Makes sense somewhat. There is no if they are faster or more agile...that's easy...they will be if they're not already (no cockpit drag, no ejection seat, and most importantly no real G limitations). But your point that the technology would be expensive is shared by others. It's still probably incorrect. Again, it's not just the design costs but the cost of fuel, training, bases, support, maintenance, CSAR, etc.... How much do you think we pay on average for air bases around the world? I don't know but I imagine it's quite a bit. But to say that a UAV will cost MORE to have systems we already have and are employing on manned jets ignores the fact that, again, we're already using those systems on manned jets and secondly it ignores that we're saving money by not paying for all the human elements. How is it more expensive to make a jet without an ejection seat and heating and avionics and pressurization? Doesn't pass the common sense test to me.

If you want your argument bolstered by an F-15C pilot (go figure) wrongly (go figure) who says the same thing about the expense (until 2025 or so he says)you can read chapter 4 of this: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate.../lewis.pdf

I never said they would be more expensive than manned fighters; just not as "inexpensive" as everyone thinks. You have to consider that even these robo fighters will need fuel, bases, support, and training for not just the pilots, but also MX, support, and operators. All the same things you need to run and maintain a manned platform and it's support. Yes they will be less expensive than manned fighters, but they won't be cheap enough for you to just throw them into the sky to be target practice for some other system.

That's not the point. You can buy close to 23 predator drones for the cost of 1 F22. Imagine, 23:1. Swarms of UAVs. The primary goal as Ryno stated would be to deplete missile load out of American planes. Because F-22s are meant to remain invisible, and not engage in cannon dogfighting on a regular basis, they would waste their missile load out on swarms of drones...Or that's the idea.

I have to agree. I don't think there is a huge future for super expensive stealth fighrters, unless they are heavily supported by drone aircraft. Who would waste valuable human pilots and a marvelous machine like the 22 to shoot down 30 drones? We'll need to have UAVs as well. I think there is a place for manned fighter aircraft, but they will have to be used in conjunction.

I've got a buddy that flew the Gunship and now flys UAVs who just sent me a paper he wrote while at a Harvard grad program and I wish I could post it I think he's gonna get it published. Anyway, in it he makes several great points but one I thought was interesting was he quoted some Chinese thinkers who believe our weakness in our desire to buy expensive luxury war fighting items and then financially bleed ourselves. It's an interesting discussion where technological advantage becomes a liability but I think the F-22 illustrates the point. Does anybody know how many AtoA UAVs we've tried in the Air Force? How many trials failed and how many were so so? You'd think if the leadership was serious about keeping our children safe and keeping the Air Force relevant we'd know more about that since we can all (except for some childish or clearly idiotic fighter pilots) that this technology WILL rule the skies. It has EVERY advantage over an F-22. So why hasn't the Air Force embraced this and thrown up a bunch of posters and commercials? If we were talking about some super new technology for the F-22 or another manned airframe you can bet it would hit half the avatars in this forum overnight. But since it's a UCAV...either nobody wants to talk about it or it's too much of a Skunk Works project. Hopefully the latter. The F-22 and the Osprey are both inferior pieces of equipment that are alive today because there are a lot of people more concerned with money and politics than the defense of the country. Or so it seems to me.

If anybody have evidence of AtoA UCAV trials we've done and lessons learned please share. The Air Force has spent significant resources trying otu these concepts right?

EDIT:  Case in point, see the ads in this forum?  "Save the F-22 Jobs - Sign the Petition"....lots of organizations with money invested in this project....

Anybody have any sort of clue what type of bandwidth requirements there would be for a super fleet of UAVs? Or how vulnerable these systems would be to cyber or space warfare?

I know all the branches are hurting for bandwidth as it is, that is and was a major problem throughout the Iraq campaign.

This guy talks about it a little bit in Chapter 4: http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate.../lewis.pdf

Norty spells it out very very clearly here.  Thank Christ we have somebody with common sense in charge of the Air Force again!

Chief of staff sees UAS role expanding

Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz observes as Capt. Tom Moore, a Unmanned Aircraft System Fundamentals Course flight commander, demonstrates a training position in the Simulation Development Laboratory Feb. 19 during the general's visit to the 563rd Flying Training Squadron at Randolph Air Force Base, Texas. (U.S. Air Force photo/Joel Martinez) Download HiRes

Related Links • New UAS program at Randolph simulates air battle space • UAS students graduate from inaugural class Related Fact Sheets • MQ-1 Predator Unmanned Aircraft System • MQ-9 Reaper Unmanned Aircraft System • RQ-4 Global Hawk Unmanned Aircraft System Related Biographies • GENERAL NORTON A. SCHWARTZ Story Tools  Printable story  E-mail story   Subscribe now <!-- AddThis Button BEGIN --> <!-- AddThis Button END -->

by Michael Briggs
12th Flying Training Wing Public Affairs

2/20/2009 - RANDOLPH AIR FORCE BASE, Texas (AFNS)  -- The Air Force chief of staff called the buildup of the unmanned aircraft system program "profoundly important" Feb. 19 during a visit with instructor and student aviators here.

In remarks during a question and answer session with 12th Operations Group instructors, students and staff, Gen. Norton Schwartz said UAS capabilities play an important role in joint operations at a critical juncture in Air Force history. 

"This is one of those inflection points, one of those times when the whole path of history shifts," General Schwartz said. "That's what's happening, and the question is whether the United States Air Force wants to be on that wave or left behind." 

As Air Force leaders build their roadmap for the future of UAS operations, the highest-ranking Airman told the group of about 50 aviators that UAS support of ground forces has never been more important. 

"We've got eyes 24/7 on bad guys," he said of UAS capabilities. "We're at the point now where (ground forces) say, 'I'm not going in that door or turning that corner if I don't have my top cover.' 

"That is the reality," he added. "That's how important what we're doing has become, and I think this is going to continue." 

The ability to field more UAS platforms depends on having a cadre of qualified operators. The first step toward that qualification takes place here at the 563rd Flying Training Squadron in a UAS Fundamentals Course launched in November. 

The four-week course provides student aviators the tactical foundation of UAS platforms and weapons employment before they head to Creech Air Force Base, Nev., and eventually train with actual UA systems. Randolph AFB is the temporary home for the course, which eventually will be housed at Holloman AFB, N.M. 

While technology allows Air Force warfighters to do things that were not possible before, General Schwartz said "the truth of the matter is what we're able to do (with UAS platforms) is a better approach to making sure the joint team can succeed and accomplish the missions we've been assigned." 

In reference to the issue of people in favor of manned versus unmanned aircraft operations, the chief of staff put the debate into perspective. 

"The question is, 'Is this about personal satisfaction or about contribution?' Your Air Force is about contribution, not attribution," he said.

That's not to say the general foresees a future without manned aircraft. 

"There will always be a need for manned aviation, but it will be a lesser proportion of the fleet than is currently the case," he said. 

The new generation of aviators who will operate unmanned aircraft may not have the in-cockpit skills of the pilots who fly manned aircraft, the general said, but they will have the smarts and multi-tasking capabilities to maximize UAS effectiveness. 

"They will know about airspace, they will know about air-to-ground coordination, they will know the difference between hostile and non-hostile (threats), and they will be able to do things our generation never could think of," General Schwartz said. "I'm convinced that this part of our force mix will be vitally important as we go down the road. The people who operate unmanned systems will have a place in our Air Force as far as the eye can see." 

The current Air Force fleet of UAS platforms consists of the MQ-1 Predator, MQ-9 Reaper and RQ-4 Global Hawk.

What military-industrial-congressional complex?  Ike was such a drama queen...

Raptor in dogfight for its future <!--startclickprintexclude-->

<!-- EdSysObj ID="SSI-B" FRAGMENTID="13417811" rberthol --> <!-- /EdSysObj -->

<!--endclickprintexclude--> <!--startclickprintexclude-->

By Graham Barclay, Bloomberg News An F-22 Raptor jet flies during a demonstration at the Farnborough International Airshow in Farnborough, England, on July 14. <!-- ContentCoreElement ID="8de81797-129d-4aae-86c9-5fe79ad3ac6e", DateTime="2/26/2009 3:39:25 AM" -->   Read more on LMT at <!-- End ContentCoreElement ID="8de81797-129d-4aae-86c9-5fe79ad3ac6e" -->

<!--endclickprintexclude--> <!-- EdSysObj ID="SandboxLede" FRAGMENTID="34256982" ebracke --><!--endclickprintexclude--> <!-- EdSysObj ID="SSI-A" FRAGMENTID="30348882" mharzall --><!--startclickprintexclude--> <!-- Top Social Buttons --> <!--endclickprintexclude--><!-- /EdSysObj -->

It's here that the giant defense contractor pitches its next-generation fighter plane, the F-22 Raptor. There's a simulator, PowerPoint slides and a video, backed by a soaring musical score, in which Air Force pilots rhapsodize about the fastest, stealthiest, most advanced dogfighter ever built.

