US military, technology, arms, tactics

The Military Issues & History Forum is a venue to discuss issues relating to the military aspects of the Indian Armed Forces, whether the past, present or future. We request members to kindly stay within the mandate of this forum and keep their exchanges of views, on a civilised level, however vehemently any disagreement may be felt. All feedback regarding forum usage may be sent to the moderators using the Feedback Form or by clicking the Report Post Icon in any objectionable post for proper action. Please note that the views expressed by the Members and Moderators on these discussion boards are that of the individuals only and do not reflect the official policy or view of the Bharat-Rakshak.com Website. Copyright Violation is strictly prohibited and may result in revocation of your posting rights - please read the FAQ for full details. Users must also abide by the Forum Guidelines at all times.
Post Reply
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by TSJones »

delete
Last edited by TSJones on 09 May 2016 23:31, edited 1 time in total.
Austin
BRF Oldie
Posts: 23387
Joined: 23 Jul 2000 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Austin »

Revealed: Inside the U.S. Navy’s Next Generation Ballistic Missile Submarine

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... stic-16050
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by TSJones »

US Navy small boys may be getting some real teeth........

http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/New_U ... e_999.html

New U.S. Navy testing of Norwegian missile
by Richard Tomkins
Kongsberg, Norway (UPI) May 6, 2016


The U.S. Navy plans to issue a contract to Norway's Kongsberg Defense & Aerospace for equipment and missile flight test support services.

The equipment and services are for an additional Foreign Comparative Testing Phase II demonstration of Kongsburg's Naval Strike Missile conducted from a U.S. Littoral Combat Ship.
Kongsberg will supply missiles and ship equipment -- including deck-mounted launchers and command systems -- and installation and integration services for the testing, which is expected to end by the final quarter of FY 2018.

"We are very pleased that the U.S. Navy continues and expands the test and evaluation of the NSM missile," said Harald Annestad, president of Kongsberg Defense Systems. "The NSM is operational in the Norwegian and Polish Navies from both ships and land-based coastal defense.

"It is an off-the-shelf and non-developmental 5th-generation strike missile system that can be rapidly deployed for operational use."

The Kongsberg Naval Strike Missile is a long-range precision weapon that uses an inertial navigation system aided by a military GPS receiver and laser altimeter. Its stealthy design, passive infrared and imaging sensor makes it hard to detect.

The U.S. Navy first fired the NSM from a Littoral Combat Ship in 2014.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

Great news! Gives the Littoral Combat Ship something to do while they change the engine, transmission, electrical system, airconditioning, heater, radiator, wheels, brakes and tires. After running the engine full power without oil.

Wonder what happened to the poor Captain midshipman 6th class and Permanent Latrine Orderly

Hope they find a good painter too - that thing just looks plain ugly - like the Boeing entry in the JSF competition. Imagine the horror if THAT were the $20T world-infesting F-35 :eek: :shock:
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by shiv »

1st gen airframe with 4th gen weapons for CAS in uncontested airspace: Vietnam era Bronco against ISIS. Look at the view the front cockpit has.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10- ... 1764407068
Image
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Shiv sir, then this old veteran too - more tech, more firepower

(we even have transport versions in our inventory right ?)

AC-130U Spooky

Image
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

As long as ISIS doesn't FORMALLY have an air force,this old trusty is enough too.
Question is, how long is this absolute air superiority going to last? The Khilafat has shown that it can win ground wars quite easily if the air cover is taken away. KSA and Gelf sheikks and Sultan Erdokhan have F-15s, F-16s, PLENTY of AAMs, SAMs, etc etc. They can both defend and attack in the air. How long will they sit back and watch their pet project go down the tubes?

If they manage to down, say, 10 Russian planes, and have an air force up, can Russia keep up the way, esp. since AlObama and Hilary Mohterma will bring the entire USAF and NATO to enforce "no-fly zones" so that the ISIS can carry out videotaping their rapes and massacres and burnings in peace.
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Ulan sir

The AC-130U Spooky i posted was with reference to the '1st gen airframe with 4th gen weapons' point of Hakim sir :)

I was specifically intrigued when i read it has the Raytheon AN/APQ-180 multimode attack radar – enhanced version of AN/APG-70 radar (used on F-15E Strike Eagle)

The earlier version AC-130H Sceptre is mentioned of having the Northrop Grumman AN/APN-241 multimode navigation radar – derived version of AN/APG-66 radar (formerly used on F-16A Fighting Falcon)

Maybe the next version, say AC-130X, will sport the N/APG-81 AESA radar of the JSF

1st gen airframe with 5th gen weapons eh :wink:
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

Imagine if the Baron Ludwig Von Richtofen had a pair of nightvision goggles and a dozen old Nokia 5230 cellphones in his cockpit. OK, plus a Cobra radar detector and a good parachute.

How would he be inferior to an F-35 I ask you - one of those Nokias could provide autonomous GPS, plus HIS machinegun actually worked :mrgreen: , and he could lean out and simply :P all his pre-takeoff Heineken and BratWurst right on top of the enemy, or drop the odd small IED.

Probably he had a small trapdoor so he could directly biss on the enemy too. 7th Generation Biological Weapon.

Takeoff run was only 100 yards, landing even shorter. Production cost of the airplane was only like USD2000 in today's dollars; you could buy 100,000 of these for the price of ONE F-35, not counting the army of logistics support and the portable runway apron, bib and army of PR experts constantly monitoring Internet fora, that each F-35 needs.

The reason why the Old Warhorses are being dragged out is that their survivability is not reduced to zero because the opposition doesn't have fighter planes. I don't see the need for all these alphabet soup radar and this and that to fight today's REAL wars - such as against ISIS. Another really potent weapon would be a Zeppelin to carry a Toyota van filled with fertilizer and fuel oil as a Slung Load, and drop it over the ISIS.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by shiv »

:shock:
This was used in Vietnam as well - but I recall reading that it was not very effective in a jungle environment with the guns of that era. But with standoff PGMs and targeting pods - it would be deadly. But still - because it is a large and heavy aircraft its ability to loiter and turn nimbly at low level to get targets of opportunity even in uncontested airspace would be inferior to a smaller aircraft
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Don't know about the nimble part, but the range seems to be comparable to the bronco

Interesting that you mentioned about standoff weapons

Here is a (slightly dated) article about them... featuring one your favorites :mrgreen:

The U.S. Air Force's New AC-130 Gunships Are Really Bomb Trucks

PS: Do check out the comments from a poster MrFondue :)
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by TSJones »

what does "Mcfondue" expect fixed barrel straffing to do against an enemy that can scatter behind rocks, etc.

the gun is excellent against equipment, tanks, etc. and the pilot can jink somewhat spraying the rounds but that is very limited.

unlike a turret mounted gun on a helicopter or gunship which is directed by a gun operator. they can create a wide field of spray or directly pin point for that matter.

that't way more effective.

I've seen videos of a turret mounted machine gun on a helicopter hosing down the enemy and its not pretty.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

I have not understood why Gen.Vodkov has not sent two lines of C-130skis gunshipskis, each about 1 km on either side of every major highway in Syria. This should clear these roads effectively, hain? Catch the ISIS on the other side of the berm by the side of the road, splatter them against the berm wall? Now AlObama could do the same, if they were not on the ISIS' side. :roll:
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

shiv wrote:1st gen airframe with 4th gen weapons for CAS in uncontested airspace: Vietnam era Bronco against ISIS. Look at the view the front cockpit has.
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10- ... 1764407068
Boeing is planning on upgrading the Bronco ............................... but for other nations. So, it just may be these are a PR move?
Boeing has recently put together plans internally to build a modernized, improved version of the Bronco, called the OV-10X,[4] to satisfy a possible Air Force requirement for a light attack plane.[5] According to Pentagon and industry officials, while the aircraft would maintain much of its 1960s-vintage rugged external design, the 21st century modernizations would include a computerized glass cockpit, intelligence sensors and smart-bomb-dropping capabilities. Boeing indicates that international interest in restarting production is growing, to compete with other light attack aircraft such as the T-6B Texan II, A-67 Dragon and EMB 314 Super Tucano.

On 3 February 2010, during the Singapore Air Show, Boeing announced that the international interest for the aircraft was such that it would go on with its development even in the case it failed to win the USAF tender for 100 Light Attack/Armed Reconnaissance aircraft.[6]

BTW, in 2013 the US gov unloaded some 20 of them for $2400 each. And, they have found other uses:

Image
Last edited by NRao on 19 May 2016 05:22, edited 1 time in total.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

There it is, first generation airframe mated to a 10th generation chemical warfare system ;)
Last edited by brar_w on 19 May 2016 05:15, edited 1 time in total.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

"7 at One Blow"
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by shiv »

NRao wrote: Boeing is planning on upgrading the Bronco ............................... but for other nations. So, it just may be these are a PR move?
I guess US market research has indicated that a 1st gen airframe with 4th gen weapons is something that other nations will buy. I recall doubts being expressed about the need for such a platform on the grounds that it would never sell. The fact that the US is looking to export such a concept should clarify the issue.
shiv
BRF Oldie
Posts: 34982
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Pindliyon ka Gooda

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by shiv »

UlanBatori wrote:I have not understood why Gen.Vodkov has not sent two lines of C-130skis gunshipskis, each about 1 km on either side of every major highway in Syria. This should clear these roads effectively, hain? Catch the ISIS on the other side of the berm by the side of the road, splatter them against the berm wall? Now AlObama could do the same, if they were not on the ISIS' side. :roll:
That is because the Russians don't care for human lives - not even their own pilots. That is why they send in fighters to do close in fighting to get shot down. And the Tu 160 B1-ski - it could not reach the US and return - obviously created for a one way trip. Jai freedom. Jai dhamakaracy
Manish_P
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5415
Joined: 25 Mar 2010 17:34

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Manish_P »

Jai dhamakaracy
:rotfl:

Is that in the BRF lexicon... if not, will some kind soul pls. do it.. pretty please
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

shiv wrote:
NRao wrote: Boeing is planning on upgrading the Bronco ............................... but for other nations. So, it just may be these are a PR move?
I guess US market research has indicated that a 1st gen airframe with 4th gen weapons is something that other nations will buy. I recall doubts being expressed about the need for such a platform on the grounds that it would never sell. The fact that the US is looking to export such a concept should clarify the issue.
That is what happens when engineers do market research. Boeing lost the US competition (in 2013) and no other nation bought it (so far). Same with the Textron Scorpion.

