48 Comments

1. Lifeofthemind:

What is this? It is a Naval improvement over current UAVs that serve under the Air Force in the reconnaissance and light attack roles. These are not air superiority craft. It appears to have improved stealth characteristics and is durable and expensive enough to operate from a carrier deck. The refueling capability is prominently featured. That could give almost infinte loiter time for tactical intelligence, satellites are to rare to use for real time battle space surveillance, and if it could be configured to serve as a flying gas can then it would allow complex long range operations to be planned without drawing on the limited number of heavy, and visible, tanker assets. The initial shot of land based Command Communications Radomes puzzled me. Is the intention to operate these like Air Force drones from some Stateside location? I would expect the Navy to see these as ship based weapons to be controlled from the ship. Operating them from someplace off the Battle Group reduces the Admiral to a Manager and reduces the Commanding Officer to a Merchant providing transportation services. The Arsenal Ship was going to be an unmanned or lightly manned vessel with missiles under the control of the Battle Group Commander. From a Naval perspective these serve the same function. When used in the attack role they are like little remote controlled Arsenal Planes or recallable MIRV birds with loiter.

Dec 19, 2008 - 11:57 pm 2. wretchard:

The initial shot of radio telescopes was the YouTube poster’s way of conveying the X47B could be mistaken for a UFO. Unfortunately I can’t truncate the video to eliminate the misleading intro.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:00 am 3. Lifeofthemind:

@Wretchard
Thank you. The Navy experimented with drone helicopters decades ago. They were meant for medium to small combatants like destroyers. A big problem was the unsteady flight deck. It is hard for a human to land safely even on a big carrier deck. To do this with a reusable and sophisticated UAV is impressive.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:29 am 4. sammy small:

“The X-47B is designed to demonstrate certain concepts, presumably for a future production platform….The interesting question is what requirements this concept is intended to fulfill.”

The principal requirement for the X-47B is to explore the complexities of carrier based operations for a UAV, namely, catapult launch, traps, and deck handling operations. The idea of an unmanned aircraft trapping aboard a billion dollar carrier scares the living daylights out of most Navy carrier career officers.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:43 am 5. Lifeofthemind:

Somewhat OT, a HT to Theo Spark Air Force flies CV-22s to Africa and Back.
Don’t you go to Theo’s for the news?

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:55 am 6. Eggplant:

X-47B is definitely cool but it seems a bit high-tech if the enemy is Islamic savages in the mountains of Afghanistan. The quiet and low speed Predator seems a better bet (also cheaper should the bad guy manage a lucky shot with a surface to air missile).

Dec 20, 2008 - 1:03 am 7. L:

“…if the enemy is Islamic savages….”
That’s certainly true. But the enemy is also China.

Dec 20, 2008 - 2:04 am 8. rickl:

“death beam weapons”

Ooh. Tell me more.

Dec 20, 2008 - 2:51 am 9. twobyfour:

@ 7. L

Enemy designates a state of war, until then, it’s an adversary, no?

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:11 am 10. Niccolo:

This is just another attempt to keep the old carrier battle group concept alive.

We’re not very far away from being able to pop UAV’s from pods on the deck of a submarine. We just need many more smaller-and-better submarines — or maybe submersibles is a better term. The boomers have their place, but little attack/launch boats might be an interesting concept. For harbor patrol/defense. You detect a threat (an Iranian freighter, perhaps) and you kick up a UAV to shadow it (or sink it, if necessary).

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:31 am 11. Al_Batross:

nice Zimmeresque music.

Dec 20, 2008 - 5:51 am 12. wildernesscalling:

I wonder how long before the aircraft carrier becomes simply a floating robotic attack ship with robotic planes built not only to attack with bombs, missiles, canons and bullets but itself! the weapon is cheap enough to reproduce enough of them to become disposable, a “Kamikaze” itself! A deck of a carrier could hold several hundred launch tubes with replacement magazines holding thousands more.
Imagine being the target of a plane that tries to shoot, missile or bomb you and if it can’t do it will just run into you! Talk about a fight to the death! one need not worry, it won’t reach that point. }:)

Dec 20, 2008 - 6:07 am 13. Tony:

Aviation Leak has been writing about the UCAV’s for years, Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles, and this one in particular has been featured often – it is so cool looking. I think it is for network attack, it’s a stealthy, speedy platform designed to penetrate the most highly defended and otherwise denied airspace. Network attack invades enemy comms, disrupts command and control, plants false information and with the new AESA radars like the F-22 carries, can literally serve as a “death ray” against enemy electronic assets, on the ground, at sea and in the air.

