Getting paid to watch the Taliban have sex with goats – Esquire goes deep into the world of UAVs!

October 14, 2009 at 4:50 pm

(Source: Esquire)

In a brilliant article, Esquire’s Brian Mockenhaupt goes deep into the world of UAVs (aka Drones) and those who operate them for the US military.   Here are some interesting excerpts from this lengthy, 5-page article, which is a MUST READ material if you are a tech junkie or an aviation nut..

unmanned aircraft

Image Courtesy: Esquire - Dan Winters: The Predator's big brother, the Reaper, is a third bigger, flies three times as fast, and carries a much bigger payload

At this very moment, at any given moment, three dozen armed, unmanned American airplanes are flying lazy loops over Afghanistan and Iraq. They linger there, all day and all night. When one lands to refuel or rearm, another replaces it. They guard soldiers on patrol, spy on Al Qaeda leaders, and send missiles shrieking down on insurgents massing in the night. Add to those the hundreds of smaller, unarmed Unmanned Aerial Vehicles being flown over the two countries by the Army, the Marines, and coalition countries, and a handful of missile-laden planes owned by the Central Intelligence Agency circling above Pakistan. Efficient and effective, the planes have fast become indispensable assets, transforming today’s battlefields just as profoundly as the first airplanes transformed warfare during World War I.

Every so often in history, something profound happens that changes warfare forever. Next year, for the first time ever, the Pentagon will buy more unmanned aircraft than manned, line-item proof that we are in a new age of fighting machines, in which war will be ever more abstract, ever more distant, and ruthlessly efficient.

The Air Force now has 138 Predators and 36 Reapers. The military’s overall UAV inventory has swollen to seven thousand, from hand-launched Ravens to jet-powered Global Hawks, which can fly twelve miles high and monitor a swath the size of Kentucky in a day. And the revolution has just begun. Within the next twenty years, the Air Force envisions unmanned planes launching tiny missiles in hypertargeted strikes, swarms of bug-sized UAVs, and squadrons of networked unmanned fighters, bombers, and tankers, many of which will fly autonomously. And the enemy will have unmanned planes, too. More than forty countries currently fly them. In February, an American F-16 shot down an Iranian drone flying over Iraq. And Hezbollah has used them to spy on Israel and attack a ship during fighting in 2006. They can be built cheaply, with off-the-shelf software and hardware, a natural progression for insurgents who have been building increasingly sophisticated bombs.

Much of the U.S. Air Force Predator and Reaper fleet for Afghanistan is maintained out of a small cluster of buildings and tents next to the runway at Kandahar Airfield. It is here that I saw the planes up close for the first time. Where fighter jets are at once sleek and muscled, these planes look emaciated. Rap a knuckle on a rib cage and hear the hollow reply. It’s hard to see how this is the plane that’s revolutionizing warfare. Perched on twiggy landing gear, it looks less like a piece of deadly, cutting-edge military hardware than an oversized version of the windup balsa-wood planes boys build from kits. Twenty-seven feet long, with a forty-nine-foot wingspan, the Predator weighs just twelve hundred pounds without fuel or missiles. A four-cycle snowmobile engine mounted in the rear propels it with a high-pitched whine. The Reaper, a third bigger than the Predator, seems far sturdier, and with a larger engine it flies at three hundred miles per hour, three times faster. The next generation will be jet-powered with a three-thousand-pound payload. Yet even the wispy Predator has a menacing quality. Glass-bubbled cockpits remind us that man controls the killing machine.

The planes are also much cheaper to buy and fly. A Predator costs about $4 million and a Reaper $11 million, half as much as an F-16, one of the Air Force’s workhorses. In Iraq and Afghanistan, jets and UAVs are often called on for similar missions that support ground troops. The drones can’t do strafing runs or intimidate with a low, fast, ear-splitting flyover, but they use a fraction of the resources, a moped instead of a monster truck. F-16’s, which fly in pairs for safety, burn about a thousand gallons of fuel an hour. At that rate, they can stay over a target for about an hour before they must swap out with other planes or fill up at an aerial tanker. A Predator carries a hundred gallons of fuel with which it can stay aloft for twenty-four hours. As the Air Force likes to point out, a bomb from an F-16 killed Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, but the final strike against the Iraqi insurgent leader came after Predators had gathered six hundred hours of surveillance footage in the hunt for him and his associates. Keeping two F-16’s in the air that long would require about 120 tanker trucks’ worth of fuel.

Although they have never set foot in Afghanistan, Nelson and Anderson make effective counterinsurgents. They have spent hours watching the same roads, the same villages, the same people. “You gradually gain a better understanding of who they are and how they live,” Nelson says. He felt the same during his Mormon mission to the Dominican Republic, after his sophomore year at the Air Force Academy. For two years he walked or rode his bike on unpaved roads through villages and talked to people twelve hours a day. There he saw homes made of coffee cans and palm fronds. Now he gazes at houses made of mud bricks. To balance out the lack of human interaction, he has taken Afghanistan-familiarization courses offered by the Air Force. “You can picture them more as a people and a civilization,” he says.

Indeed, they see many things meant to be secret, like men having sex with sheep and goats in the deep of night. I first heard this from infantry soldiers and took it as rumor, but at Bagram I met a civilian contractor who works in UAV operations. “All the time,” he said. “They just don’t think we can see them.” Which sums up a major allure of UAVs: Though they should know better by now, many insurgents still feel safe working in darkness or in the shelter of distant mountains and valleys, so they are exposed again and again. The unmanned planes have eroded their freedom of movement and simple early-warning systems, two of their few assets when outmatched in weapons, technology, and resources. Helicopters can be heard a mile or more away. Spotters watch vehicles leave bases and follow the slow advance of dismounted patrols. Surprise is a rarity for U. S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. The insurgents almost always know they’re coming, with at least several minutes’ notice. So they toss weapons behind a rock and become, in an instant, civilians. But with a camera parked three miles overhead, last-minute subterfuge doesn’t work.

Enter the Betas, the future armchair fighter jocks. The Air Force is now training a first-ever test group brought straight into the Predator program. After six months of screening and basic flight instruction, the Betas started a nine-week initial qualification course at Creech, the same taken by pilots, which includes forty hours in a simulator and nine or more actual flights. The eight Beta students were still in the academics phase when I visited Creech, but the nonpilots, who came from jobs like military police, civil engineering, and acquisitions, had so far performed as well as trained pilots, Gersten says. For this type of work, how they grew up might be more important than whether they’ve logged a thousand hours flying supersonic. “This generation, where were they when 9/11 started? They were in junior high and high school,” Gersten says. “And they grew up with the very technology that we fly with here.” Those who dreamed of being fighter pilots might never get the chance as the skies unman, but America’s pool of gamers, texters, and TV watchers is certainly vast and deep. The Betas’ progress is being closely tracked by the Pentagon, which can build plenty of planes if it has the people to fly them.

Click here to read more.

US Air Force’s Hypersonic X-51A gets December launch date

August 6, 2009 at 10:47 am

(Source: Flight Global & USAF – WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE)

The US Air Force Research Laboratory is making final preparations for a four-flight scramjet test programme that it hopes will prove that achieving hypersonic thrust is more than “just luck”.

Image Courtesy: USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. Staff Sgt. Jonathan Young with the 412th Maintenance Group prepares to upload the X-51A WaveRider hypersonic flight test vehicle to a B-52 for fit testing at Edwards Air Force Base on July 17. Two B-52 flights, one captive carriage and one dress rehearsal, are planned this fall prior to the X-51's first hypersonic scramjet flight over the Pacific Ocean scheduled in December. The Air Force Research Laboratory, DARPA, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, and Boeing are partnering on the X-51A technology demonstrator program. (Air Force photo by Chad Bellay)

First flight of the expendable X-51A vehicle is set for December, with three subsequent 300s flights to follow at four- to six-week intervals, barring failures. The flights will examine scramjet performance in acceleration from Mach 4 to M6 after launch from the wing of a Boeing B-52H.

The $246.5 million, six-year programme is a year behind schedule, but carries high hopes for the hypersonics community. USAF X-51A programme manager Charlie Brink told the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics’ 45th Joint Propulsion Conference in Denver: “We want more flight success to show [achieving hypersonic thrust] isn’t just luck. There is no plan for a follow-on programme [to X-51A]. It is a question of when not if, but [the hypersonics community] have to be successful.”

Image Courtesy: USAF - WRIGHT-PATTERSON AIR FORCE BASE. The X-51A WaveRider hypersonic flight test vehicle was uploaded to an Air Force Flight Test Center B-52 for fit testing at Edwards Air Force Base on July 17. Two B-52 flights, one captive carriage and one dress rehearsal, are planned this fall prior to the X-51's first hypersonic scramjet flight over the Pacific Ocean scheduled in December. The Air Force Research Laboratory, DARPA, Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne, and Boeing are partnering on the X-51A technology demonstrator program. (Air Force photo by Chad Bellay)

During the flight test, currently planned Dec. 2, the Air Force Flight Test Center’s B-52 will carry the X-51A to 50,000 feet over the Pacific Ocean then release it. A solid rocket booster from an Army tactical missile system then will ignite and accelerate the X-51 to about Mach 4.5. Then, the supersonic combustion ramjet propulsion system will propel the vehicle for five minutes to more than Mach 6. Hypersonic combustion generates intense heat so routing of the engine’s own JP-7 fuel will help keep the engine at the desired operating temperature.

Engineers expect a great deal will be learned about hypersonic flight during the nearly 300 seconds under scramjet power. The longest-ever previous scramjet test, lasted only about 10 seconds, Brink said. As the engine ignites it will initially burn a mix of ethylene and JP-7 before switching exclusively to JP-7 fuel.

Click here to read the entire article.

Government Accountability Office warns of service disruptions to the GPS satellites; Points finger at U.S. Air Force for delays in modernization process

May 20, 2009 at 5:49 pm

(Source: Autoblog & GAO)

Big government’s inefficiency comes in a variety of flavors, and this one could hit your dashboards as early as next year. According to a report from the Government Accountability Office (GAO), the U.S.’ Global Positioning System (GPS) could begin to experience black-outs and general failures next year due to the delays, mismanagement and underinvestment by the U.S. Air force. 

The report’s summary offers the following: The Global Positioning System (GPS), which provides position, navigation, and timing data to users worldwide, has become essential to U.S. national security and a key tool in an expanding array of public service and commercial applications at home and abroad. The United States provides GPS data free of charge. The Air Force, which is responsible for GPS acquisition, is in the process of modernizing GPS. In light of the importance of GPS, the modernization effort, and international efforts to develop new systems, GAO was asked to undertake a broad review of GPS. Specifically, GAO assessed progress in (1) acquiring GPS satellites, (2) acquiring the ground control and user equipment necessary to leverage GPS satellite capabilities, and evaluated (3) coordination among federal agencies and other organizations to ensure GPS missions can be accomplished. To carry out this assessment, GAO’s efforts included reviewing and analyzing program documentation, conducting its own analysis of Air Force satellite data, and interviewing key officials.

It is uncertain whether the Air Force will be able to acquire new satellites in time to maintain current GPS service without interruption. If not, some military operations and some civilian users could be adversely affected. (1) In recent years, the Air Force has struggled to successfully build GPS satellites within cost and schedule goals; it encountered significant technical problems that still threaten its delivery schedule; and it struggled with a different contractor. As a result, the current IIF satellite program has overrun its original cost estimate by about $870 million and the launch of its first satellite has been delayed to November 2009–almost 3 years late. (2) Further, while the Air Force is structuring the new GPS IIIA program to prevent mistakes made on the IIF program, the Air Force is aiming to deploy the next generation of GPS satellites 3 years faster than the IIF satellites. GAO’s analysis found that this schedule is optimistic, given the program’s late start, past trends in space acquisitions, and challenges facing the new contractor. Of particular concern is leadership for GPS acquisition, as GAO and other studies have found the lack of a single point of authority for space programs and frequent turnover in program managers have hampered requirements setting, funding stability, and resource allocation. (3) If the Air Force does not meet its schedule goals for development of GPS IIIA satellites, there will be an increased likelihood that in 2010, as old satellites begin to fail, the overall GPS constellation will fall below the number of satellites required to provide the level of GPS service that the U.S. government commits to. Such a gap in capability could have wide-ranging impacts on all GPS users, though there are measures the Air Force and others can take to plan for and minimize these impacts. In addition to risks facing the acquisition of new GPS satellites, the Air Force has not been fully successful in synchronizing the acquisition and development of the next generation of GPS satellites with the ground control and user equipment, thereby delaying the ability of military users to fully utilize new GPS satellite capabilities. Diffuse leadership has been a contributing factor, given that there is no single authority responsible for synchronizing all procurements and fielding related to GPS, and funding has been diverted from ground programs to pay for problems in the space segment. DOD and others involved in ensuring GPS can serve communities beyond the military have taken prudent steps to manage requirements and coordinate among the many organizations involved with GPS. However, GAO identified challenges in the areas of ensuring civilian requirements can be met and ensuring GPS compatibility with other new, potentially competing global space-based positioning, navigation, and timing systems.

Click here to download the report.  For those who like to read without leaving the page, here is the read-only version of the PDF.

Gas stations in the sky continue service for US Air Force amidst replacement fight

April 9, 2009 at 12:10 pm


Photo: VirtualSugar@ flickr

(Source: Washington Post)

 WASHINGTON — Lying on her chest in a small crawl space, Staff Sgt. Dana Fernkas watches the gray Air Force jet emerge from the clouds and ease up just behind the rear window in the belly of her plane.

While most cargo and passenger planes stay thousands of feet apart in the air, the big KC-10 roared up just below where Fernkas lay, close enough that the wings patch on the other pilot’s jumpsuit was clearly visible. All this while both aircraft raced 300 miles per hour over the Atlantic Ocean.

For gas stations in the sky, this is full-service.

Known as a boom operator, Fernkas controls a long pipe that extends off the back of the plane like a tail. Her aircraft, the size of medium passenger jet, is an aerial refueling tanker known as the KC-135, one of about 450 the Air Force operates. Fuel is stored in the plane’s wings and below the cabin floor. Gassing up a fighter could take just a few minutes. Bigger planes may take up to a half hour.

With a joy stick in one hand and a lever in the other, she “flies” the boom, guiding the tip slowly into a gas nozzle on top of the other plane, a KC-10 that also serves as a tanker, although bigger. Once it slides into place, the boom can deliver a portion of the 200,000 pounds of jet fuel the KC-135 can carry.

“The tanker is key to our entire mission,” said Gen. Arthur Lichte, head of the Air Force command that oversees the KC-135. It gasses up other aircraft in flight, allowing everything from fighter jets to lumbering cargo planes to fly farther than they could on one tank of gas.

The Pentagon has been trying for a decade to build new refueling planes to replace the KC-135, some of which date from mid-1950s, like the one Fernkas flew in. But the effort has been stymied by bitter competition among contractors, heavy pressure from Congress and missteps by the Air Force.

Click here to read the entire article (Free Reg. required).