Jesus. Wonder what the pricetag on that big bastard is...

Yeah saw that article.  It's a pretty slick looking plane (looks like the phallic UAV trend is going away), but it would look better with a cockpit.

Kinda reminds me of the thing from Stealth.  I'm on board if Jessica Biel is involved.

Robots to engage in mid-air couplings

Bot probe sniffs out glowing ring

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Science, 18th September 2008 18:01 GMT

Whitepaper - What is the best data center energy storage for you?

Germans develop submarine-launched UAV

You have to do something special these days to make your flying robot stand out from the swarm - but remorselessly efficient German designers have done just that. They plan to offer small unmanned air vehicles (UAVs) which can be launched and controlled from a submerged submarine.

The UAV in question is called VOLANS (coVert OpticaL Airborne reconnaissance Naval adapted System), and is based on the existing German Aladin drone, a hand-launched job which has already seen service in Afghanistan. "At least three" small folding VOLANS machines can be packed in a pressure-tight tank along with a folding catapult launcher, and the whole thing is mounted on a telescoping submarine mast which works in the same way as a periscope. The multi-purpose mast system, which can alternatively be fitted with a remote-operated heavy machine gun or electronics packages, is called "Triple M".

In order to launch a VOLANS, the sub comes to periscope depth, pops up the Triple M mast above the surface, and fires off an aircraft. The launcher mast can then seal up and slip back below the waves, though if the submarine is to receive any data from the UAV (or change its pre-programmed flight plan) it needs to put up an antenna. Video recorded aboard the drone can be downloaded to the sub later at a prearranged time, however, so there's no need to stay at periscope depth with comms mast up throughout the flight.

If the VOLANS' performance is comparable to the ordinary Aladin, it will be able to stay airborne for up to an hour before its battery runs flat. The only way for the sub to recover drones would be to surface, so realistically the system will mostly be for one-shot use. The drones have a speed of "45 to 90" km/hour, so they could range quite far from their mother ship, though they will only be able to communicate with it from within line of sight - 30km or so.

This sort of thing could be quite handy for submarines, whose great Achilles heel is their lack of sensor range when submerged. Normally a submarine - especially a non-nuclear one, slowed to a crawl when underwater - finds it extremely difficult to find or intercept a target at sea while remaining submerged, unless it is receiving information from elsewhere. Drone reconnaissance could change all that, going some way perhaps towards making conventional subs the terrible threat that former Cold War subhunter navies like to paint them as.

Even if VOLANS doesn't get picked up on radar, however, its C-band video download transmission will localise its mother sub to within a fairly small area of sea. Modern sub-hunting helicopters are said to be able to sweep such areas almost at once* using their new dipping sonars, so a sub skipper launching a VOLANS when up against first-division opposition would probably be signing his own death warrant.

The system's makers say they see it more as a thing for everyday modern missions rather than full-scale maritime combat against big navies. They reckon it might be useful, for instance, to give a special-forces team deploying by submarine a look at their landing area or target before disembarkation.

There's more info on the Triple M from manufacturer Gabler here, and some nifty photos from a recent Berlin trade fair here. ®

Droid pilots beat humans at air-to-air refuelling

Robots acquire another key human pilot skill

By Lewis Page • Get more from this author

Posted in Rise of the Machines, 15th August 2007 11:35 GMT

Whitepaper - What is the best data center energy storage for you?

The Pentagon killer-boffin agency DARPA (the Defence Advanced Research Projects Agency) has made another move forward in its plan to replace all US military humans with robots. The latest trick the droids have learned is that of flying a plane during air-to-air refuelling.

Air-to-air refuelling, in which a military aircraft tops up its supplies by plugging in to a pipe trailing from a tanker plane, is a key military capability and one of the trickier piloting feats. Now that robots can do it, unmanned aircraft can potentially stay airborne for very long periods, limited only by maintenance requirements.

DARPA announced (pdf) last week that it had successfully completed a programme called AARD, for Autonomous Airborne Refueling Demonstration, and the story appeared yesterday in the Defence Industry Daily.

