USAF/US NAVY 6G Fighter Programs - F/A-XX, F-X, NGAD, PCA, ASFS news

[bobbymike]

Possibly because after T-50, J-20 and J-30 hits the arms market, you will not longer be able to sell anything to anyone. Which would be a pity.

Can you please specify any country as a real potential customer? I mean country that has the real potential to buy European, US, Chinese or Russian fighters in the same time, so they can meet together in the procurement competition. Because as far as I know:

- procurement of the modern fighters was always the matter of politics, not performance
- even USA with all its military expenditures can not afford more than 178 (?) F-22 class single purpose fighters, nor to modernize them at least with FLIR or HMCS
- F-15, a forthy years old plane is still in production for export, while in the same time F-22 production line is closed forever
- why you are so sure that J-20 will ever hits the arms market? With this logic J-10 should now be selling like hot cakes, because it should be/general public expects it to be capable and cheap. Does it?

The back to back statements are contradictory. There is no question the US COULD afford more F-22s, twas politics that slayed the beast.

The US could have easily produced 40 F-22's/year for an estimated $10 billion at $250 million per copy which is a high estimate. The stimulus alone was $900 billion (or 3600 F-22's now that would have been cool B) ) and the total federal government budget is closing on $4 trillion. Even the now dubious DOE alternate energy grant program in the US is over $10 billion/year.

 

[Matej]

The back to back statements are contradictory. There is no question the US COULD afford more F-22s, twas politics that slayed the beast.

Of course. This is what makes my statements real world ones. US can not afford any more F-22 not because of the money, but because there is no will to do so. Who knows economy term "marginal value" will understand. On the same way, Europe will not develop any new generation fighter in the near or mid term, because there is no requirement and thus no will to do so. When you take a look into the military doctrines of the European countries and will read what they are supposed to do, you will see, that currently there are not many tasks or missions that Eurofighter or Rafale can not perform. In this scenario, you should only complement mix of current fighters and cruise missiles with new tactical UCAV bomber and that's all.

Regarding the export, the only country, that really saw a real competition between "east" and "west" offer (that I can think about) was Brazil. Maybe there is some other, you can complete me. Other than that, its clear. When Japan will issue some request for fighters, there wont be PAK FA or J-20 no matter if they are on the market or not. If Israel issue the comparable request, the situation is the same. On the other hand, when Pakistan or Iran will issue the same request, there is no chance that one of the contenders will be JSF or Eurofighter or any European next generation fighter no matter if it exists or not.

 

[Sundog]

It wasn't just politics that stopped the F-22, it was also it's cost. Somehow people in the defense industry have gotten the idea that price doesn't matter. They're wrong.

I would suggest that, rather than building more F-22's, if we are going to spend more money on the program we do so trying to make all of the F-22s we have flying now fully combat capable.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

It wasn't just politics that stopped the F-22, it was also it's cost. Somehow people in the defense industry have gotten the idea that price doesn't matter. They're wrong.

I would suggest that, rather than building more F-22's, if we are going to spend more money on the program we do so trying to make all of the F-22s we have flying now fully combat capable.

Total military spending went up in the budget that ended F-22 production. Gates was just marking his territory.

 

[sferrin]

Total military spending went up in the budget that ended F-22 production. Gates was just marking his territory.

Yep. Just like MacNamara.

 

[chuck4]

Total military spending went up in the budget that ended F-22 production.

So? What offers the highest marginal return for the dollar spent doesn't have to stay the same from one year to the next just because total dollar available increased a bit.

Gates was just marking his territory.

Saying someone is Marking territory is just a petty way of saying someone doesn't agree with you.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

What offers the highest marginal return for the dollar spent doesn't have to stay the same from one year to the next just because total dollar available increased a bit... Saying someone is Marking territory is just a petty way of saying someone doesn't agree with you.

Drones and MRAPS don't offer much return in the way of deterrence against anyone armed with something more dangerous than a few crusty-old RPGs. Gate's decision was myopic to say the least, making sense only in the very, VERY short-term. He WAS marking his territory; it couldn't have been more obvious if he had walked into the USAF chief's office and peed on the desk.

