Air force paper: A Call to the Future / The Ferengi rules of defense acquisition

sublight_

ACCESS: Top Secret
Senior Member
Joined
25 August 2012
Messages
1,180
Reaction score
638
Website
www.reddit.com

Yesterday, US Air Force leadership released a document called “America’s Air Force: A Call to the Future,” a 30-year plan focused on “strategic agility” according to its authors. Created by the Office of the Secretary of the Air Force and advisors to the Air Force Chief of Staff, the strategy document calls for the Air Force to focus on the ability to quickly adapt to the changing world by using incremental, agile weapons system development instead of budget-busting major programs that aim for giant leaps in capability"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
It would seem to me that the Department of Defense is going to have to go back to the Department of War circa 1933. The Departments of the Navy and Army had to rely on industry to competitively demonstrate technologies that were affordably innovative. Through this the country was technologically and materially prepared for World War 2 and the industrial base was full of engineers who had grown up with a mindset of innovate or die, which strikes me as rather important in a world where technology changes at an ever increasing rate.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
They might start by letting their most trusted allies buy the best stuff (F-22). The F-35 seems to have been designed to do too damn many things for too many people, with the results that we know. I don't think it's any surprise that two of the real multi-role shining stars in the US arsenal - the F-4 and the F-15 - were originally designed as interceptors, but the excellence of their airframes made them adaptable to a multitude of other roles. Perhaps the concept of the fully integrated weapon system has gone too far, and we need to go back to simply making excellent airplanes and adapting them after the fact?
 
pathology_doc said:
Perhaps the concept of the fully integrated weapon system has gone too far, and we need to go back to simply making excellent airplanes and adapting them after the fact?

Good luck with that.
 
sferrin said:
pathology_doc said:
Perhaps the concept of the fully integrated weapon system has gone too far, and we need to go back to simply making excellent airplanes and adapting them after the fact?

Good luck with that.


I would also have suggested that a little less acronym-itis might be appropriate. No acronyms until the bloody thing is trundling down the runway (or clamped to a launch rack) on its first combat mission. Also a ban on the words "advanced" and "concept". Stop running feasibility studies and just shut up and build some stuff. Grab some black boxes off the shelf. Ask the pilots for their idea of a comfy cockpit. Choose the best engine you've got for the intended role. Then build a decent aerodynamic shell around the whole deal. Sell it to all your friends. Lather, rinse, repeat.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
AFOSR Morphing Basic Research Portfolio To Support S&T Priorities

Posted: Nov. 06, 2014

The basic science arm of the Air Force Research Laboratory is assessing its grants portfolio to see how its investments are supporting the service's five main technological thrusts, and to determine if there are opportunities for more investment in those areas while also leaving room for breakthroughs in other fields of inquiry. The Air Force's latest 30-year strategy document, published in July, lists five "game-changing technologies" that will shape the way the service conducts its operations in the future. Those technologies are hypersonics, nonotechnology, directed energy, unmanned systems and autonomy. AFRL and the wider Air Force acquisition community have made technological breakthroughs in those areas a priority. During an Oct. 30 interview, the chief scientist of the Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Charles Matson, said his organization has already begun morphing its portfolio to support that effort. Basic research is different from applied science and advanced technology development programs in that experimentation is pursued without a specific application or product in mind. However, breakthroughs and discoveries at the basic level enable future technological advancement.

AFOSR, headquartered in Arlington, VA, funds basic-level scientific experiments and research projects through the award of grants and contracts to academic institutions, commercial firms and internally within AFRL. The portfolio is divided into about 40 areas such as "aerospace materials for extreme environments" and "ultrashort pulse laser-matter interactions." Work from those areas flows into applied research projects being conducted by AFRL's technical directorates and elsewhere within the the Defense Department. "We are looking over our portfolio and seeing if in the context of these recently-provided areas of breakthrough technologies, what our investments are in, and if we should increase our investments," Matson said. The five game-changing technologies identified by the Air Force are not exclusive areas of research, but they are areas the service wants to emphasis, he noted. According to the July strategy document, those five areas of technology have the potential to "amplify" the speed, range, flexibility and precision of Air Force weapon systems. Taking the pilot out of the cockpit, for example, reduces the size, cost and complexity of an aircraft, leading to the development of cheaper and more expendable platforms that can "swarm, suppress, deceive or destroy," the document states. Furthermore, a hypersonic strike weapon could destroy a target anywhere in the world within hours or even minutes and it would be too fast to intercept. AFOSR's eclectic portfolio of grants and contracts already support a range of basic-level research initiatives relevant to those five "game-changing" areas, but there is interest in making further investments. Matson pointed to two examples of where the organization plans to do more.

One is related to autonomy and unmanned systems. Matson said scientists are interested in studying control theory and other areas of mathematics and engineering to support the development of unmanned aircraft that can communicate with each other and swarm. He said applications could include the fielding of cheaper and more autonomous platforms that are more expendable than an F-22 or F-35, for example. "To do that you have to figure out how to get these autonomous aircraft to be able to communicate with each other and work with each other," Matson said. "I see us moving into doing more investment into that area -- so control theory as well as many other aspects." AFOSR currently supports research into "computational and machine intelligence" and "dynamics and control," which both have application for unmanned systems and autonomy. The second example is within the realm of big-data computing through the development of super-fast gigahertz and terahertz processors. Matson said the Air Force has a requirement to process large amounts of intelligence data as more and more sensors are fielded in order to reduce the amount of back-end processing and exploitation work. He said AFOSR is being "very judicious" in the way it invests in this area because companies such as Google and Microsoft are already spending vast amounts of money conducting their own research. "We as the Air Force don't want to unnecessarily duplicate anyone else's research," he said. "We want to break new ground. We want to know what's already being done and what's unique to the Air Force's needs." Internationally, AFOSR is looking to build on domestic research into quantum computing and quantum physics by leveraging the United Kingdom's investment in that area. During a separate interview on Oct. 31, Col. Timothy Lawrence, commander of AFSOR's international branch in London, said the U.K. is pumping millions of dollars into quantum research for a variety of applications that are relevant to the Air Force.

"They're looking at quantum sensors and quantum precision, navigation and timing," he said. "Everyone in the U.S. right now says let's get that quantum computer which will, in theory, process data faster than the human mind. Then if we get that, there's all sorts of applications to build on. They're saying, 'Since the U.S. has decided they're going to build the quantum computer, we'll look at quantum in other areas.' That's why we're here, to leverage those investments and work with them at the ground level, so if there are breakthroughs here we can leverage that to build an Air Force product."

Funding research

The Pentagon's fiscal year 2015 budget request includes $11.5 billion for science and technology, which is divided between investments in basic research, applied research and advanced technology development. According to Air Force budget documents, the service received $460 million for basic research in FY-13, $525 million in FY-14, and $454 million has been requested for this fiscal year. AFOSR is responsible for executing the majority of those funds to support Air Force needs. It also receives about $120 million devolved from the Office of the Secretary of Defense. The directorate releases an annual broad agency announcement outlining its research priorities for the year. Matson said the announcement is the process through which researchers can apply for grants, but AFOSR also actively seeks out opportunities. "We don't just sit back and wait for proposals to come in," he said. "We go out to conferences, universities, scour through literature, and we seek the opportunities, so even if people don't see our BAA, we become aware of what's great out there and we will invite them to submit against the BAA so we can get the great research.

"We're different from, say, the National Science Foundation in that we're a mission organization, so we seek to find the best science that's out there that has relevance or potential relevance to future Air Force needs or capabilities," he explained. "That means we keep an eye on the needs of the Air Force and we factor those in." About 30 percent of the grants support internal AFRL research efforts and about 70 percent support research being conducted by universities and industry. Matson said the BAA changes from year to year but the overarching themes and titles evolve slowly. "Although you'll get new and exciting things popping up, it morphs fairly slowly," he explained.

Transitioning to applied science

AFOSR's primary mission is to find and fund the best research globally, and then transition breakthrough technologies from those investments to applied research and advanced technology development programs. Because the Air Force wants to use the research to solve real-world problems, scientists often see their research evolve into a functional system or platform, Matson said. "We strongly work to transition the results that are successful, and by transition we mean move to the other AFRL technical directorates and integrate them into the applied research efforts or developmental efforts," he said. "We don't just do it cold. We involve the technical directorates from the get-go. We involve them in program reviews, looking at proposals -- it's one big team working together so when great results come out of this basic research effort, you already have people ready to take it to the next steps." Matson discussed two promising areas of research that have important applications for the Air Force. One is the study of ultracold atoms, which scientists can use to create very precise clocks. "So if you need to have a very accurate time reference and you don't have GPS available, something like that would give you an orders-of-magnitude improvement in stability than what we currently have," he said. The same process is applied to molecules to allow new and interesting types of experiments in the laboratory, he added. Additionally, scientists funded by AFOSR are developing so-called attosecond and femtosecond laser sources -- basically pulse lasers with ultrashort wavelengths. Matson said scientists are using the lasers to probe chemistry processes in experiments. "You can start looking at the electronic behaviors, not just the chemical behaviors -- so that's some very exciting stuff we're getting into," Matson said. Stressing the importance of continued investment in science and technology, Matson said: "Revolutionary S&T is the key ingredient for revolutionary breakthroughs that are necessary to ensure our security and wellbeing in the future." -- James Drew
 
My eyes glazed over. The best is the enemy of good enough; can't they understand that? While they are dithering, their enemies are MAKING stuff.
 
Sadly, not much of a surprise. Why kill yourself getting a hard degree when you can coast, get a high GPA and get a pilot spot at the Zoo or ROTC? Then the engineers they do pay to get degrees in ROTC go to pilot slots (the ones with high GPA's), only the ones with Coke bottle glasses and low GPA's go to engineering jobs. When the inevitable downsizings occur, the 62's are also the first to get chopped, then a year later they pay them retention bonuses, don't promote them and pay them a severance to leave the year after their bonus ends.

The promotion rates to O4 suck, O5 are atrocious and O6 are token. The GO at LA AFB actually publicly blamed the major's on the base for the low 30's % promotion rate to O5, when the AF average was like 75%.

Personally, I got out at 10 years as an O3, was making $75,000/yr plus housing and COLA in LA. The offer I took was ~$150,000/yr plus 15% bonus to live in Texas. Why put up with the $hit, go back fill the Army in the sandbox, or do the deployments the aircrew refuse to do, not get promoted and then go work for some rated bozo with a basket weaving degree who's airframe went away so they stuck him in the place with a shortage because of his/her universal management badge.

They wonder why they have a hard time attracting talent :rolleyes:
 
Sadly, not much of a surprise. Why kill yourself getting a hard degree when you can coast, get a high GPA and get a pilot spot at the Zoo or ROTC? Then the engineers they do pay to get degrees in ROTC go to pilot slots (the ones with high GPA's), only the ones with Coke bottle glasses and low GPA's go to engineering jobs. When the inevitable downsizings occur, the 62's are also the first to get chopped, then a year later they pay them retention bonuses, don't promote them and pay them a severance to leave the year after their bonus ends.

The promotion rates to O4 suck, O5 are atrocious and O6 are token. The GO at LA AFB actually publicly blamed the major's on the base for the low 30's % promotion rate to O5, when the AF average was like 75%.

Personally, I got out at 10 years as an O3, was making $75,000/yr plus housing and COLA in LA. The offer I took was ~$150,000/yr plus 15% bonus to live in Texas. Why put up with the $hit, go back fill the Army in the sandbox, or do the deployments the aircrew refuse to do, not get promoted and then go work for some rated bozo with a basket weaving degree who's airframe went away so they stuck him in the place with a shortage because of his/her universal management badge.

They wonder why they have a hard time attracting talent :rolleyes:
..sure glad you were reserved in your comment;)
 
..sure glad you were reserved in your comment;)
LOL, since when was synopsis of 10 years of observations over the top?

OK, the bozo reference to the -141 driver who's guard unit refused to transition to C-17's may not be reserved, but the rest is what I saw happen. They keep crying crocodile tears, but never look at root causes or attempt to understand why certain officers leave at over twice the rate of others.
 
One other thought, the formation of the Space Force was also a big drain on STEM talent. They will treat engineers/scientists far better on promotion boards and jobs than the pilot centric Air Force.
 
In its journey to this partnership, Air Company helped pay the bills by selling non-fuel products — like its Air Made vodka, distilled (like its ethanol-based fuels) from carbon dioxide and water.

The company also introduced a hand sanitizer made from captured carbon dioxide during the height of the 2020 shortages of that product.

Sheehan said these products did double-duty for the company: they helped serve as marketing, but they also helped defray costs by providing a higher-margin product Air Company could sell.

They could realize meaningful profits “with a relatively small volume when making things like [vodka or hand sanitizer], whereas when you’re making jet fuel — to get economical, you have to be an extremely large scale,” he said.

Let's hope that not too many of this were sampled prior to signature of the contract. ;)
 
I don't think it's any surprise that two of the real multi-role shining stars in the US arsenal - the F-4 and the F-15 - were originally designed as interceptors, but the excellence of their airframes made them adaptable to a multitude of other roles. Perhaps the concept of the fully integrated weapon system has gone too far, and we need to go back to simply making excellent airplanes and adapting them after the fact?
Ummm... here is the list of versions McD proposed before the F-4 reached its final production configuration:

The F3H-E project (also known as Model 98A by the company) was similarly powered, but dispensed with the nose-high attitude of the Demon and stood level on a tricycle undercarriage. It had a 45-degree swept wing of 450 square feet in area. In the event, the J67 engine never did materialize as a realistic powerplant for American aircraft.

The Model 98B (F3H-G) project was to be powered by a pair of Wright J65-W-2 (or W-4) turbojets rated at 7800 lb.s.t. each. The twin-engined configuration was attractive to many in the Navy, because of the increased amount of safety it offered over a single-engined aircraft. The engines were to be fed by a pair of side-mounted air intakes. A low-mounted swept wing and an all-flying straight tailplane were to be used. This wing was slightly larger than that of the F3H-E, with a 530-square foot area. The fuselage was to be designed in conformance with the area rule, in order that minimum transonic drag be achieved.

The F3H-G aircraft was to be equipped with an Aero 11B fire control system and an AN/APQ-150 radar. Armament was to consist of four 20-mm cannon, but provision for a retractable pack carrying 56 two-inch FFAR rockets was also proposed. A heavy load of bombs and fuel tanks could be carried on up to nine external stores stations (four under each wing and one underneath the fuselage). A maximum speed of Mach 1.52 was envisaged.

On September 19, 1953, McDonnell submitted its Model 98B project to the Navy's Bureau of Aeronautics (BuAer) in the form of an unsolicited proposal. Since the Navy as yet had no official requirement for such an aircraft, McDonnell tried to cover all bases by developing interchangeable single- and two-seat noses that could be accommodated to widely different roles. Noses were designed that could carry search radars, missile fire-control systems, mapping radars, cameras, or electronic reconnaissance equipment.

Although the Navy was favorably impressed by the Model 98B proposal, the Grumman XF9F-9 Tiger and the Vought XF8U-1 Crusader which had been ordered respectively in April and June of 1953 appeared to satisfy all the Navy's immediate requirements for supersonic fighters. Nevertheless, the Navy encouraged McDonnell to rework its design into a single-seat, twin-engined all-weather attack aircraft to compete against designs being worked on by Grumman and North American.

