Hagel Announces "Defense Innovation Initiative"

bobbymike

ACCESS: USAP
Senior Member
Joined
21 April 2009
Messages
13,188
Reaction score
6,085
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/16/hagel-announces-new-pentagon-research-and-development-program/

What 'defense innovations' do SPF members think the US should pursue in order to keep its' technological edge over possible future adversaries?
 
bobbymike said:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/16/hagel-announces-new-pentagon-research-and-development-program/

What 'defense innovations' do SPF members think the US should be pursued in order to keep its' technological edge over possible future adversaries?

IMO we need to work on these areas (while not relaxing in ones we're already okay in):
  • We need an actual game plan for hypersonics. And then we need to follow it.
  • Keep progressing on DEWs and railguns.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/11/us-navy-megawatt-high-energy-laser.html
http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/11/bae-proposes-tank-killing-railgun-by.html


  • Completely modernize our nuclear forces.
  • Robotics, AI, and computing power.
  • A non-satellite-based GPS system.
  • Rapid, automated, manufacturing.
  • A Manhattan Project scope effort at improving energy storage density for electrically powered devices.
 
sferrin said:
  • A non-satellite-based GPS system.

Just curious; how would you ideally do something like this? Ultra precise INS? Precision, ground-based radio triangulation?
 
Dragon029 said:
sferrin said:
  • A non-satellite-based GPS system.

Just curious; how would you ideally do something like this? Ultra precise INS? Precision, ground-based radio triangulation?

If I knew I'd be rolling in dough.
 
a] Re-learn the art of building military technology that is:


1] Relatively on-time.
2] Not hideously costly or over-budget.
3] Reliable.
4] Not so hideously ultra-top-secret that you're unwilling to sell it even to your closest friends (which reflects on point 2 - cost per unit will always be high if you're unwilling to sell abroad).


b] Re-learn the art of ACTUALLY BUILDING THINGS instead of dithering around with studies of concepts. Set targets akin to Kennedy's moon-landing challenge and actually meet them.


c] Recognise that he who controls earth orbit controls everything. Stop being dependent on other nations to provide your manned launch capability. (It's probably too late now - the US put its eggs in the Russian basket and that's not going to work out well, is it?) You're the ones who sent men to the freakin' MOON, for God's sake, and now you don't even have the means to put one in orbit any more. ABSOLUTELY DISGUSTING.
 
Dragon029 said:
Just curious; how would you ideally do something like this? Ultra precise INS?...


That is precisely what DARPA is trying to do. Develope PNT in both vehicles ABD weapons that do not rely on the GPS constellation anymore.
 
I think this new strategy is very interesting and a long time coming. Drastically reduced development and production cycles will be key IMO. I find it interesting the high emphasis on automation. I have a feeling a 6th gen fighter will not be a fighter in the traditional sense. I'm envisioning swarms on very stealthy vehicles that are in high numbers and sortie rates. They'd be so numerous and persistent and the bad guys couldn't fart without a missile (or laser) going up his a$$. The traditionalist in me still secretly hopes that a 6th gen fighter still is a manned heavy weight solution but I'd rather dominate the threat by what ever means necessary.


There may be, however, a mix. There have been artist depictions of a manned vehicle directing (but behind) unmanned vehicles and maybe that will be a viable solution (compromise.) flight "leads" are manned and "wingmen" are actually unmanned. Another interesting possibility is that the aces of 2040 will turn out to be B-3 (LRSB) pilots directing swarms to kill enemy air.


One things for sure, If they are successful, platform procurement will drastically change in the coming decades.
 
pathology_doc said:
a] Re-learn the art of building military technology that is:


1] Relatively on-time.
2] Not hideously costly or over-budget.
3] Reliable.
4] Not so hideously ultra-top-secret that you're unwilling to sell it even to your closest friends (which reflects on point 2 - cost per unit will always be high if you're unwilling to sell abroad).

How does one make better than the other guy (and better enough to be better, or at least close, for the life of the design) without keeping secrecy and working at the bleeding edge?
 
(in the raspy voice of Bender) " and .... you're outta here!"

David
 
I'm just presuming, that Mrs. Michèle Flournoy will be the candidate for the next Secretary of Defense (SecDef).
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom