Originally posted by V Kaminski
This isn't really my area of interest but would "global persistent attack" mentioned in the link require a particularly robust airframe to support
the additional gunfire loads atypical of the bomber "persistent" mission?
I can imagine in my mind some sort of BWB or flying triangle with a belly gun bay/module/snap-in that could retract for landing but the global
persistent aspects of the bomber role would lead me to believe that light weight would be paramount in extending time/speed aloft with a not-so-robust
Maybe they'd just have a shorter service cycle.
Sad to know someone thinks that a C-130 Spectre isn't quite deadly enough and that a global reach gunship is required - take off from the states or
wherever, fly around to the other side of the planet, shoot people dead on the ground and fly back to the states or wherever and watch the football
game 'n have a brew. Sad that it is a "need" at all.
It may even be teleoperated if you read between the lines and consider other programs and stuff up Rummy's sleeve in this the New American Century.
Do a search on whatever engine you like using NASA and the DART "flub" so called "investigation" - that was no "flub" and could be directly
related to this thread.
If you can't find it on your search engine of choice just u2u me and I'll fix you up with the link... I got it somewhere... a hah,
My problem is that the military misuses persistence if they truly intend it to mean the ability to fly out from CONUS and stay on station with a
Because a B-52 has an 8-10,000 mile range but it is hardly 'persistent' when it gets to X and particularly for non SIOP missions, it may well be
unpenetrable /at all/.
Now add to this crew fatigue on 36+hr global-reach missions and the certainty that any TCT reaction is going to be limited at best (to the number of
aircraft you can have on station, within weapons if not sensor footprint, in rotating orbits).
And the whole LRSA thing falls down on it's very awkwardness.
OTOH just the simple act of opening a bombbay is like a firehydrant for every square foot of revealed area which the mass of a large aircraft and the
presence of cylinder damping mechanisms (on mount) should largely absorb initial acceleration vs. final recoil forces involved. Certainly if a
'fighter' platform like the A-10 can absorb the CONTINUAL accelerations of a system like the GAU-8 (whose cumulative loads are said to be several
times that of the WWII 75mm installed on the B-25H), then a bomber sized aircraft should be capable of withstanding single-thrust loadings from a well
damped and muzzle blast controlled larger weapon.
Which is again, where things get iffy.
Because I would _never fly_ a 'bomber' (as defined by strategic range footprint) platform to the distance for which even a laser standoff option
would give me as own-vehicle safety.
And if you are flying sub-1,500nm radii sorties, it probably makes more sense to simply call it what it is, an A-class airframe which can, simply
through the removal of the pilot and associated systems, probably gain back 5-10,000lbs of loading for either fuel or weapons additions.
Certainly, when I think of 'persistent' action, my first thought is that of bailing the ocean with a teaspoon while shining a light at your feet.
You may not even KNOW 'the problem is that big' if your sensor footprint is all of 2ft across.
But if you have a thousand idiots doing the same damn thing, the results can be impressive, particularly if you're hoping to unveil a shark in a
tidal pool of minnows.
That said, what I'm really wondering (from the context of your statement) is if we have decided to blow Space Weapons right out of the water with a
system that can launch and recover from a permanent orbital docking facility while flying like the Spaceship 1 or the X-38 CRV.
It would make sense that they are trying to 'normalize' human thinking towards this level of 'wait for it to come round and then we pounce!'
immediate response capability through things like the (about damn time) Ansari-X win. Especially as displayed to be so simple with the composite
thermal performance of an SR-71.
This would bring ALL KINDS of options to the table. Nominally, that you could determine persistence by shot count within a vehicle that needed only
1-2hrs of sustained flight (albeit very high performance). Particularly if that same fuel was also what you used to power beam weapons.
That you could have 'instant on' firepower for imbedded teams of SOF or black ops operating within a country with just a few satellites worth of
'why start there when we can choose any hemisphere to reenter, every 15 minutes' constellational coverage would be a theater CINCs wet dream come
true. Minimum political exposure due to troop footprint and transit risks/delay. Maximum emphasis on discrete humint/techint coverage. Total 'non
diplomacy dependent' theater as opposed to basing mode access.
Whether such is a wise option to give as a purely national means (U.S. Only) ability I don't know. But it would certainly lop HUGE amounts off the
overhead of the AF in terms of airframes and deployment pallets to cover multiple theaters and the training to support the (tactics:logistics
argument) movement of same.
As to teleooperation, I seem to recall reading that the Predator which killed the people riding in that 'black SUV' awhile ago was actually being
flown from one country over while the targeting was sent back to a U.S. or at least extra-theater source for final button-press.
Given that the link supposedly has a lag of 3-4 seconds, my guess would be that the best way to make it manageable would be to have a very high power
graphics generator able to 'auto render' a scene as three-D elevations which THE PLATFORM tracked automatically.
And then send a freezeframe (like a camera phone) back up or down to allow the operator to use his own image recognition capabilities to say "Yes,
that's the one." Before sending a track-and-lase command back down to the targeting/weapons release systems of the vehicle in question.
This would keep the bandwidth small as you would not need a realtime datapipe for all that visual imagery _provided_ the aerospace craft was able to
keep an MTI trackfile on an in-scene object, after it had left the initial image terrain background.
Such an ability could prove hazardous in terms of perceptual logic of course because if you 3D render a target scene from a given perspective image
field and 'assume' the background (which you cannot see from this angle) is analogous simply to shape constructs without proof of rear-side
occupation by shadowed LOS objects. Things could get funny when you or a ground team come around the other side and 'there they are' (or even if
But this is a training type thing and something which the idea of 'mini UAVs from the unmanned UAV' could help resolve.
Even if you don't do it from space as well.
Not entirely sure how this relates to DART (which, of necessity must be a realtime vice framing construct system I would think) unless you're saying
that SS Freedom's funding shut down and the 'failure' of the automatic docking program is the result of some kind of uber-conspiracy to intro
illegal SWs. If so, let's not.
Anyway, an interesting idea VK. I hope I covered what you were suggesting.