Over the past year, the AARD system* has apparently conducted 11 air-to-air refuelling flights without human input. The trials took place using an F-18 fighter jet operated as a testbed by NASA. The F-18 had a human pilot aboard during the trials as a backup, but the droid pilot required no help from its meatsack passenger. It was able to jack the F-18's fuelling probe into a basket trailing behind a refuelling tanker in the toughest of conditions.

Not only did the robo-flyboy manage to hook up with the trailing fuel point flapping up and down in turbulence by up to five feet - apparently the limit for most human stick-jockeys - it could also plug in while the tanker was turning.

"Although pilots routinely follow a tanker through turns while connected, they typically do not attempt to make contact in a turn," says DARPA.

The software improved significantly during the trials, according to NASA test pilot Dick Ewers. Last year it flew "like a second lieutenant", he said. But the robot rookie was upgraded, and now it's "better than a skilled pilot". If it was human, it would now retire and go to work for the airlines, and the military would have to start again with a another second lieutenant; but the robot will stay this good forever, or improve.

DARPA said that in the end the "algorithms were actually able to precisely match the drogue motion – something pilots are specifically taught to avoid... the system followed the drogue through a full three-foot cycle in the two seconds before making contact, never deviating more than four inches from the exact centerline of the drogue, all the while traveling at 250mph, 18,000 feet above the Tehachapi Mountains".

Human pilots, rather than tracking the drogue, are taught to try and slot in with a forward move at the right moment. Pilots have traditionally described the manoeuvre as "like taking a running f-ck at a rolling doughnut".

But now, yet another of their hard-won manual skills has been mastered by the droids. Things don't look good for the military flyboys at all, in the long run. That said, the money which might buy robot aircraft is largely in budgets controlled by former pilots. ®

They make it sound like hooking up in a turn is a big improvement but it's not. Making contact in a turn is no big deal...just like in any other formation flying you're flying off the other aircraft so it doesn't matter if you're in a turn or straight and level it's the same inputs to make the plug...

But then I've never refueled off a basket but I doubt it's too much different...  Any Navy boys please correct me....

I say there is no case for UAVs at all, and I'm not bitter at all, I promise. The reason for my doubt in UAV technology is that all of the "technology" that the DoD procures is rarely able to achieve the promised results. We can use the SIBRs satellite system for all of our infrared needs, without the aid of unmanned aircraft. If I was a ground-pounder, I would rather have a manned A-10 flying CAS for me, than someone at Creech or Nellis. This is also an attempt to get the human element out of the battle field. What happens when the Russians provide Afghanistan or Iran with a jammer that can completely knock the UAVs instruments and sensors out of commission. No matter where we are going technologically, this sole fact remains and has stood the test of time throughout many wars. The battle can be helped by men with arrows and crossbows, but the war is won by the man standing in that field with a sword. All of this technology is useless, and weapon systems just keep getting more and more complicated. The ejection seat in the 22 is a classic example of "gold plating" being added onto an airplane. I don't know why these aircraft cost so much, but they will never deliver the results that the contractors promise. The USAF will be cool with this, simply because we are all about the technology/management fad of the day.

There is on fact about UAVs which can't be ignored that I just read about in a book that certainly shed some light on the reality of fighter pilots. Pilots can tollerate approximately 9 G turns before passing out, where as SAMs today are capable of pulling 50 Gs or more. That alone is a staggering thought to process when thinking about the battle between a 50 G capable missle and a 9 G limited pilot. It pains me to even admit to that since I still hold true to my desire of being a fighter pilot, but I never quite knew those facts and they certainly put it into perspective. All that being said, I still agree that UAVs can't win a war and a pilot in the thick of any situation is going to make a far better assessment and decision than I guy siping on coffee, flying the UAV from Creech. I am firm believer that technology can only take us so far, and soon we will not be the only country with high performance stealth aircrafts. Eventually all the technology that keeps an ever increasing distance between targets, and the stealth on both sides that will bring the targets ever closer, will all result in requiring visual confirmation of a target before engaging, and the need for pilots in the cockpit will reach a fevered pitch. Of course that may all be my .02 of dreaming.

There was a JTAC over at the military.com forums who said he preferred UAVs over manned aircraft because of their long loiter times an improved SA that manned aircraft couldn't provide. Specifically, that there is a designated sensor operator on the UAV that isn't concentrating on flying the thing like single-seat fighters, but has better loiter times than twin-seaters and bombers. No mention of ACs or Army helos. He seemed keen more keen on the ISR capabilities of the Pred over the attack capabilities though. No mention of ACs, which I know have long loiter times AND can throw ordinance down range. Ryno can probably expand on that.

Here is the transcript of a 60 Minutes segment on UAVs that 2's what that JTAC was saying (although this was in Iraq)

CBS
October 12, 2008

60 Minutes (CBS), 7:00 PM
LESLEY STAHL: One of the reasons violence in Iraq has subsided so dramatically was a significant battle that US forces won in Sadr City just five months ago. Sadr City, part of Baghdad, is home to two million Shia and turf of the fiercely anti-American cleric Muqtada al-Sadr. For years, insurgents in Iraq have been stymieing US troops with homemade, low-tech weapons, like car bombs and improvised roadside explosives. But in the battle of Sadr City, as we learned in a high level debriefing with the US commander in Iraq, the Americans overpowered the Shiite militias with high-tech, the most advanced, sophisticated whiz-bang hardware and software on Earth: electronics, lasers, high-resolution cameras that can literally cut through the fog of war.
When we were in Iraq to interview the new commanding General Ray Odierno, we went with him as he surveyed the former battlefield, through neighborhoods now pacified, and into a market returning to life. At his side was the brigade commander who led the battle here, Colonel John Hort.
COLONEL JOHN HORT: This was some of the heaviest fighting that we had experienced during our two months in Sadr City.
STAHL: Right where we're standing?
HORT: Right where we're standing.
STAHL: Standing there, or any place in Sadr City, could not have been done just five months ago. This was off-limits to Americans. For years, the fiery cleric Muqtada al-Sadr and his Shiite militia controlled the streets. Last March, they began using the neighborhood as a launching pad to lob rockets into the nearby green zone, the seat of the Iraqi government and site of the US Embassy.
HORT: Not just one or two, but we're talking 20 to 30 rocket attacks coming out of Sadr City.
STAHL: Colonel Hort gave General Odierno his first briefing on the battle, and we were invited to sit in. It's rare that reporters can videotape sessions like this one. We were asked to turn our cameras off only once and were allowed to broadcast only a few slides that were later declassified for us like this one.
HORT: And you can kind of see kind of some of the locations they were coming out of throughout all of Sadr City against the green zone.
STAHL: The US military had wanted to mount an attack, but Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki balked for a year because the militias are Shiites like him, and that made a decision to fight them politically risky)
STAHL: But you waited for him.
GENERAL RAYMOND T. ODIERNO [Commanding General, Multi-National Force – Iraq]: It was his decision.
STAHL: To give you the--his decision to give you the go ahead.
ODIERNO: Right. I think--I think what he finally realized were that the militias that had safe havens in Sadr City were really trying to destabilize the government of Iraq, and he realized that it would add instability to his own government.
STAHL: Once Maliki gave the go-ahead, a US Stryker battalion went in. But they confronted a steady stream of militia reinforcements.
HORT: Every day it was 20, 30, 40 new guys that were coming down to fight.
STAHL: So Hort and his men had to do something to keep them out. They decided to build a wall, a barrier straight across Sadr City. It would also create a buffer zone wide enough to prevent the militia rockets from reaching the green zone. To build the wall, Colonel Hort's Charlie Company began putting up massive T-shaped concrete slabs. Fighting erupted almost immediately as sniper fire came in from every direction. Charlie Company retaliated with massive tank fire.
