Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.
Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.
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.
Quoth Carl:
My conversations with assorted thinking Grunts * indicate they strongly disagree and most -- not all -- would say:"Also agree about not giving a blank check. I wouldn't fund the F-35. But I do think the F-22 is critical as are fast replacement of the transports and tankers."
""Also agree about not giving a blank check. But I do think both the F-22 and F35 are critical as is replacement of the transports and tankers.""
The alternative to the capabilities a mature (note that word) F35 will bring is the Army having its own CAS with UAVs and E-4s flying them.
Your choice, Air force...
* Those are the Army types, haven't talked to any Marines on the topic recently but I suspect they feel even more strongly that the F35 should stay (for some strange reason). That's without even addressing the other Nations that have bought into the program and have a right to expect something for their money. I suggest that if the AF wants the air missions required for national defense, it needs ALL the capabilities including the ones it does not like and has consistently tried to ignore over the years...
Both of course would be better, but if the choice had to be made, I would give up the F-35. The Australians are already covering their bet in that regard.Originally Posted by Ken White
My conversations with assorted thinking Grunts * indicate they strongly disagree and most -- not all -- would say:
""Also agree about not giving a blank check. But I do think both the F-22 and F35 are critical as is replacement of the transports and tankers.""
The alternative to the capabilities a mature (note that word) F35 will bring is the Army having its own CAS with UAVs and E-4s flying them.
Your choice, Air force...
* Those are the Army types, haven't talked to any Marines on the topic recently but I suspect they feel even more strongly that the F35 should stay (for some strange reason). That's without even addressing the other Nations that have bought into the program and have a right to expect something for their money. I suggest that if the AF wants the air missions required for national defense, it needs ALL the capabilities including the ones it does not like and has consistently tried to ignore over the years...
True on the Australians (and the USN...).
The Australians are less bureaucratic and more focused than we are. They also have a booming economy (right now) and can afford alternatives. The other JSF partners are not so fortunate -- aside from the fact that we said we would do something (a fact the USAF senior leadership in some cases appears to be willing to ignore)...
History is full of similar examples. Army Ground Forces fought tenaciously for the Tank Destroyer concept in WW II in spite of overwhelming evidence form 1940 forward that it was an extremely stupid idea; as late as 1944 they were still wasting money, material and effort developing Tank Destroyers and trying to derail the M26 Tank. They fought mightily to prevent it being deployed in Europe, it took a personal plea from Eisenhower to Marshall to fix that. Criminal malfeasance in my view.
The USAF fought all through the 70-00 period buying enough Transports to fund more than enough fighters; they tried at least twice to dump the A-10. They don't like the F35 because it 'won't do the air superiority mission...' and siphons funds from the F22. Also criminal malfeasance in my view, perhaps even more so as the USAF has fought tenaciously to retain the CAS mission while avoiding until forced to buy the right gear for the job.
Both aircraft are equally necessary; the workhorse F16 is also a '70s design. so's the A-10 -- all of them are going to wear out soon.
The US Army diligently ignored COIN all through that same 70-00 period -- they paid and are paying a price for that. If you want a job, better be prepared to do it and to do it right you need the right tools for those jobs...
Or someone else will take your job.
I'm not convinced
The article fails to point out the lion’s share of the USAF load in IZ and AF is borne by AMC. In the world of air dominance the Eagle and Viper are still the premier platforms. Are they old? Certainly. Are they still relevant? Certainly. Should they be replaced? Not by obscenely expensive manned platforms.
I have sat in meetings where the USAF bemoans insufficient funding to recapitalize its fleet yet has no problem “deploying” 2nd Lts to EUCOM in Stuttgart for four months, paying them TDY, billeting them in hotels, providing them rental cars (at €100 per day) under the guise of “QOL,” and providing them two weeks of leave off the books (to recover from an arduous deployment). All at an estimated cost of around $60,000 per. Now while in the grand scheme of things $60K may be a drop in the bucket, multiply that by the thousands of Airmen who “deploy” under similar circumstances. To me it shows a distinct lack of prioritization and resource allocation skill in a service that often places quality of life issues far ahead of mission capabilities. Yet they are "desperate to figure out how to save money."
