It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

A bit of Gold in a Flight Global Article: use a UCAV as a missile truck for F-35

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   


In the long-term, Otto suggested that UAS could solve another strategic problem for the USAF. The F-35A Lightning II has a limited weapons magazine, requiring the aircraft to return to base and re-arm. By teaming an F-35 with an unmanned wingman that performs as a “weapons mule”, the USAF could significantly increase the number of weapons at its disposal in combat operations, Otto says.


link.

That gives some hints for the future direction of UAV/UCAVs for the US Air Force and will probably influence the Sixth Gen F-X. It REALLY ought to influence the Navy, but with the cluster frack UCLASS has become...




posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Yeah that will be a cool future capability for the F-35.


*cough*



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

heh.

Seen it proposed for the LRS-B in the past. However, its always been think tank proposed and not talked about by the brass.

Reminds me of the old missileer concept the navy worked on around 1960 and then talked about for their A-12.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:19 PM
link   
a reply to: anzha

Now why wouldn't they want to talk about it.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 01:20 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know the snarky reason and probably the correct one.

The alternate being the fighter jocks are trying to defend their territory.



posted on Oct, 28 2015 @ 08:30 PM
link   
Hhhhhmmm I sees whats you dids there....



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: anzha
a reply to: Zaphod58

I know the snarky reason and probably the correct one.


contract diversion is technically illegal?

Foreign buyers pissed off that they have to pay Lockheed and Boeing for a black project UCAV they can't have and for saving the world from aliens.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

Why would they agree to that though? Is the F-35 alone enough without said hypothetical "missle truck" worth it? I mean if your buying into the program and paying development costs I can't imagine you would take 1/2 the product. Or are they just not read into that portion of the program? Which raises a whole new boatload of questions of how you hide that...
edit on 29-10-2015 by Bfirez because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Bfirez

Each aircraft operator has slightly different systems loaded, depending on their requirements. The ones that are read in on the program get that system installed. The ones that aren't, don't. It would be quite easy to do.



posted on Oct, 29 2015 @ 10:57 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Very interesting. Thanks zaph



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 02:26 AM
link   
As this capability was one of the original points included in the RAF's FOAS Tornado replacement project, it wouldn't surprise me if UK F-35's have this capability, but thanks to our own prevarication over Taranis and traditional in-fighting with the French, we never get the actual UCAV's themselves. LOL



posted on Oct, 30 2015 @ 05:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bfirez
a reply to: mbkennel

Why would they agree to that though?


They didn't and wouldn't. Hence the secrecy.

My hypothesis is that the very expensive F-35 is a slush fund for other black stuff in addition to F-35.

edit on 30-10-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 08:25 PM
link   
a reply to: mbkennel

That would be a hell of a way to fund stuff that is not supposed to exist. Kind of how the B2 went massively overbudget, and had several weird budget line item names?



posted on Oct, 31 2015 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel

originally posted by: Bfirez
a reply to: mbkennel

Why would they agree to that though?


They didn't and wouldn't. Hence the secrecy.

My hypothesis is that the very expensive F-35 is a slush fund for other black stuff in addition to F-35.


It would have to be pretty well documented. Can you fund the implementation of certain systems through one contract? Yeah, but it's fairly well spelt out. You don't get to just make a big "slush fund" without going to jail. *If* you had a system like this in current development, you'd have a specific contract relevant to it. Whether that's from the F-35 program or an SAP, it would still have money devoted to that purpose somewhere. It wouldn't just come out of unauthorized use of F-35 development contracts.



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 02:05 AM
link   
a reply to: RadioRobert

Well, surely somebody read into the black programs would authorize it. They just don't tell other people. No doubt technically the contracts include more than just the headline items. Remember how they keep on saying "LRS" is a "system". I don't mean a slush fund as in personal discretion.

But think: where else does the money for the black stuff come from? I guess contract padding is better than dealing drugs.

Or how about "Boeing, you know how expensive your F-35 is getting, it's really out of hand; if you want us to keep on defending the craft to those Congressmen, what about throwing in a bonus for our troubles?"

One could do it this way: JSF contract includes R&D for UCAV control systems. Read broadly that could include all the systems & sensors on the UCAV itself---much of the expensive development. Another contract pays for the airframes for the UCAV, or the contractors are expected to make these on their own money. It doesn't have to be fraud outright, but a program funded here and there from pieces of others.



edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 2-11-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 2 2015 @ 05:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
One could do it this way: JSF contract includes R&D for UCAV control systems. Read broadly that could include all the systems & sensors on the UCAV itself---much of the expensive development. Another contract pays for the airframes for the UCAV, or the contractors are expected to make these on their own money. It doesn't have to be fraud outright, but a program funded here and there from pieces of others.


Yeah, but that'd be all contracted and spelt out. It wouldn't just be a diversion of funds from a "slush fund" to pay for other black projects.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join