Dec 20, 2008 - 6:38 am 14. F:

One doesn’t know the background or intentions of the producer of the video, but it seems to me one aspect of a UAV that was underplayed is its ability to maneuver at higher G-load than a human pilot could endure. This video of a bat-winged UAV swooping gently in airliner-quality maneuvers completely misses this point. 7-G turn? Why not — there’s no one to pass out inside the thing. The video also mixes missions quite conveniently — a platform that is there to refuel will presumably not be carrying bombs too. So far, I’m unimpressed. This appears to me to be something designed to sell non-military types on a concept. And I agree with Wretchard that the radio telescopes add nothing to the overall story. F

Dec 20, 2008 - 7:51 am 15. RWE:

From what I am hearing about drones such as the Predator, I am afraid that the USAF suffers from the same delusions that has so harmed its space capabilities.

The Predator has to be landed. As in manually flown onto the runway. One reason they are losing them is that the pilot gets embarrassed when he has to do a go-around and does not like the ribbing that will accompany that. So he presses on with a bad landing and wrecks the airplane.

To me the only reasonable way to build a UAV is to have the aircraft take care of all the flying and essentially have the “operator” use point and click techniques to guide it while he concentrates on operating the weapons and recon systems as well as overall tactics and situational awareness. Airliners land themselves all the time; it should be even easier for UAVs.

But the Air Force is not only training new UAV “pilots” from scratch. They are also converting existing units. I read where a North Dakota unit just converted from F-16’s to Predators and C-21’s (Learjets). So, the argument no doubt goes that they have pilots so they have to fly something. I understand that flying UAVs for a while will be a standard phase for USAF pilots between Undergraduate Pilot Training and a real airplane assignment.

I have sat and held my head in my hands while the “real” Air Force explains why we have to set up a worldwide logistics support system for rockets only launched from the Cape and Vandenberg. Why? “Because that is the way it is DONE!” The real, unspoken, answer is “Because we have lots of people trained to do it that way and they have to be kept employed.”

In other words, they no doubt have a UAW attitude toward UAVs. This will adversely affect not only the way they are used and supported but the basic concepts behind them.

Dec 20, 2008 - 7:55 am 16. Mongoose:

Tony: You are exactly correct. There are proposed some other similar uses:

1) Once Air Supremacy has been obtained, these craft can be networked across a “combat grid” in a combat zone/theater to attain a deeper and more timely Air Strike penetration in support of ground objectives than could be obtain with current technology (or at least current technology as it is deployed now). This grid would consist of somewhat evenly spaced UAVs that could be called upon by FACs and the like at will, and also attack far from the front lines against tactical targets. Think of it as a sort of “cellular air stike/CAS system”.

2) Massed and equipped with AMRAAMs or next genereation BVRAAMs, these platforms could play a role as “sentinels” in an Air Defense system. This might prove particularly useful in protecting carrier group and ESGs/ARGs/ASGs (or whatever the USMC is calling their sea based strike groups this year). Note that as these platforms are not really Air superiority platforms, they have to be used as a pillar of a larger Air Defense System rather than the sole basis for such a defense. They would be used in the ussual combination of manned air superiority assets and the modern C4 and electronic defensive and offensive systems that now make up such a defense.

3) There has always been talk of using them in a strategic (i.e., nuclear,) role, but this sort of chat is kept under wraps. Here again, this would be in concerts with other systems and platforms.

Note that some of the Navy’s interest in UAVs is political. The same sort of infighting over manned fixed wing aircraft in both the Air Superiority and the Air Strike role that have characterized much of the relationship between the USAF and the USN heretofore also applies to the new unmanned technologies. The Navy does not want the USAF to get a monopoly here. In fact, the roots of this Navy platform stem from a joint UAV project between the two service branch (I think that the Army had a finger in this pie too). This was abandoned and branched into two separate platform, and in at least some peoples minds this was done for political reasons. The initial design was for a role almost exactly like the one Tony has mentioned.

One should note that we are quite along way away frm these crafts completely replacing manned platforms in even an air strike role — we are even farther away from UAV’s in a meaningful and mainstream Air Superiority role.

This will no doubt happen one day, but we should not imagine that this is right around the corner.

As a side note, one has to take defense contractors’ presentations with a grain of salt as platforms are pitched against whatever fad or buzz is current on the Hill and over in Arlington and Langley. If the current buzz is terrorist interdiction then this will turn out to be the main strength of a platform.

Dec 20, 2008 - 8:12 am 17. Mongoose:

F: UAV’s so far are not supersonic. There are many real reasons for this. Eventually they will get there, but they are nowhere near to being at that level of performance operationally. There are hosts of issues with this.

It could be 25+ more years before we get to that sort of thing as practical operational matter.

It is interesting to note that the Navy has started to mumble about “sixth generation fighters”, and the scuttlebutt is that they would have dual use technology for both manned and unmanned platforms, including airframes not unlike the X47. It may be that ironically UAVs have at least one development path that morphs back to manned air frames.

Of course, with Obama and Co. in charge we may have to count ourselves lucky if we can manage a few biplanes.

Dec 20, 2008 - 8:20 am 18. programmer:

RWE expounds:

To me the only reasonable way to build a UAV is to have the aircraft take care of all the flying and essentially have the “operator” use point and click techniques to guide it while he concentrates on operating the weapons and recon systems as well as overall tactics and situational awareness. Airliners land themselves all the time; it should be even easier for UAVs.

programmer muses:

I wonder how great those UAV’s will perform after the satellites have been swept from the skies by counter-sat technology, our servers have been compromised by viruses, and the EMG from air nukes have fried the circuits of our comms systems.

Human hands on the controls can be very reassuring to a tactical commander. OBTW, have I ever told the story of the driverless tractor driver?

Dec 20, 2008 - 8:58 am 19. RWE:

Programmer: If you hypothesize losing the satcom link (hard to do, given they are in GEO) that argues for more autonomy for the aircraft, not less.

Currently big UAVs are used in very low threat situations. The cruise speed of a Predator is 75 kts, or about that of a WWII vintage PBY.

Conversely, small UAVs are used in very high threat circumstances, where you would not risk a manned aircraft.

But we are not talking about replacing all manned aircraft missions with UAVs. A Combat UAV and manned aircraft mix makes a lot of sense, with the pilot of the manned aircraft telling the UAVs to cover his 6 and go take out that radar, and so forth. And he will be too busy to fly the other airplanes. But if the USAF is still focused on providing pilots with stick time we won’t ever get there. I don’t even think the Army is so dumb as to make the robot trucks it is working on so to require a pilot.

If I had been asked to bid the new USAF rescue helicopter competition, which the H-47 won, to many people’s distress, I think I would have bid three choppers for each mission. A manned control bird about the size of a Huey and two nearly identical UAV choppers to carry the extraction force and the rescued people. More UAVs could be added depending on the mission. Sneaking in to get a downed aircrew with a big old HH-47 is going to be interesting.

Dec 20, 2008 - 9:33 am 20. Lifeofthemind:

Is this a good time to hijack the thread for a Fisking of Gates’ Foreign Affairs article? The one that blithely assured everyone that we don’t really need the capacity to respond to every crisis? Not to mention his assurance that rebuilding after we occupy is a function that DoD resources should be devoted to? Two huge assumptions and both deserve analyses.

Dec 20, 2008 - 9:49 am 21. Barry 0351:

Put an AI or it’s equivelent in this bird and turn it loose with instructions to hunt targets near a CBG or PHIBRON then sit back and “LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR!”

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:03 am 22. elijah:

morphing

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:03 am 23. Tony:

Ahhh, we’re calling them “anti-access forces” now. Here’s a snip from the latest AWST:

The U.S. Air Force is developing requirements for the next upgrade of the F-22 Raptor following the decision to equip the fighter with a stealthy datalink under development for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.

“The F-22 program has begun the weapon system requirements development phase of Increment 3.2, which includes Multifunction Advanced Data Link [MADL] capability,” Lockheed Martin says.

The manufacturer was awaiting selection of an advanced datalink so it could begin work on the Increment 3.2 upgrade, to be fielded in 2012/13. Northrop Grumman’s MADL was selected over Rockwell Collins’ Tactical Targeting Network Technology (TTNT) link.

