OverTQ
-
Posts
252 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
3
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Blogs
Downloads
Wiki
Posts posted by OverTQ
-
-
-
By kris osborn
Published: 29 Jul 2009 16:13
A U.S. Air Force C-130 incinerated a dummy ground target by firing a megawatt-class chemical oxygen iodine laser at White Sands Missile Range, N.M, during a June 13 test of the service's Advanced Tactical Laser (ATL), Boeing officials said.
"We fired the laser in-flight. We hit a target board on the ground," said Gary Fitzmire, vice president of Boeing's directed energy systems.
The test flight originated from nearby Kirtland Air Force Base, N.M.
The ATL - configured to deploy on a C-130 - is designed to destroy ground targets while moving with little or no collateral damage, Fitzmire said.
"We were able to conduct many ground tests to build confidence of the system and the laser itself. Last summer, we conducted an integrated ground test. Our targets are ground-based tactical targets such as a fuel tank, vehicle or communications node," Fitzmire said.
The roughly $200 million ATL program began in late 2002. Several more flight tests are planned for this summer, Fitzmere said.
Sharks with freaken laser beams.
-
If what I heard is true, the next Apache "update" will be that of making the bird unmanned. Dont know how much of this is true but I much rather have a Tucano than something thats unmanned.
Just throwing my .02 coming from limited knowledge
They have done limited testing on the idea, but no real plans.
-
Military.com
Christian Lowe | July 24, 2009Sometimes low-tech wars require low-tech solutions to win them. Unfortunately for the United States, that hasn't been the strategic underpinning since the end of World War II saw America as the undisputed technological powerhouse in military hardware.The idea was that American technology would make up for Soviet brute strength and sheer numbers. One F-15 could take out five MiG-21s given the Eagle's advanced radar and combat systems. When air superiority became obsolete because of it, high-tech advocates homed in on precision air-to-ground weaponeering as the new strategic game changer. A $1 billion B-2 could drop multiple $20,000 satellite-guided bombs on separate targets through any weather from 40,000 feet to within inches of the bull's eye.
And thus "Effects-based Operations" were born. By accurately bombing from high altitude the right strategic and tactical targets, air power could cause an effect that would force the enemy into submission. The Gulf War proved the thesis, the wars in Yugoslavia and Kosovo furthered it, the Iraq war threw it into doubt -- and now the Afghan war has tossed it out the window.
From a dimly-lit room in the bowels of the Pentagon, a champion of the bare-knuckled street fighter toiled in vain. In his ramshackle office, perched on a rusty filing cabinet sat a model airplane. It was an A-10 Thunderbolt II ground attack plane with the word "Marines" stenciled on the fuselage. That man -- Chuck Spinney -- had always been an advocate for airpower that made sense, and to him a force that depended on austerity and simple fighting tactics had no use for a complex ground attack plane that relied on vectored thrust.
It was the clean and simple and deadly "Warthog" that fit the Corps' bill in his mind. But men like Spinney were regarded as the red-headed stepchildren of DoD planning. The glamorous gizmos of phased array radars, JDAMs and JASSMs wowed the budget gurus, pilots and their congressional budget masters. That's not to say these wonder weapons didn't actually work, but they tended to work best in a much more antiseptic battlefield than we're seeing today.
What's the most requested close air support aircraft on the battlefield in Afghanistan (or in Iraq for that matter)? The mighty AC-130 Spectre gunship. Nothing fancy here, just a bunch of big guns mounted to one side of a 1960s-era transport that spits out responsive, accurate, proportional fire from low altitude with good situational awareness for both pilot and ground pounder. Same goes with the A-10 -- you can't have too many of those unglamorous planes on today's battlefield (and let's not forget that back in the late 1990s the Warthog was almost erased from the Air Force's inventory).
Just as the counterinsurgency strategists toiled in the background while the Iraq war crumbled in America's old-school tactical grip only to be showered with laurels as military leaders accepted their plans as a last ditch effort to save a losing war, now the advocates for counterinsurgency airpower are clamoring to be heard. And with a small, shadowy effort conducted by an obscure Navy office fighting for its very existence in a climate of American war apathy, the COIN plane is slowly gestating into something that may save our war in Afghanistan like the COIN strategy saved us in Iraq.
In a country as vast and austere as Afghanistan -- with road networks comprised largely of dried up riverbeds and high mountain passes choked off by winter snows -- air power has proven key to a rapid response with troops in contact. But as a recent investigation into the deaths via aerial bombing of civilian Afghans in Farah province demonstrates, the Gulf War model of high altitude precision bombing will only help America lose that war.
Does a slow-moving, prop-driven, low altitude attack plane make pilots more vulnerable? You bet. During the Vietnam War, the Air Force and Navy lost more than 260 A-1 Skyraiders during close air support missions. But weighed against the risks to civilians and the effects those deaths would have on America's quest for victory in Afghanistan, it's a risk that needs to be taken to win the most crucial front in the war against those who attacked us on 9-11.
When air power can see the enemy with its own eyes, stay over the battlefield for five hours, carry a variety of weaponry that allows for a gradual escalation of force in proportion to the threat and is slow and low enough to patiently identify friend from foe, that's when pilots can execute their version of the ground pounder's mission to prevail in counterinsurgency warfare.
-
If we're looking for something that can loiter over targets for a long period of time and do the CAS mission, then why wouldn't the focus be on advancing attack helicopters and what would really make the Tucano that much better than the Apache?
Since I have multiple tours in the box as a Apache pilot and a FW pilot, allow me to answer. One is again cost. A brand new AH64D cost around $38 million. The operating cost is around $5000 with about 10 hours per flight hour. All that to go after a guy with a $500 dollar RPG. Next is speed. 140 kts vs 350 kts. Time to a TIC is vital. Also take into consideration how the battle space is ran today. While the Longbow is one of the best airframes for doing FAC(A) work, it has two flaws. One is it is operated by the Army. Two is altitude. We do work up to about 8000' but that is not really ideal. In Vietnam, we had a system where the Helios worked low while the fast mover worked high all while being directed by a FAC(A) working medium altitudes. We (Army and AF crews) have adapted and worked it out as best as we can, but there are still issue as probably several crews here can attest too. Where we are fighting today, we don't need a battlefield full of Apaches or any other kind of strikers, we need ISR and assets that can provide adequate support until the big guns can arrive. And that can give on scene coordination. And yes, we would love to fly a FW CAS aircraft. Key West prevents that. Just my opinion.
-
I am sure I will take a few rounds for this, and maybe deservedly so. But all this talk about just how far away the soldier should be from the target when he pushes the button is self serving. Those of you against UAV's must come to grips with the fact that you are just trying to protect the way of life you love. Not maintaining the nobility of war. Dropping a pair (even on a hot run) from mid level angels, at 600 kts is not close range. Yes, your risk is greater than a UAV operator. But when ranges are measured in klicks or miles vs meters, your argument loses validity. If you really want some closer quarter killing, you are in the wrong career field.
-
Even if F-22s disappear from the budget, the Air Force will still receive money for aircraft it did not request.
The House appropriations bill includes:
* $674 million for three C-17 cargo planes not requested.
* $199 million for three C-37 VIP jets. The Air Force asked for $66 million to buy one of the 15-passenger Gulfstream aircraft.
* $354 million for three large C-40 VIP jets. The Pentagon asked for $154 million to buy one of these 110-passenger Boeing 737s.
* $1.7 billion to buy 18 F/A-18E/F fighters, which is nine more than the Pentagon sought.
* $649 million for three E-2D Hawkeye carrier-based early warning radar planes. The Navy wanted $507 million to buy two planes.
Lawmakers trimmed $532 million from the request to buy 28 F-35 Joint Strike Fighters: 14 for the Marine Corps, four for the Navy and 10 for the Air Force. The Pentagon asked for $6.1 billion and got $5.6 billion.
But the spending bill adds $430 million to the request for $3.6 billion for continued development of the F-35, and another $560 million not sought to continue developing an alternative engine for the plane.
The bill includes $440 million so the Air Force can keep trying to buy a new fleet of aerial refueling tankers. The committee said the service can choose either one vendor or two, and it urged the Air Force to buy 36 new tankers a year rather than 12 to 15 in earlier plans.
By william matthews
Published: 22 Jul 2009 15:02
It appears to me that the AF (and with all branches to a degree) has become such a high budget organization, that congress is using them for completely political purposes. Even if the leadership does come up with a good mix of aircraft that will fit the mission, congress is likely to do what it wants. A $350 million dollar aircraft employs a lot more voting constituents than a $3 million dollar EMB314. Maybe Ike should have said "Beware of the defense industrial complex and their paid for politicians".
-
And if your are going to post something like that, engage for chirst sakes. The only thing we like almost as much as boobs is a good fight.
-
Just to note, he is not from Texas.
-
By the way, this COIN is all fun and games until somebody gets an SA-14 or better as Ivan found out before us.
That is the flight environment in which many of us live all the time. Somebody has to get down and dirty to take those guys out.
-
Buy 186 instead of 187 F-22 and you could buy a 100 EMB 314's.
-
Ironic that it should surface this week. Maybe LM paid them do so.
-
Our bags are out of reg this year. In the Army we now have to wear a "flight suit" that looks like the ACU's the ground guys wear. You can't even wear your wings on it normally because they are pin on (hence metal). There was a time they were making pilots (101st) wear face paint (yeah an oil based) when they flew. So it could always be worse. I will miss my jammies though.
edit for grammer.
-
The no lid-no salute rule is the guide that the Navy and USMC follow, therefore officers normally put their hats on before going on base. Otherwise, the gate guard usually will not salute, emphasis on 'usually'.
I worked at a Navy base a couple years back, and that was the norm. If I (AF officer) was not wearing my hat while driving on base and had a military gate guard, there was a 70/30 chance of me getting saluted. Most of the guards were familiar with AF protocol, but those that were not did not usually salute unless I had my hat on (which I normally did not). A few Naval officers I knew said that at OCS or in ROTC, they were told to put their hats on before going on base, and leave them on while on base. Marines will salute cars if they see ANY officer driving. Happened to me a few times, and every officer I knew had it happen to them.
When I went to the FAC(A) course at Coronado, the Navy saluting was a running joke. I noticed that they hardly ever saluted. The Marines said that they had put up chalk board that had the day’s running totals of how many seaman had walked past them without saluting.
-
Dude, if you don’t toughen up, you will get eaten alive. Disengage, learn your lesson and reengage at a more opportune time. You are chumming the water and are completely take surprised when the sharks show up to take a bite out of your ass. If you really want to be a pilot one day, learn how to take a honest and critical view of yourself.
-
Any hear what caused the crash?
-
F-22 Raptor Fight Divides Gates, U.S. Lawmakers
By WILLIAM MATTHEWS
The 31-30 vote to keep the F-22 fighter program alive belies stronger support for the stealth fighter, a senior U.S. House Democrat said.
“The politics of it are such that it’s highly likely there’s going to be an F-22 buy,” Rep. Neil Abercrombie, D-Hawaii, said June 18. “The exact number and where the money’s coming from is a work in progress.” Around 2:30 a.m. June 17, the House Armed Services Committee voted to spend $369 million to begin buying parts for 12 more F-22s. That would push the fleet to 199. The vote was in defiance of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, who wants to end production at 187 planes.
Abercrombie said F-22 supporters prevailed by one vote only because he and other committee members had questions about how to pay for 12 more planes, which will cost $2.8 billion. Abercrombie was among those who voted no.
Had the funding question been worked out, 50 or 60 of the committee’s 62 members would have voted to buy more F-22s, he said.
“It’s not a Democrat or Republican thing at all, but rather a Con gress versus the executive in terms of who’s in charge,” he said.
Last year, Congress included money in the defense budget to begin buying parts for 20 more F-22s, but the Defense Department decided instead to end the program.
“The Constitution says very clearly that Congress is in charge. The Defense Department is there to execute” what Congress decides, Abercrombie said.
“I’m committed to get the Defense Department to do what it was supposed to do in the first place,” he said. “We cannot allow the executive to run roughshod over congressional responsibility. They need to learn who’s in charge. The Congress is.” Although the F-22 is the Air Force’s most advanced and most expensive fighter, it has never been flown in combat, a point Gates has stressed in appearances before House and Senate committees.
When he announced April 6 that he wanted to end F-22 production, Gates said, “For me, it was not a close call. … The military advice that I got was that there is no military requirement for numbers of F22s beyond the 187.” Gates wants the Air Force to focus more on equipment needed for the wars the U.S. military is fighting today. For the Air Force, that includes UAVs, refueling tankers and special operations aircraft.
In the past, the Air Force has said it needed 381 F-22s. More recently, it lowered the number to 243; then Gates imposed a 187 cap. The changing numbers have irked committee members.
Rep. Rod Bishop, R-Utah, who introduced an amendment to fund the 12 F-22s, said, “We on the committee have yet to see any study or analysis in support of Secretary Gates’ assertion the 187 aircraft is sufficient to meet future air threats.” Abercrombie cited a June 9 letter from Gen. John Corley, chief of Air Combat Command, who said, “To my knowledge, there are no studies that demonstrate that 187 F-22s are adequate to support our national military strategy.” Corley appears to contradict his bosses, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley and Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz, who wrote in the Washington Post that “we do not recommend that F-22s be included in the fiscal 2010 defense budget.” Said Abercrombie, “I don’t have a clue whether 187 is adequate for our national military strategy.” The numbers have changed too often for lawmakers to have any confidence in them, he said.
For many lawmakers, the military need for F-22s is only one factor in deciding how many to buy. Jobs are equally important. Plane-maker Lockheed has told lawmakers that the program employs 25,000 workers directly and supports another 90,000 jobs in companies that produce F-22 parts. The jobs are spread among 44 states.
Asked whether President Barack Obama would veto a defense budget that included money for F-22s that Gates doesn’t want, Abercrombie said it’s unlikely. With troops in two wars and congressional elections looming in 2010, vetoing the defense budget would be politically risky. And “it would be overridden in a nanosecond,” he said.
For now, the $369 million for F22s comes from money that had been budgeted for Energy Department cleanups at nuclear weapon sites. In his amendment, Bishop said the money is to be taken from projects that are ahead of schedule or are so far behind that they won’t be able to spend money allocated for 2010.
If 12 planes are built, they would be delivered to the Air Force in 2013 or 2014, and would cost $234 million apiece, according to calculations by the House Armed Services Committee staff.
F-22s being built today cost about $175 million to $180 million apiece. The price would increase because costs would be divided among 12 planes. If 20 were bought, the cost of each might be less, an aide said.
Just hours before the House Armed Services Committee rescued future F-22s, the full House approved spending $600 million to buy four of the stealth fighters with money in the $106 billion “emergency supplemental” bill used to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Those four planes would bring the total F-22 fleet to Gates’ top number, 187.
Through an add-on to the warfunding bill, lawmakers also thwarted Gates’ efforts to end the C-17 cargo plane.
-
WorldNews
DoD Quietly Ends Bomber Research Effort
By SAM LAGRONE
The Pentagon told two groups that have been researching the U.S. Air Force’s long-range bomber to quietly close up shop while the service’s leaders stumped on the Hill for a long-range strike capability, according to analysts and defense industry sources.
U.S. Defense Department officials gave the order in the first week of June to the research teams, one from Northrop Grumman and a combined BoeingLockheed Martin shop, said Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Arlington, Va.-based Lexington Institute, a think tank.
“For now, there is no program because the contractors are being told to wrap it up,” Thompson said.
Cutting the bomber program was one of the sweeping budget changes that were announced on April 6 by Defense Secretary Robert Gates.
More recently, Gen. Norton Schwartz, the Air Force chief of staff, and Air Force Secretary Michael Donley put a long-range bomber near the top of their unfunded priorities list for the 2010 defense budget.
“This is a great disappointment as Northrop Grumman, the B2 bomber provider, has great insight into this mission and clearly understands the need,” company officials said in a written statement responding to questions about the cancellation of the bomber program. “From a national security perspective, delaying this capability will limit the nation’s future options.” Boeing and Lockheed officials declined to comment.
Schwartz and other Air Force officials stressed the need for a new bomber in House and Senate posture hearings in late May and earlier this month.
“The bottom line was that I don’t think that our secretary of defense was comfortable with how the Air Force had defined the parameters of this platform. I do not believe that he has misgivings about the fundamental mission of long-range strike,” Schwartz told Rep. Norman Dicks, D-Wash., vice chairman of the House Appropriations defense subcommittee, in a June 3 hearing.
