Northrop Grumman unveils fuselage for next U.S. fighter

Valley Press on ^ | Saturday, October 27, 2007. | ALLISON GATLIN

[chaosagent]

Unfortunately, Glacier Girl was on static display in Houston and not flying.

[ArrogantBustard]

Jimmy Carter threatened to visit the base ...

So they made up a “killer rabbit”.

[af_vet_rr]

Sounds like there’s going to be a traffic jam with all the UAV’s flitting around at various altitudes in the battlespace.

Part of that is being addressed (or may have already been) - The newer UAVs are being designed to share information with one another, so that they know where the others are at and will avoid them, as well as reporting back after they destroy their targets, as well as sharing information on potential new threats they come across with other UAVs as well as the guys on the ground (say an infantry company that has half a dozen of these things loitering above them while they are on patrol).

This can also increase the redundancy/lethality - if I'm a Captain commanding a company of infantry or Marines, and my people are under attack, and I say "take out this target", and something happens - either the UAV gets hit with the golden BB, or a misfire or whatever, and that UAV goes off the grid or reports that it was unable to complete its mission, it's already transmitted its information to the other UAVs who can then assume its mission within seconds.

I’ve read that there is already a struggle going on to decide which service is going to ‘control’ the UAV’s operationally.

I don’t know if we’ll be looking at a modern-version of the Key West Agreement or simply a recognition that 1 service, probably the USAF, will control the air tasking for everything operating above xxx altitude.

That brings up an interesting point, and they are running into this already. Back in '91, you saw the Navy using UAVs as forward scouts for their Battleships during the first Gulf War (for the big guns - why put a Marine or SEAL on a beach or inland to act as a spotter when you can fly a cheap UAV around feeding video and coordinates back).

It's gotten to the point where all services are working on backpack UAVs for recon and spotting - similar to the large ones used on the Battleships 16 years ago, but much smaller and man-portable. These obviously have a limited range, and aren't going to get above a few thousand feet, and they aren't carrying Hellfires or Viper Strikes. Of course, the Air Force is getting ready to deploy UAVs of this size - this article is from about a week and a half ago:
Air Force Times



Air Force Special Operations Command is testing a new backpack-sized unmanned aerial vehicle this week and expects to field the system with AFSOC combat controllers by the end of the year.

The new BATMAV — short for Battlefield Air Targeting Micro Air Vehicle — is intended to allow battlefield airmen to look for enemy targets beyond their line of sight, said Maj. Chris Larkin, director of operations for the 720th Operations Support Squadron at Hurlburt Field, Fla.

“You want to increase the guy’s situational awareness,” Larkin said, “what’s going on around the other side of the hill or in the building four blocks down. That is the small UAV’s capability.”

The UAV, developed and built by Aerovironment Inc., has a wingspan of 29 inches, weighs 1 pound and carries forward- and side-looking color cameras, according to an Aerovironment press release.

The aircraft can fly for up to 45 minutes and up to 5 kilometers from the control transceiver, according to the release. It can be controlled manually or set to autopilot, according to an AFSOC fact sheet.

The new BATMAV — dubbed Wasp III — will eventually become part of the standard kit carried by combat controllers as they go on missions with other special operators, Larkin said.

That's just one example, and the Marines are going to purchase it as well.

At the other end of the spectrum - you have the Marine Corps and Navy working on UAV helicopters that can carry quite a bit of armaments or cargo/supplies (including rescuing a few men, say some SEALs trapped somewhere). That's a dicey area, but the Marines and Navy already have the infrastructure for aerial vehicles in that size range (and usually they will be under some semblance of control from an Air Force controller, who will provide barebones direction - i.e. "you have some Army and Air Force people operating in this area, you'll need to go around them").

Then you get into the big boys - these are probably operating at a level intended for brigades/regiments (although they do provide support down to company level):



This is actually a good run-down of the "tiers" of UAVs used by the services:
Wikipedia list of US military UAV classifications

[AFreeBird]

The F-35 is expected to replace many other aging aircraft, including the A-10, F-14, F-16 and AV-8B Harrier

Jack of all trades and a master of none.

Pity that thinking.

The F-16 and AV8B maybe, but replace an A-10 or F-14 for the jobs they do/did, I don't think so.

I mean are they telling us that this F-35 can fly low and slow, absorb hits from anything from Ak47's to AAA and still keep flying and still complete its mission and bring the pilot back alive?

The A-10 might not be indestructible, but it sure can take a beating and give an ass whooping in the process.

[Vinnie]

Saw one at the Columbus Air Show in Sept. Wonderful.

The engines rotate in opposite directions to counteract torque.

The crews were instructed to prevent the superchargers from falling into Japanese hands by extreme measures if necessary.

[BenLurkin]

Interesting!

[Tallguy]

The engines rotate in opposite directions to counteract torque.

IIRC, the early export version of the P38 not only lacked superchargers they also didn't have counter-rotating props. Imagine flying that beast & trying to turn into all that torque!

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

"As soon as I saw that puke-ugly lower scoop on the Boeing with his “chin and cheeks” fuselage..."

You mean...the Flying Monica?

A yes.... the Flying Monica.

I knew Boeing had lost the contract the moment I learned that this was the nickname pilots had given the Boeing plane.

[PAR35]

Lockheed-Martin bought out Martin-Marietta

It was more the other way around. Martin corporate came out on top in the deal. Martin-Marietta was formed by the merger of Martin with 'American Marietta Corp', which I'd never heard of before. American Marietta had previously taken over Superior Stone - both companies were into building products. See http://www.martinmarietta.com/Corporate/history.asp, start at the bottom.

bought Douglas - Continental out of St Louis (Douglas created the DC line of planes, but who was "continental - the airline?) DC stood for 'Douglas Company'. I am not familiar with the Douglas - Continental merger. I would have guessed it would have been the aircraft engine maker, but they are now part of Teledyne, and I haven't been able to locate a good corporate history on them.

Bell Bomber plant that used to make C5's, C-141'a and (still makes) C-130's

Don't forget the Jetstar that was also built at that facility, but at a smaller building on the site. The factory is more properly known as Air Force Plant 6. And if you want some trivia on the site, after the runway was orginally built there, Eastern Air Lines leased the facility for freight operations until it was needed for war production.