DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s an advertisement!

It’s a bird, it’s a plane, it’s an advertisement!

In an effort to catch up in the grow­ing unmanned aer­ial vehi­cles (UAVs) mar­ket, Lockheed Martin is play­ing up what it’s got, and that means just about any­thing. Lockheed Martin recently talked up its idea for a pilot­less ver­sion of the F-​​35 Joint Strike Fighter, accord­ing to today’s Washington Post:

The idea has been in the works for two years, Lockheed Vice President Frank Mauro said at a brief­ing yes­ter­day. He pro­vided few details but said the plane could be built as an inter­change­able hybrid — manned by a pilot for some mis­sions and oper­ated remotely for others.

This fol­lows last month’s unveil­ing of the company’s Polecat at the Farnborough Air Show, a UAV built with Lockheed’s own funds.
The unmanned JSF isn’t really a brand new concept—Lockheed appar­ently has bandied the idea around for some time, and there’s no evi­dence the Air Force is inter­ested. But then again a lit­tle free pub­lic­ity never hurt any­one.
– Sharon Weinberger

Share |

August 16th, 2006 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 480622 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/08/16/its-a-bird-its-a-plane-its-an-advertisement/It%27s+a+bird%2C+it%27s+a+plane%2C+it%27s+an+advertisement%212006-08-16+15%3A37%3A20christian You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Raptor … or Turkey? (Part Four) | From Huntsville, with love and rockets » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. Byron Skinner says:
    August 16, 2006 at 12:55 pm

    Good Morning Sharon and oth­ers,
    Gee I thought this couldn’t be done. But the big­ger ques­tion is why?
    If the F-​​35 can be recon­fig­ured as a UCAV what do we need to go on with the largest defense con­tract ever. Would it not be cheaper just to scrap the F-​​35 all together, cut our loses rather then to send $265 Billion down a techogoli­cal “Rat Hole”?
    Was it not our very own Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld who, when he took office in 2001 said that he was ready to skip a gen­er­a­tion or two of tech­nol­ogy to get more advanced sys­tems. It seems that here like with “Comache” and “Crusader” this is Rumsfelds chance to back up his rhetoric with actions, again.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  2. Brian says:
    August 16, 2006 at 1:08 pm

    Gee, Byron, again you post some­thing com­pletely unre­lated to the topic at hand. Why would we want to scrap the F-​​35? Oh, that’s right, because you’re a crazy old guy who bitches a lot.

    Reply
  3. C-Low says:
    August 16, 2006 at 2:00 pm

    I got a ques­tion that ever since the first talk about UCAV has begun.
    Why can

    Reply
  4. David Hambling says:
    August 16, 2006 at 2:10 pm

    Convert obso­lete air­craft into UCAVs — but who would make a pile of the money out of that??
    You’re threat­en­ing the entire avi­a­tion indus­try there. All they’d need would be a few bits of eletron­ics and they could have a whole fleet of UCAVs. Thinking like that is bad for man­u­fac­tur­ers, bad for share­hold­ers and bad for the economy…

    Reply
  5. Noah says:
    August 16, 2006 at 9:09 pm

    An aptly named project — a pole­cat is a skunk.

    Reply
  6. Brian says:
    August 17, 2006 at 9:57 am

    Noah, you have a prob­lem with the Lockheed UAV pro­gram? What’s wrong with it?
    Oh wait, you tried to make a smart-​​ass com­ment about the F-​​35, but you didn’t read clearly and believed that “pole­cat” was some­how related to that air­craft. I gotcha.

    Reply
  7. Brian says:
    August 17, 2006 at 4:17 pm

    Byron, sec­ond verse, same as the first.
    It seems there are a crowd of “reg­u­lars” here, and after a lit­tle while, one can pre­dict the exact con­tent of any par­tic­u­lar person’s post on any par­tic­u­lar sub­ject.
    Yes, it’s true that tech­no­log­i­cal change is inevitable. But before you jump all over those who failed to embrace the long­bow, or those who clung closely to the armored knight, or those Poles who charged their cav­alry directly into the German machine guns, make sure you aren’t advo­cat­ing a dif­fer­ent kind of fal­lacy. The UAV hasn’t changed avi­a­tion yet. Remember, there were those who wanted to release swarms of explosive-​​laden bats upon Tokyo. There were those who said that the nuclear hand-​​grenade was the weapon of the future. Some said that the 1960s would see sol­diers in rocket-​​packs dom­i­nat­ing the bat­tle­field.
    Where are my ray-​​guns, dammit? I want my bat­tle­ships made out of ice­bergs, and my nuclear-​​powered bombers. All of it sup­ported by laser sat­telites rain­ing death from the skies.

    Reply
  8. Noah says:
    August 17, 2006 at 6:27 pm

    What’s wrong with the F-​​35? You mean aside from being yet another tax­payer sub­si­dized multi-​​hundred-​​billion dol­lar weapons pro­gram that is with­out war­rant (execpt of course for Lockheed prof­its)? How about costs on par with the F-​​22? How about the GAO report critiz­ing the project? How about a sys­tem designed to deliver death and destruc­tion that is yet another step removed from human con­trol?
    To put it in two easy to remem­ber words: War Corporatism. Ever won­der what hap­pened to the Peace Dividend? It was unprofitable …

    Reply
  9. Murc says:
    August 17, 2006 at 6:53 pm

    I think the rea­son Lockheed has being lay­ing low with “UAV talk” is because it would likely make the F-​​35 seem like a waste of money.
    I have noth­ing against the F-35…But it seems its turn­ing into the ISS (inter­na­tional space station)…and by that I mean: The ISS has sev­eral coun­tries from around the world invested in it, which means the US (the main builder) cant back out of it until its built…which is cost­ing many many bil­lions of dol­lars.
    I think the Raptor costs like 120 million…I think they should cut the F-​​35 now (rather then later) and put there money into a cou­ple hun­dred more F-22’s and UCAVS, I see this being cheaper and mak­ing more sense…But the Dozen or so JSF part­ners wouldn’t like it.

    Reply
  10. Brian says:
    August 17, 2006 at 8:57 pm

    Learn to read, son!!!
    I didn’t ask you what was wrong with the F-​​35. I’ve seen enough of your posts to know what you think on that sub­ject.
    I asked what was wrong with the Lockheed UAV “Polecat” plat­form. “Polecat is another word for skunk” you said. So I want to know what is wrong with that pro­gram. To which you responded with another attack on the F-​​35. The Polecat is not the F-​​35. What is wrong with the Polecat?
    For those of you who don’t know, the F-​​35 will be aquired in far larger num­bers than the F-​​22. It will also fill a role the F-​​22 can­not. It will have a car­rier ver­sion and a STOVL ver­sion. The F-​​22 can’t do that.
    The F-​​35 should save money by elim­i­nat­ing many of the dif­fer­ent planes we cur­rently use. By con­sol­i­dat­ing parts and decreas­ing main­tainance costs, the F-​​35 will be cheaper than buy­ing more of the same old planes. The rea­son it’s such an expen­sive pro­gram is because we’re buy­ing so many of them.

    Reply
  11. Byron Skinner says:
    August 18, 2006 at 12:20 pm

    Good Morning Brian,
    Sorry to see you so worked up. But I couldn’t let your exam­ple of the WWII Batt project go.
    Althought Naplm and other tech­nolgy made the con­cept obso­lete the idea is alive and in use today it is known as the “Cluster Bomb Unit” or the CBU.
    Your argu­ments are fun but are lit­tle more then sport. Unmanned Military is los­ing ground at a rate the even it strongest advo­cates only a cou­ple of years ago couldn’t imag­ine.
    Wars have a way of unmask­ing the obsole­sance of old think­ing and smash­ing it, not only is the ques­tion of manned vs. unmanned being exam­ined but air com­bat and it’s value to the ground war in gen­eral is in ques­tion.
    The big losers here of course will be the Military IndustralComplex. The cur­rent esti­mate of the buys for the F-​​22 will be a money loser for the indus­try. Using the Rule of 72 and assum­ing that the buy won’t increase nore the price in real terms and a ten pro­duc­tion the last F-​​55 just based on a 2.5% infla­tion rate over it’s pro­duc­tion life will cost about $50 Million more then the first unit. On the back side the net profit per unit will decline by 30%.
    These are not good num­bers Brian.
    The F-​​35 is the last hope for indus­try but even at $256 total project cost it is likely that the F-​​35 over it’s pro­jected 20 pro­duc­tion life will shop a profit.
    There are cur­rently more Predators bought or on order then the likely num­ber of F-22’s that will ever be made. The Predator C that is in devel­op­ment will more then like be able to trap on a car­rier, right now Predator’s can take off from car­ri­ers but the air frames are not strong enough to land, that will change.
    Rotary wing UAV’s, this week the Navy placed an order for eight Fire Scouts to start train­ing per­sonal for the fleet. The Fire Scout will be oper­a­tional by the end of the decade.
    You may yell from the high­ist por­tal your sup­port all you wish but for manned mil­i­tary air­craft but the bat­tle is over. Maybe the 50K per­sonal dumped from the Air Force and Navy this year can hear you.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  12. Brian says:
    August 18, 2006 at 5:43 pm

    You, uh, been drinkin’? I can’t under­stand half your post.

    Reply
  13. jansenkoe says:
    November 16, 2006 at 6:40 am

    Dear sir with respect to i want to say some words of your adver­tise­ment
    blogs your blogs is very nice,and i also give a small types of a sea­ga­tion–
    http://​www​.cityfly​.net

    Reply
  14. rs gold says:
    August 2, 2008 at 2:49 am

    But this also can not stand the feel­ing of vir­tual test, because we have feel­ings, and equip­ment can be wear by every­one, num­ber is also. And the issue was com­ing, the num­ber was stolen, the equip­ment and the RS gold were stolen. Perhaps the feel­ings of the game were greater than the real­ity of the feel­ings of the problems.

    Reply
  15. rs gold says:
    August 2, 2008 at 2:50 am

    But this also can not stand the feel­ing of vir­tual test, because we have feel­ings, and equip­ment can be wear by every­one, num­ber is also. And the issue was com­ing, the num­ber was stolen, the equip­ment and the RS gold were stolen. Perhaps the feel­ings of the game were greater than the real­ity of the feel­ings of the problems.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "And no, the Koran does not say anything about killing...
      bdwilcox
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      When the Lord your God brings you into the land you are entering to...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Fascism? Last time I heard, the fascists promoted christianity. Or,...
      DualityOfMan
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I see an M16 firing, and I see a 40 mm grenade launcher...
      DualityOfMan
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage