Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 83

Thread: SECDEF's DoD Budget Proposals

  1. #61
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    AUT+RUS
    Posts
    87

    Default

    What I'm missing is a decisive cut of the numbers of the U.S. national security "front end". If you add the armed forces, plus the civil services and contractors, and the intel community you end up with around 3.4 million heads. That is simply enormous.

    At one point in the not too far future one will have to look at the contractors, reserves, and guards structure. The three major tribes of the DoD have about 50% of their manpower *again* sourced out to contractors! And a second look has to be taken at the multitude of civil management levels and at the top heavy command structures all over the place. I see it as inevitable that the national security front end comes down 50% to around 1.7 million heads; otherwise there will never be enough money.

    Lots of things out there are neither sustainable nor productive. It's a pitty that the discussion always centers on hardware, but:

    I would like to have seen much more efforts in space and more in cyber.

    Cutting the F-22 is a mistake, better limit the JSF and go for UCAVs. Cutting the C-17 is a mistake as well, it should continue open ended on a 12 planes per year cycle. The NGB was pointless in its published form in any case.

    FCS should always have been treated as a tech-demo programme. Basically the vehicles would have been re-invented and modified CV90. The Army shouldn't shun away from a armored - cavalry - mot inf - light inf structure.

    And the decision to restart the Burkes is industrial driven, which can't really be criticized, but hopefully is only a gap filler, as at the same time there has to be a deep look into the question of nuclear power carrier escorts. The existing Burkes should be remodeled as dedicated versions for AAW, for ASW, and for land attack/naval fire support. And last but not least I expect a shake-up of the opposed forced entry capability next year, especially the setup of the Marines (Gates said something about looking into that). LHA-6 should never continue, and instead LHA-8 expanded, with LPD-17 more focused on the sustainment role.
    Last edited by Distiller; 04-13-2009 at 05:15 AM.

  2. #62
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    SECAF and the CSAF Op-Ed on the F-22:

    We considered whether F-22 production should be extended as insurance while the F-35 program grows to full production. Analysis showed that overlapping F-22 and F-35 production would not only be expensive but that while the F-35 may still experience some growing pains, there is little risk of a catastrophic failure in its production line.
    I like it, they addressed my primary concern clearly. So far I'm quite happy with the new Air Force leadership.

  3. #63
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Sorry to re-raise this older topic but I've recently come back to the SWJ and I've been thinking about this issue for awhile, particularly in regards to the fighter procurement. (sometimes I like to dream in the skies too.)

    Looking back much of the focus on this QDR has been on Conventional vs Stabilization warfare, and rightly so. The dynamic is a critical one and carving out a strategy for where the United States will be in 10, 15 years globally is a critical part of getting procurement right.

    Yet there is another dynamic that doesn't get much attention, but plays an important influence in the choices he made. Its particularly apparent concerning the F-22/F-35; neither is fighter of the future. Instead the OSD might be hedging their bets that the UAV revolution will provide a new set of capabilities in the near future. I think Distiller touched upon it a bit.

    We don't know what the nature of airforces will look like in a decade or two's time. In the last 10 years we've seen a complete revolution in the use of UAVs and its not clear where that revolution might go. Why would they invest in a $150 million Dollar F-22 when in a decade a $50 million dollar UAV will appear to do its job far more effectively? So there might be significant hesitance to commit to manned aircraft, which is somewhat apparent in the following quote;

    We will not pursue a development program for a follow-on Air Force bomber until we have a better understanding of the need, the requirement, and the technology.

    I think a historical parallel exists with the Royal Navy at the turn of the last century, when they invested heavily in standard battleships only to have to rearm again with the dreadnaught. If this scenario rings true, then United States is avoiding investing on platforms that might become obsolete in the near future, when there is no pressing geo-strategic need for these capabilities. The F-35 program can be scaled back in the future and the F-22 is utterly expendable at this time.
    Last edited by Mooks; 05-30-2009 at 01:51 AM.