MADL has been chosen to tie together U.S. “anti-access” forces, including the F-22, F-35, B-2 and potentially the U.S. Navy’s proposed unmanned combat air system. F-22s already have a unique Intra-Flight DataLink (IFDL), but it has performance limitations.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/MADL121908.xml

Here’s another article in the 12/18 Aviation Leak talking about how they are going to control it on the deck of the carrier (yikes! – reminds of the model Chinook I got for my b-day, first plane I can fly in my living room):

Best approach

Deppe says the “best approach is to have somebody taxiing it around by itself.” UCAS squadron personnel would watch the aircraft directors, or “yellowshirts” as they are usually nicknamed, and stand behind them controlling the aircraft on the deck using a hand-held remote control device. This could be a particularly crucial aspect of the suitability trial, as the role of the yellowshirts is vital to the safe and smooth functioning of the crowded flight deck. There are typically about 12-15 yellowshirts on deck during standard flight operations or during a “re-spot” when aircraft are moved. “We don’t want to have two or three people trying to control the same aircraft,” Deppe adds.

A series of nose-leg mounted lights will indicate the readiness of the X-47B to deck crew. A green light will show it is under control of the deck handlers and a blue will indicate it is under control of mission operators, while a red indicates a fault.

The UCAS will approach and land autonomously using the Joint Precision Approach and Landing System ship-relative GPS-based landing system. As with all other aircraft, the UCAS will be monitored on its approach by the Landing Signal Officer (LSO), an experienced pilot with responsibility for the visual control of aircraft on short finals. If a UCAS appears to be approaching incorrectly, or the landing area is not clear, the LSO will be able to “wave off” the landing by releasing an interlock switch. This will digitally signal the UCAS to add power and execute a climb straight ahead to 1,200 feet and wait for instructions from approach control, or follow pre-programmed directions.

The X-47B will have a maximum takeoff weight of 45,000 pounds but a max landing weight of around 35,000 – 36,000 pounds, similar to Northrop’s A-6. Touchdown speeds are expected to be in the 120-130 knots range, depending on weight and windspeed.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/UCAS121808.xml

Jeez, that’s big! It can easily carry a big ol’ AESA ray gun:
“And electronic attack is one area where size does matter,” he says. “[Despite two false starts,] an EB-52 carrying large-aperture, active electronically scanned array radar with the output of an electronic techniques generator routed through it [such as jamming, false targets, power surges, etc.] can be a very long-range electronic weapon. So, in addition to strike aircraft and bombers, tankers and 737-type aircraft [such as the Navy's E-8 Poseidon, Army and Navy Aerial Common Sensor and Air Force tanker] are also possible platforms for the Next-Generation Jammer. Finally, unmanned aircraft of the Global Hawk and Reaper size could have the necessary size, power and payload.”

. . .

To deliver electronic fires as do the EA-6B or EA-18G “would require the addition of [advanced jamming] pods and additional EW arrays,” Davis says. Right now, “We are not a wide-area, standoff EW jammer. Our jamming system is designed to get the aircraft into and out of the target area. Can you use it for other things and expand [the EA] capability? Most definitely.”

The Marines are now working on delivering electronic fires from EA-6B Prowlers newly modified with the ICAP III EA system that provides jamming, silencing as well as breeching and exploiting enemy communications and signals networks. The Navy has the advanced EA-18G coming into service that will be able to attack an even more sophisticated target set when it upgrades from ICAP III to the still nascent NGJ.

Electronic attack is just one of the advanced missions expected to emerge from the F-35 program. Davis says planners are looking at three notional capabilities associated with unmanned aircraft: sharing data and information with unmanned aerial systems, helping unmanned platforms with targeting and weapons employment and linking a series of UAVs with a series of F-35s to expand attack capabilities.
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/aw120108p2.xml

Really, Aviation Week is better than the best science fiction! And the stuff it predicts shows up just a couple of years later in real life!

Ps. Could somebody show me how to make hyperlinks again? Ever since I got dingdang Vista and Word2007, I can’t edit normal Belmont links anymore, just look like a doofus and copy in the whole URL.

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:08 am 24. Fat Man:

The success of UAVs in the current war has caused me to re-asses the future of air power. I think that most uses of manned aircraft in combat are obsolete.

If we can run Predator UAVs in Iraq from Nevada, we can run fighter UAVs remotely as well. They might have to be run from closer. But so what?

Imagine, if you will, a UAV capable of Mach 3 and 15G turns (I do not know if the X-47B is supersonic). Being unmanned it does not need life support or emergency escape systems. Unmanned, the craft can therefore be lighter and smaller. It is not limited by the ability of flesh and blood to survive the G’s pulled. It can fly faster because it can run higher temperatures. Nobody has to run a copter behind enemy lines to pick up a downed flier. Another considerable saving.

The mother ship could be something like a J-Star which could stand back a couple of hundred miles. Or the UAVs could be run by a ship with the assistance of a Global Hawk as the relay and reconnaissance.

Aircraft Carriers are obsolete as well, at least ones of the Nimitz class. Flight decks could be much smaller. And crews less numerous. The navy needs a complete rethinking at this point. Should large bore naval guns be replaced by GMLRS at this point. How do these changes affect crew sizes and ship construction?

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:16 am 25. Tony:

Fat Man,

I think the problem is the very long-range, high-speed anti-air missiles can already pull way more G’s, so even supersonic, highly maneuverable UCAV’s aren’t going to survive. I think that’s why there is so much emphasis on stealth and less on speed. And now, non-physical “death rays” become the weapon of choice because you potentially never run out of ammo, given sufficient energy onboard.

Even the F-22 is tuned to supercruise rather than just to be faster than everything else, like the SR-71 was.

The next step up, or back, would be toward rocket, now scramjet, hypersonic planes, like the old X-15. Once you get up above Mach 6 and over 100 angels altitude, you don’t need to do a lot of jinking around. (Just hope you don’t run into one of those old Genie missiles… as discussed in this Time Magazine article from 1/20/58: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,868161-3,00.html)

But of course, when it really has to get there, right now, no question about delivery, you have the best aircraft in the USAF inventory, the old reliable Minuteman III.

Dec 20, 2008 - 10:50 am 26. RED CROWN:

30 years ago I was involved in integrating the Light Airborne Multi-Purpose System (LAMPS) MK III which was based on the SH-60B helo, in Navy surface combatants. We had a remote control mode for ASW where the aircraft could be directed to “fly-to” points and “weapon drop points” by the ship-board controller in CIC. However weapon (MK 46 torpedo) release required the aircraft commander to actively approve the weapon deployment. The Navy surely, and I’m certain that the other services, take employing lethal weapons very seriously, so an individual must be responsible (i.e. accountable) for firing or dropping a weapon.

We used a line-of sight data link between the ship and aircraft, which became a bit dicey when the aircraft was well out from the ship, over the RF horizon, and down low dropping sonobuoys and doing MAD runs on the contact. At that point the aircrew took over prosecuting the contact. I suspect that today that wouldn’t be a problem for the helo or UAVs. The Battle Group Commander would use a high-flying E-2 or UAV (worked on that project as well, about 15 years ago) for data relay to over-the-horizon assets (interceptors, surveillance, ASW and strike). But, barring a major change in philosophy, any UAVs performing these missions would still need a responsible officer to authorize the UAVs to release weapons on the target. I think that is eminently feasible for most missions, except for fighter interceptors where reaction time would be critical and would probably require one ship-board controller per UAV.

I sure would love to see the ROC/POE and NWP for the production version of the X-47B. I have been playing a Harpoon WESTPAC scenario, “Lets go to War”, that includes the land-based X-47C, which is very useful for taking out SAM sites.

RED CROWN SENDS

Dec 20, 2008 - 11:02 am 27. programmer:

RWE responds:

If you hypothesize losing the satcom link (hard to do, given they are in GEO) that argues for more autonomy for the aircraft, not less.

programmer says pragmatically:

Not to be terribly tendentious, but I am theorizing satellite killer technology, which quite frankly is not very high tech at all, other than lift capability. Get it into orbit, blow it up into thousands of pieces, and let the satellites fly into it.

Being somewhat knowledgeable in this arena, I am not greatly thrilled with the concept of “killer” robots, flying or otherwise, without having a human inextricably in the loop. And that implies absolutely foolproof, uninterruptable communications technology, which implies something we ain’t got yet. We have been fortunate in that in recent years, our enemies have not been capable of mounting any kind of credible defense against smart bombs, cruise missles, Predators, etc. For the Air Force, Army, or Marines to blithely assume that this is the way it always will be is bad juju. And in fact, the generals running our military are generally (no pun implied) smart enough to be aware of this, contrary to what any tech vendor wants to sell them.

Dec 20, 2008 - 11:06 am 28. Staring In Disbelief:

6: Eggplant: Crazies in caves are not the only potential adversaries we face. How about Iran? NoKo? To say nothing of the old stalwarts China & Russia? Having a long range, stealth attack platform with the flexibility of carrier operation makes for many attractive strategic options.

10: Niccolo: Get real. “The old carrier concept” is alive and well because it has worked great at its stated purpose for 60 years – flexible projection of naval power. Its your tired old “lots of crappy little somethings is much better” idea that’s tired and old.

12. Wildernesscaling: It becomes a robotic attack ship when robots can repair equipment as well as people and carriers don’t have to fly relief missions after Tsunamis.

23. Fat Man: They are obsolete if you artificially constrain their mission to your own narrow fantasy-world scenarios, hand wave through unproven weapons capabilities and blithely assume the decisions of thousands of dedicated military personnel are all crippled by stupidity and blindness (much like RWE’s dismissive comments on logistic practices). Any organization as large as our armed forces is vulnerable to anecdote cherry-picking to prove an extreme point. I’m sure there has been some ludicrous wastage. I’m utterly convinced it is as good as humans can make it, though. It is surely a terrible system, except for all the other alternatives.

Dec 20, 2008 - 11:12 am 29. Fred2:

wildernesscalling: The disposable version of the UAV is called the cruise missile.

2. Nuclear proliferation is increasing. The ability to detect radiation sources is increasingly important for recon. I don’t know how big these sensors are, but the recon and probably the attack planes need to be able to carry them.

Or if they’re stealthy enough, a few recon craft along with a few attack craft might be right.

3. It would be nice to have a JDAM-like bomb with a radiation detector in the nose, to home in on nuclear weapons and facilities.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:19 pm 30. sammy small:

RWE,

A significant difference between the X-47B (or Global Hawk)and the Predator is that these UAVs are computer controlled from taxi out, take-off, programmed flight course, payload employment, landing and taxi back. The classical “pilot” is really a “system operator” even though the Air Force with their Global Hawk still requires a pilot to do the operating. Old habits die hard.

Dec 20, 2008 - 12:23 pm 31. Mrs. Davis:

Its your tired old “lots of crappy little somethings is much better” idea that’s tired and old.

That’s persuasive.

Dec 20, 2008 - 1:10 pm 32. Mongoose:

LOFTM: Can you point us to the Gate’s atricle? I went over to FP and could not find it, Failing that, could you give usa synopsis of it? SOund like it disparately needs fisking. What is with these GOP “experts” anyway?

thanks.

Dec 20, 2008 - 1:50 pm 33. philw1776:

Point about the Gs is critical. Besides manuverability dodging missiles, etc. you could launch harder and land harder, resulting in smaller carriers. Not that I would be comfortable with such craft landing near me.

Secondly, ANY military system that relies on external nav or comm could be compromised by a high tech opponent, q.v. China.

But 45,000 LB aircraft are big and expensive. Smaller, yet robust and no big deal if lost is the way to go.

Dec 20, 2008 - 2:28 pm 34. Lifeofthemind:

@Mongoose,
Here you go.
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20090101faessay88103/robert-m-gates/how-to-reprogram-the-pentagon.html

Dec 20, 2008 - 2:55 pm 35. Fat Man:

Staring In Disbelief: 2 words: Billy Mitchell.

Dec 20, 2008 - 3:02 pm 36. Grey Fox:

A previous poster commented on the music, so I thought I would mention that it is from The Transformers, by Steve Jablonsky, a student of Hans Zimmer who has collaborated with him in a lot of recent projects.

Dec 20, 2008 - 5:04 pm 37. exhelodrvr:

THis is obviously an intermediate step, so don’t put too much worry into the specific capabilities/characteristics of this particular aircraft.

Dec 20, 2008 - 5:20 pm 38. Dave:

This is deja vu all over again. I remember when all those great new air-to-air missles
had made flying machine guns obsolete.

Also, all these hand-held,shoulder-fired gadgets meant that there would soon be no such thing as tanks.

Ballistic missles meant no more need for bombers.

and so forth and so on.

When space travel becomes routine (as in “Meet you in the asteroid belt for pizza after work.”), then atmospheric forces will be obsolete. Until such time though, H.Sapiens will be needing a variety of aircraft. That means he will also need some large airports. Some of those large airports will need to float.

BTW; Seems to me that “manned” vs “unmanned” is a misnomer. All these craft are manned. Only difference is manned by whom from what location. Should be obvious that some things can best be done by remote manning, others require on-the-spot. And is there any reason that an aircraft that be be operated both ways cannot be built?

