Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Aerospace / DARPA Glide Breaker
« Last post by George Allegrezza on Today at 05:35:42 am »
New technology initiative for defense against hypersonic glide weapons.  Technical briefing coming in July:

http://aviationweek.com/aviation-week-space-technology/week-technology-june-18-22-2018


2
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by jsport on Yesterday at 07:24:40 am »
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/16/the-us-navy-is-fed-up-with-ballistic-missile-defense-patrols/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

The U.S. Navy’s top officer wants to end standing ballistic missile defense patrols and transfer the mission to shore-based assets.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in no uncertain terms Tuesday that he wants the Navy off the tether of ballistic missile defense patrols, a mission that has put a growing strain on the Navy’s hard-worn surface combatants, and shifted towards more shore-based infrastructure.

“Right now, as we speak, I have six multi-mission, very sophisticated, dynamic cruisers and destroyers -- six of them are on ballistic missile defense duty at sea,” Richardson said during his address at the U.S. Naval War College’s Current Strategy Forum. “And if you know a little bit about this business you know that geometry is a tyrant.

“You have to be in a tiny little box to have a chance at intercepting that incoming missile. So, we have six ships that could go anywhere in the world, at flank speed, in a tiny little box, defending land.”
This is why the case for dedicated ABM ships has always been a valid one.
3
https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/969994/russia-stealth-fighter-jet-features-su-57-photos-radars-beaming

Another I-predict-RCS-by-a-photo Guru? ;D

BTW There's new pics of composite wing panel of new Sukhoi's Okhotnik UCAV
4
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by marauder2048 on June 16, 2018, 10:48:50 pm »
The government regularly denies FOIA requests of this nature where really only the self-interest
of the requester is being served by disclosure; the authors of this piece can't show that the public is
being harmed by non-disclosure because they can't demonstrate that the reformed oversight
polices for SAPs are inadequate.

That's not authoritarianism. Just a recognition that grandiose claims about public
interest are often marshalled in the service of advancing a particular agenda...
which why these groups are, in many cases, 501(c)(3) in the first place.
5
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by kaiserd on June 16, 2018, 05:57:43 pm »
The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

What limits?

Advocating for the adoption or rejection of legislation aka lobbying.
In this case, the Norman-Blumenauer amendment.

There's only so much of that these organizations are allowed to do.

Limits on lobbying are very much not the same as differentiated rights for different tax payers being differentiated on the basis of if they agree with you or not.

And I was not necessarily arguing for reform of the current system; I was arguing against the contributors on this site advocating for the exploitation of the current system to deny access to budget details to interest groups they don't like or agree with on the basis that they don't like or agree with them.

If there was any evidence that the current system was being exploited in this way or was potentially vulnerable to being exploited in this manner then it would badly need reform. 

And I would contend that such advocates logic is very troubling but unfortunately not now uncommon, with its authoritarian basis making a shameful come-back .
6
Military / Re: Surface Ships Need More Offensive Punch, Outlook
« Last post by bobbymike on June 16, 2018, 04:57:58 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/naval/2018/06/16/the-us-navy-is-fed-up-with-ballistic-missile-defense-patrols/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

The U.S. Navy’s top officer wants to end standing ballistic missile defense patrols and transfer the mission to shore-based assets.

Chief of Naval Operations Adm. John Richardson said in no uncertain terms Tuesday that he wants the Navy off the tether of ballistic missile defense patrols, a mission that has put a growing strain on the Navy’s hard-worn surface combatants, and shifted towards more shore-based infrastructure.

“Right now, as we speak, I have six multi-mission, very sophisticated, dynamic cruisers and destroyers -- six of them are on ballistic missile defense duty at sea,” Richardson said during his address at the U.S. Naval War College’s Current Strategy Forum. “And if you know a little bit about this business you know that geometry is a tyrant.

“You have to be in a tiny little box to have a chance at intercepting that incoming missile. So, we have six ships that could go anywhere in the world, at flank speed, in a tiny little box, defending land.”
7
Aerospace / Re: Northrop Grumman B-21 Long Range Strike Bomber
« Last post by marauder2048 on June 16, 2018, 04:28:38 pm »
The authors of the piece represent 501(c)(3) organizations and there are limits to their rights.

What limits?

Advocating for the adoption or rejection of legislation aka lobbying.
In this case, the Norman-Blumenauer amendment.

There's only so much of that these organizations are allowed to do.
8
The Bar / Re: Global Military Spending - NEWS ONLY
« Last post by bobbymike on June 16, 2018, 03:24:16 pm »
https://www.defensenews.com/opinion/commentary/2018/06/13/defense-and-delusion-americas-military-industry-are-falling-behind/?utm_campaign=Socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social

Quote

Three great misconceptions of America’s martial power delude both the public and our decision-makers into thinking, and too often acting, as if our nation’s military preeminence is permanent, a preordained birthright. Americans believe we are ― and always will be ― more capable than our adversaries and can rapidly build up to overcome any threat.

Without significant investments, we’re probably wrong.

In fact, America’s 2018 military is a smaller, more expensive force largely operating Desert Storm vintage equipment. The lack of a serious conventional foe in either Iraq or Afghanistan masks the real state of the U.S. military. For example, the Air Force went into the first Gulf War with 134 fighter squadrons in its arsenal; of that, 32 deployed and fought. The average age of those fighters was 10 years.

Today, the Air Force has only 55 fighter squadrons, average age of 27 years, with one we fund through contingency resources. Because of readiness gaps, the Air Force couldn’t deploy 32 fighter squadrons today without destroying airplanes and risking aircrew lives.
9
Aerospace / Re: SpaceX (general discussion)
« Last post by sferrin on June 16, 2018, 06:35:50 am »
And if BFR/New Glenn actually succeeds in that market, the economics mean that it will be very hard to justify the use of SLS for any mission, including the ones where it has an edge.

Right now, SLS is either a bet that both BFR and New Glenn completely fail, or a jobs project. You pick.
SLS predates either, while I'll not ever claim SLS was ever any sort of ideal solution it would be more accurate to frame the discussion as "there was no other politically possible path to Heavy Lift than SLS when the program began." At this point, NG and BFR definitely seem sexier but I would be pretty unhappy with killing SLS until either is a bit more "real" than they are now. There's plenty that can still go wrong with any of them, and I'd rather have the insurance and continuity of industrial infrastructure that comes from holding onto the SLS than kill it now and be left in a lurch if the others hit big problems.

And let's not forget the importance of that industrial base from a defense perspective.  It's difficult to overstate the need to maintain expertise in large solid motors.
10
The Bar / Re: Belgium's quest to replace their F-16 fleet
« Last post by TomcatViP on June 16, 2018, 02:26:29 am »
Quote
Latest News in Case

The decision to buy the Aircraft are Delay to October this year
the Federal Government of Michel will clarification on this points

- Can the F-16 lifetime be prolonged for six years?
- Return of Dassault Offer for Rafale in exchange for Belgium partnership in R&D and building the New France-German combat aircraft.

Later is push by Walloons Opposition for two reason: give the SABCA[1] new jobs and the obligatory bribe to the Socialist[2] party by Dassault.


[1] SABAC = Société Anonyme Belge de Construction Aéronautique.
http://www.belgian-wings.be/Webpages/Navigator/Belgian_Aviation_History/Industry/sabca.htm

[2] That's Walloon Socialist of SP, the Fake Mails case is provoke by Flemish Socialist Sp.A

Welcome in the Soviet EUnion! (pronounce "onion")*


*or "oignon" à la french
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10