HORT: We fired 800 tank rounds in this fight. We haven't fired that many tank rounds since the start of the war.
STAHL: Colonel Hort said the building of the so-called T-wall became a magnet for every bad guy in Sadr City. This was one of the most intense engagements in the entire war. Yet even as the battle raged, the wall went up.
HORT: It was literally concrete barrier by concrete barrier. In a--it just wasn't going out there putting up some barriers. I mean, it was a fight every inch of the way in.
STAHL: Did you put them up under fire?
LT. COLONEL BRIAN EIFLER: Guys would climb the ladders to unhook the crane chains from the wall, unarmed, while people are firing at them. So it was high adventure.
STAHL: Lieutenant Colonel Brian Eifler's team laid down cover fire while some soldiers, wide open and exposed, unhooked the chains from the crane. On days when the shooting was particularly fierce, they were able to put up only eight slabs.
HORT: Every type of weapons system the enemy had, they tried to use against us up at the wall. I mean, it was step by step by step and fighting literally every hour of the day.
STAHL: They called in sniper teams from the elite Navy SEALs and air support, F-18 fighter jets and Apache helicopters that protected the flanks. But here's what really made the difference: an arsenal of advanced, high-flying technology, UAVs, unmanned aerial vehicles with highly improved camera systems so sensitive they can see the enemy even at night, through clouds and gunsmoke from high up. They can spot someone smoking or a weapon on someone's side, and they have sensors so advanced they can hear enemy radio transmissions and pinpoint their location.
ODIERNO: In 2003, we didn't have all the systems that are now available. We had some. But we didn't have all the UAVs that allow...
STAHL: In the battle for Sadr City, they used two different UAVs. One was the Shadow Drone, depicted here on one of Colonel Hort's slides. Twenty or 30 seconds after a militia team fired a rocket, the Shadow locked on them, shadowed them, watched them move and set up for their next shot. Then an armed UAV, the Predator, was activated. These are actual pictures of the battle on the streets of Sadr City. As you can see, a group of militia fighters rushed to a car that had just been hit by a US Hellfire missile. They remove a mortar tube from the trunk and load it into a second car which they drive through the streets to an open field. At that point the Predator locks it site onto the vehicle and fires off another missile. According to the Army, this killed two fighters inside the car and destroyed the mortar tube. War by remote control. This is how Charlie Company hunted down the militia rocket teams and whittled down their numbers.
HORT: You know, they went from 20 to 30 man groups down to five, four and then in some cases only one or two. The Predator and the Shadow were just phenomenal in their ability to see the enemy, particularly after we shot a rocket.
STAHL: We have learned from other sources that Colonel Hort's ground troops were supported by a secret, special ops unit called Task Force 17. Using their own Predators along with Iraqi undercover operatives and eavesdropping, it was able to take out some of the militia leaders who were based north of the wall, hiding among the civilian population. With the help of the drones and their high powered cameras, Army commanders were able to see or map the entire theater of operations and figure out the enemy's tactics and patterns with so-called persistent surveillance.
HORT: And in come cases we would--we would wait four, six, even 10 hours to do the engagement because we didn't want to kill the guy...
ODIERNO: Collateral damage.
HORT: Right. We wanted to go after the whole group, you know, the company chain of command, as you want to call it that, where they would actually pick up the rail, drive in their vehicle, go to another location and do an after action review on what they did.