Dec 20, 2008 - 6:51 pm 39. cjm:

skynet v1.0

Dec 20, 2008 - 9:41 pm 40. Al_Batross:

Grey Fox,
thanks for the info.

Dec 21, 2008 - 5:11 am 41. Doug:

Math and Magic A couple of interesting posts at Strategy Page show how information technology has helped turn the tide in Iraq, and how it may do the same in Afghanistan — if we have the patience.

In Iraq, video monitoring and mathematical pattern analysis have been very helpful in the largely successful struggle against improvised explosive devices (IEDs). Pictures of frequently traveled sites are examined regularly by both computer software and live soldiers, and if either one sees anything out of the ordinary, they can call in the bomb squad (EOD — Explosive Ordnance Disposal) to clear the way before sending out a convoy. This system has led to the death of over 3,000 terrorists caught in the act of setting up roadside bombs, or lying in wait to set them off and attack their victims with gunfire. Hundreds more terrorists were captured, and many thousands of roadside bombs were avoided or destroyed before they could go off.
And there’s more.

Analysts collect all sorts of data from the field and crunch the numbers to predict, with a high degree of accuracy, which routes are most likely to be under attack on a given day. Personnel can then be extra vigilant and take added precautions. This is the same sort of mathematics used by Wall Street “quants” to find financial patterns that they can exploit; marketers use it to decide which catalogs to stuff your mailbox with. However important those applications may be, it’s good to know that it also saves lives.

Meanwhile, in view of the recent news from Afghanistan, the headline
“Two More Years of Magic Will Do It”
at first seems sarcastic, but it’s quite serious — and clear-eyed but hopeful. The article says that while Afghanistan will never become as tranquil as a Connecticut suburb, the Taliban is vulnerable to a war of attrition, because the good guys’ firepower is so vastly superior:

[The Taliban] can still entice poor, but adventurous, country boys to come along and raise some hell. And usually get killed by smart bombs the star struck kids cannot comprehend. Meanwhile, more and more of the tribes are getting a clue and making peace with the central government. . . .The foreign generals believe it will take another year or two of smart bomb magic to kill enough thrill seeking tribesmen, to get all the tribes on board.

The math is simple; the foreign troops can kill Afghans much better than the other way around.

Even the most pro-Taliban tribes eventually come to realize that, and live with it. The country will not be peaceful at that point. There will still be the drug gangs and bandits (groups of armed tribesmen out of steal or settle some feud). But that’s been going on for thousands of years, and won’t change until the national police get themselves pulled together. That will take another generation or two. . . .

The Taliban continue to get slaughtered whenever they mass..

Dec 21, 2008 - 7:07 am 42. E. Nigma:

X47-B:
Surveillance aircraft?
Robotic scout bomber?
Drone Wild Weasel:first in, last out of Strike Area, and now somewhat expendable?

It’s a desert topping! It’s a floor wax! IT’s both!

Higher performance, larger drones (UAV) could have a variety of utility, and could be re-fit for a variety of missions.

Dec 21, 2008 - 6:49 pm 43. comatus:

Dave AND FatMan: Yep. Every single site that deals with new aircraft goes off into a long sideline of inter-service rivalry. The Pentagon budgeting structure encourages it. It started with Billy Mitchell, and came to a (first) head with LeMay vs. The Admirals in 1950. I don’t even know how the Army got into it (loss of atomic artillery, maybe). I’m not even sure battleships are obsolete. But I do know this: if there’s ever a tombstone for the Republic, on it will be carved “Died of Inter-Service Rivalry.”

I’m the biggest fan USAF has, and I sure do not see UAV’s (even Army ones!)as the end of the world. That said, we still need new tankers and more F-22’s. No networked system works without [near-total] air superiority.

Dec 22, 2008 - 11:05 am 44. mikee:

I’m wondering what happens if they actually do get these Death Rays working properly, as is now beginning to seem might happen. If ABL-2 can blast a F22 or missle out of the sky at 30 miles distance, does air combat reduce to the WWI navel model of “biggest gun wins”? Or does it all become about stealth at that point, or…?

Dec 22, 2008 - 11:55 am 45. Roderick Reilly:

Dos anyone else have a problem with the projected development timelines?

2018? Ten years from initial rollout? Also:

“”"It could be 25+ more years before we get to that sort of thing as practical operational matter.”"”"