 

[chuck4]

Regarding the export, the only country, that really saw a real competition between "east" and "west" offer (that I can think about) was Brazil. Maybe there is some other, you can complete me. Other than that, its clear. When Japan will issue some request for fighters, there wont be PAK FA or J-20 no matter if they are on the market or not. If Israel issue the comparable request, the situation is the same. On the other hand, when Pakistan or Iran will issue the same request, there is no chance that one of the contenders will be JSF or Eurofighter or any European next generation fighter no matter if it exists or not.

That misses the point. If t-50 and j-20 were on the market, and Europe has nothing better to offer than ef-2000 or Rafale, then even those countries that for political reasons would never actually purchase t-50 or j-20 would now also not consider European offerings. You might say what choice do they have. The answers could of course assume many different forms. One would be a new partnership between relatively minor players like turkey and indonesia to develop an indiginous alternative yo t-50 or j-20. Another could be greater market share for existent indiginous 5th generation projects from second tier powers like south Korea japan, or India. A third could be a private venture 5th generation air-air export project from an large American defense concern such as LM or Boeing. The point is Europe has a very strong aeronautical industry, second only to the US in many vital fields. If Europe were to commit itself to a G5 project, it has great potential to become a dominant force on the market with an offering at least equal to, probably superior to t-50 or j-20, and far superior to any of the other alternatives I mentioned above.


By not developing a g5 fighter, Europe is effectively conceding the high performance combat aircraft market from about 2020 on wards for many years. During this time European aerospace expertise will fall behind those pursuing vigorous domestic g5 projects, like china, Russia, as well as India, and probably also south Korea, Japan, even Indonesia and turkey. European talent pool will dissipate while talent pools in those countries will accumulate and deepen.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

That misses the point. If t-50 and j-20 were on the market, and Europe has nothing better to offer than ef-2000 or Rafale, then even those countries that for political reasons would never actually purchase t-50 or j-20 would now also not consider European offerings. You might say what choice do they have. The answers could of course assume many different forms. One would be a new partnership between relatively minor players like turkey and indonesia to develop an indiginous alternative yo t-50 or j-20. Another could be greater market share for existent indiginous 5th generation projects from second tier powers like south Korea japan, or India. A third could be a private venture 5th generation air-air export project from an large American defense concern such as LM or Boeing. The point is Europe has a very strong aeronautical industry, second only to the US in many vital fields. If Europe were to commit itself to a G5 project, it has great potential to become a dominant force on the market with an offering at least equal to, probably superior to t-50 or j-20, and far superior to any of the other alternatives I mentioned above.


By not developing a g5 fighter, Europe is effectively conceding the high performance combat aircraft market from about 2020 on wards for many years. During this time European aerospace expertise will fall behind those pursuing vigorous domestic g5 projects, like china, Russia, as well as India, and probably also south Korea, Japan, even Indonesia and turkey. European talent pool will dissipate while talent pools in those countries will accumulate and deepen.

I think it's partly due to a European desperation to avoid admitting that they missed the VLO boat and spent a great deal of money on planes that may be fundamentally outclassed in the near term. Just look at how they crow every time a Eurocanard gets its nose on an F-22 in a canned, WVR exercise.

 

[bobbymike]

The back to back statements are contradictory. There is no question the US COULD afford more F-22s, twas politics that slayed the beast.

Of course. This is what makes my statements real world ones. US can not afford any more F-22 not because of the money, but because there is no will to do so. Who knows economy term "marginal value" will understand. On the same way, Europe will not develop any new generation fighter in the near or mid term, because there is no requirement and thus no will to do so. When you take a look into the military doctrines of the European countries and will read what they are supposed to do, you will see, that currently there are not many tasks or missions that Eurofighter or Rafale can not perform. In this scenario, you should only complement mix of current fighters and cruise missiles with new tactical UCAV bomber and that's all.

Regarding the export, the only country, that really saw a real competition between "east" and "west" offer (that I can think about) was Brazil. Maybe there is some other, you can complete me. Other than that, its clear. When Japan will issue some request for fighters, there wont be PAK FA or J-20 no matter if they are on the market or not. If Israel issue the comparable request, the situation is the same. On the other hand, when Pakistan or Iran will issue the same request, there is no chance that one of the contenders will be JSF or Eurofighter or any European next generation fighter no matter if it exists or not.

Talking affordability and marginal value are different issues - I'm an economist and commercial banker - there is NO QUESTION the US could afford as many F-22's at it wanted to buy. As my example shows the $900 billion stimulus could have paid for 3600. Also I think the term you would use is cost to marginal utility.

Of note the US Federal Reserve is buying $40 billion a MONTH in treasuries in the latest QE3. That's 160 Raptors a month.

 

[Triton]

I believe that a big problem in the post-Cold War "New World Order" is that the armed services and the Department of Defense cannot name potential military adversaries. For decades, military spending and weapon systems development was driven by the NATO/Warsaw Pact arms race. The Department of Defense, Department of the Air Force, Department of the Navy, Department of the Army could show the threat posed by Warsaw Pact forces and expected military developments of Warsaw Pact countries. The United States and NATO allies would build their forces for the expected East/West military confrontation and/or deterrent.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, the services and the Department of Defense cannot point to the East to drive military development and weapons procurement. Western Europe believes that the pressure is off because there are no Warsaw Pact forces on its doorstep.

The Sukhoi T-50/PAK FA may be a potential threat to United States and allied forces air power, but do you also need to sell the idea that the Russian Federation and India are potential enemies in a military conflict?

The Chengdu J-20 may be a potential threat to United States and allied air power, but do you also need to sell the idea that the People's Republic of China is a potential enemy in a military conflict?

Do we expect to have a military clash of superpowers, or emerging super powers, in the next 25 to 30 years? Brazil? European Union?

Or do we expect that the majority of conflicts in the next 25 to 30 years will asymmetric security and police actions against drug cartels, international terrorism, or insurgencies (guerrilla actions). What is the utility of the Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor in asymmetric security and police actions? How useful was the F-22 Raptor in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Do we expect that Iran, Venezuela, or North Korea will get fifth generation fighter technology from either the Russian Federation or the People's Republic of China?

I don't believe that Robert Gates was marking his territory or cancelled the F-22 Raptor out of spite. I believe that there are disagreements in the type of wars that the United States will fight in the next 25 to 30 years.

 

[sferrin]

History shows that reality often doesn't cooperate with presumption, particularly when it comes to conflict.

 

[Triton]

History shows that reality often doesn't cooperate with presumption, particularly when it comes to conflict.

It requires us to look in the crystal ball and predict the next twenty-five to thirty years of United States military conflict and makes it a difficult sell. Would the United States Air Force be better off in investing in new counter insurgency aircraft platforms and drones rather than fifth generation fighter and attack aircraft?

How do you maintain cordial relations with the People's Republic of China while at the same time showing the People's Liberation Army as a potential adversary? The Russian Federation? Republic of India? Republic of Korea?

The United States Navy also is having a difficult time defining its post-Cold War mission with the change in emphasis from blue water naval confrontations to the littorals.

So I would argue that developing new military platforms is like buying insurance and assuming risk. There are fundamental disagreements on what United States military forces need to fight future wars and defend United States' interests.

 

[sferrin]

History shows that reality often doesn't cooperate with presumption, particularly when it comes to conflict.

It requires us to look in the crystal ball and predict the next twenty-five to thirty years of United States military conflict and makes it a difficult sell. Would the United States Air Force be better off in investing in new counter insurgency aircraft platforms and drones rather than fifth generation fighter and attack aircraft?

How do you maintain cordial relations with the People's Republic of China while at the same time showing the People's Liberation Army as a potential adversary? The Russian Federation? Republic of India? Republic of Korea?

The United States Navy also is having a difficult time defining its post-Cold War mission with the change in emphasis from blue water naval confrontations to the littorals.

So I would argue that developing new military platforms is like buying insurance and assuming risk. There are fundamental disagreements on what United States military forces need to fight future wars and defend United States' interests.

If you needed a COIN aircraft instead of an air dominance fighter it's easier to make do. Not the other way though.

