Register here

Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
That was the decision Gates had to make, on the basis of poor information provided from many sources (including the intel world looking at China). And it's mostly wrong anyway. I don't recall anyone offering to sacrifice a single F-35 for more F-22s.
Many sources not including the Air Force evidently. I seem to recall some think tank recommending trading maybe 300 F-35s in order to achieve the planned number of 381 F-22s.

Quote
I told them at every opportunity that once the F-22 was dead the critics would turn their attention to the F-35.  And that's exactly what happened. 

Well, actually it didn't. The F-35 continued to have remarkably few critics after early 2010, which is why Bogdan's slam in 2012 made news.
Remarkably few critics? By what standard?

Quote
Nonfactual. That's your opinion.
Seemed to be a common enough excuse. "The F-35 is coming we don't need so many F-22s."

Quote
The problem with this tale-telling is that it risks establishing a Duncan Sandys-like mythology around the F-22 cutback, obscuring what was actually happening.
What really happened was still an extremely poor decision.
2
Aerospace / Re: Japanese next generation fighter study (aka i3, F-3)
« Last post by Blitzo on Today at 06:28:22 pm »
Clean sheet F-3 design
Above the reasons you stated, clean sheet F-3 means superior air defence capability.
Americans just do what they need.
F-22 airframe is very much about air superiority, its interceptor qualities aren't exactly on top.
Many F-35 design choices are literally the exact opposite of a good loitering interceptor.
The F-22 already has Mach 2+ speed and supercruise, with the exception of the MiG-31 there are no pure interceptor designs around these days. If the JSDF thinks the upgraded F-22 offer was too costly they're going to be in for a shock at the real cost of a clean sheet F-3 design with VLO stealth, superior qualities as an interceptor, and the latest and greatest avionics.

Considering all of the work that would have to be done to restart the F-22 production line and update the aircraft would it feasible to enlarge the aircraft a bit to allow for more fuel and weapon bay space? IIRC the most modest of the FB-22 studies was pretty much just that. Obviously a no-go unless both Japan and the US get interested in the idea.

as I wrote on the last page, I imagine one of the benefits from the Japanese POV for a clean sheet F-3 design would be to give work to domestic industry and to lead the project's overall direction.

But between cost/time, capability, and domestic benefits I think they can only choose one or two of those at most realistically.
3
Many F-35 "fans" would have preferred more F-22s and fewer F-35s. 

That was the decision Gates had to make, on the basis of poor information provided from many sources (including the intel world looking at China). And it's mostly wrong anyway. I don't recall anyone offering to sacrifice a single F-35 for more F-22s.

I told them at every opportunity that once the F-22 was dead the critics would turn their attention to the F-35.  And that's exactly what happened. 

Well, actually it didn't. The F-35 continued to have remarkably few critics after early 2010, which is why Bogdan's slam in 2012 made news.

The F-35 was used as an "excuse", not a valid reason.

Nonfactual. That's your opinion.

The gutting of the F-22 procurement plan started long before the F-35 ever flew.

More or less meaningless. The buy was cut to 442 immediately post-Cold War, quite reasonably. By the time Gates took action the goal was 381, barely "gutting".

The problem with this tale-telling is that it risks establishing a Duncan Sandys-like mythology around the F-22 cutback, obscuring what was actually happening.
4
Military / Re: Nuclear Weapons NEWS ONLY
« Last post by bobbymike on Today at 05:54:31 pm »
https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2018-10-15/if-you-want-peace-prepare-nuclear-war

Quote
In a little under three decades, nuclear weapons have gone from center stage to a sideshow in U.S. defense strategy. Since the 1990s, the United States has drastically reduced its stockpile and concentrated on its conventional and irregular warfare capabilities. Nuclear weapons policy has focused overwhelmingly on stemming proliferation to countries such as Iran and North Korea, and prominent political and national security figures have even called for abolishing nuclear weapons altogether. What was once the core of the country’s Cold War strategy has been reduced to an afterthought.

Immediately after the Cold War, when the United States enjoyed unprecedented global power, this approach seemed reason­able. Washington didn’t need much of a nuclear strategy against Iraq or Serbia. But now, great-power competition has returned. Russia wants to upend the post–Cold War status quo in Europe. A rising China seeks ascendancy, first over Asia and ultimately beyond. To accomplish this, each country has developed military forces ideally suited to fight and defeat the United States in a future war. And modern, mobile nuclear capabilities are a key part of their strategies.

https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/russian-federation/2018-10-15/moscows-nuclear-enigma?fa_package=1123220

Quote
Talk to anybody in Washington (except, perhaps, the U.S. president), and you will hear an ominous mantra: the Russians are back. Moscow, resurgent, is sowing discord among Western states and trying to reestablish its sphere of influence in former Soviet countries and beyond. One development, in particular, has caused much hyperventilating in Western ministries and think tanks: the Russian Federation not only has more nuclear weapons than any other country in the world but also is investing in an arsenal of modern, low-yield nuclear weapons that could be used for limited nuclear warfare.
5
If the missile is too fast, then that introduces unnecessary challenges in hitting the target. Look at the ABM issues with a bullet hitting a bullet. Same type of issues. Minute course corrections... very difficult. Then you build a hyper complicated and expensive AAM with lower kill probability than something slower and "conventional"

PAC-3 doesn't seem to have a problem hitting manuvering RVs.
6
 If the missile is too fast, then that introduces unnecessary challenges in hitting the target. Look at the ABM issues with a bullet hitting a bullet. Same type of issues. Minute course corrections... very difficult. Then you build a hyper complicated and expensive AAM with lower kill probability than something slower and "conventional"
7
Aerospace / Re: Chinese Stealth bomber program - XAC H-X (H-20)
« Last post by Airplane on Today at 05:25:20 pm »
Well, if one side has a LO fighter being put in service and Increasing their numbers each year while other side has their LO fighter on hold, I would say that is pretty evident lead.

Similar thing might be said once we see who will fly a LO bomber first. Could be in a few years...

I would not like to place any bets onto whether China or Russia gets their Stealth Bombers airborne first.  Last I heard was that Tupolev have put their new bomber on hold in favor of building more Tu-160's and also upgrading the existing fleet.  So it could go either way.

It doesn't matter who flies first, Russia or China. Its who actually flies a real stealth bomber first.

If the Russians AC is on par with the SU-57, then who really cares the Russians are airborne first.

We already know the Chinese are tooling experts and great at holding tolerances (I worked with the chi-coms for 2 years on a shared 'venture' and can attest to their tooling skills). The Russians seem to still be sloppy in mass manufacturing from the rumor mill. Probably that's why the Sukhoi isn't actually a stealth fighter.

We also know the Chinese ripped of boat loads of info from the B-2. My money is on the Chinese AC maybe not flying first, but actually being stealthy.

Time to field some quantum radars.
8
Army Projects / Re: M109A6 test bed for XM907 ERCA
« Last post by Colonial-Marine on Today at 05:24:05 pm »
It's nice to see these upgrades the might occur for the M109A7 but I still wonder at all of the compromises that must be made versus a "new" design for a self-propelled howitzer.

I've got to wonder if today's M109A7 have any part that is the same as the original M109? The turret was largely redesigned for the A6 and the hull is new for the A7.
9
Clean sheet F-3 design
Above the reasons you stated, clean sheet F-3 means superior air defence capability.
Americans just do what they need.
F-22 airframe is very much about air superiority, its interceptor qualities aren't exactly on top.
Many F-35 design choices are literally the exact opposite of a good loitering interceptor.
The F-22 already has Mach 2+ speed and supercruise, with the exception of the MiG-31 there are no pure interceptor designs around these days. If the JSDF thinks the upgraded F-22 offer was too costly they're going to be in for a shock at the real cost of a clean sheet F-3 design with VLO stealth, superior qualities as an interceptor, and the latest and greatest avionics.

Considering all of the work that would have to be done to restart the F-22 production line and update the aircraft would it feasible to enlarge the aircraft a bit to allow for more fuel and weapon bay space? IIRC the most modest of the FB-22 studies was pretty much just that. Obviously a no-go unless both Japan and the US get interested in the idea.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10