More than a quarter century?

There is something very wrong with this development and deployment timeline picture, and I don’t care if I sound “naive” about the cost and time considered “necessary” and “SOP” for such efforts.

We have lost the agility and ability to produce new vehicles in a 5-8 year timeline, and for a substantially smaller price. It is a profound loss of R&D capacity that also affects our space programs. Worse still, this also affects private efforts, whether the new private space efforts, or even aircraft manufacture. It takes way longer than it should for too much money to produce new vehicles, both military and civilian.

And, I believe we should be able to produce and thoroughly test vehicles of equal capability to those forecast, and to do it in the shorter time frames I mentioned. My scenario should not be considered unrealistic. Any excuse that “technology is more complex” is bogus.

For all our “modernity,” we have become a sluggish and bloated society, encumbered by enormous government, huge business conglomerates that imitate government in their procedures and bureaucracies, and more and more encumberment of society in general. At the same time we have devalued ingenuity in most areas of manufacture and development, and refuse to train and create a large enough and capable enough crop of new, brilliant engineers. Plenty of lawyers, marketers, and financial geeks, but too few aerospace engineers.

Dec 22, 2008 - 2:17 pm 46. Rich Ruscio:

#45 RR (good initials !!!) Your wrote: “At the same time we have devalued ingenuity in most areas of manufacture and development, and refuse to train and create a large enough and capable enough crop of new, brilliant engineers. Plenty of lawyers, marketers, and financial geeks, but too few aerospace engineers.”

You could leave out the word “aerospace”. It’s true everywhere. CYA, suck up, don’t do anything wrong (”Take all the risks you want, provided they work out.”).

rr

Dec 22, 2008 - 7:31 pm 47. Mongoose:

Roderick: Well it would take other “societies” even longer than ours to meet even these time frames. There is nothing new about these sort of development cycles. You know we had jet fight prototypes at the beginning of WW2, but we really did not see jet fighters as a mainstream, front line element in the force until Korea. We had plane mounted missiles in WW2 (air to ground), but we did not really see them in jets as AA missiles until a decade after Korea, and they really did not work out a lot of the kinks until a decade later than that.

It took us more than 20 years to get ICBMs up and running, and really a decade more to perfect them.

Such is the nature of large scale technology advances, particularly when human life depends on their performance.

Added to the mix is the fact that our development cycles now have much more ambitious aims than in the past. If anything, in some cases the cycles are getting much tighter.
Our weapons platforms are much more powerful than anything in the past.

A contrast in this regard might be the F22 against the Eurofighter. (One certainly does not develop advanced platforms like the f22 in “5 to 8 years”, BTW.)

So your assertion:

We have lost the agility and ability to produce new vehicles in a 5-8 year timeline, and for a substantially smaller price. It is a profound loss of R&D capacity that also affects our space programs. Worse still, this also affects private efforts, whether the new private space efforts, or even aircraft manufacture. It takes way longer than it should for too much money to produce new vehicles, both military and civilian.

is not really true.

True, one can have such rapid advance as the Manhattan project or the 1960’s era space program, The latter ate up something like 5% of GDP (or maybe that was government spending, i forget). If there is political will, we can do this again.

Certainly, there is a lot of political maneuvering about and around DoD R&D cycles, and these sort of things can cause damage, but again it is mostly a political issue and not a techncal or business issue.

So, yes, I think that you are being a bit naive about defense development cycles, and projecting a “declinist” POV onto an industry that has met with much success.

What matters is political commitment.

Dec 23, 2008 - 1:34 pm 48. elijah:

x-47; or the x-45?

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.

The initial operational role for the J-UCAS desired for the Air Force is as a “first day of the war” force enabler that will complement a strike package by performing the SEAD mission, via lethal and non-lethal means. In this role, J-UCAS would accomplish preemptive destruction and electronic suppression of sophisticated enemy integrated air defense systems (IADS) in support of manned strike packages. Throughout the rest of the campaign, J-UCAS would provide continuous vigilance with an immediate lethal strike capability to prosecute high value and time critical targets. After the conflict, the J-UCAS could fly peacekeeping mission, such as enforcing “no-fly” zones; these typically entail flying long hours of patrols (so called “dull” missions).

DEAD, not SEAD

ASEA on the UCAV?

Dec 23, 2008 - 8:32 pm

Sorry, comments for this entry are closed at this time.