 

[Triton]

And what exactly is that 5th generation? I remember times some 15 years ago, when YF-22 was all the time described as 4th generation plane, because in US, fighters were organized just to four generations while in Russia/SSSR into five. I find it perverse today to categorize this plane as 5th generation while other is 4,5 generation and another is 4,8753 generation. Perverse!

On a "requirements" note - tell me, why Europe should replace its new Eurofighters and Rafales with a new design in a near or mid term? Why? What they cant do or with new equipment (Meteor, PIRATE,...) wont be able to do from a list of tasks of their operators? Some child want to have a cooler poster on his wall? Well, that's really a good reason to spend billions of Euro.

I believe that most of Europe hasn't gotten over the trauma of World War II. Since the war, the nations of Europe have enjoyed the Pax Americana and the Aegis of United States military power. Probably members of the European Union should have enough air power to conduct an airstrike campaign like the one in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995) and the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia (1999) without a reliance on United States military air power and enough troops for peace keeping operations. Members of the European Union should consider what is in their interests and how they should protect them. For example, could there be another conflict in the Balkans in which opposing forces are armed with the latest generation of Russian Federation SAM missiles? Serbia has shown interest in buying the Almaz S-400 Triumf. How will the Eurofighter Typhoon, Eurofighter Tornado, and Dassault Rafale fare against the Almaz S-400 SAM?

 

[1st503rdSGT]

I don't believe that Robert Gates was marking his territory or cancelled the F-22 Raptor out of spite. I believe that there are disagreements in the type of wars that the United States will fight in the next 25 to 30 years.

That's a cop-out. One prepares for an all-out fight with the biggest, baddest Oscar out there and adapts hardware when the situation calls for otherwise. The DoD is already having trouble figuring out what to do with all the specialized COIN hardware it's been saddled with over the past decade.

 

[chuck4]

If that is a rational strategy, then everyone in the world would be gunning for us.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

That's a cop-out. One prepares for an all-out fight with the biggest, baddest Oscar out there and adapts hardware when the situation calls for otherwise.

You forgot one factor. You adapt or prioritise hardware within a budget. A classic case is the Army’s Comanche. The more pressing need for the Army at the time was more utility helicopters and the only way to get them was to use the Comanche production money. On the flipside cancelling production to launch a new development can be disastrous like in the Crusader’s production money being used to develop the FCS MGV family.

The DoD is already having trouble figuring out what to do with all the specialized COIN hardware it's been saddled with over the past decade.

Remember the last time the US forces had inherited a lot of ‘COIN hardware’ was after VietNam. Refocusing this technology into conventional warfare resulted in Assault Breaker which provided US forces with the wherewithal to fight Airland Battle. This time round the level of air land integration used to fight the COIN war includes the UAV, sensor fusion, etc.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

If that is a rational strategy, then everyone in the world would be gunning for us.

And a good many are if you hadn't noticed.

I also believe I specified "baddest." Admittedly, it's a highly-technical term of variable definition, but in this case meaning "dangerous," as in those with the most potential to actually pose a "danger" to US sovereignty. Then again, perhaps it has been lost on you that protecting the nation's sovereignty is the military's PRIMARY mission... not counter-insurgency.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

You forgot one factor. You adapt or prioritise hardware within a budget. A classic case is the Army’s Comanche. The more pressing need for the Army at the time was more utility helicopters and the only way to get them was to use the Comanche production money. On the flipside cancelling production to launch a new development can be disastrous like in the Crusader’s production money being used to develop the FCS MGV family.

A disaster indeed.

Remember the last time the US forces had inherited a lot of ‘COIN hardware’ was after VietNam. Refocusing this technology into conventional warfare resulted in Assault Breaker which provided US forces with the wherewithal to fight Airland Battle. This time round the level of air land integration used to fight the COIN war includes the UAV, sensor fusion, etc.

As I recall, it took around a decade for the US military to recover from Vietnam and restore actual warfighting capability. I highly doubt weapons like BAT would have received much priority during that conflict.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

As I recall, it took around a decade for the US military to recover from Vietnam and restore actual warfighting capability. I highly doubt weapons like BAT would have received much priority during that conflict.

Assault Breaker was a wider program that involved a range of weapon systems to achieve the aim of engaging the Soviet second echelon. The technology developed to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail was crucial for most of the precision guided weapons and sensor developments of the 1980s and 90s.

Without the VietNam War the US Army and tactical air command in the 1970s and 80s would have had plenty of tanks firing missiles that didn’t quite work and aircraft ideal for dropping tactical nukes. In short it would have been a smaller, better lead version of the Soviet Army. It would not have had attack helicopters, Hellfire, suppression of air defences, AWACS, F-15 IFF, large scales of air to ground sensors and deep strike ambitions.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

As I recall, it took around a decade for the US military to recover from Vietnam and restore actual warfighting capability. I highly doubt weapons like BAT would have received much priority during that conflict.

Assault Breaker was a wider program that involved a range of weapon systems to achieve the aim of engaging the Soviet second echelon. The technology developed to interdict the Ho Chi Minh trail was crucial for most of the precision guided weapons and sensor developments of the 1980s and 90s.

Without the VietNam War the US Army and tactical air command in the 1970s and 80s would have had plenty of tanks firing missiles that didn’t quite work and aircraft ideal for dropping tactical nukes. In short it would have been a smaller, better lead version of the Soviet Army. It would not have had attack helicopters, Hellfire, suppression of air defences, AWACS, F-15 IFF, large scales of air to ground sensors and deep strike ambitions.

Right, because we were so desperate to deal with all them North Vietnamese tanks.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

Right, because we were so desperate to deal with all them North Vietnamese tanks.

Not tanks, it was trucks. And then after the war someone said we can use all this tech to find and destroy tanks... Track forward 40 years and a lot of effort has gone into finding and destroying IED networks. You going to throw all this away? Or are you going to find ways to use it against a conventional foe.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Right, because we were so desperate to deal with all them North Vietnamese tanks.

Not tanks, it was trucks. And then after the war someone said we can use all this tech to find and destroy tanks... Track forward 40 years and a lot of effort has gone into finding and destroying IED networks. You going to throw all this away? Or are you going to find ways to use it against a conventional foe.

First off, the weapons developed in the 1980s to destroy Soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap were conceived to do just that. They weren't anything close to practical until well after after Vietnam (they might not have even worked though the jungle canopy).

Second, there was nothing much new about the technology used to deal with IEDs. It's pretty much the same stuff that was already developed to deal with mines or for use by counter-terrorist law enforcement. Almost none of it would be useful against near-peers where there wouldn't be time for everyone to stand around waiting for EOD.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

First off, the weapons developed in the 1980s to destroy Soviet tanks in the Fulda Gap were conceived to do just that. They weren't anything close to practical until well after after Vietnam (they might not have even worked though the jungle canopy).

Assault Breaker began in the 1970s by DARPA using a range of technologies originally developed for use in VietNam. And is just one example of the utilisation of a range of sensors, communications, navigation and guidance systems developed to find and destroy targets from the air that all had their impetuous in the VietNam War.

Second, there was nothing much new about the technology used to deal with IEDs. It's pretty much the same stuff that was already developed to deal with mines or for use by counter-terrorist law enforcement. Almost none of it would be useful against near-peers where there wouldn't be time for everyone to stand around waiting for EOD.

That’s only the sharp end of the IED fight. A lot more has gone on in terms of finding the networks used to deploy IEDs so they can be interdicted. Not to mention other high tech gear that otherwise would not be in use in ground combat assets like ECM, APS, etc if it was not for the IED threat. These are systems that have been funded and fielded thanks to the current COIN fight that will have significant impact in a conventional war.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Assault Breaker began in the 1970s by DARPA using a range of technologies originally developed for use in VietNam. And is just one example of the utilisation of a range of sensors, communications, navigation and guidance systems developed to find and destroy targets from the air that all had their impetuous in the VietNam War.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that weapons developed after the Vietnam war... were not developed for the Vietnam war.

That’s only the sharp end of the IED fight.

Funny. As a former Infantryman myself, I was under the somewhat ridiculous impression that the "sharp end" was the one that mattered most, especially since my personal (very personal) experience is that ECM doesn't work that well against wire-command/pressure detonated devices. You know... the sort used by real military forces.

 

[Abraham Gubler]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that weapons developed after the Vietnam war... were not developed for the Vietnam war.

Sure but since no one here made that claim there is no need to go out on that limb. However an entire generation of post VietNam War weapons were made possible by technology specifically developed for the VietNam War. Without the impetus and funding generated by the VietNam War it is unlikely that these weapons would have been developed and fielded. Hence my earlier claim that the US (and western) land and tacair capability would not have the significant technological qualitative advantage it fielded in the 1980s without the VietNam War.

Funny. As a former Infantryman myself, I was under the somewhat ridiculous impression that the "sharp end" was the one that mattered most, especially since my personal (very personal) experience is that ECM doesn't work that well against wire-command/pressure detonated devices. You know... the sort used by real military forces.

It’s not an issue of sharp end being more or less important than any blunter end and I certainly made no comment to that effect. But rather in talking about the importance of the current counter IED fight on future weapons development the real long term impact will be in the systems developed and implemented to fight the IED network and to provide layered defence to the land combat units (the later including ECM and APS). These capabilities will provide the basis for new systems or be re-tasked that will provide huge advantages to land combat forces in conventional conflict. Far more so than V Hull trucks, mine detectors and the like.

As to countering conventional minefields pressure detonated mines are very much the threat B team and have been for 20-30 years. Combat engineering capability in service since before the VietNam War like Giant Viper, mine ploughs, etc can defeat these minefields on a conventional battlefield. But since after the VietNam War new types of sensor fused, deep buried or off axis mines could not be effectively countered by these systems. Deploying GV with ploughs and rollers to create paths through such minefields would result in destroyed mine clearing plant and a stalled offensive. But newer systems like ECM and APS fielded thanks to the IED threat can be effective against these types of advanced conventional mines.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that weapons developed after the Vietnam war... were not developed for the Vietnam war.

Sure but since no one here made that claim there is no need to go out on that limb. However an entire generation of post VietNam War weapons were made possible by technology specifically developed for the VietNam War. Without the impetus and funding generated by the VietNam War it is unlikely that these weapons would have been developed and fielded. Hence my earlier claim that the US (and western) land and tacair capability would not have the significant technological qualitative advantage it fielded in the 1980s without the VietNam War.

Funny. As a former Infantryman myself, I was under the somewhat ridiculous impression that the "sharp end" was the one that mattered most, especially since my personal (very personal) experience is that ECM doesn't work that well against wire-command/pressure detonated devices. You know... the sort used by real military forces.

It’s not an issue of sharp end being more or less important than any blunter end and I certainly made no comment to that effect. But rather in talking about the importance of the current counter IED fight on future weapons development the real long term impact will be in the systems developed and implemented to fight the IED network and to provide layered defence to the land combat units (the later including ECM and APS). These capabilities will provide the basis for new systems or be re-tasked that will provide huge advantages to land combat forces in conventional conflict. Far more so than V Hull trucks, mine detectors and the like.

As to countering conventional minefields pressure detonated mines are very much the threat B team and have been for 20-30 years. Combat engineering capability in service since before the VietNam War like Giant Viper, mine ploughs, etc can defeat these minefields on a conventional battlefield. But since after the VietNam War new types of sensor fused, deep buried or off axis mines could not be effectively countered by these systems. Deploying GV with ploughs and rollers to create paths through such minefields would result in destroyed mine clearing plant and a stalled offensive. But newer systems like ECM and APS fielded thanks to the IED threat can be effective against these types of advanced conventional mines.

Well, you obviously live in your own little world... where weapons using post-Vietnam tech were developed with Vietnam as the main driver, and computers work against two hacksaw blades separated with pieces of styrofoam.

 

[Evil Flower]

I thought we used cellphones to detonate IEDs these days.

 

[sferrin]

Well, you obviously live in your own little world... where weapons using post-Vietnam tech were developed with Vietnam as the main driver, and computers work against two hacksaw blades separated with pieces of styrofoam.

PGMs came out of the Vietnam war. The return to the air-superiority fighter came from the Vietnam war. Those are just two off the top of my head. A whole $hitload of "lessons learned" and developed tech. came out of there and was built upon going forward. Those fancy Predators and other UAVs? Go back to the Vietnam war and check out Firebee use.

 

[fightingirish]

Video from Boeing Boeing engineers use unusual printer to create 3-D models
Notice the CAD showing the internal structure and the weapons bay doors on the model. B)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLas_2Qy-E

Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GDLas_2Qy-E

 

[Stargazer]

AMAZING. I'd heard about a similar machine but always thought it was an April fool hoax... Thanks for sharing!

 

[chuck4]

If that is a rational strategy, then everyone in the world would be gunning for us.

And a good many are if you hadn't noticed.

I also believe I specified "baddest." Admittedly, it's a highly-technical term of variable definition, but in this case meaning "dangerous," as in those with the most potential to actually pose a "danger" to US sovereignty. Then again, perhaps it has been lost on you that protecting the nation's sovereignty is the military's PRIMARY mission... not counter-insurgency.

No, I have not noticed. The only powers which are clearly planning around any central need to fight the US is China and Russia, and both of them are planning to fight a regional, defensive war against American's declared intention to shit anytime we want, if not actually in their backyards, at least on the sidewalk right in front of their driveway, in a subdivision halfway around the world from the US.

Such enemies do no threaten America's sovereignty. They merely threaten America's ability to bulldoze other people's sovereignty halfway around the world to advance out our interests. In the vain of advancing national interests, our interests are in fact well served if no one else has sovereignty and we can shit anywhere we please. But they do have sovereignty, and nobody worth a damn will part with any of theirs without exacting a steep price from us. So here, the central measure of American defense policy has nothing to do with our own sovereignty. Instead, it has exploiting opportunities where we can get the most, and give up the least, by compromising someone else's sovereignty. So by absolutely no means is it clear that we in fact gain more and lose less by threatening the sovereignty of Russia or China. We may in fact gain far more and put far less at risk by, for example, threatening the soverignty of Saudi Arabia, or Iran, or Pakistan. So, no, the goal of the military is not automatically to be able to fight the strongest power out there that is no our ally.

 

[sferrin]

Sovereignty is not the "interests of allies". Interest may be tied to the "Interest of allies". Don't confuse soveriegnty with interest.

Also, learn what a clue is before using the word "clueless" for any reason.

China considers Taiwan sovereign territory (as well as most of the rest of SE Asia). Taiwan is our allie whom which we are obligated to defend by treaty. So yes, "clueless" most defintely applies in your case.

 

[shivering]

"Might help if you read the post right before mine."

I did read it. My comment stands. Your post offered
nothing concerning NGAD. Period.

Oddly enough, NGAD is now on Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Dominance

Considering how the F-35 full in-service date keeps receding.
one begins to wonder if putting money into NGAD now is either
fiscally irresponsible or just being prudent on the Navy's part.

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

Considering how the F-35 full in-service date keeps receding.
one begins to wonder if putting money into NGAD now is either
fiscally irresponsible or just being prudent on the Navy's part.

Its meant to replace the Super Bug, not the F-35. If the goal of NGAD is to hedge against the F-35 then they are being fiscally irresponsible.

 

[1st503rdSGT]

Well, you obviously live in your own little world... where weapons using post-Vietnam tech were developed with Vietnam as the main driver, and computers work against two hacksaw blades separated with pieces of styrofoam.

PGMs came out of the Vietnam war. The return to the air-superiority fighter came from the Vietnam war. Those are just two off the top of my head. A whole $hitload of "lessons learned" and developed tech. came out of there and was built upon going forward. Those fancy Predators and other UAVs? Go back to the Vietnam war and check out Firebee use.

Ok,ok. I give. Vietnam inspired technology that was later applied to weapons designed for conventional warfare. I'm still not so convinced that our current overstock of COIN harware is going to help us much in the future when it comes to dealing with more serious threats.

