<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/" > <channel><title>Comments on: Robo-Tanker Ready?</title> <atom:link href="http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" /><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/</link> <description>The Future of the Military, Law Enforcement and National Security</description> <lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:28:44 +0000</lastBuildDate> <sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod> <sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency> <generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator> <item><title>By: stephen russell</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-119184</link> <dc:creator>stephen russell</dc:creator> <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jan 2008 14:27:25 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-119184</guid> <description>Radical &amp; cool, great for those TransPac missions &amp; over the Pole missions alone to have drone Strato tankers to meet incoming Sqdn for fuel. Nice. Use a Blended Wing as next AF Tanker &amp; cargo jet alone The Blended Wing can replace the C5B. Blended Wing=797. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Radical &amp; cool, great for those TransPac missions &amp; over the Pole missions alone to have drone Strato tankers to meet incoming Sqdn for fuel.<br /> Nice.<br /> Use a Blended Wing as next AF Tanker &amp; cargo jet alone<br /> The Blended Wing can replace the C5B.<br /> Blended Wing=797.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Dan Mullock</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-119183</link> <dc:creator>Dan Mullock</dc:creator> <pubDate>Mon, 09 Jan 2006 01:42:54 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-119183</guid> <description>For a long time, ucav&#039;s will require manned fighter cap to avoid air to air engagements which they cannot easily fight autonomously.  Why not use stealthy ucav&#039;s such as the boeing ucav 45a/c as a tanker as well as for high risk target attack?  A single or few manned fighters could provide cap, and the refueling platform could be one of the ucavs, which then RTB&#039;s early.  A f-22 or f-35 could fly a very long subsonic high altitide flight with a 10,000 lbs of extra fuel. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>For a long time, ucav’s will require manned fighter cap to avoid air to air engagements which they cannot easily fight autonomously.  Why not use stealthy ucav’s such as the boeing ucav 45a/c as a tanker as well as for high risk target attack?  A single or few manned fighters could provide cap, and the refueling platform could be one of the ucavs, which then RTB’s early.  A f-22 or f-35 could fly a very long subsonic high altitide flight with a 10,000 lbs of extra fuel.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: JSAllison</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-119182</link> <dc:creator>JSAllison</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:31:12 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-119182</guid> <description>Hmm, now if we can get autonomous cargo aircraft and automate all those annoying E/R-series aircraft, why, we can fire all the pile-its that aren&#039;t Raptor drivers! I don&#039;t see any point in the Raptor beyond perhaps a wing&#039;s worth for R&amp;D.  Supercruise answers no business problem.  Get the Raptor&#039;s unit cost down under 80 mill or so and it might be more defensible but at 150+ mill for a one seater that they don&#039;t even want to put hard points on, well, I&#039;d rather get f-15s and 16s wing jobs and avionics upgrades. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hmm, now if we can get autonomous cargo aircraft and automate all those annoying E/R-series aircraft, why, we can fire all the pile-its that aren’t Raptor drivers!<br /> I don’t see any point in the Raptor beyond perhaps a wing’s worth for R&amp;D.  Supercruise answers no business problem.  Get the Raptor’s unit cost down under 80 mill or so and it might be more defensible but at 150+ mill for a one seater that they don’t even want to put hard points on, well, I’d rather get f-15s and 16s wing jobs and avionics upgrades.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: Byron Skinner</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-119181</link> <dc:creator>Byron Skinner</dc:creator> <pubDate>Wed, 14 Dec 2005 03:26:26 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-119181</guid> <description>Good Evening Folks, Autonomous mid-air refueling and carrier landing are the last two big hurdles for the UCAV. If this story is even almost true the future is sooner then anyone though. Again I ask the question why do we need the F-22 or even the F-35? ALLONS, Byron Skinner </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good Evening Folks,<br /> Autonomous mid-air refueling and carrier landing are the last two big hurdles for the UCAV. If this story is even almost true the future is sooner then anyone though.<br /> Again I ask the question why do we need the F-22 or even the F-35?<br /> ALLONS,<br /> Byron Skinner</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: TrustButVerify</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-119180</link> <dc:creator>TrustButVerify</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:16:45 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-119180</guid> <description>I&#039;ve been wondering when we&#039;d here more about this... AFRL has already done some preliminary research looking at KC-135s using booth boom and probe-and-drogue methods. There are still lots of hurdles, but this is something that&#039;s going to happen IMHO- just a matter of when. </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I’ve been wondering when we’d here more about this… AFRL has already done some preliminary research looking at KC-135s using booth boom and probe-and-drogue methods. There are still lots of hurdles, but this is something that’s going to happen IMHO– just a matter of when.</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> <item><title>By: JQP</title><link>http://defensetech.org/2005/12/13/robo-tanker-ready/#comment-42687</link> <dc:creator>JQP</dc:creator> <pubDate>Tue, 13 Dec 2005 15:54:56 +0000</pubDate> <guid isPermaLink="false">http://deftech.usmilblog.com/?p=2969#comment-42687</guid> <description>What about with a swam of UAVs giving protecton? That wat the tanker can if needed fly closer to where it may be needed without risking pilots. Does the tanker accept Ammex? </description> <content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What about with a swam of UAVs giving protecton? That wat the tanker can if needed fly closer to where it may be needed without risking pilots. Does the tanker accept Ammex?</p> ]]></content:encoded> </item> </channel> </rss>
<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using apc
Page Caching using apc (User agent is rejected)
Database Caching 2/7 queries in 0.003 seconds using apc
Object Caching 699/703 objects using apc
Content Delivery Network via images.defensetech.org

Served from: defensetech.org @ 2012-02-09 23:42:13 -->
