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.
This year, the Air Force has announced three major decisions that eviscerate its “Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Plan 2009-2047,” a roadmap that provided for an increasingly unmanned force.
First, in January, the service terminated procurement of the Block 30 RQ-4 Global Hawk. It also revealed plans to ground and mothball its young Block 30 fleet, 18 aircraft with an average age of just two years. Remarkably, several birds currently in production will roll directly off the assembly line into storage.
Yet in June 2011, a month before Gates left office, the defense undersecretary for acquisition, technology and logistics had certified the Global Hawk Block 30 as “essential to national security” per the Nunn-McCurdy Act. The certification also asserted that the plan to replace the aging manned U-2 aircraft with Global Hawks would save $220 million per year.
To justify its abrupt reversal on the respective merits of the Block 30 and the U-2, the Air Force changed the basis of comparison. The service reduced the range of its surveillance orbit requirement from 1,200 nautical miles, which favored the Global Hawk, to 400 nautical miles, which favored the U-2. Northrop Grumman, the Global Hawk’s manufacturer, called the Air Force’s justification and analysis “flawed.”
The Global Hawk was also supposed to pave the way for three more large unmanned aircraft: the MQ-La, MQ-Lb, and MQ-Lc. The Air Force has yet to take any steps to develop those aircraft.
Second, in February, the Air Force ended the MQ-X program. The linchpin of medium-size UAS development under the UAS Flight Plan, its modular design was to help unmanned aircraft take on a host of missions monopolized by manned aircraft, including air interdiction, electronic attack, suppression of enemy air defense and mobility. That vision is now dead. Medium-size UAS development appears to consist of little more than a couple of Predator C test aircraft.
The US Air Force's current fleet of unmanned aircraft will be irrelevant in the Pacific theater, a top service official says.
Over the past 10 years, the US Air Force has built up a still growing fleet of slow moving but persistent General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aircraft. While those aircraft provided US ground forces with unprecedented situational awareness, they are too vulnerable to be used in a high threat environment.
"We are now shifting to a theatre where there is an adversary out there who is going to have a vote on whether I have that staring eye over the battlefield 24[hours], seven [days a week], 365 [days a year], and pretty certain they are not going to allow that to happen," says Gen Mike Hostage, commander of Air Combat Command, speaking at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS). "The fleet I've built up-and I'm still being prodded to build up too- is not relevant in that new theatre."
Hostage says that the USAF will have to adjust its force structure to meet the demands of the Pacific theatre. But, he emphasizes, the USAF has no intention of backing away from the capability unmanned aircraft bring and the "new style of warfare" that they enable. The USAF will have to adjust its perspective on "what's realistic in this new theatre," Hostage says.
Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by Zaphod58
I'd rather someone have to think about the unjust cause they're murdering for and perhaps come to a personal revelation about why their worldview.... sucks, for a lack of a better term... than have someone looking through a thermal-optics enhanced digital screen pressing a button and watching people's preventable deaths occur like they're part of a interactive movie.
If you claim to be willing to die for a cause, then put your money where your mouth is and die for it. And if you're willing to murder someone else for your cause, but not die for it... Then you're just a murderer.edit on 7-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Your moral beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that one of the biggest limiting factors for aircraft is human frailty. Remove that component and a whole new world is opened up to you. If you wish to make an anti-war post please feel free. Let's not turn this thread into that.
Originally posted by OccamsRazor04
Originally posted by HairlessApe
reply to post by Zaphod58
I'd rather someone have to think about the unjust cause they're murdering for and perhaps come to a personal revelation about why their worldview.... sucks, for a lack of a better term... than have someone looking through a thermal-optics enhanced digital screen pressing a button and watching people's preventable deaths occur like they're part of a interactive movie.
If you claim to be willing to die for a cause, then put your money where your mouth is and die for it. And if you're willing to murder someone else for your cause, but not die for it... Then you're just a murderer.edit on 7-12-2012 by HairlessApe because: (no reason given)
Your moral beliefs have nothing to do with the fact that one of the biggest limiting factors for aircraft is human frailty. Remove that component and a whole new world is opened up to you. If you wish to make an anti-war post please feel free. Let's not turn this thread into that.
Originally posted by Zaphod58
reply to post by OccamsRazor04
I think the most effective punch would be a combined fleet. You have dedicated UAVs for SEAD, along with some controlled from an AWACS type aircraft, for aerial interdiction, along with manned aircraft for ground attack. Until some of the technologies mature, and are developed, that's my opinion on the best way to go for now. But for the current leadership, it's all about manned, and their precious (now) F-35.
Getting them to open up UAV operator to non-pilot rated people was like pulling teeth. If it flew, in any sense of the word, you had to be a pilot. Not enough pilots for the mission? Work them harder. Operators getting stressed out? Find more of them from the pilot ranks. God forbid someone that isn't an officer/Academy graduate wear wings on their uniform. The only reason they finally did it was because none of the top graduates wanted UAV operator on their resume. They all wanted F-22s.