Register here

Author Topic: CSBA "Third Offset" paper  (Read 101108 times)

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #540 on: December 04, 2018, 05:11:58 am »
https://www.c4isrnet.com/opinion/2018/11/27/why-the-military-needs-skynet/?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=Socialflow+AIR&fbclid=IwAR0Z68xUdLwWGmke_uURWsR7MfzLQLeUEevM9Bo90JcF2_89VlkwRQDyR30

Quote

In October 1984, the movie “The Terminator” introduced us to Skynet, a futuristic artificial intelligence system that eventually became “self-aware” before turning on its creators and aiming to wipe out humanity. It is an overly sensational image of a future dominated by renegade intelligent machines.

In a more realistic future environment, artificial intelligence is distributed throughout the battlespace, collecting, curating, aggregating, fusing and routing information to create an ever-increasing advantage across various operations and sustainment scenarios for the military. Unlike Skynet, this distributed AI is underpinned by a delegation framework where humans are essential.

With this in mind, I’m reminded what Gen. Raymond Thomas, the commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, said last December: “We need to embrace technology as a central essential weapon in our arsenal.” So how do we do that with an AI system?
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline marauder2048

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 2111
  • "I should really just relax"
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #541 on: December 20, 2018, 05:55:24 pm »
More money for the demo.

Quote
Raytheon Missile Systems, Tucson, Arizona, is awarded $8,988,458 for modification
P00007 to a previously awarded cost-plus-fixed-fee contract (N0001917C0059) for
engineering and technical support for the flight test demonstration of an extended range
capability in support of the Joint Stand Off Weapon extended range Phase 3b
development effort.  Work will be performed in Tucson, Arizona, and is expected to be
completed in January 2021.  Fiscal 2019 research, development, test and evaluation
(Strategic Capabilities Office) funds in the amount of $661,621 will be obligated at time of award,
none of which will expire at the end of the fiscal year.  The Naval Air Systems Command,
Patuxent River, Maryland, is the contracting activity.

The J&A for JSOW-ER was posted; curious as to what Lockheed was pitching.

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #542 on: December 27, 2018, 07:37:10 pm »
https://breakingdefense.com/2018/12/beyond-386-squadrons-afwics-four-futures-for-the-air-force/?utm_campaign=Breaking%20Defense%20Multi%20Domain&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=68593197&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-9oqs4xp3uU8BGC6eqrMjNYpDPj596eml5_DxEJWCC78caXWIxcCmXNBKbdrKZegFfP7_RZm8hNCMuJex9iff5jbe2m-g&_hsmi=68593197

Quote
Hence Fantini’s four sweeping scenarios:

The “baseline” future is the 386-squadron force that Sec. Wilson proposed in September and will elaborate in a report to Congress required by Section 1064 of the National Defense Authorization Act. “That’s for today We’re about 25 percent too small for what the nation has asked us to do,” Fantini told the Air Force Association yesterday. But he implied that figure isn’t final: “If you put a gun to my head today and say, how many squadrons do you need today, I’m going to say 386.” That number may change as the Air Force evolves, he said, and even if the overall figure stays at 386, the mix of squadrons will probably need to change.

The “evolutionary” future looks for new tactics, techniques, and technologies to make better use of what the Air Force already has in a future war. “Evolutionary is like using the force structure we have and figuring out how to use it more effectively,” Fantini told reporters after his AFA talk.
   
The “revolutionary” future includes more radical options to wage warfare from a distance (“stand-off”), such as large-scale use of remotely directed drones instead of manned aircraft with a human in the cockpit. Imagine, Fantini said, “I take virtual reality goggles and put them on, I’m fighting from a desk in (DC), and I’m controlling multiple penetrating capabilities in the western Pacific.”

The “disruptive” future is even more far-out, studying extreme possibilities like doing away with manned aircraft altogether in favor of big bets on drones, hypersonic missiles, or laser weapons.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline bobbymike

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 8514
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #543 on: January 06, 2019, 09:38:17 am »
https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612421/us-china-quantum-arms-race/

Quote
In the 1970s, at the height of the Cold War, American military planners began to worry about the threat to US warplanes posed by new, radar-guided missile defenses in the USSR and other nations. In response, engineers at places like US defense giant Lockheed Martin’s famous “Skunk Works” stepped up work on stealth technology that could shield aircraft from the prying eyes of enemy radar.
Recommended for You

The innovations that resulted include unusual shapes that deflect radar waves—like the US B-2 bomber’s “flying wing” design (above)—as well as carbon-based materials and novel paints. Stealth technology isn’t yet a Harry Potter–like invisibility cloak: even today’s most advanced warplanes still reflect some radar waves. But these signals are so small and faint they get lost in background noise, allowing the aircraft to pass unnoticed.
Books are the quietest and most constant of friends; they are the most accessible and wisest of counselors, and the most patient of teachers.

Charles W. Eliot

Offline Moose

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 908
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #544 on: January 14, 2019, 07:00:11 am »
CSBA's Bryan Clark gave a good interview to Vago Muradian on his thoughts re: the future of Aircraft Carriers in near-peer conflict.

Especially notable to me was that although he's critical of the current plans re: the carrier air wing and advocates in more investment for a more capable/flexible wing, he's still strongly in the camp of large CVNs. He cites superior sortie generation over a sustained period of time, and the difficulties defending individual carriers in a more diffuse/distributed fleet of smaller carriers.

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #545 on: January 14, 2019, 08:16:25 am »
Thank you for posting Moose. It was great that he mentioned the need for more EW both training and capability.
Glade he mentioned the missile magazines being expended early in a conflict and that current carrier air wing is not sufficient to make up for reload time. Some major decision and changes should be in the USN's mind.

Offline bring_it_on

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1815
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #546 on: January 14, 2019, 08:32:54 am »
I've read that the USN has now approved of the plans to deploy 7 Growlers on a carrier but has this started happening in practice yet? That will be a good interim capability though they  really need a Next Gen AEA platform with 600-800 nautical mile unrefueled radius with the same payload. The NGAD is something that will take time and there is very little the Navy can do about it but in the meantime the Navy should also look to get some of the support capability back like taking something like the V-280 and using that as a replacement for the S-3..
Old radar types never die; they just phased array - Unknown

Offline jsport

  • CLEARANCE: Top Secret
  • ***
  • Posts: 1169
  • I really should change my personal text
Re: CSBA "Third Offset" paper
« Reply #547 on: January 15, 2019, 07:07:08 am »
The mention of 900B defense budget idea was interesting had not heard anyone actually bring up those kind of numbers even though the Congressional study supports it. Even the 750 does not match the challenges.