STAHL: In other words, after a long skirmish, all the individual militia rocket teams would rendezvous in a large group with their leaders. In this video, you can see how Colonel Hort's men would be tracking as the militia fighters went to a set location for a battle assessment and their new assignments.
HORT: So once they got to that site, that's when we would do the engagements. Sometimes that took six, eight, 10 hours to wait. And that's what Predator allowed us to do. It truly preyed on the enemy.
STAHL: May I ask--they had no idea? How far away...
ODIERNO: The Predator is about--it flies about 10,000 feet?
HORT: Yes, sir.
ODIERNO: It's a--it's a UAV, it's a military...
STAHL: And no noise.
ODIERNO: It's so high up, they can't--they have trouble hearing it.
STAHL: They can't hear it. Wow.
ODIERNO: Sometimes they can, but it's pretty hard. It's very difficult.
STAHL: Can't hear anything.
STAHL: This was the first time UAVs were used this way at the brigade level, allowing soldiers on the ground to manage and synchronize the information themselves. They call it "find, fix and finish."
HORT: All of this was pushed down to the brigade commander and used in this fight and primarily focused north against the rocket teams.
STAHL: Colonel Hort and his men were able to watch, in real time, as the enemy planted over 300 armor-piercing roadside bombs, or IEDs. And so they made the decision early in the battle to use tanks and Bradleys fortified with thick reactive tiles. They were so effective, said Colonel Hort, that even while they actually struck 120 IEDs, the crews were all protected.
HORT: It went from literally 60 attacks down to three or four attacks, and that was...
STAHL: Talking a day, a week, or?
HORT: Sixty attacks a day.
STAHL: So the battle of Sadr City was won with a combination of high-tech and no-tech. Lasers and electronic eyes in the sky, and cement. Over the course of the fighting that lasted eight weeks, the number of US troops grew from 700 to 2,000, up against roughly 4,000. An estimated 700 of the militia fighters were killed; six Americans died. Near the end, in May, Colonel Hort says as many as 40 of the militia leaders fled and a cease-fire was negotiated.
HORT: You know, it's my opinion at the brigade level that the cease-fire was declared because they really didn't have a whole lot left to throw at us.
STAHL: By the end of the battle, the T-wall was finally finished.
HORT: It's 4,000 meters, so close to two miles, in terms of where the wall started and finished. And that's just the exact width of Sadr City.
STAHL: It seals off about a quarter of Sadr City, and it's been beautified with local artists painting murals of peaceful, happy scenes that have to be approved by the US Army. To get from one side of the wall to the other, the locals have to go through entry points.
Checkpoints. They have to be checked to go back and forth?
ODIERNO: Yeah, you check--that's right.
STAHL: Oh.
ODIERNO: And that's--but it's easy. And it's usually just showing of an ID, but it is a checkpoint.
STAHL: Right.
ODIERNO: And again, that's to limit the freedom of movement of the--of the insurgents, for the most part.
STAHL: Merchants and traders are back in business here. This is a wholesale market in Sadr City, where trucks deliver fresh produce from the countryside every day now. The militias used to shake down the vendors. That's over. But still, the local businessmen are not happy about the wall.
Tell me about the T-wall.
Unidentified Man #1: (Foreign language spoken)
Unidentified Man #2: They feel that they're cut off from the other side, which is affecting their businesses.
ODIERNO: And you can tell them I think when we're able to get more security forces, over time we will take the T-walls down.
STAHL: Yet local citizens are providing intelligence, solid tips that have led to the capture of weapons caches, IED caches. But General Odierno says the situation is fragile.
ODIERNO: You eliminate the safe haven and now we're--now we can start to build. But it takes time. I mean, that's the issue. It just--it just takes time.
STAHL: Many of the fighters who survived, the general told us, fled to Iran and Syria to try and regenerate. The idea, he says, is to create a neighborhood that doesn't want them back.
 

