Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

No more attack drones

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • No more attack drones

    http://www.defensetech.org/archives/002079.html
    Killer Drone, Dead; New Bomber Lives

    Joint Unmanned Combat Air Systems -- the shared Air Force and Navy program to develop a killer drone -- has been cancelled, Inside Defense is reporting. "Instead, the Defense Department will begin work this year on a next-generation long-range strike aircraft, accelerating its bomber modernization plans by nearly two decades in an effort to quickly enhance the Air Force’s effectiveness across the Asia-Pacific region."

    J-UCAS was supposed to produce an armed drone that could knock out enemy air defenses, conduct surveillance, jam enemy radars. On the side, it might do some strike missions. But it would mainly pave the way for manned aircraft.

    This new project would focus more directly on taking the enemy out, Inside Defense says.

    "The action to accelerate work on a new bomber tracks closely with a recommendation last fall for a new, long-range strike aircraft program made by Andrew Marshall, the Pentagon’s director of net assessment, who called for developing capabilities necessary to deter China."

    That means striking at targets thousands of miles from any U.S. bases, Robert Work, with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, noted in a recent presentation. "Reach — the combination of range and persistence — is especially important in the Pacific theater of operations."

    "U.S. Strategic Command, which has responsibility for an evolving concept dubbed 'global strike,' strongly advocated the need for a new bomber" to obtain that reach, according to Inside Defense.

    Here's how Globalsecurity.org describes the concept:

    The new capabilities ensure that the Air Force can strike a variety of targets, including hardened or deeply buried targets (HDBTs) as required in non-permissive environments... Capabilities should provide the ability to operate at extended distances from the theater of conflict with an effective and flexible payload (e.g., nuclear and conventional precision/non-precision munitions). Desired attributes for GS capabilities are responsiveness, persistence, survivability (including lethal self-protection), lethality, connectivity, and affordability... A new/modernized bomber aircraft may satisfy the proposed capability. Currently, all milestones for the program are tentative, but for planning purposes, a development effort could start as early as 2006 with an Initial Operational Capability (IOC) in 2015 and Full Operational Capability (FOC) in 2020.

    At first glance, it sounds like an updated version of Cold War doctrine -- with this new plane standing in for ICBMs or for the B-52 fleet (which, incidentally, j just got cut in half). But this time around, those global strikers could still wind up being robotic, Inside Defense notes.

    Three capabilities are expected to be essential for the Next Generation Long Range Strike Aircraft program: the ability to remain airborne for many, many hours; the means to fly very long distances; and the ability to carry significant numbers of bombs. The importance of these factors is expected to make the case for an unmanned system.

    For the last several years, Pentagon fringe-science arm Darpa has been working on a program somewhat along these lines. The Falcon, or Force Application and Launch from the Continental United States, project aims to fire a bunker-busting bomb into near-space, and then send it crashing into a target more than 3,000 miles away, at four times the speed of sound.

  • #2
    One more interesting movement: US Plans to Retire B-52s, C-21s, F-117 & U-2 for more F-22s

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by lurker
      damn that sucks the UCVAS were mad cool damn

      Comment


      • #4
        $2.6 Billion, won't that only add up to about 15 Raptors?

        Maybe it would have been better for the CTOL version of the F-35 to be cancelled, with all services ordering the STOVL version instead, the extra aquisition costs might have been cheaper than the added research and developement costs, so the USAF could have scored some more Raptors.
        Live and learn I guess, it's not like anyone's going to be able to really challenge the USAF any time soon, in spite of their financial difficulties.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
          $2.6 Billion, won't that only add up to about 15 Raptors?

          Maybe it would have been better for the CTOL version of the F-35 to be cancelled, with all services ordering the STOVL version instead, the extra aquisition costs might have been cheaper than the added research and developement costs, so the USAF could have scored some more Raptors.
          Live and learn I guess, it's not like anyone's going to be able to really challenge the USAF any time soon, in spite of their financial difficulties.
          I think it means 2.6 billion a year. So an extra 26 Raptors per year or so, if you spread it out over 6 years or something its a significant number of aircraft.

          Thats said I think retiring more B-52's seems somewhat foolish given they've been in pretty high demand for the past 5 years.

          Its pretty clear the Air Force is willing to sacrifice ALOT to get more Raptors though.

          Comment


          • #6
            That philosophy is wrong on so many levels. Are they actually intending to kill the X-45 and X-47 programs? They are the cheapest and safest form of attack aircraft the future holds, and a highspeed bomber project will become so ghastly expensive it's not even worth considering. Makes me wonder if they are becomming afraid of the potential vulnerability of GPS satellites. I really hope that article is a sick joke, because I do not see any reasoning in it, at all.
            The black flag is raised: Ban them all... Let the Admin sort them out.

            I know I'm going to have the last word... I have powers of deletion and lock.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Horrido
              That philosophy is wrong on so many levels. Are they actually intending to kill the X-45 and X-47 programs? They are the cheapest and safest form of attack aircraft the future holds, and a highspeed bomber project will become so ghastly expensive it's not even worth considering. Makes me wonder if they are becomming afraid of the potential vulnerability of GPS satellites. I really hope that article is a sick joke, because I do not see any reasoning in it, at all.
              No I think the plan to axe older designs in the inventory to buy more Raptors has been mentioned in this forum before. And I wonder if it would be practical to restart production of the B-1 Lancer (With upgrades, I think they've proposed this, calling it the B-1R) to fill the Heavy bomber void left by the ageing BUFF?

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                No I think the plan to axe older designs in the inventory to buy more Raptors has been mentioned in this forum before. And I wonder if it would be practical to restart production of the B-1 Lancer (With upgrades, I think they've proposed this, calling it the B-1R) to fill the Heavy bomber void left by the ageing BUFF?
                I doubt it, everytime I hear the airforce talk about the B1's there usually trying to get rid of them.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Retiring the U-2 wouldn't really matter, cause Predator and Global Hawk can take its role. I don't see the use of keeping old B-52s in service either for B-1Bs and B-2s seem adequate. The only problem is their cost, while the cheap, low-tech, giant-RCS B-52 is available in larger numbers. The X-45/47 is just an F-117 without a pilot, and can make an excellant SEAD aircraft with standoff missiles. It would probably have made the best anti-S400 aircraft if it had lasted.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Horrido
                    ...Are they actually intending to kill the X-45 and X-47 programs?
                    They were only tech demons. The J-UCAS prog is being restructured, but we are not abandoning UCAV's by any stretch. In fact, there are new production facilities under construction in Seattle as we speak.

                    So I guess someone forgot to tell Boeing....
                    "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by highsea
                      They were only tech demons. The J-UCAS prog is being restructured, but we are not abandoning UCAV's by any stretch. In fact, there are new production facilities under construction in Seattle as we speak.

                      So I guess someone forgot to tell Boeing....
                      UCAV is still alive, but X-45C is not. We're definately feeling the effects of this 'restructuring' here in St. Louis.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by -{SpoonmaN}-
                        $2.6 Billion, won't that only add up to about 15 Raptors?

                        Maybe it would have been better for the CTOL version of the F-35 to be cancelled, with all services ordering the STOVL version instead, the extra aquisition costs might have been cheaper than the added research and developement costs, so the USAF could have scored some more Raptors.
                        Live and learn I guess, it's not like anyone's going to be able to really challenge the USAF any time soon, in spite of their financial difficulties.
                        The STOVL F-35 is a basket case, and is probably going to end up getting cancelled itself. I seriously doubt any F-35B will EVER see US service.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by highsea
                          They were only tech demons. The J-UCAS prog is being restructured, but we are not abandoning UCAV's by any stretch. In fact, there are new production facilities under construction in Seattle as we speak.

                          So I guess someone forgot to tell Boeing....
                          I hate the UCAVs.

                          Such a stupid and short sighted idea IMO.

                          Oh well.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by M21Sniper
                            ...Such a stupid and short sighted idea IMO.
                            Why do you say that snipe?

                            I don't think they will replace manned AC anytime soon, but for certain missions like SEAD, I think they will have their place.
                            "We will go through our federal budget – page by page, line by line – eliminating those programs we don’t need, and insisting that those we do operate in a sensible cost-effective way." -President Barack Obama 11/25/2008

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by highsea
                              Why do you say that snipe?

                              I don't think they will replace manned AC anytime soon, but for certain missions like SEAD, I think they will have their place.
                              I dont like the idea of automated strike aircraft as a rule, I think the discretion of a human pilot is needed when it comes time to decide whether or not that really is a command centre and not a civil defence bunker you're about to bomb.
                              But yeah for e-warfare, recon etc. they seem perfect.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X