 

[chuck4]

Sovereignty and Interests are not mutually exclusive. Free trade or international trade is in our interest and if China or Russia or Iran shut off major trade routes because having 12 carrier battle groups insuring our 'interests' are brought home to protect our sovereignty, I think that would have a BIG impact on our sovereignty at home.

Sovereignty is just one interest.

Sovereignty is the ability to exercise independent authority over one's own territory. How does losing trade route in Persian Gulf affect our sovereignty, unless you are to claim Persian gulf as our territory as well? If we have sovereignty wherever we have interests and trade routes, then does countries around the world also have sovereignty in the Gulf of Mexico because they have interests and trade routes in the Caribbean?

Loss of free passage on the trade routes in Persian Gulf certainly adversely effects world oil price, and by extension our own economic wellbeing and strategic credibility. So we should defend the freedom of navigation on those routes.

Every interest has its own value and price. Loss of sovereignty has an exorbitant price far higher than the value or price of almost all overseas interests. By conflating sovereignty and interest, it makes it impossible to optimize our resources an investing in each interest appropriate to its value and cost.

On the separate issue of free trade, why are the Persian Gulf trade routes under threat? Theirs is an heavily extractive economy that depends on oil revenue. Iranians would love to sell their oil to anyone who wants it at world market prices. They would love to let the cost of shipping oil through the Persian gulf drop to nothing so their oil would be the most competitive it possibly can be. They have no colonies they can force their oil on. So they have a vested interest, even stronger than ours, in free trade. But precisely because we’ve succeeded in depriving Iran of the ability to carry on free trade in its own oil, they no longer have any interest in keeping Persian gulf trades free. If they are made to suffer under sanction, or in other words interruption to their free trade, then they will let everyone else suffer the pain as well. That's why gulf trade routes are threatened.

So it is somewhat cynical of us to hoist the flag of free-trade protection when the main reason why our own free trade needs protecting is because we denied free trade to someone else.

The same situation I see applying to China. China depends on free seaborne trade to a larger extent than we do. They have only a small navy that can't do much more than coast defense, or let's be charitable, continental shelf defense. They depend on the USN to keep their world wide web of trade routes open. The only conceivable situation in which the Chinese would try to mess with free trade is if we denied them free trade first, and they see nothing to lose in making us share the pain.





,

 

[TaiidanTomcat]

I'm still not so convinced that our current overstock of COIN harware is going to help us much in the future when it comes to dealing with more serious threats.

I think you are both arguing the different sides of the same coin (punny) We will have nice useful stuff like UAVs that will help in conventional warfare. the follow on lessons learned will contribute to the next generation.

OTOH one of my closest friends is a Soldier and A dyed in the wool Abrams tanker/nut. He will be the first to tell you we now have hundreds of roll over prone MRAPs that are essentially worthless on an actual battlefield. I guess the nice thing is you can moth ball them, because an IED is probably going to be an IED for the next fifty years, not going to be many "revolutionary advances" in improvised explosives that will make MRAPs obsolete. so break em out if you need them. There will be advances in conventional technology that will make conventional technology obsolete though, and it takes a long time to develop counters.

It cuts both ways.

an overwhelming percentage of the military is dedicated to "big wars" and hopefully small wars will be avoided in the future. I think the US military has had it fill for a while. It really doesn't take that long to adapt to small wars when they happen either. COIN is a state of operational strategy as it is. Its not like the US military needed a massive new re equipment, its a change in strategy and mind set. Ironically, the shift to the COIN strategy, had soldiers getting out of their heavily armored vehicles and walking among the people. MRAPs still saved a lot of lives, but it wasn't what changed the outcome.

I do love cruising around F-35 threads all over the internet and hearing "we dont have the money!!" then in the next breath Its all about 6th generation, laser firing, super fighters. LOL Suddenly money is everywhere.

 

[Kryptid]

Video from Boeing Boeing engineers use unusual printer to create 3-D models
Notice the CAD showing the internal structure and the weapons bay doors on the model. B)

Link:

That is awesome. Not just the concept of the 3D printing, but the fact that this might be useful in creating an accurate 3-view drawing of the concept...

On an unrelated note, I find it a shame that such an interesting topic is being polluted with personal attacks.