Kind a of a cross between Beast05's view of the soldier with the sword in the field and the dee-wiz of the UAVs.  When it comes down to it, if a UAV is doing a better job than manned aircraft of keeping the guy on the ground alive and completing the mission, then I approve it.  As much shit as the UAV community gets, they do good work out there.

Wow great article Stik...very eye opening. Bet it was cool for the Pred drivers to read see/read this... * Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

I've got to voice the same concern as Beast. How can you ensure signal reliability in a jamming environment? I'm in no way an I.T. guy so I don't know if it's possible, but what guarantee is there that a more advanced enemy couldn't intercept or even convert a UAV's signal and use it to their advantage? I confess that I am (like most every flier out there) biased towards manned flight, but I think these are or will be valid arguments.

The problem with the signal jamming argument is that it is a broader subject than UAVs. Navigation and communication equipment on manned aircraft as well as satellite guided weapons would be affected. That's where your cyber and space warriors come in to protect said assets. And even if the enemy does use it, I don't think it means give up on UAVs. What if we had said "Shit, they have heat-seaking missiles! Now we can't fly!" Instead, we put flares on the planes. And that's just part of the cycle of measure and coutner-measure.

I don't know about Preds and Reaps, but I know the G-Hawk has autonomous capabilities if the signal breaks, so it can take care of itself (including landing on its own). At that point, its survivability is only as good as its AI programming (which could be better or worse than a manned aircraft). I think a good answer to that would be control stations in aircraft that can communicate line-of-sight (much harder to jam), like in a JSTARS or EC130 type plane. Or even have a manned version of an aircraft lead a flight of unmanned versions. Imagine a 2-seater: a pilot up front an UAV operator in back. The other planes are an extension of the weapons systems of the lead plane. Basically, the UAV operator is using the other aircraft in concert that in effect, the multiple aircraft are actually one weapon system... All possibilities, but I must confess, like Flyguy I am no IT expert.

I think the biggest argument against UAVs is the lack of imagination. Our brains work differently than computers do, and we are not constrained by programming algorithims. Humanity has the ability to contemplate the future and the past, and use them in judgements of the present. AI cannot understand the word 'why'. Do you think you could tell AI why it is bad to hit a SAM site on top of a hospital? Wait for a school bus to get over a bridge before hitting it? Realize that satellite coordinates given to it would strike a friendly position? That an order is unlawful? I think that alone would make a need for manned operators in the loop. That said, is the flesh going to be in a cockpit or a trailer...?

[Edited for spelling]

Joystik - That's a solid counter-argument and I totally agree. I guess I should have been clearer on my position being more on the side of a "composite force" of unmanned and manned aircraft for a longer period of time. I dig the concept of a two seater Strike Eagle type hosting multiple UAS's. With all of this it appears that the computer geeks will eventually rule the world. As a jock, I mourn.

Another problem that we will see in the future is results. Initially, our UAVs have received really great results, but are these results reliable, and what capabilities are not up to par. In any government contract, the contractor makes a statement of what the aircraft, or other weapon system will be able to do for the operator. The problem arises when the brass wants all of the gold plating added onto these aircraft that weigh them down, make them less reliable, and they will end up costing more. We have yet to see the true capabilities of the UAVs and what the downsides are. Again, I would rather have men flying CAS for me no matter what an interview says. I can understand the argument with the fighters and the 50G turning, but there is no replacement for the human element.

Ya know, I have no trouble saying that the UAVs have a bad ass mission, which is essential to the warfighting effort, I would just rather be behind the stick of a real plane. I am glad we have them though, because they are the ones getting the CAS job done in the AOR.

An ok start at least...  Still more should be cut so there are less that will get shot down by the Chinese UAV mass produced for a "buck oh nine."

Air Force Cuts Funding For F-22 Raptor

The F-22 Raptor, the new pride of the Air Force made in part by Lockheed-Martin in Fort Worth, is already facing the end of the line.

The sleek, stealthy war bird was pegged to replace the aging fighter fleet, but the top Air Force brass at the Pentagon has decided to pull the plug on the production line beyond 2010. The decision comes before the March 1 Congressional deadline for President Barack Obama's 2010 budget. The Air Force said it wants to divert that money to more futuristic programs.

The Fort Worth Lockheed plant employs about 2,000 people on the F-22 project, most are working on the mid-fuselage of the aircraft with others on classified systems.

General Norton Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force, told the DOD Buzz the Pentagon has now decided to significantly cut the original Air Force request for 381 Raptors to 243.

With 138 fewer of the fighters than the Air Force originally said it wanted now being built, the jobs of 2,000 people at the Lockheed-Martin plant in west Fort Worth are now in question. Adding to the potential pain for Lockheed workers is that the F-22 is facing big roadblocks to being sold to U.S. allies, like Japan and Australia.

Obama still must sign off on the Air Force's budget plan by March 1.

You know, I was watching Fox Business News this afternoon and saw an interesting interview with Lt Col Oliver North. Even HE thinks we need more F-22s than are being proposed, and HE was a ground pounder (sts).

A new post was posted in a forum you were tracking. To post a response simply respond to this email--there is no need to go to the forum. Realize your entire email response will be in the post including anything your email provider appends to your email. Please ensure the token that looks something like (uetope3n-48n4-85uq-o267-j9k9wp7891) stays in the subject line else your response will be a new thread.

Jenkspaz Posted:19 Feb 2009 4:51 PM

Subject: RE: The case for UAVs over manned fighters You know, I was watching Fox Business News this afternoon and saw an interesting interview with Lt Col Oliver North. Even HE thinks we need more F-22s than are being proposed, and HE was a ground pounder (sts).

---

To view the complete thread and reply, please visit: http://www.wantscheck.org/fontcolorredForumsfont/Messageboard/tabid/73/view/topic/postid/8532/ptarget/10848/Default.aspx

Thank you,
Team WantsCheck

Rand Study Suggests U.S. Loses War With China

According to the study, U.S. aircraft carriers and air bases would be threatened by Chinese development of anti-ship ballistic missiles, the fielding of diesel and nuclear submarines equipped with torpedoes and SS-N-22 and SS-N-27 anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs), fighters and bombers carrying ASCMs and HARMs, and new ballistic missiles and cruise missiles.

The report states that 34 missiles with submunition warheads could cover all parking ramps at Kadena Air Force Base, Okinawa.

An "attack like this could damage, destroy or strand 75 percent of aircraft based at Kadena," it says.

In contrast, many Chinese air bases are harder than Kadena, with some "super-hard underground hangers."

To make matters worse, Kadena is the only U.S. air base within 500 nautical miles of the Taiwan Strait, whereas China has 27.

U.S. air bases in South Korea are more than 750 miles distant, and those in Japan are more than 885 miles away. Anderson Air Force Base, Guam, is 1,500 miles away. The result is that sortie rates will be low, with a "huge tanker demand."

The authors suggest China's CETC Y-27 radar, which is similar to Russia's Nebo SVU VHF Digital AESA, could counter U.S. stealth fighter technology. China is likely to outfit its fighters with improved radars and by "2020 even very stealthy targets likely [would be] detectable by Flanker radars at 25+ nm." China is also likely to procure the new Su-35BM fighter by 2020, which will challenge the F-35 and possibly the F-22.

The authors also question the reliability of U.S. beyond-visual-range weapons, such as the AIM-120 AMRAAM. U.S. fighters have recorded only 10 AIM-120 kills, none against targets equipped with the kinds of countermeasures carried by Chinese Su-27s and Su-30s. Of the 10, six were beyond-visual-range kills, and it required 13 missiles to get them.

If a conflict breaks out between China and the U.S. over Taiwan, the authors say it is difficult to "predict who will have had the last move in the measure-countermeasure game."

Overall, the authors say, "China could enjoy a 3:1 edge in fighters if we can fly from Kadena - about 10:1 if forced to operate from Andersen. Overcoming these odds requires qualitative superiority of 9:1 or 100:1" - a differential that is "extremely difficult to achieve" against a like power.

If beyond-visual-range missiles work, stealth technology is not countered and air bases are not destroyed, U.S. forces have a chance, but "history suggests there is a limit of about 3:1 where quality can no longer compensate for superior enemy numbers."

A 24-aircraft Su-27/30 regiment can carry around 300 air-to-air missiles (AAMs), whereas 24 F-22s can carry only 192 AAMs and 24 F-35s only 96 AAMs.

Though current numbers assume the F-22 could shoot down 48 Chinese Flankers when "outnumbered 12:1 without loss," these numbers do not take into account a less-than-perfect U.S. beyond-visual-range performance, partial or complete destruction of U.S. air bases and aircraft carriers, possible deployment of a new Chinese stealth fighter around 2020 or 2025, and the possible use of Chinese "robo-fighters" to deplete U.S. "fighters' missile loadout prior to mass attack."

The authors write that Chinese counter stealth, anti-access, countermissile technologies are proliferating and the U.S. military needs "a plan that accounts for this."

Wait are my eyes deceiving me? Did hell just freeze over? Did Ryno just post a pro fighter acquisition article? Or was that just a pro tanker article? ** Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed

I highlighted the last section of the article talking about how China may use UAVs against us and how stealth technology is not necessarily the ace of spades. Th point is...cheap UAV air-to-air technology is a must if we don't want to have our asses expensively handed to us.

I have a hard time believing that if their "robo fighters" were fast enough or agile enough to be a threat to our 5th gen fighters, AND they had the ability to actually SEE us in the sky, they would not be inexpensive. In fact, would you allow someone to fly one of those things from the ground? Maybe China would. Those fuckers are nuts.