The weaponized Hawk? Market researchers claim there is a market for them. Hope there is one. Cannot strike out thrice.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

DARPA aims to complete hypersonic demonstrations by 2020

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency could demonstrate technologies by 2020 that would enable the future launch of hypersonic vehicles, according to the agency's Tactical Boost Glide program manager.

DARPA teamed up with the Air Force on the Tactical Boost Glide program in 2014 and plans to conduct a flight demonstration to show the agency can mature technologies to an appropriate level sometime before 2020, TBG program manager Peter Erbland told Inside the Air Force during a May 11 DARPA demonstration day at the Pentagon. In a boost-glide system, the payload separates from the rocket after it has accelerated to a high speed, then the payload glides without power to its destination, according to DARPA. The agency has a TBG effort with Raytheon and Lockheed and has completed a preliminary design, Erbland said.

The technology demonstration will explore vehicle concepts that can meet the required aerodynamic performance for a wide operational envelope, as well as thermal protection designs which can handle the extremely high heat imposed on the vehicle during hypersonic flight.

"Essentially what we're trying to do is mature the enabling technologies for this," Erbland said. "Because we've never built anything like this before."

DARPA pivoted toward tactical range hypersonic weapons following its attempt to create a long-range, boost-glide system on the Falcon Hypersonic Test Vehicle 2. DARPA plans to leverage knowledge from HTV2, which provided a similar problem as a boost-glide system, Erbland said. However, DARPA must think about TBG differently as a tactical-range vehicle.

"Especially as you think about air launch and being able to package it in a way that you could put it on an aircraft and fly it," he said. "So it's that air-launch idea that leads us to have to explore the design space."

Another hypersonic effort from DARPA and the Air Force, the Hypersonic Air-Breathing Weapons Concept, will follow a similar time line. Although DARPA and the Air Force ended its X-51 hypersonic flight test demonstrator program after a final flight in 2013, the program's lessons helped inform HAWC.

HAWC will demonstrate technologies that could enable an air-launched, hypersonic cruise missile and explore long-range strike capabilities, according to the agency. DARPA plans to complete a demonstration by 2020, program manager Mark Gustafson told ITAF May 11.

Like TBG, HAWC will explore feasible vehicle configurations for hypersonic flight, thermal management and affordable design. The demonstration will also examine hydrocarbon, scramjet-powered propulsion to enable sustained hypersonic cruise.

"A lot of the work that we've done previously was with hydrogen fuels to power a single stage-to-orbit aircraft system," Gustafson said. "So while that's more appropriate for an accelerator that's going into orbit, it's not necessarily what you want to do for a weapon system. Hydrocarbon fuels have more energy per unit volume, so you can pack them in a smaller space. So virtually all of our tactical aircraft and weapons use hydrocarbon fuels, instead of something like hydrogen."

DARPA could also leverage HAWC technologies for future reusable hypersonic air platforms for several applications, including space access and intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance missions.

Meanwhile, the Aerospace Systems Directorate's High Speed Division of the Air Force Research Laboratory released an April 5 notice for a May 10 pre-solicitation bidder's conference for its upcoming Hypersonic Routine and Affordable Flight Experimentation (HyRAX) program.

"The objective of the HyRAX program is to design, build, and operate a reusable hypersonic test bed vehicle to mature hypersonic technologies in aeromechanics, autonomous controls, materials, propulsion, structures, and sub-systems," the notice states. "After initial vehicle checkout flights, the HyRAX vehicles will be flown repeatedly with different payloads each time. The HyRAX vehicles will be designed to maximize the number of potential payloads and measurements that could be flown."

AFRL aims to start flying the test bed for extended durations within four years and support ongoing flight tests for another five years, the notice states. AFRL expects to release a broad agency announcement in October which would award at least two contracts for a competitive Phase One of HyRAX.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Finally, found something worth posting on the OV-10 Broncos that visited Iraq last year.

Why Is America Using These Antique Planes To Fight ISIS?
War was just an experiment for two of the U.S. military’s oldest and most unusual warplanes. A pair of OV-10 Broncos—small, Vietnam War-vintage, propeller-driven attack planes—recently spent three months flying top cover for ground troops battling ISIS militants in the Middle East.

The OV-10s’ deployment is one of the latest examples of a remarkable phenomenon. The United States—and, to a lesser extent, Russia—has seized the opportunity afforded it by the aerial free-for-all over Iraq and Syria and other war zones to conduct live combat trials with new and upgraded warplanes, testing the aircraft in potentially deadly conditions before committing to expensive manufacturing programs.

That’s right. America’s aerial bombing campaigns are also laboratories for the military and the arms industry. After all, how better to pinpoint an experimental warplane’s strengths and weaknesses than to send it into an actual war?

The twin-engine Broncos—each flown by a pair of naval aviators—completed 134 sorties, including 120 combat missions, over a span of 82 days beginning in May 2015 or shortly thereafter, according to U.S. Central Command, which oversees America’s wars in the Middle East and Afghanistan.

Central Command would not say exactly where the OV-10s were based or where they attacked, but did specify that the diminutive attack planes with their distinctive twin tail booms flew in support of Operation Inherent Resolve, the U.S.-led international campaign against ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The Pentagon has deployed warplanes to Turkey, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, and the United Arab Emirates, among other countries.

There are plenty of clues as to what exactly the Broncos were doing. For one, the Pentagon’s reluctance to provide many details about the OV-10s’ overseas missions implies that the planes were working in close conjunction with Special Operations Forces. In all likelihood, the tiny attackers acted as a kind of quick-reacting 9-1-1 force for special operators, taking off quickly at the commandos’ request and flying low to hit elusive militants with guns and rockets, all before the fleet-flooted jihadis could slip away.

The military’s goal was “to determine if properly employed turbo-prop driven aircraft… would increase synergy and improve the coordination between the aircrew and ground commander,” Air Force Capt. P. Bryant Davis, a Central Command spokesman, told The Daily Beast.

Davis said that the military also wanted to know if Broncos or similiar planes could take over for jet fighters such as F-15s and F/A-18s, which conduct most of America’s airstrikes in the Middle East but are much more expensive to buy and operate than a propeller-driven plane like the OV-10. An F-15 can cost as much as $40,000 per flight-hour just for fuel and maintenance. By contrast, a Bronco can cost as little as $1,000 for an hour of flying.

Indeed, that was the whole point of the OV-10 when North American Aviation, now part of Boeing, developed the Bronco way back in the 1960s. The Pentagon wanted a small, cheap attack plane that could take off from rough airstrips close to the fighting. By sticking close to the front lines, the tiny planes would always be available to support ground troops trying to root out insurgent forces.

The Bronco turned out to be just the thing the military needed. The Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps deployed hundreds of OV-10s in Vietnam, where the tiny planes proved rugged, reliable, and deadly to the enemy. After Vietnam, the Navy retired its Broncos and the Air Force swapped its own copies for jet-powered A-10s, but the Marines hung onto the dependable little bombers and even flew them from small Navy aircraft carriers before finally retiring them in the mid-1990s.

Foreign air forces and civilian and paramilitary operators quickly snatched up the decommissioned Broncos. They proved popular with firefighting agencies. The Philippines deployed OV-10s to devastating effect in its counterinsurgency campaign against Islamic militants. The U.S. State Department sent Broncos to Colombia to support the War on Drugs. NASA used them for airborne tests.

Thirty years after Vietnam, the Pentagon again found itself fighting elusive insurgents in Afghanistan, Iraq and other war zones. It again turned to the OV-10 for help. In 2011, Central Command and Special Operations Command borrowed two former Marine Corps Broncos—from NASA or the State Department, apparently—and fitted them with new radios and weapons.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

And, to match the noise from the previous post, here is more noise.

April, 2016 :: Why the pugnacious A-10 is flying maritime patrols over the South China Sea

Yes, maritime patrols ......................... SCS nonetheless.
The situation in the South China Sea has grown even more complex over the past week, with A-10 attack planes flying maritime patrols over a coral reef chain known as Scarborough Shoal. It’s less than 150 miles to the west of the Philippines, and considered a site where Beijing may carry out “land reclamation” and continue its military expansion in the region this year, prompting concern from the United States and its partners in the region.

The A-10 might seem like an unlikely plane for the mission, though. The heavily armored twin-engine “Warthog” has been in service since the 1970s and was designed for close-air support, in which combat aircraft assist ground troops by attacking enemy tanks, vehicles and positions. There is none of that around Scarborough Shoal, and the plane is considered more vulnerable than other American military planes against surface-to-air missiles.

The A-10 also is slower than numerous rival aircraft, including the Chinese J-11B fighter used to intercept a Navy P-8 Poseidon surveillance plane in August 2014 in a move the Pentagon criticized as aggressive and dangerous.

The Warthog does send a message, though. Known for flying loud and low, it arrived in the Philippines this month as Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter visited and the United States announced it would use five Philippine military bases on a rotational basis. The plane isn’t meant for dogfights with Chinese fighters, but is capable of flying through international airspace near Scarborough Shoal and demonstrating the Pentagon’s commitment to keeping the skies there open to everyone.

Air Force Col. Larry Card, the commander of the new air contingent in the Philippines, appeared to touch on this in a recent news release.

“Our job is to ensure air and sea domains remain open in accordance with international law,” Card said. “That is extremely important, international economics depends on it – free trade depends on our ability to move goods. There’s no nation right now whose economy does not depend on the well-being of the economy of other nations.”

The Air Force said the missions promote “transparency and safety of movement in international waters and airspace, representing the U.S. commitment to ally and partner nations and to the Indo-Asia-Pacific region’s continued stability now and for generations to come.”

Lt. Col. Damien Pickart, a spokesman for Air Forces Pacific, said Wednesday that the A-10 has excellent loiter capabilities and maneuverability at low air speeds and altitude that are “necessary for conducting the air contingent’s air and maritime domain awareness and personnel recovery missions.”

Using the A-10s and HH-60G Pave Hawk helicopters around the Philippines within the last week was “strategically and economically the right decision” because they already were present after the recently concluded Balikatan military exercise, he said. That operation ran from Aug. 4 to 16 and included thousands of U.S. troops.

The Philippines also maybe be interested in eventually obtaining used A-10 jets as the Air Force retires them, giving the United States another reason to foster Manila’s familiarity with them. The Philippines uses the aging OV-10 turboprop plane for close-air support. An American version of the OV-10 has popped up in the U.S.-led military campaign against the Islamic State in a very limited and secretive role, but the plane is largely considered obsolete.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Aug, 2015 :: Amid Pressure To Keep A-10 Alive, USAF Explores Close-Air Support's Future

WASHINGTON — As pressure builds on the US Air Force to keep the beloved A-10 alive despite crushing budget cuts, the service is taking another look at the future of close-air support (CAS) and the most effective way to protect soldiers on the ground.

The conversation pits the cash-strapped Air Force and those who see the A-10 as outdated against members of Congress who are concerned the service's plan to retire the plane without a focused replacement endangers soldiers on the ground. The Air Force claims retiring the A-10, the service's primary close-in attack aircraft, could save $4.2 billion over the next five years. Defenders of the program accuse the Air Force of abandoning troops in ground combat.

Facing widespread uproar, the Air Force has recently hinted that a future single-mission CAS platform is in the works. In the most recent indication the service is embarking on further study of the issue, the US Air Combat Command's 2015 command strategy calls for "exploring opportunities" for developing a CAS aircraft.

"We must also continue to develop a balanced close air support (CAS) capability across all [Global Precision Attack] platforms, explore opportunities for a future CAS platform, and enact specific initiatives to ensure we maintain a CAS culture," according to the document, unveiled Aug. 10.

Top service officials have also suggested the Air Force is at least beginning to think about an A-10 replacement, often dubbed A-X. When asked about the notional aircraft at the Air Force Association Air Warfare symposium in February, ACC Commander Gen. Hawk Carlisle told reporters: "We're thinking about it."

"Another weapons system program may be something we need to consider as we look at the gaps and seams in the future and what we're doing," Carlisle said. "We're looking at all of that."

Meanwhile, the Air Force hosted a joint-service summit in March to work out options for the CAS mission.

As the Air Force looks to develop a future CAS platform — or platforms — analysts say the service must keep in mind that the mission has changed drastically since the A-10 was developed in the 1970s. Today, the Air Force can perform CAS with bombers and fighter jets like the F-35, which uses advanced sensor technology to improve the pilot's situational awareness. UAVs like the MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper can also supplement the mission while keeping pilots out of danger.

"Close-air support in an era of precision munitions and all of that is radically different than when any close-air support aircraft developed," Doug Birkey, executive director at the Washington-based Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies, said. "The key to any of these things is knowing what to hit and when, and if you don't have that data, then you're just floating around hoping to run into something."

With today's technology, the Air Force can more effectively perform the CAS mission by using new multirole aircraft to manage information and give pilots a clearer picture of the battle space, argued Rebecca Grant, president of IRIS Independent Research, Washington.

"Close-air support is a lot more, in a way, about managing the information: who is on the ground, who needs what, what's the developing situation," Grant said. "This is really not about the pilot flying and looking down and trying to see the situation on the ground. If that's how they are doing it, well, that's how our grandfathers did it in World War II. That's not the gold standard today."

The A-10 performs well in an environment of total aerial dominance, as in Iraq and Afghanistan, Birkey said, but may not be survivable in less permissive environments. In a notional land engagement in the Asia/Pacific, the A-10 may not have applicability, he added.

The Air Force could design a replacement A-10 that is capable of multiple missions, said Mark Gunzinger, senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, Washington.

"If you are thinking about the future and the kind of operational environments that the Air Force is prepared for, should prepare for, to me it doesn't make a lot of sense to have a single-mission" platform for CAS, Gunzinger said. "It makes a great deal of sense to have a multi-mission platform performing that mission. In fact, it makes a lot of sense to have many multi-mission aircraft capable of supporting that mission, not just one."

But with several costly projects looming in the next few decades, including the new bomber, the Air Force does not see a clear funding stream for a next-generation A-10 replacement. Given a better budget environment, the service would want a relatively cheap, next-generation aircraft to provide close support for ground troops — but that is not a realistic proposal today, Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh said this spring.

"We need a low-threat CAS platform in the near future, if the money will allow it," Welsh said at an April event sponsored by Defense One in Washington. "It doesn't today, but we would certainly like to have something like that, that operates more efficiently than what we have today, that carries more firepower and does so in a low-threat environment."

It would be a challenge for the Air Force to squeeze another new aircraft into the budget plan, which already includes recapitalizing the bomber, trainer and Joint Surveillance Target Attack Radar System fleets, Gunzinger said.

One option is to combine the T-X and A-X programs, given the trainer's capability to conduct CAS missions, he suggested.

"It would be a multimission system — light attack, close-air support, along with our training aircraft," Gunzinger said. "It could help defray the cost of developing an A-10 replacement, since the Air Force has already determined it's going to invest in T-X."

Unless there is a radical shift in the short-term budget environment, analysts see the Air Force potentially developing a replacement A-10 after the procurement "bulge" in the 2020s. Still, the Air Force must balance tight resources and technological advancements with calls to replace the A-10 one-for-one.

"To me, this looks like the ACC is wanting to explore all its options," Grant said. "I think Congress has made really clear that they want a fuller discussion of the A-10. So the question down the road will be, as they evaluate a single-mission aircraft, how much do they want to give up?"
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

On a CAS binge!!!! Hick-up.

Mar, 2015 :: USAF To 'Re-Energize' Debate On Future Of CAS
Few procurement issues—with the exception of the unsuccessful fight to continue F-22 production—spark the kind of impassioned pleas among U.S. Air Force officers as the unsuccessful struggle to retire the A-10 and make way for the Lockheed Martin F-35.

Generally, when the service wants to retire an aircraft, there is a disappointed cadre of officers loathe to let it go. But there is usually a direct replacement being delivered, giving those officers a future.

Not so in the case of the A-10. The Air Force is for the second year pushing to quickly retire the fleet, in part because it is a single-mission aircraft designed to provide close air support (CAS). Amid the budget crunch, the Air Force is shedding single-mission fleets.

The U.S. Air Force recently began employing the A-10 against Islamic State targets in Syria. Credit: U.S. Central Command

Yet, the focus of its mission is exactly what has congealed support for the aptly named Warthog. The A-10 has been a visible savior for ground troops for decades and especially so in recent fights in Iraq and Afghanistan. But it is being replaced by the multi-mission, single-engine, stealthy F-35. A-10 boosters fear the CAS mission will be lost if it is only one among a host of missions to be handled by the F-35, which is also replacing F-16s in the Air Force. Some say the Air Force has lost it way on the CAS mission.

“That’s a ridiculous statement,” says Air Force Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Welsh, bristling at the notion during a roundtable discussion with reporters Feb. 13 at the annual Air Force Association symposium in Orlando. “Guess how many CAS sorties we’ve flown? It’s about 20,000 a year. When is a little bit of credit given for that? . . . Let’s not change the facts to match whatever story we’re trying to tell.” Welsh also notes that CAS is “all the Marine Corps is buying [the F-35B] for, to replace the Harrier.”

There are also lawmakers who want to save the A-10 for parochial reasons—that is, to keep iron on the ramp at bases in their districts.

So, the Air Force has been in a quagmire, frustrated by emotional pleas to keep the A-10—pleas which are exacerbated by the developmental performance problems of the F-35, which have bred a vocal band of critics regardless of its progress. And this has been worsened by a lack of a clear message in the Air Force about the F-35’s capabilities as it gets closer to being fielded.

Now the Air Force is on the offense, reaching out to officers in its sister services to outline the future of CAS in an attempt to reshape the discussion away from a binary A-10 versus F-35 fight.

Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle is hosting a week-long, multiservice summit on CAS early in March. Among the topics to be discussed are conducting CAS in a “contested” environment, a term referring to airspace that is defended, though not with high-end integrated defenses seen in the anti-access area-denied (A2AD) situations. An example would be if the Islamic State posed a strong threat to allied jets in Iraq and Syria; although the A-10 has an armored cockpit, it would be susceptible to such a threat and CAS sorties would be forced to fly higher and to use different tactics.

The summit will address CAS as it stands today, as well in the future when the F-35 enters service, Carlisle told reporters at the annual symposium. Among the alternatives, already in use for years, are precision-guided munitions deployed from a host of aircraft—B-1s, B-52s, F-16s, F-16s, and others—to provide support for troops in the midst of a fight. The F-35, however, will bring stealth to the table. “We just have to get to the point where the services all understand what the future looks like in this arena because there is a thread of conversation going on that really has become a little ridiculous,” Welsh, an A-10 pilot himself, said. The F-35 “will be a good CAS platform. It will take us a while to get to the point we want it to be, like it has with every other airplane [with which] we’ve fought, including the A-10,” he argues.

Some observers suggest the Air Force should employ a low-cost system for CAS where possible. Doing so would require purchase of a new platform—a thorny path amid budget pressure. "A follow-on may be something we need to think about," Carlisle said, acknowledging that a new system may be considered. "Nothing is off the table."

The Air Force is also working to maintain pockets of CAS experience within future units in Air Combat Command to ensure the “culture” is not eroded. “We are looking at squadrons in the active and the Reserve component where we can put a higher percentage of pilots who come out of the A-10 as they transition. So we kind of create places where the CAS culture has a home.”

Training is key to maintaining a CAS focus, according to instructors at the Air Force’s weapons school.

“It has long loiter time. It is designed for an outside visual search, and can carry a lot of different weapons. But really what makes a difference with the CAS is the focused training of the pilots,” Maj. Sean Hall, an A-10 instructor pilot, told Aviation Week during an interview at Nellis AFB, Nevada, where the service houses its advanced tactics and training school. “I personally believe the F-35 can be highly effective at CAS if the aircrew gets focused CAS training.”

In parallel, the Air Force is also in a tactical fight with Congress. Lawmakers are balking at a plan for the second year in a row to retire the A-10s, a step needed to free up maintainers who are needed for establishing F-35 squadrons.

Last year, USAF Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, program executive officer for the F-35, said a lack of trained F-35 maintainers was the largest hurdle to the Air Force declaring initial operational capability (IOC) by December 2016 with the first F-35A squadron. Bogdan said 800-1,000 maintainers will be needed at that time. Of those, 300-400 are needed for the first squadron at Hill AFB. Utah, Carlisle said. Training an experienced maintainer requires about 9-12 months, Bogdan said, while training a “green” student requires more time.