  4. #64
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Mooks,

    The manned fighter is not going away anytime soon. There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do. A UAV loitering overhead is not the same thing as a fighter pulling a 9 g's while inverted. Maybe someone will figure out how to reliable maintain a satellite link under all the conditions under which fighters must operate, but it is much more difficult that most seem to assume.

    The bombing mission, particularly long-range penetrators, will be going unmanned next. The Navy is already well along this road.

  5. #65
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Appropos of budgets...

    but of little else, see the LINK.

    I see the fine hand of Dunlap in that...

  6. #66
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default True, plus they (UAS) have severe

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do.
    direct fire limitations and such fire may not be mandatory but it can be really helpful on occasion. Air to ground and air to air...

  7. #67
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    but of little else, see the LINK.

    I see the fine hand of Dunlap in that...
    Please shoot me - what an embarrassment!

    direct fire limitations and such fire may not be mandatory but it can be really helpful on occasion. Air to ground and air to air...
    True, but the primary problem from a UAS standpoint is maintaining a reliable comm link. For aircraft that won't be expected to maneuver much, this isn't a problem, but for fighters, it's a huge problem. For similar reasons, fighters continue to use INS-GPS hybrid navigation because GPS can't update fast enough or the signal degrades under certain conditions.

    And, why not add ground-to-ground to your list?

  8. #68
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default 'Cause. The only limitations on ground to ground

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    ...why not add ground-to-ground to your list?
    direct fire are imagination and will...

    (Unless you're referring to G-G Unmanned Systems, then the same problems you and I both cite plus target and environmental discrimination pertain. )

  9. #69
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ken White View Post
    (Unless you're referring to G-G Unmanned Systems, then the same problems you and I both cite plus target and environmental discrimination pertain. )
    Yep, though I think unmanned tanks would be cool.

  10. #70
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Agree with Entropy...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooks View Post
    We don't know what the nature of airforces will look like in a decade or two's time. In the last 10 years we've seen a complete revolution in the use of UAVs and its not clear where that revolution might go. Why would they invest in a $150 million Dollar F-22 when in a decade a $50 million dollar UAV will appear to do its job far more effectively? So there might be significant hesitance to commit to manned aircraft, which is somewhat apparent in the following quote;
    I agree that UAVs will be a huge part of the ISR mission as well as helping with CAS, INT, and Strategic Attack.

    Entropy has hit on a big point with C2 of the air-to-air mission, though - the links to the UAV are a huge issue.

    Finally, the ID part of the air to air mission is huge. Even with a huge leap forward in processing/computing, it would still be difficult to get a UAS to work the ID as effectively as a human. It is not at all uncommon for electronic ID to be completely wrong - and the decision to shoot or not to be made based on overall Situational Awareness (SA). It's tough to program a computer to have this "6th sense" if you will and make the correct decision. Reference the Patriot shooting several friendlies in OIF, as well as the USS Vincenes shooting the Iranian Airbus... computing is not quite there yet.

    It will likely be 15-20 years prior to the computing technology and links can reach this level... meaning there will be at least one more generation of manned air to air fighters after the F-22. They may be manned fighters controlling UAVs, or using lasers, or some new technology we don't know about - but they'll probably still be manned.

    Just my 2 cents...

    V/R,

    Cliff

  11. #71
    Council Member Umar Al-Mokhtār's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Cirenaica
    Posts
    374

    Default Appropos of budgets...

    Wow! They failed to mention flip flops and board shorts. That's true informality!

    I still get a hoot out of those in the Space AFSC wearing flight suits and leather jackets...
    "What is best in life?" "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women."