The center is part of an intense persuasion campaign by Lockheed that includes dozens of lobbyists working the halls of government and millions of dollars spent to target decision-makers. In recent weeks, Lockheed has taken out full-page ads in Washington newspapers and magazines proclaiming that 95,000 jobs ride on the aircraft's fate. The company contributed $125,000 to various inaugural committees in honor of President Obama, lobbying records show.

It's not hard to understand why. At $191 million apiece, the F-22 is the most expensive fighter ever — and many defense officials, including Secretary Robert Gates, are ready to pull the plug on it.

For all its capabilities, critics argue the F-22 is too costly and irrelevant to the wars of today. They note that it hasn't flown a single mission in Iraq or Afghanistan. Yet, with plants or suppliers in 44 states, the program counts some of its biggest fans in Congress, which has consistently voted to support it. Taxpayers to date have bought 183 Raptors at a cost of $66 billion, including development.

President Obama is required by law to tell Congress by March 1 if his administration plans to buy parts to be used to build more F-22s; in coming weeks, he'll decide whether to phase out production or buy up to 60 more, the Pentagon's Geoff Morrell said Wednesday. Analysts say the jet offers an early gauge of Obama's willingness to make tough spending decisions and take on lawmakers in his own party.

"This is going to be a real test of Obama's ability to push back on the Congress," says Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project On Government Oversight, a longtime F-22 critic.

Without mentioning the Raptor, Obama promised in his address to Congress Tuesday to "reform our defense budget so that we're not paying for Cold War-era weapons systems we don't use."

Even if Obama decides to kill the program, lawmakers may try to override him, as they have several times with previous presidents who sought to cancel weapons systems. The F-22 saga promises to be the first of many such fights, because Gates has said he wants to spend less on big-ticket conventional systems, such as aircraft carriers and artillery, that aren't tailored to so-called small wars featuring low-tech insurgencies.

Those weapons have congressional backers in both parties, bolstered by millions in campaign contributions and a bevy of lobbyists that include former members of Congress, former generals and former Pentagon officials, records show.

Lockheed and four other main F-22 contractors — Raytheon (RTN), Boeing (BA), Northrop Grumman (NOC) and United Technologies (UTX) — spent $65 million on lobbying in 2008, according to the non-partisan Center for Responsive Politics. Their employees made $11.3 million in political contributions to both parties in 2007 and 2008, according to the center's data.

There is also a grass-roots effort: A website, PreserveRaptorJobs.com, encourages F-22 backers to send a letter to Obama arguing that shutting down the F-22 "would have drastic consequences for our economy and national security." And the International Association of Machinists, whose workers help construct the plane, has been vociferous about building more.

"The F-22 is just one example of probably a half dozen," says Keith Ashdown of the watchdog group Taxpayers for Common Sense. "This is why it's so hard to ever cut anything. Every weapons system that the administration has a bull's-eye on, there's a fleet of lobbyists and companies organizing to stop that. Decisions to make military investments should be based on the need of the war fighter, not the politics of who benefits."

Lockheed spokesman Jeffrey Adams said in an e-mail, "The corporation supports those who support a strong national defense and educational activities."

The company declined to say where the F-22's supplier plants are. That data is proprietary, spokesman Sam Grizzle says.

Built to dominate

The F-22 program began in the mid-1980s as a replacement for the F-15 Eagle, the Air Force's crown jewel that brought decades of American air dominance. The plan was to marry stealth capability, advanced engines and sophisticated electronics to establish overwhelming superiority in air-to-air combat with the Soviet Union. Originally, the Air Force envisioned 750 F-22s in its Cold War arsenal.

Then the Cold War ended, and development costs for the plane soared. The Air Force reduced the number of F-22s it sought to 381.

But it still argued for the Raptor, especially as Russia and China built more sophisticated planes to better challenge the F-15. The United States, the thinking goes, should never have to worry about owning the skies, wherever its forces are in combat.

By most accounts, the F-22 delivers. Lockheed says one Raptor can take down 30 or more of its best adversaries at once. The ratio for the F-15, the workhorse fighter for the Air Force since the 1970s, is 3-to-1.

"It's an effective deterrent," says Larry Lawson, Lockheed's manager for the F-22. "People don't want to come out and fight it. It tamps aggression."

The warplane's radar and other sensors communicate with other Raptors and controllers on the ground, Lawson says, providing pilots with an unmatched view of approaching threats.

"This thing's a flying antenna," Lawson says. "We manage all that information for the pilot."

It's not, however, without flaws. A Congressional Research Service report in December noted several problems with the F-22, including software issues, a 2004 crash that destroyed one jet and faulty titanium forgings in 41 planes.

"The airplane is proving very expensive to operate; we're not seeing the mission-capable rates we expected, and it's complex to maintain," Pentagon acquisitions chief John Young told reporters in November.

Even some of those impressed by the technology question the need to build more F-22s. Rep. Joe Sestak, D-Pa., of the House Armed Services Committee and a retired three-star admiral, wonders under what circumstances the U.S. would need to engage in sustained dogfights with a sophisticated air force. The last air-to-air combat by U.S. pilots were lopsided shoot downs over the former Yugoslavia from 1994 to 1999. In 2003, Iraq's air force stayed on the ground.

Plus, the military is moving ahead with the F-35, another expensive warplane built by Lockheed. While not as capable as the F-22, the F-35 is more advanced than potential adversaries.

"You say to yourself, is this a platform in search of a mission?" Sestak says. "If it is, how many do you need in search of that mission?" Sestak sees no need to build more than the 183 already paid for.

Former Air Force secretary Mike Wynne, who championed the F-22, says the country needs 381 to account for every contingency. Fewer jets could mean a disaster for ground forces similar to what the British faced at Dunkirk in World War II, he says.

"Quantity has a quality all its own," Wynne says. "No modern war has been won without air superiority, and the first time the American Air Force gets its (butt) kicked, our version of Dunkirk will be upon our Army."

Many in Congress agree. Forty-four senators and 100 members of the House signed letters to Obama arguing that 183 F-22s "is insufficient to meet potential threats."

Lockheed's lobbying

That kind of support is no accident. As the single largest government contractor, with $35.5 billion in government revenue in 2008, Lockheed makes sure its message is heard in Washington.

In addition to its staff of 36 lobbyists, Lockheed paid 41 contract lobbyists last year, records show, including former Indiana GOP senator Dan Coats, former Air Force general John Conaway and former FAA administrator Linda Daschle. Coats said he couldn't comment; Conaway and Daschle did not return phone calls.

Lockheed has also been a prime example of the revolving door between government and contractors. In a report last year, the Government Accountability Office counted 221 former senior defense officials working for the company in 2006. Edward "Pete" Aldridge, who was Pentagon acquisitions chief when Lockheed won the F-22 contract, retired in 2003 and joined Lockheed's board, where directors are paid a cash and stock retainer of $220,000 a year, SEC records show. None of that violated government ethics rules.

With F-22 suppliers or factories spread among 44 states, many members of Congress find it easy to support the program. After the economy soured, the company began placing new emphasis on the jobs argument, says defense analyst Loren Thompson, who consults for Lockheed.

For a lawmaker, there is little to be gained in opposing major weapons systems, he says: "The only people who really get motivated on this stuff are the people who have jobs and contracts in their districts."

One lawmaker who has gone after big weapons systems is Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who in 2006 sought to block what government auditors said would be a more expensive multiyear contract for the program. The Senate voted to fund the deal, 70-28. Among those voting with McCain and against Lockheed were Obama and then-senator Hillary Rodham Clinton. Those in favor ran the political gamut from liberal Democrat Edward Kennedy of Massachusetts to conservative Republican James Inhofe of Oklahoma.

Lockheed employees made $3.1 million in political contributions to politicians in both parties in 2007 and 2008. But that was only part of the firm's efforts to garner favor. The company regularly makes charitable contributions to honor influential current and former public servants, a practice disclosed only in the last year under a new lobbying law.

Last year, Lockheed made three charitable contributions totaling approximately $140,000 in honor of Joint Chiefs Chairman Adm. Michael Mullen, and one for $25,000 in honor of Gates, lobbying records show.

Morrell, Gates' spokesman, says the secretary is not influenced by contributions, lobbying or advertisements.

"No matter how many full-page newspaper ads the industry buys or how many lobbyists they hire, their expensive and elaborate campaigns do not in any way influence our procurement process," he says. "We evaluate programs strictly on the basis of whether they help us advance our national security objectives while also providing the best value to taxpayers."

UAV pilot career field could save $1.5B

 

Having specifically trained airmen rather than manned aircraft pilots fly unmanned aerial vehicles could save $1.5 billion over the next six years, an Air Force audit found.

The report, released in December by the service’s Audit Agency and obtained in February by Air Force Times through a Freedom of Information Act request, recommends establishing a career field for UAV pilots and developing a cadre of experienced UAV pilots, instructors and weapon system experts.

Auditors estimate the Air Force would save at least $500,000 per pilot if it revamped its training programs. Today, a manned aircraft pilot completes undergraduate and graduate pilot training programs. The service spends more than $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot. Training for an airlift pilot, relatively speaking, is far less — about $600,000.

The audit recommends “eliminating 20 unnecessary weeks of the current undergraduate pilot training program, deleting unnecessary graduate training on other aircraft,” and adding an eight-week UAV undergraduate course and 12 weeks of UAV graduate training. The cost, the report estimates, would be a little more than $135,000 per pilot.

Air Force leaders weren’t surprised by the findings and were rethinking UAV pilot training long before the audit was released, said Col. Scott Forest, deputy chief, operational training division.

In September, Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz unveiled plans to create a UAV-specific career field and to train officers with no flying experience to control Predators and Reapers.

“We were implementing the recommendations of this report months before it came out following in the chief’s guidance and his decisions,” Forest said.

Predator and Reaper flight hours have jumped in the past three years. Predator flights nearly doubled last year, according to the Air Force. UAV orbits over Iraq and Afghanistan — or around-the-clock combat air patrols — have gone from 11 in 2007 to 33 in 2009. Plans call for 50 CAPs by 2011.

Air Force leaders had to temporarily assign manned aircraft pilots to handle the higher number of flights. In 2008, 161 fighter, bomber, tanker and cargo pilots flew Predators and Reapers, the two UAV models.

The consequence of shifting the pilots has been a drain on the experience level at manned aircraft squadrons, said Brig. Gen. Lyn D. Sherlock, former director of air operations for operations, plans and requirements at the Pentagon.

“This condition occurred because Air Force officials did not anticipate the rapid growth of UAS programs, increase in worldwide CAP requirements, or the corresponding high demand for UAS [unmanned aerial system] pilots,” according to the report.

UAV assignments have also left 78 percent of non-UAV “ALFA tour” positions empty. An ALFA tour is a temporary midcareer assignment for pilots such as an air liaison, flight instructor or UAV pilot.

The open slots led auditors to conclude that Air Force leaders “did not appropriately consider the adverse impacts of using ALFA tour pilots or the costs the Air Force could avoid by implementing a UAS-specific career path and training program.”

In January, 10 officers with zero flight hours kick-started the Air Force’s effort at creating a career field for UAV pilots.

The officers are the first to go through the training program designed to get officers who didn’t complete undergraduate pilot training into UAV cockpits. They will finish training this fall and receive their UAV wings.

Forest described officials and trainers as “happy with the progress” by the first class.

Another 10 officers will start training this summer and will get their UAV wings in January, at which point the Air Force will decide if it wants to expand the training pipeline, Sherlock said.

“Developing a UAS-specific career path and eliminating unnecessary training will reduce costs by more than $1.5 billion with aviation fuel savings alone accounting for about $180 million — making funds available for other flying training or war effort requirements,” according to the report.

Related reading

* UAV graduate school opens

Here's a question for a fighter pilot... Were there any rear firing missile systems developed to help while "defensive?" I know there is off boresight capability with systems now but talking with pointy nose guys who maintain the potential for the visual fight still exists I then wonder why that capability hasn't been exploited. I'm sure the PK of a head on shot is an issue but still it would seem like it might have some value. Thoughts? I imagine it might be easier to maneuver against a head on shot but even that maneuver could become an opportunity for a reversal for the "defensive" guy I would think. Please school me if I've got it all wrong. Surely Boyd would have implemented it if there was some value in it...

The U.S. Army Air Force Quietly Reappears
March 8, 2009: Although the U.S. Army doesn't officially receive its first Sky Warrior MQ-1C UAVs until this month, they sent two of the prototypes to Iraq last year for testing. The first flight, lasting 10.5 hours, was on April 18th. The MQ-1Cs are slightly larger Predators, and are being used for missions formerly performed by Shadow 200, and other large army UAVs. The big difference is that Sky Warrior can carry weapons (like Hellfire missiles.) But the army is already using missile firing, fixed wing combat aircraft, something it has not been able to do for many decades (since the U.S. Air Force was created out of the old U.S. Army Air Force in the late 1940s). The air force has accepted, for the moment, that unmanned aircraft are not the sole preserve of the air force, and the army is taking that and building a new air force for itself.

This was done quietly, when the army bought twenty Predator type UAVs (called Sky Warrior Alpha) from the same firm that manufactures the Predator and Sky Warrior. These have been in Iraq for nearly two years, mainly for counter-IED work with Task Force Odin. The one ton Sky Warrior Alpha can carry 450 pounds of sensors and 300 pounds of weapons, and one was recently used to fire a Hellfire missile in combat for the first time. Sky Warrior Alpha is, officially, the I-Gnat ER, which is based on a predecessor design of the Predator, the Gnat-750, and an improved model, the I-Gnat (which has been in use since 1989). The I-Gnat ER/ Sky Warrior Alpha looks like a Predator, but isn't. In terms of design and capabilities, they are cousins.

The MQ-1C Sky Warrior weighs 1.5 tons, carries 300 pounds of sensors internally, and up to 500 pounds of sensors or weapons externally. It has an endurance of up to 36 hours and a top speed of 270 kilometers an hour. Sky Warrior has a wingspan 56 feet and is 28 feet long. The Sky Warrior can land and take off automatically, and carry four Hellfire missiles (compared to two on the Predator). The original MQ-1 Predator is a one ton aircraft that is 27 feet long with a wingspan of 49 feet. It has two hard points, which usually carry one (107 pound) Hellfire each. Each hard point can also carry a Stinger air-to-air missile. Max speed of the Predator is 215 kilometers an hour, max cruising speed is 160 kilometers an hour. Max altitude is 25,000 feet. Typical sorties are 12-20 hours each. A Sky Warrior company has 115 troops, 12 Sky Warrior UAVs and five ground stations.

As its model number (MQ-1C) indicates, Sky Warrior is a Predator (MQ-1) replacement. The U.S. Air Force plans to replace its MQ-1s with MQ-1Cs. Sky Warrior began mass production this year, and the U.S. Army (which paid for development) wants over 500 initially. So far, the attrition rate of Predators has been over five percent a year. Unless that can be brought down, few Predators will last more than a decade and the MQ-1C will replace it gradually. Most of the losses are due to mechanical, electronic, software or operator failure. Never have so many UAVs been used so extensively, and intensively, in combat. So it's a learning experience in a new environment. The attrition rate is coming down, but not rapidly.

The army and air force are going to jointly manage the Predator force, or at least the MQ-1Cs. This will cause some unexpected scuffles, as many air force generals believe the army should not have the MQ-1C, or at least not use them with weapons. That has already caused some sparks to fly in the Pentagon, but a recent purge and reshuffle of the senior air force leadership, by the Secretary of Defense, makes it appear that the army will be left alone to build its new robotic air force. Back in the 1950s, after a decade of bickering, the Department of Defense ordered the army to stick with helicopters, while the air force got all the fixed wing aircraft. But UAVs have no pilots in them and the army does not consider them part of the half century old deal.

There is a third member of the Predator family, that will stay just with the air force. The MQ-9 Reaper is a 4.7 ton, 36 foot long aircraft with a 66 foot wingspan that looks like the MQ-1. It has six hard points, and can carry 1,500 pounds of weapons. These include Hellfire missiles (up to eight), two Sidewinder or two AMRAAM air-to-air missiles, two Maverick missiles, or two 500 pound smart bombs (laser or GPS guided.) Max speed is 400 kilometers an hour, and max endurance is 15 hours. The Reaper is considered a combat aircraft, to replace F-16s or A-10s.

Posted By Rynizzle on 02 Mar 2009 03:19 PM
Here's a question for a fighter pilot... Were there any rear firing missile systems developed to help while "defensive?" I know there is off boresight capability with systems now but talking with pointy nose guys who maintain the potential for the visual fight still exists I then wonder why that capability hasn't been exploited. I'm sure the PK of a head on shot is an issue but still it would seem like it might have some value. Thoughts? I imagine it might be easier to maneuver against a head on shot but even that maneuver could become an opportunity for a reversal for the "defensive" guy I would think. Please school me if I've got it all wrong. Surely Boyd would have implemented it if there was some value in it...

 

I've had a few beers, but I think I can maybe make some sense...

The missile would have to have some massive G capability in order to fire off of a defensive aircraft, accelerate to Mach 2+ (just a given standard for AA missiles), re-acquire tgt, and then pull lead on the attacker in order to meet the guy in space. Also, min range for a cranium on shot is going to be a factor... 1) the closure is very very great, and 2) You don't want the missile coming off the rail armed up (don't want it to fuse on the shooter for some reason) - there needs to be some safe separation from the firing aircraft.  The other complication is how do you go about cueing such a system (not only cueing, but CONFIRMING what it's tracking on -- for heaters or otherwise). The USAF doesn't take kindly to frat (some countries could care less).

Then, the other "issues" with it include: It sucks to carry around missiles that only fire backward because 1) we dont want to waste the drag/gas/stations for carrying missiles to PLAN on being defensive. 2) We dont PLAN on being defensive... Our tactics, etc make us an OFFENSIVE Air Force.  I'm not beating the chest saying "F Being Defensive! We'll never be there!" I'm just saying the way we go about our tactics and what not, we dont plan for such things... IE, we'd much rather be defensive for a few seconds and have our wingman come across the bar with a right hook. So, it makes sense to "stay alive as long as possible" and have the help of a buddy to schwack the f*cker. It's much, much, much harder to fight 2 guys than one.

 

The #1 priority during a defensive fight is to defeat the initial attack and then stay alive as long as possible. If you're too wrapped up trying to cue a missile to the bandit, you're probably not moving the jet very much, and thusly soaking up a few missiles while allowing the guy to deal with angles, overtake, and range. All of these are bad for the defenisve guy, we want to create as many problems for him as possible... And this means moving the jet RIGHT NOW.

 

I'm not saying reward firing missiles wouldn't be cool in some situations, but the pay off is hard to jusitify for what the R&D, drag, training, etc etc etc would take. In other words, I'd much rather go into an air to air fight with a wingman (or 3) over one or two rearward firing missiles. Especially since carrying even one of these means that's one less "normal" missile I have available with the bastards on the other [good] side of my 3/9 line!

 

Don't confuse this with the argument like "We don't need a gun anymore, we'll never be WVR!" Completely different. Of course the situation could arise that we'll be defensive -- that's exactly why we train for it.

I dig it. The acceleration makes sense to me...the missile would come off the rails with inertia actually moving backward and would then have to accelerate to move the other way. The difficulty of acquiring also makes sense while maneuvering....I don't know what the WEZ is like for a heater or how close you have to be to make that work but I can understand that would be a lot to worry about for a single seat jet. I would think the missiles in the F-22 might be able to swivel in the bay and go forward or rearward on demand but who knows how much engineering magic that would take. Thanks for the air-to-air info Q...

Suck it UAVs:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933...53,00.html

Just thought I'd point out more evidence that the changing of the guard is now...

"Col. Daniel Torweihe, 80th FTW vice commander, said the wing is in lock step with the cultural change of the Air Force. He said demand is changing on the traditional fighter pilot and moving toward the need for AFSOC and unmanned aircraft system operators. The colonel said this transformation wasn't met with open arms by ENJJPT students."

AFSOC seeks best, brightest pilots

Maj. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, Air Force Special Operations Command vice commander, talks to student pilots at the 80th Flying Training Wing's Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program March 6. The general said AFSOC offers a rewarding career for young officers, and also allows them to "get into the fight" quicker than taking traditional combat aircraft tracks. (U.S. Air Force photo/Lt. Col. Ternell Washington)

by John Ingle
82nd Training Wing Public Affairs

3/12/2009 - SHEPPARD AIR FORCE BASE, Texas -- Wanted: individuals able to think on their feet, adapt quickly when needed, have a love for flying, and want to get in the fight now.

That was the message from Maj. Gen. Kurt Cichowski, U.S. Air Force Special Operations Command vice commander, to members of the 80th Flying Training Wing's Euro-NATO Joint Jet Pilot Training Program March 6.

"We're growing," the general said of the command and the need for special operators. "We need the top people to fly. We want the young; the best hands; the best pilots to come to AFSOC."

General Cichowski, 80th FTW commander from 1999-2001, said ENJJPT was known as the undergraduate pilot training program to go to if someone wanted to fly fighters. Now it has morphed to a program that means combat aircraft, ranging from fighters to bombers to unmanned aircraft systems to special operations platforms.

ENJJPT isn't the only organization going through changes, the general said. An increased operations tempo for AFSOC missions in the Global War on Terrorism is also changing the way the Air Force gets in the fight and engages the enemy.

"Special operations is completely changing the way we are looking at warfare," General Cichowski said. "We are taking on an enemy that is no longer wanting to meet the United States Air Force force-on-force, big-on-big."

To adapt, the Air Force is looking at how to fight the enemy in their backyard within the guidelines of the conduct of war, he said. It's going to take a non-traditional approach that requires non-standard aircraft and sharp Airmen.

"We're doubling in size in the next five years," he said. "In order to get the quality people that we have to have to do our mission, we are out there, quite frankly, recruiting."

To illustrate how AFSOC is more involved in operations now, General Cichowski shared a story about a first lieutenant currently flying special operations missions. The general said it occurred during Chief of Staff of the Air Force Gen. Norman A. Schwartz's visit to Sheppard AFB a couple weeks ago.

"On that visit, we had an individual who had been with us for a year-and-a-half," he said. "He had 1,000 hours in the airplane, which is unheard of for most regular planes. Normal is 300-500 in a two-year tour. Of those 1,000 hours, 800 were combat. That first lieutenant had five Air Medals. That is unheard of for a first lieutenant."

Capt. Joe Bozarth IV, a recent graduate of ENJJPT and now training in the PC-12, an aircraft used by AFSOC, said his assignment as a special operations pilot is providing an immediate track to get into the fight and support people on the ground. He said he has the opportunity to fly combat missions six to eight months after graduation from ENJJPT. His colleagues, who were assigned fighters, will be in training for at least another year before they see action, he said.

Regardless of what airframe the students are assigned coming out of ENJJPT, Captain Bozarth said each pilot should remember one thing: it's all about the Air Force.

"I think that you just have to realize that it's the needs of the Air Force that matters," he said.

Col. Daniel Torweihe, 80th FTW vice commander, said the wing is in lock step with the cultural change of the Air Force. He said demand is changing on the traditional fighter pilot and moving toward the need for AFSOC and unmanned aircraft system operators.

The colonel said this transformation wasn't met with open arms by ENJJPT students. But, he added, it wasn't because they were placing themselves before service.

"The trouble is, people didn't have the facts," he said. "But now that we have guys who can come in (such as General Cichowski) who've been there and have done that and can tell factual information, you're going to find students who really understand."

The general said he's not lauding one airframe or mission over the other because they are all needed to fight in today's environment. He said he's merely encouraging pilots to place AFSOC aircraft as a priority selection on their dream sheet.

Yesterday I bought P.W. Singer's book, "Wired for War: The Robotics Revolution and Conflict in the 21st Century" after seeing the guy on the Daily Show and here is an interesting quote:

"Thomas Cassidy, a former navy fighter pilot (so respected that he even had a cameo in the movie Top Gun ) and now CEO of Predator's manufacturer, General Atomics, declares, 'I want to see a Predator coming back here with MiG kills painted on its side; and that will happen soon.'"

So refreshing to read the words of a fighter pilot that isn't Code 3 on common sense... If only we had a few more of those.

Another good tidbit from the book:

"[Robert Finkelstein's] firm worked on software for an F-4 Phantom fighter jet that had been converted into an unmanned target drone. The new software began to beat pilots consistently, and the idea grew to use it as an advanced teaching tool for fighter pilots. But it never came to be. The program was too much, too soon, and most important too good for its own sake. Says Finkelstein, 'The air force was terrified of unmanned planes. You know, the whole silk scarf mentality. Pilots are what become generals, not anyone else....So, the front office came back to us and said, 'Great project, but we now need it for a submarine to use instead.''"

Gen Schwartz is going to be featured on CBS's "60 Minutes" tonight. The topic is "The US Military's use of Unmanned Aircraft."

What time is that? * * Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone with SprintSpeed