typhoon as F-22 eludes
Europeans make move amid U.S. export ban on stealth fighter


By JUN HONGO
Staff writer
Japan should consider adopting the Eurofighter Typhoon as its next mainstay fighter jet even if the U.S. lifts its ban on exporting the stealthy F-22 Raptor, representatives of a U.K.-based defense and aerospace company said Thursday in Tokyo.

The Air Self-Defense Force is eager to replace about 50 of its aging F-4s with the high-tech F-22 for its agility and high stealth capabilities.





But recent reports indicate Washington is unlikely to sell its latest and greatest airplane to just anyone, while others say the ¥25 billion plane is too expensive.

Andy Latham, BAE System Inc. vice president in charge of Typhoon exports, told reporters that since the Typhoon costs only about ¥10 billion, it presents "an effective non-U.S. solution" with significant benefits for Japan.

The Typhoon, made by a consortium of European manufacturers, is already used by the air forces in Europe. Although export of the F-22 would be strictly controlled to prevent its military technology from falling into the wrong hands, Latham said selling the Typhoon will take a "no black box approach."

The biggest difference between the two planes will be the "ability to offer Japan's industry a significant package of work," he said, explaining that the consortium could allow licensed manufacturing of the fighter in Japan and integration with Japanese equipment.

As for the Typhoon's lack of stealth capability, however, BAE System's Craig Penrice said stealth technology should not be considered an issue.

"Stealth is not the silver bullet answer that some might have you think," the former Royal Air Force pilot said, adding that the Typhoon has overall countermeasures against radar detection, including reduced infrared emissions.

By comparison, stealth is "not cheap, not low maintenance and not fully exportable," he said.

In total, Tokyo is considering six candidates to replace its F-4EJ fighters, including the U.S. F-35, which is still under development.

BAE has been pitching the Typhoon to Japan for years, although Tokyo and Washington have a strong defense alliance that leaves little room for non-U.S. bidders, Latham said.

Despite recent reports indicating the U.S. is unlikely to provide the F-22 to Japan, Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said Tuesday the fighter "remains an option that will be pursued."

Japan's strong interest in the aircraft is based not only on its capabilities but also on its compatibility with the U.S. Air Force, which the ASDF would work closely with in the event Japan is attacked.

Some observers also say Tokyo is eager to update its aircraft with the most up-to-date fighter available so it can claim air superiority over China, which is continuing to build its military power.

Japan's current mainstay fighter is the U.S.-designed F-15 Eagle.

P-3C patrols start
Kyodo News
A Maritime Self-Defense Force P-3C surveillance plane made its first patrol Thursday over the pirate-infested Gulf of Aden off Somalia, the Defense Ministry said.

The aircraft is one of two P-3Cs dispatched last month on the first overseas mission by MSDF patrol planes. They are supporting the two MSDF destroyers that have been patrolling for pirates in the gulf since late March.

The P-3Cs will gather information on suspicious ships to pass on to the destroyers and the commercial vessels they escort. The information will also be conveyed to navy vessels from other countries operating in the area, according to the ministry.

After arriving in Djibouti late last month, the P-3Cs had been conducting training flights. The aircraft are using the international airport in Djibouti as their operational base.

The destroyers have been escorting Japanese-related commercial vessels.
 
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   NEXT
warpig       6/16/2009 2:10:17 PM

The F117 had stellar performance against the Iraqis. But when it was used against 4th rate Serbs, the enemy managed to shoot one down with an obsolete SAM system. Against a top notch 1st rate opponent the results I would expect be worse.


Then the F117 was unexpectedly withdrawn from service. Makes me wonder if it was due to the fact that details about the Serb shootdown became too widely known among potential enemies.


I expect similar with respect to UAV's, stellar performance against lightly armed illiterate goat herders, not so stellar performance against someone who know how to do a half decent job. Against top notch enemies "let's not go there".



Completely apples-and-oranges and also completely overblowing the implications of the one F-117 lost.  Paradoxically, it's because the Iraqis *were* trying to stop our air campaign and *were* trying to shootdown everything they could that they were rapidly destroyed and could not shoot down any F-117s (although they did shoot down several times as many of our aircraft in total than the Serbs did), while it's because the Serbians were *not* trying to stop our air campaign and were *not* trying to shootdown everything they could that they happened to be in the right place at the right time to shootdown one F-117.  The Serbs displayed outstanding craft and understanding of how to stay hidden from our attacks, as well as how to conduct infrequent pop-up attacks as fast as possible against targets of opportunity, followed by a shut down and immediate un-ass of the area.  This preserved the potential threat that at any time they might achieve local surprise, pop-up, and engage an isolated single target.  Thus they retained for the duration of the air war the threat of being able to shoot down one of our aircraft at a moment's notice, and achieve a very high likelihood of gaining a few victories while creating a very low likelihood of achiving many victories or of denying us the ability to accomplish our missions.  The price for adopting this guerilla-war-style air defense was that they totally conceded overall air superiority to us and we bombed all the targets we planned to bomb.  In return, their air defense assets substantially survived the air campaign and in the meantime they did manage to achieve a couple successes, one most notably being against an F-117.  As for actually being able to shoot down an F-117 with relatively ancient technology (SA-3s guided by a LOW BLOW after first detecting and tracking the F-117 with something like a SPOON REST or FLAT FACE or whatever target acquisition radar they used), there's nothing amazing or special about it:  It is a given that when you are 15km from the SAM battalion just as it turns on, it will see you, lock you up, and shoot you before you can get away.  The F-117 was withdrawn because it was falling apart.  One broke up in flight at an airshow and I don't think it even did any manuevering.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 2:23:07 PM
A UCAV that could loiter for extended periods and use it's sensors to search for and destroy hidden IAD would be much more deadly against that kind of threat. You could patrol a given area with 1 to 2 UCAVs for up to a day at a time and as soon as you detected the SAMs would already be in place to engage. You would need a squadron of F-16CJ to duplicate this effort in the same amount of time.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    BS.   6/16/2009 2:24:55 PM





SEAD and DEAD means denual of the air to enemy fighters as well as striking AAA and SAM networks. The last time I looked there wasn't a UCAV smart enougfh to dodge SAMs, flak, or A2A missiles. Now you can do that with robots at 3x to 4x  the cost in robotic aircraft lost to the manned aircraft you need but who can afford a 7000 robot air force at $50 million a bird?  (That's what a robot intgerdictor strike aircraft costs, don't kid yourself- just $ 5 million less than the manned bird and only 1/3 as effective in REALITY..) 












Boeing X-45A Unmanned Aircraft Demonstrates Autonomous Capability

ST. LOUIS, June 24, 2005 -- A Boeing [NYSE: BA] X-45A unmanned aircraft completed its 52nd flight recently, demonstrating its ability to adapt to a realistic and changing wartime operational environment.


During the test flight, a Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems (J-UCAS) X-45A departed from NASA's Dryden Flight Research Center, Edwards Air Force Base, Calif., climbed to 29,000 ft. and entered the base's test range. While flying the mission, several simulated Surface-to-Air Missile (SAM) emitters were activated and the unmanned aircraft autonomously created its own flight plan to remain out of lethal range of the simulated SAM sites. Always managed by the pilot-operator, the X-45A then attacked its simulated priority ground target and showcased the ability to suppress enemy air defenses. Once the aircraft had conducted a simulated battle damage assessment, the X-45A safely returned to Edwards.


"The X-45A proved it could autonomously react to a dynamic threat environment while engaging a priority target," said David Koopersmith, Boeing J-UCAS X-45 vice president and program manager. "Onboard planning and decision capabilities like these will make our next unmanned system, the X-45C, a highly survivable platform for the warfighter."


The first X-45C will be completed in 2006, with flight-testing 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. 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.


Boeing began its unmanned combat aircraft program in 1998. The following year, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) and the U.S. Air Force chose Boeing to build two X-45A air vehicles and a mission control station under the J-UCAS Advanced Technology Demonstration Program.


Winner of a 2005 Flight International Aerospace Industry Award, the J-UCAS X-45 program is a Boeing/DARPA/Air Force/Navy effort to demonstrate the technical feasibility, military utility and operational value of an unmanned air combat system for the Air Force and the Navy. Operational missions for the services may include persistent strike; penetrating electronic attack; suppression of enemy air defenses; and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance.






 



That's already been publicly demonstrated.




-DA 





 

Proof of concept against a scripted target is not weapon proof under RW conditions. You keep trotting out the same BS over and over. You just don't get it. Weapon proof is this:

 
Until you understand the difference; you have no business claiming to understand what is going on, much less understand what is actually TESTED.. 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 2:47:18 PM
Again Herald, you can try to spin however you want. The bottom line is the things I told you have been demonstrated. Now you are trying to twist this into the difference between RW and test environment. Game recognized, Bottom line is machines make decisions contrary to your assertions otherwise. I find it funny you trot out a link to a UCAV that I told you about after you denied such things existed and then proceeded on incorrectly define what a UCAV is in the first place. But like many things, if YOU don't like something, rather than try to craft and articulate an argument, you go personal and even bungle that up.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    There is no spin except in your mind.   6/16/2009 3:26:40 PM
You just don't understand the difference between an if/then tautology and a real decision process. You cannot diagram tree a real decision process. Predicated choice is not decision.
 