  12. #72
    Council Member AlexTX ret's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    49

    Cool Just My Nickle for 2 cents is what it used to be

    Okay, first of all, how do UAV's, as well as most electronic communications, react to a electronics warfare rich environment? My sources say there are problems. It's not just us, who are going to experience back/gray outs but everybody will. Again if my sources are right, electronic warfare is keeping pace with everything else technical in the world's militaries. We arent the only one working heavily on this problem. We also may not be the biggest bully on the block. When we can safely say we have solved all the problems, why do I suppose that they'll come up with a question we haven't asked ourselves yet? It's the nature of warfare.

    Defence overcomes offense then offense overcomes defense, it's the nature of the beast. We've been hypnotised by the burst of technology that overcame the restrictions we though were impossible to meet. But are there certain basics that have to be maintained? I'm only asking a question here, not giving an answer.

    I know what Putin and the Russians(sounds like a rock group) were by my last word, before Russia pulled the Iron Curtain down, Russian scientists and engineers were working on a way of electronically defeating our ABMs. If that is so then they aren't running from our technological superiority. If anything they're increasing tensions because we can only guess what they or the Chinese or the Indians are actually up to.

    Just food for thought...

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    The manned fighter is not going away anytime soon. There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do. A UAV loitering overhead is not the same thing as a fighter pulling a 9 g's while inverted. Maybe someone will figure out how to reliable maintain a satellite link under all the conditions under which fighters must operate, but it is much more difficult that most seem to assume.

    The bombing mission, particularly long-range penetrators, will be going unmanned next. The Navy is already well along this road.
    This makes a lot of sense to me. UAVs haven't shown a lot of situational awareness.

    How mature is the technology that you are depending on here to make those unmanned fighters possible. UAVs are relatively simple compared to a fighter or bomber. There is always a need to consider what the future will bring but don't depend on it.

    Also has anyone thought out just what truly unmanned fighters would do to warfare. Why have them? Cruise missles tecnology could be increased to give you similar advantages and there is no need for an expensive aircraft of any type. Remember the Tomohawks were all originaly nuclear tipped. Which brings us to a greater question, why not just throw rocks at each other. If we are willing to make warfare reduced to the lowest commonest denominator, then why have Navies because right now they are at great risk because of the Chinese large anti-ship rockets. Why have soldiers because while not as good as soldiers, robots would be adequate to blowup large sections of the frontline without harming a living being's life except for those that were there when the robot went off.

    Anything electronic that isn't an A.I. or for that matter, self aware, has the method of its defeat already in its programing. Only humans are capable of reacting in unusual ways to events and because of this can defeat anything not as adaptable. And if the ECM is as bad it has been described to me then unmanned anything is a disaster waiting to happen.

    I'm not a luddite. I think of myself as a realist. And in this country we have done too much damage by depending on technology that didn't work the way it it was supposed to.

    We designed the F-22 fighter along a playbook that showed that it would be a frontline fighter till 2050 I believe. Then the Russians threw out our playbook and created a stick and rudder fighter (S 37) that took the F-22 down a peg or two. I'm just citing a study done by the military that wanted to know just how effective the F-22 was up against other fighters.

    Create bigger nail and they will crete a bigger hammer.
    Alex
    Semper en Excretus

  13. #73
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTX ret View Post
    Okay, first of all, how do UAV's, as well as most electronic communications, react to a electronics warfare rich environment? My sources say there are problems. It's not just us, who are going to experience back/gray outs but everybody will. Again if my sources are right, electronic warfare is keeping pace with everything else technical in the world's militaries. We arent the only one working heavily on this problem. We also may not be the biggest bully on the block. When we can safely say we have solved all the problems, why do I suppose that they'll come up with a question we haven't asked ourselves yet? It's the nature of warfare.
    UAV's are tasty targets. They are on a high stakes totally secure network. Just ask anybody in the USAF. They are hardened, encrypted, restricted, and totally cut off from other networks physically so they can be secure. Why sorta just like SIPR net!! Nobody has ever hacked or exploited SIPR net right?

    Take the UAV control system and the vehicle. Now tell me where ALL the parts came from originally.

    UAV's would make a heck of a botnet.... zombie UAV's ... Now that is apocalyptic.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  14. #74
    Council Member Tom Odom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    DeRidder LA
    Posts
    3,949

    Default

    UAV's would make a heck of a botnet.... zombie UAV's ... Now that is apocalyptic.
    SkyNet became self aware

  15. #75
    i pwnd ur ooda loop selil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Belly of the beast
    Posts
    2,112

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Odom View Post
    SkyNet became self aware
    That's my other summer project.
    Sam Liles
    Selil Blog
    Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
    The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
    All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.

  16. #76
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by selil View Post
    That's my other summer project.
    I need to see the movie, even if it's getting bad reviews.

  17. #77
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Entropy View Post
    Mooks,

    The manned fighter is not going away anytime soon. There are real and severe technical limitations to what UAV's can do. A UAV loitering overhead is not the same thing as a fighter pulling a 9 g's while inverted. Maybe someone will figure out how to reliable maintain a satellite link under all the conditions under which fighters must operate, but it is much more difficult that most seem to assume.

    The bombing mission, particularly long-range penetrators, will be going unmanned next. The Navy is already well along this road.
    I completely agree there are a number of technical issues that may never be solved. However given the recent strides that have been achieved there is questions over whether purchasing large numbers of a single type of manned fighter is prudent. Its quite possible in the next 20 years technical progress allow UCAVs to operate without the need for persistent control due to some limited form of autonomy. A2A isn't that hard actually once the decision to kill has been made. You don't need a remote pilot to maneuver the aircraft during, it can do that itself, just like an AMRAAM or a JDAM guides itself towards a target.

    Given what I've seen in computer science, 20 years is not an ambitious timeline; some of the key technology needed for this already exists and are in commercial applications. Northrop-Grumman and Boeing are pouring billions into this area with the X-45, 47 and the bird of prey, which are integrating technology from various areas to create the next generation of UCAVs.

    In any case, as you pointed out it doesn't have to be classic aerial combat where UCAVs become dominant, but other missions like SEAD or deep penetration to attack high value targets. They can dent the overall rationale behind buying more manned fighters like the F-35 at the volumes currently considered.

    This brings me to my overall point of my last post; we don't know what the airforce of the future will look like but it is clear a technological change is occurring. I merely raise the scenario of UCAVs being very effective as one a possible scenario of how these issues may play out. I'm personally not sold either; AlexTX may well be right about the risk to UAVs and its well known that the Chinese have been looking into countermeasures in this area. I made this exact point to several government army of the future researchers a couple of years ago (and didn't get a very sympathetic reply.) Yet its difficult to deny there is much promise for this technology to the extent it might revolutionize air warfare.

    Considering this and the era of strategic ambiguity the U.S. resides in as well I believe the Pentagon is somewhat hedging its bets in purchases of manned fighter aircraft at this time.
    Last edited by Mooks; 06-01-2009 at 05:42 AM. Reason: typo

  18. #78
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlexTX ret View Post

    How mature is the technology that you are depending on here to make those unmanned fighters possible. UAVs are relatively simple compared to a fighter or bomber. There is always a need to consider what the future will bring but don't depend on it.

    Also has anyone thought out just what truly unmanned fighters would do to warfare. Why have them? Cruise missles tecnology could be increased to give you similar advantages and there is no need for an expensive aircraft of any type. Remember the Tomohawks were all originaly nuclear tipped. Which brings us to a greater question, why not just throw rocks at each other. If we are willing to make warfare reduced to the lowest commonest denominator, then why have Navies because right now they are at great risk because of the Chinese large anti-ship rockets. Why have soldiers because while not as good as soldiers, robots would be adequate to blowup large sections of the frontline without harming a living being's life except for those that were there when the robot went off.

    Anything electronic that isn't an A.I. or for that matter, self aware, has the method of its defeat already in its programing. Only humans are capable of reacting in unusual ways to events and because of this can defeat anything not as adaptable. And if the ECM is as bad it has been described to me then unmanned anything is a disaster waiting to happen.

    I'm not a luddite. I think of myself as a realist. And in this country we have done too much damage by depending on technology that didn't work the way it it was supposed to.

    In response to your overall query, Peter W Singer wrote an article in the Atlantis Science and Tech Magazine (an abridged version of his book apparently) discussing some of these issues from a policy and law standpoint. It might be worth a read.

  19. #79
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    The Midwest
    Posts
    180

    Default Mooks makes my point for me...

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooks View Post
    A2A isn't that hard actually once the decision to kill has been made. You don't need a remote pilot to maneuver the aircraft during, it can do that itself, just like an AMRAAM or a JDAM guides itself towards a target.
    I'd beg to differ more than a little bit... AMRAAM and JDAM simply fly themselves within a certain distance of the target... if you are talking kamikaze UAVs, then I agree... but then, that's not a UAV, that's a missile.

    You make my point for me when you talk about the decision to kill... that's the key. And that's where the state of the art just isn't there quite yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooks View Post
    Given what I've seen in computer science, 20 years is not an ambitious timeline; some of the key technology needed for this already exists and are in commercial applications. Northrop-Grumman and Boeing are pouring billions into this area with the X-45, 47 and the bird of prey, which are integrating technology from various areas to create the next generation of UCAVs.
    I agree, 20 years is not unreasonable for autonomous A-A UCAVs.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooks View Post
    In any case, as you pointed out it doesn't have to be classic aerial combat where UCAVs become dominant, but other missions like SEAD or deep penetration to attack high value targets. They can dent the overall rationale behind buying more manned fighters like the F-35 at the volumes currently considered.
    Completely agree... the SEAD and INT/Strategic Attack make the most sense since pre-planned targetting is possible and ID is easier based on the planning.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mooks View Post
    This brings me to my overall point of my last post; we don't know what the airforce of the future will look like but it is clear a technological change is occurring. I merely raise the scenario of UCAVs being very effective as one a possible scenario of how these issues may play out. I'm personally not sold either; AlexTX may well be right about the risk to UAVs and its well known that the Chinese have been looking into countermeasures in this area. I made this exact point to several government army of the future researchers a couple of years ago (and didn't get a very sympathetic reply.) Yet its difficult to deny there is much promise for this technology to the extent it might revolutionize air warfare.

    Considering this and the era of strategic ambiguity the U.S. resides in as well I believe the Pentagon is somewhat hedging its bets in purchases of manned fighter aircraft at this time.
    This is why I think we should be buying some more F-22s at the expense of the F-35... the F-35 mission can be done partially by Reaper or the turbojet powered UCAVs. The F-22's mission can't... and also can't really be done by F-35. Which is why the current aircraft acquisitions plans don't seem to jibe with our stated national military strategy.

  20. #80
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    Mooks,

    Cutting manned fighters now in the hope that A2A UCAV's will be viable and available 20 years from now does not seem wise in my view. Maybe someday the technology will be there - when it is, we can go that route if it makes sense to do so.

    Also, I completely disagree with your assertion that A2A "isn't that hard" once a decision to kill has been made. Sometimes it is, often it isn't, particularly when you're facing a smart, thinking, well-trained enemy.

Similar Threads

  1. DoD Civilian Expeditionary Workforce
    By PRT interest in forum Government Agencies & Officials
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-01-2009, 07:51 AM
  2. DOD Approved Strategic Communication Plan for Afghanistan
    By SWJED in forum Media, Information & Cyber Warriors
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 10-01-2007, 09:42 PM
  3. Budget & Mgt Challenges of Iraq's Security Ministries
    By Jedburgh in forum Catch-All, OIF
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-24-2007, 01:27 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •