DOCSLIB.ORG

Support Systems Plays Role in Aiding the Evolution of USAF Bomber Fleet

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Support Systems Plays Role in Aiding the Evolution of USAF Bomber Fleet n COVER STORY Wings of change A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer bomber peels away from a four-ship formation during a training mission over the U.S. state of Georgia. The B-1 fleet recently passed the 500,000-flying-hour milestone and has proven to be a workhorse of the U.S. Air Force’s bomber fleet. B-1s are used primar- ily for show-of-force deterrence and for swift precision strikes. U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO Support Systems plays role in aiding made by Boeing or a heritage company or features Boeing as a major subcontractor. the evolution of USAF bomber fleet With the youngest members of the bomber fleet dating back 20 years, however, and the Air Force’s next-generation bomber likely BY DEbbY ARKELL many years away, keeping these aircraft relevant for today’s war- fighters—maintaining aging aircraft and continuing to integrate ince the days of drummers leading armies into battles, the latest in battlefield technology—has become critically impor- warfare has evolved continually. The lightning-speed tech- tant. Thus, the enhancements and modifications performed by Snological advances of recent decades have cast profound Integrated Defense Systems’ Support Systems people are vital to changes on the military, enabling it to transform its arsenal of weap- the ongoing relevance of this crucial element of modern warfare. ons and warfighting techniques to be continuously relevant and “Boeing’s goal is to support the current bomber platforms, combat-ready. meeting the customer’s needs to avoid obsolescence and maintain The United States Air Force bomber fleet is no exception. This combat relevance until the replacement can be fielded—keeping fleet includes about 164 aircraft—a mix of B-1s, B-2s and the the platforms as usable assets to the Air Force,” said Scot Oathout, venerable B-52, which first appeared in the mid-1950s. All three B-52 program director. “Yet we’re not just sustaining these plat- have played and will continue to play significant roles in conflict forms, but changing their missions entirely. And Boeing employ- and peacekeeping missions around the globe, and each was either ees are leading the way.” 12 September 2007 BOEING FRONTIERS n COVER STORY Historical bomber strategies Boeing and its heritage companies have been involved in the Bombers, at a glance evolution of all three bombers, having originally built all or parts of each. Now it’s maintaining and enhancing them to meet current Here’s a closer look at Boeing’s heavy bombers. operator needs. B-1 The B-52 made its debut in 1952 and went into service in 1954 • Built in 1980s by Rockwell International (now part of Boeing). as a high-altitude, long-range nuclear bomber. The B-1B, designed to be a swift nuclear deterrent, first flew in 1984 and was delivered • Converted from nuclear to conventional weapons missions in 1990s. in 1985. The B-2, taking to the skies in 1989, was a stealthy nuclear • Flight speed: Mach 1.25. air-defense penetrator. Early bomber battle strategies focused on the destruction of en- • Gross takeoff weight: 477,000 pounds (216,000 kilograms). emies’ factories, communications and other infrastructure. As air- • Number in U.S. Air Force fleet: 67. craft systems and payload deployment were imprecise, weapons had to be capable of significant damage to ensure the destruction • Primary mission: Considered the workhorse of the U.S. Air Force of the target. The Cold War and nuclear proliferation led to a need bomber fleet, B-1s carry a large, flexible payload and are used for for high-speed displays of force, or deterrent capabilities, in addi- strategic attack and interdiction, close air support, swift precision tion to nuclear capability. strikes and show-of-force deterrence. As politics and technology changed, so did Air Force require- • Enhancements in development by Integrated Defense Systems in ments. Bombers had to fly farther and for longer. As the Cold War Long Beach, Calif., include data links, front and rear cockpit upgrades, nuclear threat waned, precision weapons were introduced. As Central Integrated Test System, Gyro Stabilization System replace- other technological advances boosted troop mobility, the goal no ment. longer was massive destruction of enemy targets using imprecise • Combat operations include Desert Fox (Iraq, 1998), Allied Force weapons—but war on swift, mobile target sets, attacking the en- (Kosovo, 1999), Enduring Freedom (Afghanistan, 2001) and Iraqi emy with pinpoint accuracy. Freedom (Iraq, 2003). Mission: Modification B-2 IDS Support Systems employees around the United States have • Built by an industry team including Northrop Grumman, Boeing and stepped up to the challenge, upgrading these bomber platforms in Vought Aircraft Industries. Boeing was—and remains—responsible a multitude of ways. These enhancements have kept the platforms for one-third of the aircraft’s systems and structural elements. current with technological innovations. They’ve also changed their role from that of a single-mission capability to a flexible, versatile, • Entered U.S. Air Force operational fleet in 1993. networked asset in the Air Force fleet. • Known as the “stealth bomber” because of its ability to elude enemy Enhancements to bomber platforms fall into four categories: radar. weaponry, modernization, connectivity and sustainment. Support • Number in U.S. Air Force fleet: 21. Systems people play a role on all fronts. Here’s a look at each category. • Primary mission: long-range flight, to attack key targets early in a conflict to minimize the opponent’s capabilities. • Flight speed: high subsonic. The B-52 first entered military service with the • Recent enhancements by IDS Support Systems in Seattle include the U.S. Air Force in 1954 in its primary mission as addition of smart-bomb racks in the B-2’s two bomb bays and Ultra a long-range, heavy bomber. It can carry a wide High Frequency Satellite Communication. array of weapons, including air-launched cruise missiles. B-52 U.S. AIR FORCE PHOTO • Built by Boeing in Seattle and Wichita, Kan.; most modifications occur during Program Depot Maintenance in Oklahoma. • First entered military service in 1954. • Number in U.S. Air Force fleet: 76. • Primary mission: long-range, heavy bomber that can carry the widest array of weapons in the U.S. Air Force bomber fleet, including air- launched cruise missiles • Flight speed: high subsonic. • Can carry up to 70,000 pounds (31,800 kilograms) of mixed payload. • Combat operations include all major offensives from Vietnam through Operation Iraqi Freedom. • Recent enhancements include B-52 Combat Network Communica- tions Technology program, Avionics Midlife Improvement and Electronic Countermeasure Integration programs. KEVIN FLYNN PHOTO BOEING FRONTIERS September 2007 13 n COVER STORY The B-2—called “the stealth bomber” because of its ability to elude enemy radar—was built by an industry team featuring Northrop Grumman, Boeing and Vought Aircraft Industries. Boeing built primary structural components for the B-2 including outboard and aft-center sections of the bomber’s fuselage, and supplied the bomber’s fuel systems, weapons delivery system PHOTO and landing gear. Boeing remains responsible for one-third of the aircraft’s systems and structural elements. BOEING Weaponry. Weaponry upgrades entail changing the payload Future improvements carried on the aircraft and integrating advanced weapons systems. Boeing is working with the U.S. Air Force customer and, in the case of All three bombers originated with nuclear capability but now have the B-2 program, prime contractor Northrop Grumman, to devise ways expanded their role to include conventional weapons. to keep Boeing bombers relevant well into the future. Here are some Today’s global positioning systems allow weapons to be in- creasingly precise. This means bombers can service many more examples of technologies Integrated Defense Systems Support Systems targets per sortie than before—and can deploy munitions accu- is considering for future application. rately from higher, safer altitudes. B-52 The warfighter must also be able to identify and track these tar- Airborne Electronic Attack is an enhancement based on the capabilities gets. Boeing Support Systems in January demonstrated the ability to of the EA-18G Growler and is one that would fundamentally change the track moving targets using an infrared targeting pod on the B-1 and mission of the B-52. AEA—also known as Core Component Jammer— is working to deploy this technology to the fleet. The B-52 program would enable the B-52 to stand off at long distances and use jamming also has successfully integrated Litening Pods on the B-52—these technology to protect other U.S. Air Force assets in theater, such as B-2 pods include Low Light TV, Infrared, Laser Designator and Data stealth aircraft. IDS Support Systems expects to be in the predemonstra- Link capabilites—and is currently developing a universal interface tion phase by late 2007. allowing the use of Litening, Sniper or Advanced Targeting Pods. As advanced new weapons emerge, bombers must be upgraded B-1 to accommodate them. That’s a complex endeavor involving The B-1 program is developing a targeting radar to distinguish between updating and integrating software, hardware, and electrical and multiple stationary and moving targets simultaneously in all weather. mechanical enhancements to the aircraft. This would enable pilots to accurately identify targets passed along by Boeing just completed the $2.8 billion Conventional Mission ground forces. Data gathered by the radar also could provide intel- Upgrade Program for the U.S. Air Force, changing the B-1 from a ligence, surveillance and reconnaissance information, complementing nuclear alert bomber to conventional weapons carrier. that gathered from airborne warning and command system aircraft or “During Operation Desert Storm the B-1 was standing nuclear unmanned combat vehicles.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • A Clipped Wing: an Assessment of the Effectiveness of the B-21
    University of Denver Digital Commons @ DU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies 1-1-2016 A Clipped Wing: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the B-21 Aidan Thomas Hughes University of Denver Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd Part of the International Relations Commons Recommended Citation Hughes, Aidan Thomas, "A Clipped Wing: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the B-21" (2016). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. 1124. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/etd/1124 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate Studies at Digital Commons @ DU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ DU. For more information, please contact [email protected],[email protected]. A Clipped Wing: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the B-21 _________________________ A Thesis Presented to the Faculty of the Josef Korbel School of International Studies University of Denver _________________________ In Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Arts _________________________ by Aidan Thomas Hughes June 2016 Advisor: Professor T. Farer Author: Aidan Thomas Hughes Title: A Clipped Wing: An Assessment of the Effectiveness of the B-21 Advisor: Professor T. Farer Degree Date: June 2016 Abstract This thesis examines the effectiveness of the Northrop Grumman B-21 long range strike bomber in advancing the ability of U.S. policy makers to achieve national security objectives. The operational value of the B-21 is assessed through analysing its probable role in four hypothetical combat scenarios, and the relative effectiveness of the B-21 is measured alongside the potential performance of alternative systems.
