US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


Well follow up here apparently the generals don’t want to talk details on new programs so if you ask about tankers they will wax about alagorical ideas.
I listen to the Aviation week check Six podcast and they talked about it.
The USAF is working on a KC-Z ( Stealth Tanker) we know this.
game-changers as an allegory ... interesting, LOL

great quote Wednesday at 9:43 PM
quote of the day comes from inside of (dated Jan 28, 2019)
USAF May Not Purchase Stealthy Tanker, Chief Says
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

:

“The days of buying individual platforms that we then described as game changers—those days are behind us,” Goldfein said. “There actually are no silver bullets on the horizon.”
 
Jul 25, 2018
Jul 8, 2018
but the story probably ends

(I started to follow the related spin, counter-spin etc. ... Mar 9, 2017
)

now, as
JSTARS Recap is officially dead
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
while “system of systems”, an unidentified "architect", and so on inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
USAF Selects “Architect” for Airborne Battle Management System Program

2/6/2019
The Air Force has been slower than it could have been in developing its way forward on the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, a new way to handle the mission currently flown by the E-8C Joint STARS, but the schedule should pick up soon, as the service has just selected who will lead the effort.

After more than a year, the Air Force this week selected the “architect” who will oversee the ABMS plan, which shifts away from using a single aircraft to fly airborne battle management. Instead, ABMS integrates a “system of systems” of aircraft such as MQ-9s, space assets, an “attritable layer” such as cheap unmanned aerial vehicles that are relatively disposable, and cyber systems. Will Roper, the undersecretary of the Air Force for acquisition, said the architect will start next month, though he wouldn’t release a name just yet.

ABMS will be a “very different type of program” for the Air Force, which, if successful, could change how the service approaches other major acquisition programs. If the “architect” is able to successfully integrate a series of systems to identify a faster and cheaper way to handle a mission, it would serve as a model for future programs.

“If ABMS succeeds, I wouldn’t be surprised if we have more architects on programs,” Roper said. The ABMS program is the first time the Air Force is using this model, he said, and if it manages to avoid it becoming an “uber, major acquisition program,” it will have long-term implications in changing USAF acquisition.

Until last year, the Air Force planned a traditional recapitalization process to replace the E-8C JSTARS with a new aircraft. The service switched lanes, and was then blocked by Congress in the fiscal 2019 National Defense Authorization Act from retiring any of its JSTARS until the new ABMS system is demonstrated.
 

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
game-changers as an allegory ... interesting, LOL

great quote Wednesday at 9:43 PM
Jul 25, 2018
while “system of systems”, an unidentified "architect", and so on inside
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
USAF Selects “Architect” for Airborne Battle Management System Program

2/6/2019
This is what I think the General was playing at.

Distribution of capabilities rather than single assets.
So in the tanking role we would see KC46 partnered with KC-Z and other assets like KC130J and MC130J as well as perhaps KQ drones and the like.
Some assets obviously can't operate in high threat so they don't but others can come closer and still others you don't Mind if they get destroyed as much.
 
This is what I think the General was playing at.

Distribution of capabilities rather than single assets.
So in the tanking role we would see KC46 partnered with KC-Z and other assets like KC130J and MC130J as well as perhaps KQ drones and the like.
Some assets obviously can't operate in high threat so they don't but others can come closer and still others you don't Mind if they get destroyed as much.
if it was true what you said, it'd mean an increased complexity at operational level

now if for example two aircraft are shot down, the commander decides if to use the reserve, or abort the mission; with “attritable layer” from Today at 8:22 AM available I wouldn't know what to do LOL OK am just kibitzing
 

Brumby

Major
This is what I think the General was playing at.

Distribution of capabilities rather than single assets.
So in the tanking role we would see KC46 partnered with KC-Z and other assets like KC130J and MC130J as well as perhaps KQ drones and the like.
Some assets obviously can't operate in high threat so they don't but others can come closer and still others you don't Mind if they get destroyed as much.
The operational planning emphasis to my understanding has already shifted from tasking by platform to tasking by effects. This is simply a by product of networked centric warfare where every node is potentially a sensor and a relay point and the driver behind "system of systems". Central to this architecture in my view is communication protocols, security and bandwidth. Currently a lot of assets cannot talk to each other safely and securely in a contested environment. Having a "system of systems' ensure build-in redundancies and a more optimal simultaneity real time distribution of information across the kill chain. I suspect part of the architecture will necessitate by design an information fusion center.
 
The operational planning emphasis to my understanding has already shifted from tasking by platform to tasking by effects. This is simply a by product of networked centric warfare where every node is potentially a sensor and a relay point and the driver behind "system of systems". Central to this architecture in my view is communication protocols, security and bandwidth. Currently a lot of assets cannot talk to each other safely and securely in a contested environment. Having a "system of systems' ensure build-in redundancies and a more optimal simultaneity real time distribution of information across the kill chain. I suspect part of the architecture will necessitate by design an information fusion center.
LOL are you
Brumby, Jun 22, 2016
and his
I would venture to say that the thinking has shifted towards "a system of systems" development concept as opposed to a platform centric approach being driven by :
(a)Learnings from the F-35 program that complex systems such as sensor fusion was simply too platform centric and hence became a limiter in the development path;
(b)Importance of the OODA loop in tron warfare and the ongoing trajectory of the "Z axis"; and
(c)Limiter of a platform centric approach when 21st century warfighting is focused on the effects chain that could be stringed together using a system of systems approach

...
 

Top