Despite the shortfall, Welsh is adamant that the service will declare IOC for the F-35A on time. As a backup plan, F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin has submitted pricing data and timelines to the Air Force for providing maintenance services; the service ultimately wants blue-suit (USAF) F-35 maintenance. Bogdan said last year that contractor maintenance was cost-prohibitive, but Carlisle notes that the Air Force is looking into it nonetheless.

Carlisle said that the service also may temporarily move some experienced maintainers from Luke AFB, Arizona, to Hill to help stand the unit up. Jets are already arriving at Luke, which will be the international training location for the F-35 pilots globally. “We’ll take interim measures because the advice we offered on how to best do this has not been accepted, which is fine,” Welsh said. “We have to do that with the Congress, with our partners, with everybody. We’ll get there from here.”

Welsh says that the CAS discussion is intended to reset the mindset about the mission to allow for new operational concepts and technologies, including the next-generation of CAS weapons. “How do you just change our mindset? Let’s have gun pods with bullets this long and put 50,000 of them in the pod instead of everybody trying to get 1,000 or 600 out of the airplane during a CAS sortie,” Welsh said. “There are just different ways to look at this problem that technology can help us solve. . . . None of this is new. But we’ve just got to energize it.”

Meanwhile, Carlisle notes that once he declares IOC for the first F-35, he’s concerned. “Then what?” he says, noting deliveries of the jets are coming faster and faster, but the pipeline for maintainers is not getting any more productive. “We are not going to get airplanes, park them on the ramp and then not fly them.”

Editor's note: This article was updated to include Air Combat Command chief Gen. Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle’s comment on a CAS follow-on.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

USAF 'Loyal Wingman' UAVs to emerge within a decade
The US Air Force (USAF) is developing autonomous unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) that could be partnered with manned aircraft, the USAF's chief scientist said on 17 May.

The USAF could begin using the "wingman" concept of teaming autonomous UAVs with manned aircraft by the early 2020s, Greg Zacharias said during an event hosted by the Air Force Association's Mitchell Institute for Aerospace Studies. He described the UAVs as "unmanned vehicles that are truly unmanned. They're flying themselves, they're not being flown by a ground controller. Rather it's flying itself in tandem, say, with another vehicle, another piloted vehicle".

According to Zacharias, the Air Force Special Operations Command (AFSOC) is developing an autonomous UAV to be launched from its Lockheed Martin AC-130J Ghostrider gunships. "The Air Force Special Ops guys are working with an unmanned vehicle that will launch from their C-130 and can go down under the clouds to take a look at what's going on, without risking the C-130 and its complement," said Zacharias.

The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) in March issued a request for information (RfI) to support planning "for the proof-of-concept demonstration testing of autonomy for a Loyal Wingman [LW]", according to the 18 March announcement. AFRL defines the LW as a UAV that operates in a strike package with manned fighter aircraft. "The LW is under the tactical command of the manned lead and is not tethered to a ground station or under the full-time direction of the manned lead," the announcement stated. The RfI sought potential test assets to act as the LW and the host autonomy technologies.

Further, Zacharias foresees the use of miniaturised computing systems onboard smart munitions, allowing them, for example, "to switch out when they recognise they're being jammed and switch to a different mode of navigating".

Such threat detection and response could also be used to protect autonomous UAVs. Zacharias contrasted that vision with current systems like the MQ-1 Predator UAV. "It's incredibly unaware of what's going on around it," he said. "It basically has that soda straw camera, it's looking down on the ground and has no idea what's flying around it, what's being aimed at it or what other mission opportunities are there."

And it is not just aircraft that could benefit from greater awareness and the ability to respond to their environment. Similarly, satellites are unable to detect the myriad threats they face on orbit. "They've got their payload and they're focused on their particular mission but not necessarily on themselves," Zacharias said. They are unable to "perceive what's going on around them [or] defend themselves if attacked".

These systems have the potential to lighten their operators' workloads, according to Zacharias. However, airmen will have to be trained differently to work with them. "One of the problems is when you automate the mission and parts of the mission, tasks in the mission, then the operator becomes less vigilant, more complacent," he said. "There are also issues with trusting these systems. If you don't trust them, you won't use them, [and] if you overtrust them, you'll misuse them."The USAF's 17 May 'flight plan' for Small Unmanned Aerial Systems (SUASs) envisions the use of UASs in Group 2 autonomously teaming and swarming to conduct intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR), as well as attack operations. Larger Group 3 UASs such as the MQ-1 are currently used by the USAF to conduct ISR and attack operations. Miniaturising payloads for such small assets will be a hurdle beyond the development of the kind of computer autonomy that would allow for sensing threats and reacting to them.
Make a New Note
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

Interesting.
a) If the 'wingman' is a UAV, why not the jock? So you'll have the Leader in a bus, unable to pull more than 7 Gs, while the 'wing(wo)men' (WWM) can do 12 Gs no problem? And the Leader has a range of 400 miles, while the Dubya^2Em can do 800?