Schwartz told lawmakers that the Air Force wasn’t necessarily looking at a bomber per se to fill the role the Air Force is now calling “long-range strike.” He said the Air Force’s need for the capability would be addressed in the upcoming Quadrennial Defense Review.
“The system that the Air Force initially came up with was considered unimaginative,” Thompson said. “That may have had some impact.” Details of the bomber development program have been kept under wraps because of the classified nature of the components, Thompson said.
In testimony, House members referred to a $140 million unfunded request to keep the program afloat. The unfunded list does not have a line item for the next-generation bomber, but there is a $140 million line item labeled “classified.” ■
E-mail: slagrone@militarytimes.com.
“This is a great disappointment as Northrop Grumman, the B-2 bomber provider, has great insight into this mission and clearly understands the need.”
Northrop statement
edit for quotes
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Understanding that fly by's at 140kts are different than fly by's a 300kts or more. We were doing a fly by in Houston as part of the NHRA Championship one year. The AF NG unit sent their ground guy with a PRC (wasn't even a 112, older than that, he did have a nice Hawaiian shirt with flip flops for the full professional look). Fortunately our guy had a civilian radio we coughed up the $200 dollars for. So we tried to help out and act for the relay for the Vipers. I passed the TOT. The Viper guy got hung up on the TOT time. Somehow he confused the TOT time with his start run time (maybe TOT means something different to the TX NG). So we come up on our start point at our preset time (I had timed the speeds vs the leg start point) and notify the Vipers. As we are making our run, I am a little busy as lead trying to get the formation right and adjusting our speeds so that we cross the Christmas tree on the mark. Like 30 seconds out I hear, "Hey I am still reading the time of ###". I was a little busy and not sure what I even said back but since we were just off of the mark, I was sure they would not make it. We hit the mark +- 5 seconds and circle for our landing (one of the really cool things about doing flybys in Helicopters). As we were setting down, zoom come the Vipers. Pissed to say the least. Forgetting that I was still on the coordination Freq, I go "Hey what the hell happened to those guys". My questions was followed by a push freq on their part. They had excuse after excuse but they were still 2 mikes late. Fly buys are hard. Especially if the event coordinator does not understand how to time his singer, use GPS time and won’t set a hard time. Another time we were sitting at Ellington Field for a rain delay. Our guy called as told us they were going to start in 15 minutes. No chance in hell of making but Fvk it, let’s go anyway. We made the fastest red con one and blasted out (well blasted for helicopters). Forget the marks and the planning, we put the Christmas Tree in the nav and pulled all the TQ we could get. As we are flying in, they is supposed to be a jumper, I am trying to talk to our ground guy (with the same radio I gave him last year and probably with the same batteries) and all we can hear is static. I kept expecting to vegamatic a skydiver at any moment but we managed to cross the line at the sec (although140kts at 150 AGL makes for a very short surprising fly by). At fly bys you are a hero or a chump. I have been both. But nothing adds the pressure like knowing you’re going to be walking around with the crowd afterwards
-
CSAR is a mission that needs to stay. Even if it does not get used that often, the fall out is too high to risk. Having a pilot paraded out on TV never works out well. It is much too complex a mission to be thrown together. The Army has even coughed up a SME to work in the PR cell in the CAOC. However, I do not understand why there is Special Operations Helios in the AF when there is the 160th. It seems as though they are competing for missions
-
http://www.airforce.com/supercar/
Not that the Army is free from this kind of stupidity. I saw a H2 decked out with competition quality sound system that looked fresh out of a Pimp my military ride show. I just don't understand what kind of recruit this is going to get. I came in because of Fighters and gunships, toys that cause lots of destruction. Maybe they are going to use the cars as “bonus programs”. Enlist today and we give you everything and want nothing in return.
-
Just to note, the Army version of this on Kiowapilots.com is up to almost a 100 pages.
-
What, candle wax doesn't count as cover for nips?
-
My prayers have been answered.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/
Edited to the newspaper home page. Scroll down to the story on Jessica Biel playing a stripper.
AF Light Air Support Aircraft
in General Discussion
Posted · Edited by OverTQ
If that was true, there would be no helicopters in combat. Also, since when did a threat mean we don't fly? Where does this zero risk come from? What happened to "spouting their flames from under" and all that. Anyway, no system no matter how good is a 100%.
edited for spelling.