Comments on: J-UCAS Takes Another Hit

By: Bill Barrett

Bill Barrett — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 17:53:18 +0000

Mr. Marshall’s comments were good. The DataLink jamming problem is avoided by 2 methods: 1) Pencil-Point comms, as shown in public FCS slides, and 2) having intelligent control within the vehicle (which explains the change from RP to UA in UAV). The pilot is generally the most expensive and heaviest payload in the aircraft (gotta consider life-support systems in these budgets). The economics seem clear.

By: John Marshall

John Marshall — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 15:54:03 +0000

Another example of congressional and military
shortsightedness. I do not belive that any A.I.
or remote can replace a human on site. However
as an adjunct these platform’s can be very effective. Ive read several “what if’s” in
military tech fiction and Im sold. Dale Brown’s
books get the point across very well. Can you
imagine being a pilot in a dogfight against
a fighter that can pull 20 G’s? My only question
is how do you keep the data link from being jammed? EMP’s are very effective and our satillites are pretty defenseless.

By: CJ

CJ — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 14:14:50 +0000

Anybody wonder why LockMart got the space deal? Can you say “Quid Pro Quo”?

By: John Primbs

John Primbs — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 13:51:55 +0000

I have noticed a number of articles on unmanned aircraft systems from a few prominent news sources that refer to these system’s flight vehicles as drones. Just for the record, these vehicles are not drones. The term is correctly applied to an aircraft that is used as an aerial target. A drone is usually a manned aircraft that has reached the end of its useful life and then modified and flown as an unmanned vehicle as a target for gunnery practice or other exercise purpose.

By: JD

JD — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:52:14 +0000

From what I understood while working on the AX (then later called A/FX), the reason for the A-12 cancellation, other than WAY overrun costs, was that they simply could not build it. The structures sizing and aeroelasticity problems just could not be overcome.
The initial AX program was similar: deep strike, low observable, internal LGB carriage…what killed AFX was the F-18 mafia. Suddenly AX, a flying dump truck, was told it had to knife fight like an F-16, got stuck carrying tall-fins internal (making it HUGELY thick…folding fins weren’t allowed) plus AMRAAMs. We were told if it COULDN“T do all that then the F-18 was the winner, yet the F-18 couldn’t do a fraction of what we were expected to do. The AX was a helluva plane. The AFX was just another F-111.

By: Byron Skinner

Byron Skinner — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 18:50:02 +0000

Good Morning David,
What a way to start out the week. The F-35 according to articles in several Sunday Papers this past weekend is on the ropes. Already with a cost estimate of in excess of $100 million per unit in ’05 funds, the 2500 production mark now very unlikely and nobody is talking production before 2011 the F-35 may join the A-12 as good but no cigar. The sameguys who dumped the A-12 are still there for at least another two years, Cheney and Rumsfeld.
As you suggested the Navy is way ahead of the Air Force on unmanned combat air craft. The CV21 (X) project that is in design as I write this has determined that futire American Carries will only support five air frames vs. the current eleven. Navy Top Guns of the future will not get much farther then the ward room and a joy stick.
Here is a though for Brian and the rest who don’t want to see the future, Randy “Duke” Cunningham may go down in Naval History as the last “Navy Ace”.
Ah, what a way to start a week.
ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

By: DS

DS — Mon, 21 Aug 2006 16:44:31 +0000

man the A-12 would have been so cool. the mock-up that they did was awesome looking. hard to imagine why a plane so far ahead of it’s time would have been scrapped when it was so far into development.
:(