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.

 

Air Force will probably cancel JSTARS recapitalization this month

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:06 PM
link   
The decision won't officially be made until the end of the month, but based on comments being made, the decision will be made to kill the E-8 recapitalization. A fast assessment study is being completed to determine if a dispersed system using multiple platforms can do the same mission.

Boeing, Lockheed, and Northrop have submitted proposals for aircraft, after the RFP was released, and Northrop and Raytheon are both developing radar systems to install on the aircraft.



“We’ve got one large aircraft that we developed in 1991. It’s a great aircraft, a great concept, but technology has moved on from that. And everything is a sensor,” Wilson said.

“If an F-35 can send its picture and its radar image to another aircraft and we’re also pulling all of that down to a ground station in the Middle East, why can’t we do [this] distributed? We’re meeting only 5 percent of combatant commander requirements for battlefield command and control today. Can we do better than this?” she asked. “We’re asking ourselves those questions, and that does mean moving money among programs to try to meet more priorities.”

www.defensenews.com...
edit on 10/5/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)




posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:30 PM
link   
it also dovetails with this:

USAF May Dump Its E-8C JSTARS Replacement Program For A Shadowy "Distributed" Solution
www.thedrive.com...

Also in the article there is a mention that the RQ-180 is a 'Tier III" type. We know the RQ-3 DarkStar is the Tier III Minus. Could the RQ-180 be the elusive Tier III Plus people have talked about for some time



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

I would bet it is either the Tier III (no plus) or Tier IV.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: FredT

I would bet it is either the Tier III (no plus) or Tier IV.


So no Plus for Tier III? Ive always been curious if the III+ was kind of a missing link of sorts.

edit on 10/5/17 by FredT because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   
Distributed jstars is good and useful. But what if they canceled jstars cause theres already one plane to rule them all already out there



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Im skeptical about anything the USAF does that relates to its role in supporting ground forces.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

According to everything I've read, Darkstar was Tier III Minus, because it was a downgraded Tier III. It was supposed to just be Tier III, which was going to be a stealthy HALE. Darkstar only had something like 8 hours at 500 nm as it was designed. There was a Tier II+, but Tier III would cover stealthy HALE platforms.

There was talk that the actual Tier III was a B-2 sized UAV that was cancelled after $850M was spent on it, so they came up with Tier IV, which was a scaled down version.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 04:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FredT

As we should be.

If it ain't supersonic, and way, way up in the wild blue yonder, they want nothing to do with it.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   


There was talk that the actual Tier III was a B-2 sized UAV that was cancelled after $850M was spent on it, so they came up with Tier IV, which was a scaled down version.

Rq-180?



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 05:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Blackfinger

Possibly. I don't know the actual specs on it, which is why I said it could be the Tier IV too.



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Blackfinger



There was talk that the actual Tier III was a B-2 sized UAV that was cancelled after $850M was spent on it, so they came up with Tier IV, which was a scaled down version.

Rq-180?

More like legacy of QUARTZ. RQ-180 came later.
I'm not sure the term 'Tier IV' is a thing at this point.

But about the proposed JSTARS replacement cancellation.
It smells like another effort to funnel money into the JSF program. #F35candoittoo
I think they risk putting even more work on the guy downrange. But of course 'software' will do the trick.
What about communication? Distributing assets is fine but you need to make sure they can talk to each other and people on the ground too. A future JSTARS should have been able to function as a communication relay like the BACN planes are today.
I fear by cancelling the JSTARS replacement, the Air Force will just end up making the communication bottleneck much worse than it already is. And good luck with the distributed solution against an near peer enemy attacking your C3 infrastructure...



posted on Oct, 5 2017 @ 11:48 PM
link   
a reply to: mightmight

Tier IV never officially went forward. It was supposed to be a stealthy Tier II+ HALE.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 04:29 AM
link   
With the F35 having sensors above anything else you would need a platform that works within its circle of networks.As Bass said their might be one ring that will rule them all.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 07:23 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Seems like we may have already seen this "one plane to rule them all" a few years ago in a photo that made the entire aviation enthusiast community throw a collective blood clot.

I keep going back to Wichita. That thing is something special.

"One ring to rule them all, One ring to find them, One ring to bring them all and in the darkness bind them."

Pure speculation here, but could that platform be an aerial command and control? An aeronautical nerve center in the group of systems?

Could Wichita be "The One"?
edit on 6-10-2017 by sqd5driver because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:16 AM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

Just realized my last post may have seemed a bit off topic and perhaps I should expand on the thought. Again, purely speculation on my part in an attempt to pick some of the brains here...

Just like it's assumed USAF didn't protest the retirement of the SR71 because they already had something else covering that particular mission profile, could it be that JSTARS proper isn't getting overt funding because that SPECIFIC program isn't needed anymore? Obviously that capability is critical, especially with the evolving "systems" approach to warfare over older, more familiar methods of attaining control of a battle space.

Or is the answer more pedestrian and a matter of actual lack of funds to achieve the stated goal?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

Dont apologize i personally liked your post.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 11:52 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Apparently I can't send you a message directly, though I've been wanting to for some time. Just recently dug up my password to login...

I sent a message to Zaph a while back regarding a sighting I had here in Florida that you will be interested in. Don't want any thread creep but you will want to know about this one. What's the best way to drop you a line?



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:15 PM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

Pm me again? Ill pm you, you respond maybe that will work.



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: sqd5driver

With the Air Farce it could be that they already have something in the air, or it could simply boil down to "it ain't a fighter, so it ain't #".



posted on Oct, 6 2017 @ 01:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Are they THAT effed up? Wouldn't the people who operate (arguably) the most capable air power in history want to ensure they could actually USE their stuff?

Tom Brady is a great QB, but he has to be able to rely on his line and communicate with the offensive coordinator to be effective. I know stranger things have happened, but I almost want to take my ball and go home before I begin to think the upper echelon is that stuck on a "fighters only" mentality.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join