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
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • 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

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    • More Vehicle Digital Camouflage
    • Chinese Digi-Camo
    • Defense Spending Headed Down
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
    • Army’s GCV Not Just MGV Warmed Over
    • Cancel Cyber Command
    Recent Comments
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      We really need the F-35 at this point....
      William C.
    • Those Wonderful Sea Lines of Communication
      That boat in the picture looks slightly...
      andris
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
      Lets face it guys – they need this because they are...
      Musson
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      You didn't notice? The 30 million Mexicans are already...
      Matt
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
      The same thing that happened to the F22 is...
      Drake1
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      Just curious, but I noticed no-one talking counter-measures...
      cjkosh
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      BTW: We mustn’t forget Heritage's links to...
      Anon E Moose
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      First Member: "Whaat? Oh. Hmmm. Very well then....
      Anon E Moose
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
      First Member of the People's Liberation Front of...
      Anon E Moose
    • Gimme Some Skin!
      its about time someone made a tactical pen priced at what there really worth...
      alva
  • 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| © 2010 Military Advantage