"For the 30 years during which I covered the military, the pattern was to defend the advanced weaponry while neglecting the inglorious low-tech equipment needed in war. There is no constituency for the cheap and mundane. The military prepares to fight an enemy, however imaginary, that justifies the high-tech equipment it wants — not the unglamorous ragtag militia that is actually out there."
Fred Reed
Washington Times
December 15, 2007
Of the all the services the USAF has a serious techno-crack habit (although the USN is close behind).
I wouldn't call it techno-crack, I'd call it techno-Ketracel White.
See, if not for the continuing march of technology, there'd be minimal reason for the AF to exist as a separate service.
Eagles and Vipers the premier platforms? Maybe, probably not. A well crewed SU-27 derivative is at least as good if not better. But, arguments about which is better don't really matter. Ours are going to fall out of the sky from old age before we can develop an unmanned alternative, so we have to go with what is available now.
Stories of Air Force profligacy won't put airplanes on the ramp. But knowledge of that behavior make it much more painful to spend the money to do so.
What is AMC?
I'm a little confused myself: either Air Mobility Command, or Air Material Command - I think it's the former. I still think in terms of SAC, TAC, MAC, etc.
There is no question that the AF needs to replace most of its aircraft fleet: but with what, and at what cost, and for what roles?
Given that the AF really, really needs mondo muella to do so, I think that now would be a good time to extract some concessions from them in the form of serious reforms and reorganization on their part - including turning CAS and perhaps some other Army-related roles (such as certain tactical transport roles)to the Army - along with the legal right (have to work on Congress here for that) for the Army to have its own fixed-wing aircraft for such purposes. A worthy replacement for the A-10, under Army control, would be nice.
But when the AF has to ground major portions of its F-15 fleet because their wiring is literally rotting away, it's clear that there's not much time left before the AF is turned from the Kings of the Sky into the world's largest collection of Hangar Queens. But this has to be done smart, and the AF will have to have its feet really held to the fire here, both because of its past practices and because all the other services need to replace tons of old and worn-out stuff too.
AMC is the Air Mobility Command. AFMC is the Air Force Materiel (not material) Command.
AMC has the heavies, the cargo carriers. AFMC (where I am now) does research, testing, development, and evaluation (RTD&E) and acquisitions. It's where we spend all that money that you guys are complaining about us getting!
-john bellflower
Rule of Law in Afghanistan
"You must, therefore know that there are two means of fighting: one according to the laws, the other with force; the first way is proper to man, the second to beasts; but because the first, in many cases, is not sufficient, it becomes necessary to have recourse to the second." -- Niccolo Machiavelli (from The Prince)
So...the old hidden agenda...the Army again wants to take over and reinstitute the Army Air Corp as in charge of all flying, short of the Navy/Marine air arm!
We are still amazing parochial, as was the case during the Bill Mitchell days.
I don't think it's exactly hidden, George
Of course we are -- human frailty. If there was a huge AAC, then the Infantry and Tankers would fight about who was to control it -- allowing the Aviators to do whatever they wanted...
Unusal aviation related history
IN this grim time of economic collapse, a little early aviation history trivia:
1. In World War I Corporal Bennett Powell Singleton, AEF, 31st Division, in France fighting WW I at age 14 (yes, age 14 and a Corporal) was standing under/near the dog fight between the German Red Baron and Captain Quinton Roosevelt, son of then former President Teddy Roosevelt.
2. Dad went over to the shot down/crashed and burning plane of CPT Roosevelt to try to lend assistance, and managed to drag his body away from the plane, but of course Roosevelt was already dead.
3. A few years later Dad, now a young civilian bookkeeper (accountant) in Washington, DC was in the audience at the Brigadier General Billy Mitchell, AAC court martial.
3. Seated next to Dad, randomly, was a young Navy pioneer aviator, Lt. Arthur Gavin.
4. Leap forward in time to 1954, and at age 15 I was an usher at the wedding of Dad's older sister, Carolyn Singleton (an old maid) to...retired Naval aviator, Rear Admiral Arthur Gavin (a widower). Arthur Gavin thus became the brother in law to my Dad!
Talk about a small, random world!!! Dad and his older sister were from Alabama, Gavin was from Wisconsin.
Last edited by George L. Singleton; 02-16-2009 at 11:50 PM.
Knowingly buying an airplane that is "good enough" now, assumes that the enemy isn't going to spring a nasty surprise of you in the next 20-30 years. If he does, your "good enough" may quickly turn into Fokker fodder and there won't be anything you can do about it for 5 or 10 years. If you buy something that is vastly superior, then you have some wiggle room.
(I was thinking about bringing up Shermans but Ken beat me to it. Zaloga's recent book about the M-4, Armoured Thunderbolt, was very good.)
I would not count on a potential enemy not being able to train as well or better than we can. Both the Indians and the Chileans have given us surprises in exercises over the years. Also at times during Vietnam, our pilot training standards weren't all that great. If you have a superplane like the F-22, that doesn't make so much difference.
SAM's do well enough if you just want to dissuade the other guy from dropping bombs on your head; but not always, as the Syrian air defense forces can attest. But for us that wouldn't be enough.
For the last several generations, we have gone after the other guy in his backyard. We are the ones who fly over his SAMs, destroy them, then drop bombs on their heads. We destroy his fighters over his airfields so they don't bother us as we go about our business. In order to do this, and to do it for the next bunch of years, I think we need the best we can get.
One thing also that has been brought up before; most of the money has already been spent on the F-22. All the r&d checks have already been cashed so what we spend now is production cost, which isn't as spectacular.
"We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene
Are you talking about what the Israelis reputedly did to the Syrians only from the ground up rather than from the air down, so to speak?Bluntly if you run something by computer or remote telemetry (two different things) sooner or later it will be vulnerable and used against you. Buy me a beer and I'll tell you about sooner.
I can neither confirm nor deny (even though "I" have no security clearance or restriction) the current capability of any state or non-state actor to actively jam and or obtain control of telemetry systems (and or INTERNAL) systems of UAV's.
The answer though is on the Internet. I'm only mildly joking the thrust is quite deadly serious.
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.
Not only that, but let us not forget about software bugs.
How many times have each of us cursed Bill Gates when we get some kind of glitch associated with a software programming error?
Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds. "Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.
And the UAV was built by the low bidder. In all honesty I think the aircraft has a role, but the implementation may have issues that can't be overcome.
I'd say this... naw I won't.
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.
Microsoft has a different, more expansive set of problems to deal with than the embedded arch required for UAV control.
On the order of 1e5. Outside of the front-end web developer space, debugging is only the first, most basic step in a test path. Given a defined envelope of requirements, unit, functional and performance testing harnesses ensure to at least a high degree of reliability (compared to a human) in a target system. And these test suites run in seconds to hours, as opposed to months and years for similar validation in manned pilot programs.Just think how many KSLOC (thousands of software lines of code) would have to be written and, at best only partially, debugged to get a fully automated or remotely piloted drone capability that comes close to matching what a human does in an aircraft moving at supersonic speeds.
If a contractor's selling you onboard software that interoperates via web services, you probably should drag him, his contracting officer and DASD Acquisitions into court. Beyond that, a lot of things would have to go wrong for a computer to mistake two targets thousands of miles away and successfully prosecute to full error. It's the equivalent of a human pilot, his combat commander, and dozens of others going full retard. On the other hand, the real problem is whether unmanned software is better able than a human being (who is undoubtedly relying on software anyway) to discriminate a target from a school a few dozen yards away. Or, barring that, if a computer can abort as reliably as a man."Oops" just doesn't quite cut it when you get a 404 error and your Predator launched Hellfire flies into Hagia Sophia in Istanbul instead of Balla Hissar in Kabul.
PH Cannady
Correlate Systems
Simple aircraft with small investment
OK, I have read this thread from end to end.
Certainly the hang-up or beef many of us have (those of us in the dirt world) is the AF crying for funding after years of watching them have facilities worlds beyond the other services. I think the other services see the Air Force as having forgotten that it is in the military and the mission, not people, come first.
The idea of a limited capability aircraft for COIN is outstanding. An aircraft along the lines of an OV-10 would be very useful. As you stand up the indigenous forces of the host nation, you could turn those aircraft over to them and buy new ones for yourself with the latest avionics/electronics, at a fraction of the cost of a new fighter jet. Wikipedia has some descriptions of what the original OV-10 design specs were to be and I think that would be an interesting aircraft. Perhaps a biplane to fit the 20 foot wingspan?
You have to wonder what we were thinking with F15/F16s providing aerial reconnaissance over Iraq and Afghanistan. We wanted the observation but the tradeoff of wear and tear on the airframes is questionable.
The Air Force likes to talk about having been on a war-time footing since Desert Storm. Well, we certainly didn't hear that back in the 1990s. Perhaps if they had mentioned it, they could have gotten new fighter aircraft (same models, just newer) through Congress. I suspect they didn't want to raise the issue too loudly because it would hurt recruiting and support for newer models of aircraft. Of course, as many here have mentioned, war-time footing for the Air Force (when not in an actual aircraft) means the danger of intermittent satellite TV...
We won WWII not by having the best stuff but having the most of pretty good stuff. Since the Air Force pilots are top notch, how about getting more 'good enough' birds, like upgraded F15/16 and having the ability to flood the airspace with more of them. The sheer numbers and their pilot's ability would outweigh the lack of technical uber-superiority.
Of course, to keep the cost of all these extra pilots down, we might have to have warrant officers flying them - not sure if AF could stomach that - institutional prejudice.
Perhaps the real beef here is the appearance (and likely just appearance) that the AF is much more interested in protecting it's sexy image of flying off in the wild blue yonder. Unmanned aircraft are not sexy. I truly think any officer could be trained to make the decision of shooting/not shooting, thus killing the AF hangup of having flight-qualified officers commanding armed UAVs. But the AF has a strange class/caste system where the flight-rated folks dominate and are treated differently. This could be a real upset to the culture. The AF will reply that the Army Chief of Staff and the key general officer commands only comes from the combat arms branches. True, but for the most part, in the Army, unless you are a commander, you really are not that special unless you have a lot of rank. In the AF, a rated officer is operating in a different sphere than his non-rated counterparts (not peers - they aren't).
I don't think the AF is going out of business. I do believe in the need for air superiority. I just think the AF doesn't have all its priorities in proper alignment and the very culture of the AF will have to change to properly affect this.
We need limited numbers of air superiority frames, and lots of drones for ISR and bombing. We might have to get by on simpler airframes, but we could use more of them. The AF might need warrants. Maybe they fly the drones.
I just hope the next administration and AF secretary take a realistic approach to this mess.
Tankersteve
Tankersteve -
I've corresponded with one of the USMC types who developed the OV-10, and the 20 foot wingspan is completely achieveable using a large chord wing, and avoiding malicious USAF efforts to kill the program/air craft through over-speccing. Ironically, though the USAF tried to kill the concept, they ended up buying them and using them during VN.
The original aircraft did not resemble the finished aircraft. But the concept of a rough field/no field aircraft that can be used (at low cost) to FTF with forward ground forces, drop ordnance, carry personnel and mark targets, without the typical rotary wing support issues is tempting.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks