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.

 

And you thought J-STARS was the best

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 4 2004 @ 02:26 PM
link   
Check this out:




The U.S. Air Force's ability to track and identify stationary and moving vehicles, and low-flying cruise missiles will increase dramatically using a new airborne radar system being developed by Northrop Grumman.
The company will develop, integrate and test the Multi-Platform Radar Technology Insertion Program (MP-RTIP) radar under a new six-year, $888 million contract awarded by the Air Force's Electronic Systems Center.

The contract marks the beginning of Phase II of the MP-RTIP program, also known as the system development and demonstration (SDD) phase. Northrop Grumman, the MP-RTIP prime contractor, designed the radar during Phase I of the program, a three-year, $410 million effort that began in December 2000.

MP-RTIP is a modular, active electronically scanned array radar system that can be scaled in size for integration on manned and unmanned airborne platforms. The Air Force plans to deploy the radar on its RQ-4B Global Hawk unmanned aerial reconnaissance system and the E-10A/Multi-Sensor Command and Control Aircraft (MC2A).

The radar builds on the capabilities of its predecessors, the Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System (Joint STARS) and Global Hawk, and gives commanders the unprecedented ability to simultaneously conduct air-to-air and air-to-ground combat missions over a wide geographic area.

"MP-RTIP's advanced target detection, identification and tracking capabilities are central to helping the E-10A and Global Hawk reach their potential as critical nodes in the Air Force's command and control constellation," said Gary Ervin, sector vice president of Northrop Grumman's Air Combat Systems, a business unit of its Integrated Systems sector.

Northrop Grumman Integrated Systems leads the overall MP-RTIP system development and demonstration effort. The company's Electronic Systems sector is working with Raytheon Space & Airborne Systems to develop and produce the MP-RTIP hardware. Integrated Systems will integrate the radar on both Global Hawk and the E-10A aircraft.

During Phase II, Northrop Grumman and Raytheon will produce six MP-RTIP radar systems: three for Global Hawk, three for the E-10A. The team expects to begin flight-testing the first Global Hawk development unit in 2006.

The MP-RTIP radar offers commanders several new ways to collect and exploit critical battlefield information. Unlike currently fielded airborne ground surveillance systems, for example, it will be able to collect ground moving target indicator imagery and synthetic aperture radar still images simultaneously.

The radar will also be able to detect, track and identify more targets faster and with higher resolution than ever before. Finally, it will feature a radar mode known as air moving target indicator, which will allow it to track low-flying cruise missiles.



With this the US will be enen more advanced



From: www.spacedaily.com...

[Edited on 5-5-2004 by jetsetter]




posted on May, 4 2004 @ 02:52 PM
link   
Nice find


The US Airforce continues to put more distance between its self and the rest of the world.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Nice find


The US Airforce continues to put more distance between its self and the rest of the world.
And the government does the same thing, but on the other end of the spectrum



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by InvaderZoch

Originally posted by American Mad Man
Nice find


The US Airforce continues to put more distance between its self and the rest of the world.
And the government does the same thing, but on the other end of the spectrum


Riiiiiiiiight. And what would be your leading government?



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Man. the Navy is falling behind! It needs a new AWACS and develop a STAARS for the fleet.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 05:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Man. the Navy is falling behind! It needs a new AWACS and develop a STAARS for the fleet.


What are you talking about?

Haven't you heard of the CSA (Common Support Aircraft)?

It will put the Navy on almost equal footing with the AF with ISAR and all kinds of other goodies. Now all we have to do is fund it fully.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 06:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND

Originally posted by roniii259
Man. the Navy is falling behind! It needs a new AWACS and develop a STAARS for the fleet.


What are you talking about?

Haven't you heard of the CSA (Common Support Aircraft)?

It will put the Navy on almost equal footing with the AF with ISAR and all kinds of other goodies. Now all we have to do is fund it fully.


Well...not exactly. CSA is dead, as far as I've been able to determine.

www.aerospaceweb.org...

The Navy plans to keep buying more E-2s with progressively improved capabilities for the foreseeable future.

The Navy has also purchased two Global Hawks for use in maritime patrol. Perhaps these and additional RQ-4s will be used for improved AWACS capability.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 07:05 PM
link   
They thought that the CSA had too much responsibilites for one craft. They will be buying several different craft such as the F/A-18E modified version and other craft. The Navy is not behind though. They have the DD-X, CG-X, San Antonio, LCS, and new submarines coming out in the next 2 to 10 years. They will also be getting the V-22, and F-35. There are UAVs in development fo rthe Navy also. The X-47 was tested for landing on a carrier deck.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 08:58 PM
link   
The CSA is not a dead program. While it is true they are trying to redefine all of the missions that it is to undertake, there is forward momentum on the program.