    [Show full text]
  • JP 3-09.3, Close Air Support, As a Basis for Conducting CAS
    Joint Publication 3-09.3 Close Air Support 08 July 2009 PREFACE 1. Scope This publication provides joint doctrine for planning and executing close air support. 2. Purpose This publication has been prepared under the direction of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. It sets forth joint doctrine to govern the activities and performance of the Armed Forces of the United States in joint operations and provides the doctrinal basis for interagency coordination and for US military involvement in multinational operations. It provides military guidance for the exercise of authority by combatant commanders and other joint force commanders (JFCs) and prescribes joint doctrine for operations, education, and training. It provides military guidance for use by the Armed Forces in preparing their appropriate plans. It is not the intent of this publication to restrict the authority of the JFC from organizing the force and executing the mission in a manner the JFC deems most appropriate to ensure unity of effort in the accomplishment of the overall objective. 3. Application a. Joint doctrine established in this publication applies to the Joint Staff, commanders of combatant commands, subunified commands, joint task forces, and subordinate components of these commands, and the Services. b. The guidance in this publication is authoritative; as such, this doctrine will be followed except when, in the judgment of the commander, exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise. If conflicts arise between the contents of this publication and the contents of Service publications, this publication will take precedence unless the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, normally in coordination with the other members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has provided more current and specific guidance.
    [Show full text]
  • Aircraft, Defense & Space Domain Business Plan
    Aircraft, Defense & Space Domain Business Plan Keisuke Hisakazu Naohiko HIROSE MIZUTANI ABE Senior Vice President, President, Senior Vice President, Head of Commercial Aviation Mitsubishi Aircraft Corporation Head of Integrated Defense Systems & Space Systems June 12, 2017 © 2017 MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. All Rights Reserved. Contents 1. Business Overview 2. Commercial Aviation Systems Segment 2-1. Overview 2-2. FY2016 Summary & FY2017 Outlook 2-3. FY2017 Business Strategy 3. MRJ Business 3-1. Overview 3-2. Development Activities 3-3. Implementation of Development Schedule 4. Integrated Defense & Space Systems Segment 4-1. Overview 4-2. FY2016 Summary & FY2017 Outlook 4-3. FY2017 Business Strategy © 2017 MITSUBISHI HEAVY INDUSTRIES, LTD. All Rights Reserved. 1 1-1. Overview (Domain Reorganization) The Aircraft, Defense & Space domain was created as a result of MHI’s domain reorganization, carried out 2017年4月の全社ドメイン再編・事業再配置により、航空・防衛・宇宙ドメインを発足。 in April 2017.直轄による育成基盤の早期形成と収益安定を図る。 Under the CEO’s direct oversight, the new domain is pursuing prompt formation of a strong developmentCEO foundation and stable earnings. [Until March 2017] [From April 2017] Energy & Environment Power Systems Business Group company Mitsubishi Aircraft MRJ Thermal Power Nuclear Power Thermal Power Compressors Corporation Renewable Energy Chemical Plants Aero Engines Nuclear Power Commercial Aviation & Renewable Energy Transportation Systems Commercial / Cruise Land Transportation Ships Systems Industry & Infrastructure Material Handling Commercial Aircraft
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution & Impact of US Aircraft In
    University of Nebraska - Lincoln DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln Honors Program Fall 10-2019 Take Off to Superiority: The Evolution & Impact of U.S. Aircraft in War Lane Weidner University of Nebraska - Lincoln Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/honorstheses Part of the Aviation Commons, and the Military History Commons Weidner, Lane, "Take Off to Superiority: The Evolution & Impact of U.S. Aircraft in War" (2019). Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln. 184. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/honorstheses/184 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Honors Program at DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. It has been accepted for inclusion in Honors Theses, University of Nebraska-Lincoln by an authorized administrator of DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska - Lincoln. TAKE OFF TO SUPERIORITY: THE EVOLUTION & IMPACT OF U.S. AIRCRAFT IN WAR An Undergraduate Honors Thesis Submitted in Partial fulfillment of University Honors Program Requirements University of Nebraska-Lincoln by Lane M. Weidner, Bachelor of Science Major: Mathematics Minor: Aerospace Studies College of Arts & Sciences Oct 24, 2019 Faculty Mentor: USAF Captain Nicole Beebe B.S. Social Psychology M.Ed. Human Resources, E-Learning ii Abstract Military aviation has become a staple in the way wars are fought, and ultimately, won. This research paper takes a look at the ways that aviation has evolved and impacted wars across the U.S. history timeline. With a brief introduction of early flight and the modern concept of an aircraft, this article then delves into World Wars I and II, along with the Cold, Korean, Vietnam, and Gulf Wars.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 2 HISTORY and DEVELOPMENT of MILITARY LASERS
    History and Development of Military Lasers Chapter 2 HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF MILITARY LASERS JACK B. KELLER, JR* INTRODUCTION INVENTING THE LASER MILITARIZING THE LASER SEARCHING FOR HIGH-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS SEARCHING FOR LOW-ENERGY LASER WEAPONS RETURNING TO HIGHER ENERGIES SUMMARY *Lieutenant Colonel, US Army (Retired); formerly, Foreign Science Information Officer, US Army Medical Research Detachment-Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, 7965 Dave Erwin Drive, Brooks City-Base, Texas 78235 25 Biomedical Implications of Military Laser Exposure INTRODUCTION This chapter will examine the history of the laser, Military advantage is greatest when details are con- from theory to demonstration, for its impact upon the US cealed from real or potential adversaries (eg, through military. In the field of military science, there was early classification). Classification can remain in place long recognition that lasers can be visually and cutaneously after a program is aborted, if warranted to conceal hazardous to military personnel—hazards documented technological details or pathways not obvious or easily in detail elsewhere in this volume—and that such hazards deduced but that may be relevant to future develop- must be mitigated to ensure military personnel safety ments. Thus, many details regarding developmental and mission success. At odds with this recognition was military laser systems cannot be made public; their the desire to harness the laser’s potential application to a descriptions here are necessarily vague. wide spectrum of military tasks. This chapter focuses on Once fielded, system details usually, but not always, the history and development of laser systems that, when become public. Laser systems identified here represent used, necessitate highly specialized biomedical research various evolutionary states of the art in laser technol- as described throughout this volume.
    [Show full text]
  • Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units
    Finding the Right Balance JOHN F. SCHANK • HARRY J. THIE • CLIFFORD M. GRAF II JOSEPH BEEL • JERRY SOLLINGER Simulator and Live Training for Navy Units Prepared for the United States Navy NATIONAL DEFENSE RESEARCH INSTITUTE R Approved for Public Release; Distribution Unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Navy. The research was conducted in RAND’s National Defense Research Institute, a federally funded research and development center supported by the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the unified commands, and the defense agencies under Contract DASW01-95-C-0059. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Finding the right balance : simulator and live training for navy units / John Schank ... [et al.]. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references. “MR-1441.” ISBN 0-8330-3104-X 1. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States. 2. Naval tactics—Study and teaching—United States—Simulation methods. 3. Anti-submarine warfare— Study and teaching—United States—Evaluation. 4. Fighter pilots—Training of— Evaluation. 5. Effective teaching—United States. I. Schank, John F. (John Frederic), 1946– II. Rand Corporation. V169 .F53 2002 359.4'071'073—dc21 2001057887 RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND® is a registered trademark. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of its research sponsors. © Copyright 2002 RAND All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND.
    [Show full text]
  • Five Priorities for the Air Force's Future Combat Air
    FIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE AIR FORCE’S FUTURE COMBAT AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG LUKAS AUTENRIED FIVE PRIORITIES FOR THE AIR FORCE’S FUTURE COMBAT AIR FORCE MARK GUNZINGER CARL REHBERG LUKAS AUTENRIED 2020 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2020 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Mark Gunzinger is a Non-resident Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. Mr. Gunzinger has served as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Forces, Transformation and Resources. A retired Air Force Colonel and Command Pilot, he joined the Office of the Secretary of Defense in 2004. Mark was appointed to the Senior Executive Service and served as Principal Director of the Department’s central staff for the 2006 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). Following the QDR, he served as Director for Defense Transformation, Force Planning and Resources on the National Security Council staff. Mr. Gunzinger holds an M.S. in National Security Strategy from the National War College, a Master of Airpower Art and Science degree from the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, an M.P.A. from Central Michigan University, and a B.S.
    [Show full text]
  • 0706Bombers.Pdf
    A Tale of Two Bombers Photos Carlson Ted by After a long review process, the Rea- gan Administration in 1981 decided there was room in the inventory for both the B-1B (shown here) and the B-2A stealth bomber (at right). The two bombers formed the centerpiece of the strategic arms buildup of the 1980s. 72 AIR FORCE Magazine / July 2006 Many thought Ronald Reagan had to choose between the B-1 and the B-2. They were wrong. A Tale of Two Bombers By Walter J. Boyne hen President Reagan took work on a new low-altitude penetrat- proached, the B-1’s critics stepped office in early 1981, he came ing bomber, which was given the name up their complaints, turning it into a Wface to face with a huge bomber ques- Advanced Manned Strategic Aircraft, subject of major political debate. The tion. Should he resurrect the long-dor- or AMSA. North American Rockwell Brookings Institution in early 1976, for mant B-1 to quickly boost US striking won the contract. instance, published Modernizing the power? Or should he bypass the B-1 Things moved slowly, however. Sec- Strategic Bomber Force: Why and How. and invest those billions of dollars in retary of Defense Robert S. McNamara, In this critical book, authors Alton H. the revolutionary but far more distant no friend of the manned penetrating Quanbeck and Archie L. Wood urged the B-2 stealth bomber? bomber, decided in 1966 to delay AMSA Pentagon to scrap the penetrating B-1 It was a major dilemma, and Reagan development, declaring that “a new and save up to $15 billion by building solved it in a classic, Reaganesque way: advanced strategic aircraft does not at a different kind of standoff, cruise-mis- He bought both.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloaded April 22, 2006
    SIX DECADES OF GUIDED MUNITIONS AND BATTLE NETWORKS: PROGRESS AND PROSPECTS Barry D. Watts Thinking Center for Strategic Smarter and Budgetary Assessments About Defense www.csbaonline.org Six Decades of Guided Munitions and Battle Networks: Progress and Prospects by Barry D. Watts Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments March 2007 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is an independent, nonprofit, public policy research institute established to make clear the inextricable link between near-term and long- range military planning and defense investment strategies. CSBA is directed by Dr. Andrew F. Krepinevich and funded by foundations, corporations, government, and individual grants and contributions. This report is one in a series of CSBA analyses on the emerging military revolution. Previous reports in this series include The Military-Technical Revolution: A Preliminary Assessment (2002), Meeting the Anti-Access and Area-Denial Challenge (2003), and The Revolution in War (2004). The first of these, on the military-technical revolution, reproduces the 1992 Pentagon assessment that precipitated the 1990s debate in the United States and abroad over revolutions in military affairs. Many friends and professional colleagues, both within CSBA and outside the Center, have contributed to this report. Those who made the most substantial improvements to the final manuscript are acknowledged below. However, the analysis and findings are solely the responsibility of the author and CSBA. 1667 K Street, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20036 (202) 331-7990 CONTENTS ACKNOWLEGEMENTS .................................................. v SUMMARY ............................................................... ix GLOSSARY ………………………………………………………xix I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1 Guided Munitions: Origins in the 1940s............. 3 Cold War Developments and Prospects ............
    [Show full text]
  • The Radar Game Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability
    A MITCHELL INSTITUTE STUDY The Radar Game Understanding Stealth and Aircraft Survivability By Rebecca Grant September 2010 A mitchell inStitute Study 1 Brig. Gen. Billy Mitchell On September 12, 1918 at St. Mihiel in France, Col. Wil- liam Mitchell became the first person ever to command a major force of allied aircraft in a combined-arms opera- tion. This battle was the debut of the US Army fighting under a single American commander on European soil. Under Mitchell’s control, more than 1,100 allied aircraft worked in unison with ground forces in a broad offen- sive—one encompassing not only the advance of ground troops but also direct air attacks on enemy strategic tar- gets, aircraft, communications, logistics, and forces beyond the front lines. Mitchell was promoted to Brigadier General by order of Gen. John J. Pershing, commander of the American Expeditionary Force, in recognition of his com- mand accomplishments during the St. Mihiel offensive and the subsequent Meuse-Argonne offensive. After World War I, General Mitchell served in Washington and then became Commander, First Provisional Air Brigade, in 1921. That summer, he led joint Army and Navy demonstration attacks as bombs delivered from aircraft sank several captured German vessels, including the SS Ostfriesland. His determination to speak the truth about airpower and its importance to America led to a court-martial trial in 1925. Mitchell was convicted, and re- signed from the service in February 1926. Mitchell, through personal example and through his writing, inspired and en- couraged a cadre of younger airmen. These included future General of the Air Force Henry H.
    [Show full text]
  • Northrop Grumman's LITENING at Targeting System to Be Integrated on F/A-18D Aircraft
    Northrop Grumman's LITENING AT Targeting System to be Integrated on F/A-18D Aircraft March 11, 2004 ROLLING MEADOWS, Ill., March 11, 2004 (PRIMEZONE) -- Northrop Grumman Corporation (NYSE:NOC) is supporting the integration of its LITENING AT targeting system onboard U.S. Marine Corps F/A-18D aircraft. LITENING AT is a self-contained, multisensor laser target designating and navigation system that enables fighter pilots to detect, acquire, track and identify ground targets for highly accurate delivery of both conventional and precision-guided weapons. This initiative is being conducted by the U.S. Navy's F/A-18 program office at the Patuxent River Naval Air Station in Lexington Park, Md. LITENING AT features advanced image processing for target identification and coordinate generation, a 640 x 512 pixel forward-looking infrared (FLIR) sensor (first introduced in the LITENING ER variant), charge-coupled device television (CCD-TV) sensors, laser spot tracker/range finder, infrared laser marker; and an infrared laser designator. Northrop Grumman and its teammate RAFAEL Missile Division will work with the Navy, Marine Corps and Boeing Hornet team to direct the LITENING AT for close air support and other combat missions. Previously, this government-industry team performed an initial integration and flight demonstration of Northrop Grumman's LITENING ER targeting system without changing the aircraft's current Advanced Targeting FLIR interfaces. To avoid impacting the aircraft's operational software, all interfaced changes were accomplished in the LITENING's software. These changes were first tested in the F/A-18 system integration lab at the Naval Air Warfare Center in China Lake, Calif., followed by on-aircraft ground checks at the Navy's Patuxent River facility.
    [Show full text]
  • LESSON 2 the Signifi Cance of Stealth Aircraft
    LESSON 2 The Signifi cance of Stealth Aircraft OR MUCH OF THE FIRST HUNDRED YEARS of Quick Write aviation, the US military varied in its enthusiasm F for unmanned fl ight. During both world wars, the US sought ways to deliver bombs without putting American crews at risk. Experiments with unmanned If you had been an American aircraft went on. But after both wars, interest waned. military planner in 1982, what lessons do you think This pattern continued through the 20th century. would you have drawn from It held even after episodes like the shooting down the Israeli experience with drones in the Bekaa Valley? of Francis Gary Powers’s U-2 over the Soviet Union in 1962. This had made some military planners feel manned surveillance fl ights were too risky. But the United States continued largely to ignore the potential for unmanned fl ight. Learn About The turning point came in 1982, however. Israel • the development of launched a volley of unmanned decoy aircraft in stealth aircraft Lebanon’s Bekaa Valley. The valley was protected by • the development of precision weapons Syrian air defenses. The Syrians fell for the trick. They • the development of fi red their surface-to-air missiles back at the Israelis. unmanned aerial vehicles This let the Israelis know just where each launch site (UAVs) was. The Israelis then moved decisively to destroy the Syrian air defenses. It was a stunning victory. It got American attention. US defense offi cials suddenly saw the potential of unmanned aircraft. 410 CHAPTER 6 The Modern Air Force LESSON 2 The Signifi cance of Stealth Aircraft The Development of Stealth Aircraft Vocabulary As you read in Chapter 5, Lesson 4, stealth technology— • low-observable also called low-observable technology—goes back to the technology early 1970s.
    [Show full text]