BVR future or not?

[weasel1962]

Re:

One may need a stealth tanker as well. Considering that KC-X will need to operate for the next 40-50 years... easy targets.

It'd be funny if the B-2s end up being converted into multi-billion $ tankers. 40-50,000 lbs of fuel rather than bombs for stealth fighters. Last mile tankers which can be refuelled by the non-stealth tankers.

If one can't fly B-2s to penetrate super dense fighter defenses, might as well use them for something...May be feasible to get Sargent Fletcher to design some fuel tanks for the internal bomb bay.

GPS co-ordinates to identify pre-determined loiter locations with special short range IFF interrogators for last mile connection. Sweet.

 

[gf0012-aust]

One may need a stealth tanker as well. Considering that KC-X will need to operate for the next 40-50 years... easy targets.

It'd be funny if the B-2s end up being converted into multi-billion $ tankers. 40-50,000 lbs of fuel rather than bombs for stealth fighters. Last mile tankers which can be refuelled by the non-stealth tankers.

If one can't fly B-2s to penetrate super dense fighter defenses, might as well use them for something...May be feasible to get Sargent Fletcher to design some fuel tanks for the internal bomb bay.

conformal arrays could see another Block iteration of the B2.... technically it's not that far a stretch to change planar to conformal AESA

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

B-2 awacs?

That will require innovation. The conformal arrays will change the shape which may affect its stealth. Maybe with tech advances, the conformal arrays could be reduced (same thing happened with sub sonar/flank arrays?).

Personally I think they will probably need a new design ie new plane at this stage. Knowing DARPA, they probably tot of it a decade ago with a version already in an unidentified hanger somewhere...

 

[gf0012-aust]

B-2 awacs?

That will require innovation. The conformal arrays will change the shape which may affect its stealth. Maybe with tech advances, the conformal arrays could be reduced (same thing happened with sub sonar/flank arrays?).

Personally I think they will probably need a new design ie new plane at this stage. Knowing DARPA, they probably tot of it a decade ago with a version already in an unidentified hanger somewhere...

No, not as an AWACs - as in a Block upgrade to the extant sensor capability.

arguably some of the existing capability gives them the same reach as a mid size AWACs anyway (in some dimensions)

 

[gf0012-aust]

Personally I think they will probably need a new design ie new plane at this stage. Knowing DARPA, they probably tot of it a decade ago with a version already in an unidentified hanger somewhere...

in actual fact, the future force developments and platform constructs are based around 5th and 6th gen fighter solutions such as F-22 and JSF being able to replace the AWACs in a number of battlespace management areas. There are a number of capabilities already doing this, and conformal as well as miniaturised arrays on not only the platforms,. but also on released weapons invites a new paradigm

 

[Bonza]

That is exactly whats happening. AWACs are not just battlespace managers, but they will be hive managers of other sensors and arrays.

the use of UAVs to become airborne sensors hooked into the greater grid is a variation of what the BAMS philosophy is.

UAV's in a sense will be the 21st Cent version of the radar picket - much like ROV/UUV/USV's are becoming the radar/sensor/sonar picket for submarines.

the common key word is "dismount". UAV's in the grid will act very much like dismounts/pickets.

add in the fact that conformal arrays are starting to become a reality, then the AWACs will be changing in "looks" and capability.

ironically it could be harder for the VLO to see the AWACs based on future developments. A decent sized AWAcs (and that will be determined by physical size and onboard power) should have the first drop on a VLO.

WRT hive management, is this a function that could potentially be performed (probably on a smaller scale) by future iterations of modern two seaters like the Super Hornet? Just curious, due to the decoupled cockpit and hefty processing capacity suggested by the Growler variant.

Just thinking of what a US carrier group's radar picket/CAP would look like with a UAV swarm deployed... intimidating thought!

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

I tot this is an interesting paper in particular this quote below.

"Specifically, ISR should be focused to perform confirmation rather than discovery missions."

http://www.dodccrp.org/events/2004_CCRTS/CD/papers/132.pdf

When one considers the impact of stealth, I can appreciate how predictive battlespace management can value add in this area.

 

[gf0012-aust]

WRT hive management, is this a function that could potentially be performed (probably on a smaller scale) by future iterations of modern two seaters like the Super Hornet? Just curious, due to the decoupled cockpit and hefty processing capacity suggested by the Growler variant.

It can be done now - as in the techsets exist. The backseater for a Growler could be doing a very very different function in the near future.

IMO one of the clear "mistakes" was not to do parallel development of the F-22 and JSF as twin seaters to pick up the weasel/prowler/growler role.

Just thinking of what a US carrier group's radar picket/CAP would look like with a UAV swarm deployed... intimidating thought!

the future won't be about worrying whether red force can kill your AWACs - as the hive will be much more lethal and effective as well as having the battlespace redundancy to maintain presence even if you lose an airborne node.

The US has made a quantum leap ahead of everyone else in this area - one of the reasons why I get so frustrated at the 5thgen naysayers is their apparent incomprehension of how the force structure with 5th gen assets is already causing doctrine change - way ahead of being actively fielded. Its why the rest of the world is keen on building their own 5th gen - even though some of the chattering commentariat talks about the redundancy of VLO etc they haven't worked out that this is where everyone is going - and for very good reason.

 

[Bonza]

It can be done now - as in the techsets exist. The backseater for a Growler could be doing a very very different function in the near future.

Very interesting - thanks mate. Looking forward to hearing more about what the Growler can do as time goes on, it sounds like it's got some extremely potent gear under the hood.

IMO one of the clear "mistakes" was not to do parallel development of the F-22 and JSF as twin seaters to pick up the weasel/prowler/growler role.

I found that pretty confusing, really - especially since from what I recall both USN and USAF have a stated preference for two seaters in the strike role, and given the potential for present and future applications such as the ones mentioned. A two-seat F-35 I would have thought to be a particularly useful prospect considering the vast amounts of sensor data the aircraft can gather (though it does strike me that space would be at a premium). Was there perhaps too much focus on the idea of computing improvements reducing pilot workload, thus necessitating only a single person?

The US has made a quantum leap ahead of everyone else in this area - one of the reasons why I get so frustrated at the 5thgen naysayers is their apparent incomprehension of how the force structure with 5th gen assets is already causing doctrine change - way ahead of being actively fielded. Its why the rest of the world is keen on building their own 5th gen - even though some of the chattering commentariat talks about the redundancy of VLO etc they haven't worked out that this is where everyone is going - and for very good reason.

I don't understand how people argue against the strengths of the technologies associated with "5th generation" aircraft when every major military on the planet is either investing in or developing them. The logic kind of falls apart when considered against the massive amount of resources being put into this development, by entities far, far more "in the know" than the average commentator.

 

[gf0012-aust]

I don't understand how people argue against the strengths of the technologies associated with "5th generation" aircraft when every major military on the planet is either investing in or developing them. The logic kind of falls apart when considered against the massive amount of resources being put into this development, by entities far, far more "in the know" than the average commentator.

At the risk of generalising, in my experience the people who dismiss VLO/LO usually have no comprehension of what the capabilities consist of - and usually think that its a tangible tech change like AESA or like Link 16, ie they see it as a defined solution. They usually don't comprehend at all that VLO is a capability welded to functionality and a concept. Concept is the key here becasue it drives every military when they develop and define their CONOPS.

what's laughable is that those who are less technically literate and usually capability biased think that VLO is at its cusp and is waning - it's only just started - even though the US has retired its first publicly revealed manned VLO asset after being in service for more than the life of a human generation....

6th gen will be fth gen + miniaturised extant sets, AI management, hive/swarm management, battlespace managers in their own right etc.....

warfighting is shifting to a new quantum level - the luddites just haven't cottoned onto it yet .....

 

[Sea Toby]

I was impressed with this You Tube video of EODAS released by Northrup Grumman for the F-35... The future of technology is almost here...

[nomedia]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fm5vfGW5RY&feature=channel[/nomedia]

 

[SpudmanWP]

The thing to remember about that 800 mile detect and track is that it was a satellite booster, not an AAM or fighter.

It was still quite impressive though.