We will probably see the first prototypes in 8 years or so. Till then they have newly built Hawkeye 2000s that can handle the AWACS mission.



posted on May, 4 2004 @ 11:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by COOL HAND
The CSA is not a dead program. While it is true they are trying to redefine all of the missions that it is to undertake, there is forward momentum on the program.

We will probably see the first prototypes in 8 years or so. Till then they have newly built Hawkeye 2000s that can handle the AWACS mission.


What information do you base your conclusions on? I agree that CSA may not officially be dead, but there sure isn't much going on. No one at NAVAIR ever mentions it at all. I certainly can't see anything actually flying within 8 years if there isn't even an RFP for industry to respond to.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:03 AM
link   
What is The Common Support Aircraft? ive never heard of it.



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 06:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by aerospaceweb

What information do you base your conclusions on? I agree that CSA may not officially be dead, but there sure isn't much going on. No one at NAVAIR ever mentions it at all. I certainly can't see anything actually flying within 8 years if there isn't even an RFP for industry to respond to.


All the guys that I went to flight school with that went E-2 talk about nothing else except the Hawkeye 2000 and the eventual CSA. I guess they are thrilled at the prospect of flying a jet instead of a turboprop. They are also excited about all the gadgets they are putting on it to lessen the workload for them.

[Edited on 5/5/04 by COOL HAND]



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 07:34 AM
link   
Is it just me or are the AF and Navy Air becoming more reliant on each other. Air force doesnt have jammers, the Navy is running dangerously low on tankers, the Airforce has the most modern AWACS and the Navy provides CAs for allot of Army units ( AF's job, Navy should cover Marine butts)



posted on May, 5 2004 @ 08:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Is it just me or are the AF and Navy Air becoming more reliant on each other. Air force doesnt have jammers, the Navy is running dangerously low on tankers, the Airforce has the most modern AWACS and the Navy provides CAs for allot of Army units ( AF's job, Navy should cover Marine butts)


Technically the AF still has jammers since they have crewmebers on the EA-6Bs that are considered purple (joint).

Also, the Marines can cover there own butts with just a little assistance from the Navy. They are better trained in CAS, and are more motivated.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by roniii259
Is it just me or are the AF and Navy Air becoming more reliant on each other. Air force doesnt have jammers, the Navy is running dangerously low on tankers, the Airforce has the most modern AWACS and the Navy provides CAs for allot of Army units ( AF's job, Navy should cover Marine butts)


One of the things that I've always wondered is why they retired the KA-6D Tanker. I can understand why they got rid of the A-6E Intruder, but that KA-6D was something.

At the most, an S-3B Viking dispenses only 8,000 pounds of fuel. That is a single drop compared to the 24,000 pounds of fuel a single KA-6D could dispense to it's aircraft!

Tanking also prevents the S-3B from doing other missions. I mean, don't tell me the U.S. Navy is depending on the U.S. Air Force to send it's precious KC-135s to tank the Navy jets!



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 11:45 AM
link   
It's what I've said all along. The United States Air Force is ALWAYS a CENTURY ahead of everything and everyone else.

The U.S. Marine Corps are from the neandrathal period compared to the U.S. Air Force!



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
each service needs to replinish its lost capabilities. teh navy should provide air cover for marine cas (harriers and hornets) and also help strike with marines, not do what the af does



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:45 PM
link   
The upcoming SuperHornet has a tanker version.



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 02:53 PM
link   
no the superhornet usses buddy tanks and is not a dedicated tanker



posted on May, 6 2004 @ 08:36 PM
link   
Buddy tanking is a TERRIBLE idea.

It's like a baseball team, you don't use a hot hitter for defensive purposes. Same with the F/A-18E. You cannot become comfortable with the idea that a single Super Hornet packs a lot of firepower. You might need every bit of it, and buddy tanking does not help matters.

U.S. Navy thinking is that all combat will take place on land, and that a hostile surface and submarine threat is long gone. CVWs currently have only 8 S-3Bs as opposed to 10 in the 1980s and early 1990s. And it makes sense, as the lack of a threat disposes of a mission. But to use an aircraft that can barely dispense enough fuel to keep six aircraft flying is a very inefficient and costly exercise.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join