With regard to UAV's...the technology and capability in this area is moving faster than most development programs. But UCAV's are already flying CAS missions and doing it very well. The only thing about CAS that hasn't changed dramatically in the last 10 years is why we do it. In a complete reversal from a few years ago, the most effective environment to execute a CAS mission is at night. The current state of our avionics and the equipment available in the air and on the ground makes CAS in the dark almost a no-brainer. In a brief summary...the forward air controller (on the ground or in the air) defines the coordinates of the target (using laser range finders and GPS these coordinates can be incredibly precise). He transmits those coordinates to the close air support platform (manned or unmanned). Whoever is flying the aircraft directs his infrared equipped targeting pod at those coordinates and verifies he sees what he is supposed to target. To confirm, he zaps it with an infrared laser beam and asks the controller if he is targeted correctly. Then, with approval to drop, he guides a laser guided bomb onto the target that almost guarantees a kill. We've come a long way...and in the process have greatly reduced the need for an actual person to be in the cockpit of the delivery aircraft. This isn't just theory. It is being performed in practice. And new technology is refining the practice on almost a daily basis. Already, we are able to beam imagery from the orbiting platform directly to the guys on the ground, giving them control of what is being looked at. Obviously, the next step is giving them control of dropping the ordnance.
Which takes us back to canceling this (X-45) program. The reason air to air refueling capability wasn't included in the initial specs was because it didn't seem realistic. But then, neither did a UCAV performing CAS. I suspect that much of the X-45 testing program has been overtaken by other programs. That has happened frequently throughout the history of various X-plane programs. You can be sure if we still had questions or strong interest in the capabilities being tested by the X-45's, the program would still be funded.
I have to disagree strongly.
Take the ABM system. for example. Sure, we are testing various platforms and we have deployed a few token ABM interceptors, but relative to the China ICBM threat, to Russia's new advanced ICBMs, to N. Korea's missiles and to Iran gaining nuke capability and the probable owner of longer range missiles soon, you would think we would have a much more robust ABM program. Read the current QDR and little is said about the ABM system. We fund African charity at a higher level than the ABM system.
We have retired the Peacekeeper, sliced the Minuteman III force drastically, taken four boomers out of service, taking another chunk of B-52s out of service, . . . yet the threats today exceed the threats we faced when these forces were at their peak.
We no longer have a Tactical Air Command and we no longer have a Strategic Air Command and we no longer have MAC. For all the crap we hear about "streamlining" and such, one of the big negatives that came out of the reorganization of the USAF (along with the other branches) is that there are no longer fights for funding among the various divisions of each military branch after all these "reorganizations", and so the funding for the "new streamlined" version is less. The social welfare funding is soaring and the military funding continues to shrink--Defense "streamlining" has fattened the funding for social welfare.
There is a disconnect now between threats we face and deterrent we muster. Social welfare has dominated the budget so much that too little is left over to fund the military. John F. Kennedy was able to spend 46-48 cents of every dollar on Defense. We had massive R&D programs and procurement in the early 1960s, even before Vietnam. Today, with the threats GREATER than what JFK faced (from multiple sources--JFK only had the Ruskies to worry about), George Bush is only spending 17 cents of every dollar on Defense.
You are implying that a military program will be funded if it would result in new and better capability, and I am stating that regardless of the worth of a program, we are hard pressed to fund it because social welfare is sapping up too much of our total budget--we just can't afford the programs we need to defend our nation.
SOURCE for budget stats: OMB Historical Tables