While radar stealth is useless in Afghanistan, another feature that was being tested in these programs was autonomous flight and action. The Navy UCAS it looks similar to, and its Air Force cousin, were robot planes, not just glorified radio controlled drones with autopilots. Greater autonomy could be useful in Afghanistan, because getting consistent signals, even from satellites, can be a challenge in mountainous terrain.

My point was not that Reagan built up the military– we’re paying through the nose today for the consequences of his shopping spree. During his Presidency though, and ever since the military has been working toward the goal of projecting conventional forces to any point on Earth with ever greater speed and precision. I think this had its beginnings particularly with Operation Eagle Claw. It’s not a bad idea at all, except I can’t think of one President who’s gotten real unqualified success from this ability to strike at a moment’s notice. The ability to strike is getting even faster, with fewer consequences to our forces, but our ability to understand situations doesn’t seem any better than it’s ever been. That’s why I’m not a big fan of our totally unmanned future. Just seems like we’ll get faster at making messes.

Anyway, the RQ-170 seems like a neat little recon bird. Unmanned is good for that. I wouldn’t doubt that it’s sneaking around a lot of places we don’t acknowledge, but that line in the press release about “pro­viding recon­nais­sance and sur­veil­lance sup­port to for­ward deployed com­bat forces” has me thinking that one of its main jobs is giving real time ISR to special operators who are way outside the wire, as it were. I think I remember a story about those guys wanting more capability like that in a wider range of situations. My two cents.

Have a good one.

I see we have a myth going on here, or maybe a few. First off since the end of the Korean War the US has had world wide force projection at any level it chose to use. We are the only country that had and still has Naval surface, undersea units as well as Marine Amphibious Ready Groups now called Marine Expeditionary Groups at sea 24/7/365. We were the only country during the cold war had nuclear armed bombers in the air 24/7/365 as well as and still have land based ICMS on 24 hour alert. So beg to differ on how Reagan build up our military.

What Reagan with his trusty side kick OMB’s David Stickman did was spend a lot of money on platforms of questionable worth, like the Los Angeles Class Submarine, bringing out old past prime time platforms, the battle ships, restart systems that the generals didn’t want but industry did like the B-1B, invest in fantasy systems like the Peace Keeper ICBM that was a failure and Star Wars, hallowed out or Army by now giving pay rises in some years and only small one when they did,he cut funds for training and ships and transport aircraft that was needed to move ground forces.

What Reagan did do was to create a military industrial system that we can’t afford. He let the industry from oligarchic monopolies that conspire to fix prices and exercise control of the planning, procurement and accusation of American military systems. The control of all this is through ideological “conservative tanks” that gain contracts from the DoD that allows them to determine what is to be bought while the while talking money from defense contractors to promote there services and products. Officers who cooperated with these think tanks found smooth advancement and upon retirement seven and eight figure retire incomes, the NYT a couple of weeks ago counted 158 former officers still employed by the companies they were doing business with when on active duty. When President Obama took office there were 39 of these think tanks that had DoD contracts and nearly all were involved in conflict of interest issues.

I agree 100% what we need is restraint and good judgement and that starts with getting rid of all think tanks regardless of their political/philosophical ideology and once again start tasking military officer with doing what the tax payer is paying them for.

Start with the repeal of the 1996 law that prohibits the DoD from tracking the employment of retire officers. This is an open conduit for corruption and has cost the tax payer trillion in contract for useless projects, bribes, over billings and all around general fraudulent behavior by uniformed military officers.

Upon retirement their should be a five year period where a retired officer can’t take employment or and paying position with any company that has had a Government Contract during his/her time in the service and a lifetime prohibition with all companies the he/she had any direct working relationship with.

This would be a start. Not a end.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

It’s already too easy for our administrations to commit to using force. It’s politically popular and expedient, there is no check and balance anymore. They seem to only slow down when considering the potential loss of American lives, and now we’re going to take that hurdle out of the way as well.

What we need is restraint and good judgment. I’ve read enough of your posts to think that’s something you agree with. How do you propose we get them?

Before I get into “high performance” I would like to bring up the obvious issue of speculation here, that has so far been over looked.

The best way is to put out the hints:

A stealthy long range RQ aircraft, but no technical specification are give.

Bases at Kanfhar in Afghanistan.

The Taliban or al Qaeda have no radar. that we know of.

The mission of the RQ-170 is doing scout work for bombers (strike packages).

The US according. to the USAF Chief of staff has a developed “non kinetic” Cyber Weapon.

Reliable sources on the web have given evidence that the cyber weapons that General Norton Schwartz talked about, in fact exists and has defeated Iranian S-300 MV ADS air defense systems, to include dropping missiles in flight (SS-21’s?). THe USAF nor the DoD have denied this story for two years now.

Iran has nuclear facilities and an on going weapons program that is making Israel nervous. Israel has a long history or proactive strikes against nuclear facilities from the air when it gets nervous.

Israel and the United States are allies, but Israel also has a long history of selling US transfer technology to Russia and China. This cyber weapon would be a plumb especially for Russia who in the process of designing the S-500 ADS (they have suspended/scraped the development of the S-400 ADS).

The US for domestic political reasons would like to help Israel but at the same time wouldn’t like the Russians to get their hands on this technology.

Kandhar is the closest to Iran of any major air base in Afghanistan.

While of you defense intellectuals out there consider the above clues, I will address what I though I was referring to with the phrase “high performance”.

As I used it I was referring to RQ/MQ airframes. The ultimate for this line of technological development that I referenced was a UAV B-3. If history of the development of bombers hold true the UAV B-3 will be a medium twin engine bomber, most likely with a 10–12 ton payload.

It’s weapons stores could include the 500LB. JADAM III (the contract for the kits was put out last week to Boeing, the number was in the thousands, the Navy variant was ordered most likely it is still in T&D. Goodies a UAV B-3 could bring to the fight might include the 250LB SDB II, the GBU 12, a 500LB CBU, perhaps the second generation of Viper Strike and the Viper Strike II (125Lb.) from NG, the L-3/Triton LCALCM to name only a few. The targeting suite will include EOTS/RSTA/IR/GPS/SAR 3D, WBIR etc. and yet to be talked about targeting systems.

The Navy also would have a carrier variant that would replace the missing A-6 and S-3 platforms and the just ordering last week from Boeing E/F-18G air frames. The Naval variant would also have twin engines like the AF version but would add to it weapons suite a ALASM, sea mines, it ISR Targeting package would include (still in R&D) Passive sensors that use reflections off the surface of the water and IR signatures to detect ships and moving magnetic fields for what ever might be down below. Radar are so 20th. Century.

The RQ-170 will only be two point on the AF’s learning curve toward the B-3.

How long before unmanned is always better, I would think we are already there. This debate reminds me of what was being said by the “smart people, the civilian Defense Intellectuals” in 1956 when the last B-36’s were sent to the scrap yard, “Jets can do it all, there will always be a need for the piston bomber, (re, the B-29)”, the last RB-29’s were retired in 1959 if I recall, they were flying out of Turkey and the Soviets were shooting down RB-29’s on a regular basis. There replacement was the RB-47, all jet. The RB-47’s along with the Jupiter IRMB’s were pull out of Turkey in 1962 as part of the Cuban Missile deal.

The choice is not about “we can” or “we should” but “why not”. I’ve been hearing a lot of noise in support about the F-22’s and the F-35’s and how we need to stay ahead of Russia and China. UAV is a head, generations ahead of Russia and China, manned combat fighter and attack planes are at a dead end, they have evolved as far as they can, let Russia and China waste resources and lose more time on the scale of emerging technology and do manned aircraft. so what.

The USAF and USN are currently looking at distances of 500KM to 2500KN engagement for the air to air combat, ship to ship, underwater to underwater engagements. Not gun range.

The US Army and Marines who were thinking and talking about a 100KM. deep battle space in 2000 are now fighting in 300-500KM deep battle spaces as well as airspace up to 60K feet.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

Besides, I suppose the landing gear parts are flush and unlikely to have a large radar profile. Alternatively, it’s hard to infer a lot about an aircraft with a blurry picture.

And yes, engineering capabilities surpass what pilots can withstand. The questions of how long before unmanned is always better than manned, and the differences between whether “we can” and “we should” do something, are critical.

The RQ-170 doesn’t appear to be an X45, but judging from its appearance only it does look like a high performance aircraft, and this is a huge step forward in the evolution of the UAV. This could be a step toward an UAV B-3, which isn’t a huge leap from the Reaper/Avenger now operational and coming on line, down the road and a UAV perhaps even an autonomous UAV F/A platform.

Because of human physical limitations the F-22 appears to be the end on the line for the manned high performance fighter. The capacity of the F-22 already as seen in the crash a few months has passed up the ability of a pilot to fly the aircraft near or at it maximum maneuvering performance, the F-22 in short excess human endurance. Any Generation 6 fighter will have to leave out the human.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner