Future of NFO's in the Fleet

[vegita1220]

True, that applies to the Hornet/Falcon, since they use digitized control systems. Those are fly-by-wire platforms...
But the Eagle/Tomcat are hydraulically operated so no gizmos to fail there due to computer loss.

But speaking of the AEGIS actually microwaving people...you still gotta be fairly close to the thing for it to affect you through the metal. At least the short-term effects. You might end up having three headed kids later on.

 

[Hudson]

If you fry a computer with an electrical pulse which is what I am getting from you, you will also nock out the motors and electronics that control flight controls as well as engine controls. Pretty much what ever you are flying in becomes a large lawn dart if hit by EMP. From what I have heard and read. Even if you can still control the attitude of the 14s and 15s or 130s or what ever, they do not have the best glide properties when loaded or empty.

 

[Curmudgeon]

There's lots of variation in the degree of EMI/EMP tolerance and hardening for electronic systems. Military stuff has a much higher degree of shielding/tolerance than typical equipment. Highly integrated computer circuitry and high-density RAM is most vulnerable, but a lot of times they can be reset if they've been hit lightly.

There's a fair amount of work going into optical links, especially for long runs of wiring where it is hard to shield.

In the short term, I think jamming may be a major problem. There were reports of GPS jammer/distortion used in Iraq, for example, though I don't know how effective it was.

 

[wink]

The GPS jammers in Iraq were destroyed withing a couple days of deployment by, you guessed it, GPS quided bombs!! Military aircraft are hardened for EMP, especially nuke delievery aircraft. Curmudgeon is right on. Those of you that are so sure computers can be screwed up to easily for reliable military work must never have heard of Network Centric Warfare. The Navy is leading the charge on this. It's biggest cheerleader is the former Preident of the Navy War College and he now works for Sec Rumsfeld. As to the rest of the expert opinion, try reading Aviation Week, Naval Institute Proceedings, Naval War College Pubs and other professional rags regularly. I know many of you are busting a gut in training. But most of you are selectees or wannabes. Get a little professional education and start thinking like a warfighter with an eye on the the future. Just one eye will do, but keep an open mind. It is a waste to invest time defending legacy systems. Shape the systems of the future. Oh ya. The Navy has one squadron of C-130s for ash and trash and they are a Reserve Squadron. No option for new guys.

 

[jrklr]

Unmanned planes may seem scary, but if they did replace all pilots in about 30 years, those flying at the time could be known as "The last naval aviators". That sounds pretty cool to me. I doubt I'll see it in my life time though. I really cant see the US without aircraft carriers, much less trusting those RC toys to take care of business.

 

[wink]

CVs will take the UCAVs to the fight just like they did us old timers and most of you for a long time still. The first UCAVs squadrons will actually deploy on CVs mixed in with manned aircraft. During your launch you might have a UCAV launch off just before you and later see the pilotless wonders circling above you in the stack or even gettting the straight in while you hawk the deck overhead. Look at the bright side. With a whole squadron of aviators replaced by UCAVs, that frees up some prime rack space in the staterooms and reduces the line in the wardroom.

 

[vegita1220]

Naw wink, once they automate everything they'll just make the damn boat smaller.

But anyway, it's nice to know the Navy plans to do something about the US military vulnerability to EW. Most professional(national security analysts with spare time) writing I've seen recently looks into our vulnerability in conventional warfare to
A)EW-jamming GPS is one thing, but what if they just knock out the satellites?
B)WMDs, especially tactical nukes.
I knew they were working on AEGIS to fix up the tac nuke problem, but was wondering what they were doing for the EW aspect. Also hard for me to understand most material on it seeing how I hate computers.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by grouch
kimphil, you do realize the lamentation of the women come from the Mongols raping there conquest. These sounds will become all too familiar to you when your job goes the way of the UAV. It will happen if for no other reason than politics. There is a lot of money to be made with any new military technology and a sizeable chunck of it will find it's way to the pockets of our elected officials. At that time you and the Mongol's conquest will see things in much the same light, "rape, if ya can't do anything about it, might as well just sit back and enjoy the ride."

While my political sensitivities make me cringe at your rape comment, you're right about the politics. Who looks to be the biggest player in the UAV and UCAV market? Boeing. As we know, they can't make fighters worth crap (to avoid flames, all the current fighters Boeing makes were developed by companies that it acquired). With their deep pockets, I'm sure they'll push for UAVs and UCAVs more than, e.g. Lockheed Martin (the F-22 and F-35 contractor).

As far as boats getting smaller, that will happen. However, the Navy has a lot invested in its current CV fleet, and unless it is just plain cheaper to retire our current boats and replace them with new ones (possible, but I believe unlikely), the current boats will just be retrofitted with new tech. After all, the newer CVs are scheduled to be decommissioned after 2040, aren't they?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[wink]

If it is all about politics why did Boeing lose the JSF contract? If they can't make a manned fighter worth a darn then how is it they can make a unmanned fighter good enough. Maybe you can tell me the last organic Boeing fighter designed, good or bad, besides the JSF project. They lost JSF sure enough, but you can't say they don't make good fighters when there simply is no evidence of it. Historicly Boeing has not competed for military tactical aircraft. Boeing realizes that the F-35 is going to be the last big TACAIR contract (Just as I have said here.) They lost so they are getting ahead of the competition on UCAVs while others will be busy making good on the F-35 work.

 

[kimphil]

Originally posted by wink
If it is all about politics why did Boeing lose the JSF contract? If they can't make a manned fighter worth a darn then how is it they can make a unmanned fighter good enough. Maybe you can tell me the last organic Boeing fighter designed, good or bad, besides the JSF project. They lost JSF sure enough, but you can't say they don't make good fighters when there simply is no evidence of it. Historicly Boeing has not competed for military tactical aircraft. Boeing realizes that the F-35 is going to be the last big TACAIR contract (Just as I have said here.) They lost so they are getting ahead of the competition on UCAVs while others will be busy making good on the F-35 work.

The Boeing JSF lost, I presume for a variety of reasons. The prototype they built was overweight, it couldn't land vertically during its demostration without removing weight (by removing a portion of its intake). This had the consequence of not allowing the Boeing's JSF to fly supersonic. Contrast that to the Lockheed JSF which did a short take-off, went supersonic and landed vertically at its demostration. Plus, the Boeing JSF was just plain ugly!

As far as unmanned fighters, Boeing looks to be the leader of the UAV market, so I presume that with that expertise they will have the lead in the UCAV market. The last fighter Boeing (and not one of its acquired subsidiaries) made was in the 1930s.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mongol General: ...Conan, what is best in life?
Conan: To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of the women!
Mongol General: That is good.

 

[theblakeness]

Boeing also builds the superhornet. Dont you guys remember that speach that Bush gave fromt he SuperHornet plant in Saint Louis?

 

[grouch]

Boeing build one of the first mono wing fighter for the U.S. It was called the P-26 P shooter. Who says Boeing can't complete in the fighter role? Ha!

 

[Hudson]

Boeing builds great bombers. B-17, B-29, B-57, B-1, B-2. They have not built very good fighters. even the P-24 didn't stay around very long as it was quickly out dated by newer technology. I say stick with what you know. Lockeed is a heck of a company and has built some great fighters.

 

[wink]

Grumman has and always will be THE builder of navalized aircraft. The lose of their name and independant identity is a shame.

 

[Hudson]

I second. Any one know who absorbed Grumman?