McDonnell submitted a formal development proposal for the F3H-G/H to the Navy in August of 1954. The Navy responded in October of 1954 by issuing a letter of intent for two prototypes and a static test aircraft. The Navy assigned the designation AH-1 to the project, reflecting its intended ground attack mission. The AH-1 was to have no less then eleven weapons pylons. Armament was to consist of four 20-mm cannon.

On December 14, 1954, the multirole mission of the aircraft was formally abandoned by the Navy, and McDonnell was requested to rework the proposal as an all-weather interceptor. McDonnell was instructed to remove the cannon and all hardpoints except for a centerline pylon for a 600-US gallon fuel tank. In addition, troughs were to be added for four Raytheon Sparrow semi-active radar homing air-to-air missiles. A Raytheon-designed APQ-50 radar was added, this installation being essentially that installed in the F3H-2 Demon. A second seat was added to accommodate a radar operator.

On April 15, 1955, in a formal letter from the BuAer to the Commander of Naval Operations, the J79 engine was formally adopted, and all work on the J65-powered version was dropped.

On May 26, 1955, after further review of Navy requirements, the BuAer requested that the designers complete the two prototypes (BuNos 142259 and 142260) as two-seat all-weather fighters carrying an entirely missile-based armament. On June 23, 1955, the designation was changed to YF4H-1, a fighter designation. A day later, McDonnell issued a new model number for the project--98Q.

This factory designation was to be short-lived, since when a contract for 18 airframes beginning with 2 flight test prototypes and a static test article was signed on June 24, it was for the Model 89R with a modified APQ-50 I/J-band radar with a 24-inch dish which was to be compatible with the Sparrow III semi-active radar homing missile. This order was changed to Model 98S shortly thereafter, the changed designation indicating the provision of the capability of handling the infrared homing Sidewinder missile in addition to the radar-homing Sparrow.


.....

BuNo 145310 (the ninth F4H-1F and the fourth production machine) was fitted with multiple bomb racks which enabled it to carry as many as 22 500-pound bombs underneath the fuselage and inner wing sections. However, the Phantom was at that time viewed primarily as a shipboard interceptor with only a secondary attack capability, and this system was not adopted for production F-4As or Bs. However, it led later to the F-4C tactical fighter for the USAF.

The F4H-1 (Model 98AM) was the first definitive production version of the Phantom, with the 48th and subsequent aircraft, the 47 earlier F4H-1F being considered developmental.
In September 1962, the F4H-1F was redesignated F-4A, with the F4H-1 becoming F-4B.

The F-4B had the AJB-3 nuclear bombing system, the General Electric AN/ASA-32 analog autopilot and flight control system, and the full set of nine hardpoints. All F-4Bs had the Aero-27A ejector rack on the fuselage centerline which could carry a 600 US gallon drop tank. They could also carry a LAU-17A inboard pylon under each wing that could each carry one Sparrow or two Sidewinders. Two MAU-12 outboard underwing pylons were also mounted, which could each carry 370 US-gallon fuel tanks. Four underfuselage slots were provided, each of which could accommodate a semi-recessed Sparrow missile. In the air to ground role, the F-4B could carry a load of up to 16,000 pounds of ordnance. It could carry 8 1000 pound bombs, four AGM-12C Bullpup B air to surface missiles, or fifteen packs of 2.75-inch FFARs.
So during the design process what became the F-4 Phantom II was a gun/missile fighter, all-weather attack aircraft, photo-recon aircraft, as well as an all-missile interceptor.

One of the developmental aircraft was fitted for an all-up attack capability... and from the very first one of the "definitive production version" onward, all were fitted with a nuclear bombing system and 9 hardpoints, wired for bombs, air-surface missiles, and folding-fin aerial rockets for ground attack.

That's hardly "being adapted for other roles" - the aircraft's design DNA included those other roles throughout the "concept definition" and "developmental" phases of creation.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Please donate to support the forum.

Back
Top Bottom