Do you understand? 
 
As for your BS, articles, Like BW, you can  save that marketing crap and propaganda for the uninformed, and try to impress them. Until you demonstrate understanding by expressing in plain English what I just told you, you have nothing to say on THIS subject.
 
Herald.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 3:57:44 PM
Again, you will not spin this here. The bottom line is that machines CAN perform the missions that you mentioned and have been tested in those capacities. That's all you need to concern yourself with. Feel free to disagree, but I'm done with this settled and proved issue. Back to the Typhoon and F-22 to Japan.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Wrong poster.   6/16/2009 5:06:59 PM
Since you refuse to address the topic head on u will address it for you.
 
Suppose I give you three choices, A, B, C.
 
Suppose choice A guarantees 100% destruction of target but 100% chance loss of robot?
 
Suppose choice B guarantees 75% destruction of target, but 50% chance loss of robot? 
 
Suppose choice C guarantees 50% destruction of target but 25% chance of return of robot?
 
Which choice does the robot make?
 
It will follow minimax pre-programmed choice logic and follow C because that is the profit loss driver that most artilect decision trees use.

A MAN will see Bin Laden on the bridge and choose option A.
 
That is why you haven't got a CLUE.
 
Herald

 
 

 
 
.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       6/16/2009 5:31:54 PM
Complete and utter strawman. Enjoy arguing with yourself though. Let me show you what A MAN CHOSE IN THAT EXACT SAME SCENARIO...


Almost from the start, the Administration's search for Al Qaeda members in the war zone, and its worldwide search for terrorists, came up against major command-and-control problems. For example, combat forces that had Al Qaeda forces in sight had to obtain legal clearance before firing on them. On October 7th,the night the bombing began, an unmanned Predator aircraft tracked an automobile convoy that, American intelligence believed, contained Mullah Muhammed Omar, the Taliban leader. A lawyer on duty at the United States Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, refused to authorize a strike. By the time an attack was approved, the target was out of reach. 


...If we installed BATs like SW on the Predator and ran it autonomously, Mullah Omar would be DEAD. Stop trying to spin this as an exclusively machine problem. Some of us actually use and or build this stuff, FOR REAL. By your incorrect and impractical theory, anything that isn't black and white and 100% reliable is invalid. That's not how it works in reality.


-DA 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/16/2009 5:49:09 PM


Suppose I give you three choices, A, B, C.

Suppose choice A guarantees 100% destruction of target but 100% chance loss of robot?

Suppose choice B guarantees 75% destruction of target, but 50% chance loss of robot? 

Suppose choice C guarantees 50% destruction of target but 25% chance of return of robot?

Which choice does the robot make?

It will follow minimax pre-programmed choice logic and follow C because that is the profit loss driver that most artilect decision trees use.

A MAN will see Bin Laden on the bridge and choose option A.


 
So what if the programmer insets a line ahead of the minmax preprogrammed choice logic subroutine that says the equivalent of "If Target = BinLadin, Then Goto Attack Subroutine"?
 
It seems to me then at that point, the "decision" you're looking for is made.
 
It's as if you're trying to argue that we can not yet program machines to completely duplicate a human being in all circumstances.  If that's what you are arguing, then 1) I'm pretty sure not even DA is arguing that we can (and DA, please say otherwise if you are), 2) that level of human emulation is not necessary to be sufficiently successful in the mission of being a useful weapon system, and 3) then this is another example of how you seem to set up something quite similar to a strawman to knock down, instead of what DA is actually saying about autonomy in UCASs.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The pilot can CHOOSE to ignore the lawyer.   6/16/2009 5:50:51 PM
He's truly autonomous..
 
GOTCHA!
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    Warpig Reply    6/16/2009 5:57:19 PM

Suppose I give you three choices, A, B, C.

Suppose choice A guarantees 100% destruction of target but 100% chance loss of robot?

Suppose choice B guarantees 75% destruction of target, but 50% chance loss of robot? 

Suppose choice C guarantees 50% destruction of target but 25% chance of return of robot?

Which choice does the robot make?

It will follow minimax pre-programmed choice logic and follow C because that is the profit loss driver that most artilect decision trees use.




A MAN will see Bin Laden on the bridge and choose option A.






 

So what if the programmer insets a line ahead of the minmax preprogrammed choice logic subroutine that says the equivalent of "If Target = BinLadin, Then Goto Attack Subroutine"?

 

It seems to me then at that point, the "decision" you're looking for is made.

 

It's as if you're trying to argue that we can not yet program machines to completely duplicate a human being in all circumstances.  If that's what you are arguing, then 1) I'm pretty sure not even DA is arguing that we can (and DA, please say otherwise if you are), 2) that level of human emulation is not necessary to be sufficiently successful in the mission of being a useful weapon system, and 3) then this is another example of how you seem to set up something quite similar to a strawman to knock down, instead of what DA is actually saying about autonomy in UCASs.



 

Warpig,

I've always stipulated that the function of the UCAV will dictate the complexity of it's AI. You write the code to deal with the inputs you think the machine will need to process. Are there situations where an AI would not be able to properly interpret things? Of course. However, if you have been thorough enough, you can make these cases very rare exceptions such that more often than not, the UCAV behaves as expected. This is a continuous process. Every flight hour will provide data that can be included in future patches for the entire fleet.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       6/16/2009 6:02:20 PM

He's truly autonomous..

 

GOTCHA!

 

Herald




 
...and do we actually *want* our UCASs to have the ability to ignore limits we place on them in the same way a pilot can ignore orders to not attack a target unless he has been granted permission to do so?  If so, maybe we should insert a randomizer into the decision process, and then it might do what we want it to do, but then again it might "decide" to do something else instead.
 
Swell.
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    More spin   6/16/2009 6:02:26 PM

He's truly autonomous..

GOTCHA!

Herald


He could also chose to strafe his parking ramp too or defect with the aircraft. We can play gotcha games all day. He could choose to kill himself too...




...what's your point? Are you being antagonistic for the sake of it? 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       6/16/2009 8:10:03 PM




The F117 had stellar performance against the Iraqis. But when it was used against 4th rate Serbs, the enemy managed to shoot one down with an obsolete SAM system. Against a top notch 1st rate opponent the results I would expect be worse.





Then the F117 was unexpectedly withdrawn from service. Makes me wonder if it was due to the fact that details about the Serb shootdown became too widely known among potential enemies.






I expect similar with respect to UAV's, stellar performance against lightly armed illiterate goat herders, not so stellar performance against someone who know how to do a half decent job. Against top notch enemies "let's not go there".









Completely apples-and-oranges and also completely overblowing the implications of the one F-117 lost.  Paradoxically, it's because the Iraqis *were* trying to stop our air campaign and *were* trying to shootdown everything they could that they were rapidly destroyed and could not shoot down any F-117s (although they did shoot down several times as many of our aircraft in total than the Serbs did), while it's because the Serbians were *not* trying to stop our air campaign and were *not* trying to shootdown everything they could that they happened to be in the right place at the right time to shootdown one F-117.  The Serbs displayed outstanding craft and understanding of how to stay hidden from our attacks, as well as how to conduct infrequent pop-up attacks as fast as possible against targets of opportunity, followed by a shut down and immediate un-ass of the area.  This preserved the potential threat that at any time they might achieve local surprise, pop-up, and engage an isolated single target.  Thus they retained for the duration of the air war the threat of being able to shoot down one of our aircraft at a moment's notice, and achieve a very high likelihood of gaining a few victories while creating a very low likelihood of achiving many victories or of denying us the ability to accomplish our missions.  The price for adopting this guerilla-war-style air defense was that they totally conceded overall air superiority to us and we bombed all the targets we planned to bomb.  In return, their air defense assets substantially survived the air campaign and in the meantime they did manage to achieve a couple successes, one most notably being against an F-117.  As for actually being able to shoot down an F-117 with relatively ancient technology (SA-3s guided by a LOW BLOW after first detecting and tracking the F-117 with something like a SPOON REST or FLAT FACE or whatever target acquisition radar they used), there's nothing amazing or special about it:  It is a given that when you are 15km from the SAM battalion just as it turns on, it will see you, lock you up, and shoot you before you can get away.  The F-117 was withdrawn because it was falling apart.  One broke up in flight at an airshow and I don't think it even did any manuevering.


The pilot also flew the same route on 3 consecutive days.  Anyone with a rifle could have shot him down.
 
Quote    Reply

SlowMan       6/17/2009 4:44:18 PM
The US House votes to save F-22 in the Armed Services Committee's 2010 defense spending bill < link > You already know that the US Senate Appropriation committee is doing the same thing.
 
Things are looking favorable to Japanese F-22 bid now.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12   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