er.. why can't the Leader be in an AWACs, or munching burgers underground in Nebraska? It's not like the commands are being sent to Mars, hain? Talk about "mindset" the whole idea of NetCentric Flying Cellphones who fire bullets in coordination towards the same target, is all screwed-up. Nice problem in Human-Machine Non-Pathological Coordination etc, but looks like heading for utter disaster. Basically, the UAV's autopilot will be an order of magnitude better than the Darwinian-designed human pilot.

b) The need for an army of maintainers is doing to the F-35 what it did to that other high-performance, VTLL high-speed/hi-performance marvel, the Space Shuttle.
brar_w
BRF Oldie
Posts: 10694
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by brar_w »

Interesting.
a) If the 'wingman' is a UAV, why not the jock? So you'll have the Leader in a bus, unable to pull more than 7 Gs, while the 'wing(wo)men' (WWM) can do 12 Gs no problem? And the Leader has a range of 400 miles, while the Dubya^2Em can do 800?
Autonomy and challenges in developing it. With the current Concept, you are looking at a decade to develop the sort of back end required to support your sensor level distribution and getting to the semi-utopian concept of moving from a KILL CHAIN to a KILL WEB (to borrow from the USN Aviation boss). They'll net the sensors, and distribute them. An F-22 or F-35, or F-15/16/18 will command potentially dozens of autonomous drones that do the Observe and Orient Phaase of the OODA cycle. Ultimately, you would want to scale up the capability to cover weapons mules to enhance the Tactical fighter and Bomber fleets...As autonomy advances beyond that, and as networks get more resilient and robust you would obviously look for even higher end applications such as making optionally manned aircraft pair up with each other or many optionally manned aircraft paired up with a very small number of manned aircraft (depending upon the mission). Both Autonomy and Network survivability will have to get to a point where this is a valid and executable operational concept and I'd assume we'd start with DISTRIBUTED SENSORS within a decade, perhaps move into distributed weapons (MULES) in the 5-10 years that follow and in the 30's we'll see optionally manned enter the picture. The B-21 is already being designed with optionally manned as a option (less design compromise on large aircraft) and the fighters have that as part of things they can pursue as well.

What you mention (High degree of autonomy on unmanned system) is front and center of the third-offset strategy and will logically be the first experiments they perform later this decade or early next decade as some of the initial 3rd offset investments mature. I think the G's you mention isn't really a pressing concern given that the mission is HUGE and with Medium to Long Range missiles you let them do the turning and can design a UAV a lot differently not that you have the capability to field larger systems since they don't spend 300 hours a year training (and therefore SIZE dictating operational cost that in turn dictates magazine depth).
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

Brarji, with all respect etc. I get these a lot in my yak-dung field, and in reading these sorts of things. Makes me extremely rebellious and obnoxious. Apologies in advance.

I have to wonder what sorts of missions they have in mind for the F-35. Let's see: a) Air superiority bissing contest over Ukraine. b) Same over, say, Moldavia. c) Invasion of North Korea / countering NoKo invasion of SoKo. d) Bissing contest over Taiwan, carrier-based. e) Same war, trying to survive with bases in Thailand coming under constant Chinese attack. f) Invasion of Haiti g) Invasion of Falkland Islands - carrier-based + Marine landings. h) Houristan forbid, intervention in a Chinese invasion of India i) Civil War in Turkey, against ISIS. j) Interventions all over Africa (HIGHLY likely in coming years!)

I am trying to relate all these concepts of web and net-centric etc etc to each of these, and have to suspend disbelief. Already, the US is hopeless against both the Taliban and the ISIS/AQ.

OK, I think in the Ukraine/Moldavia item F-35s may be a good bet.
Same maybe with the Taiwan tamasha, except that they will be hopelessly outnumbered. All said and done, if the Chinese launch 100 missiles per US plane, the US plane is toast. The cost is so high that the numbers that the US can bring to bear in any one theater, will be meager.

Next about this "optionally piloted" business. That is the most horrible waste of resources I have heard. Isn't there a HUGE difference between a fighter aircraft that has to carry a human, and one that does not? You'd start with a completely different set of requirements.

Next about the G-survival. Hello! That makes all the difference between being able go into the canyons of POK or the urban canyons of Shanghai or Tehran or Taipei to hit a concealed target.

So ultimately, the only mission for which the F-35 is really suited/needed, is a homeland defence againt, say, a Chinese/ISIS invasion of America. And if it ever comes to that, there are far too few.

IMO, with the way things are going with autonomy, miniaturization and computing speed, I think the future of war is all with those who can build and field massive numbers of weapons making 1-way trips. Smart, guided artillery shells. Bullets that can turn corners (I've seen some concepts). Aerial platforms that take weapons to high potential energy and close enough to the target. You don't want to send people on any of those.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by TSJones »

it's not about being able to zip around and pull high g's.

whether it's from enemy static defense sites or enemy airborne defenses, it's about being able to sense enemy EM emitting from far enough away to take advantage of weakness in their EM lobes by combination of flight maneuver and electronic suppression so that the appropriate weapons system can be delivered. if there are no weaknesses then the enemy defense sites must be identified first and suppressed through screaming meemee decoys and the following anti radar weapons.

in enemy offence, a swarm attack is good for first strike against us, we can't prevent such a thing happening because of our military posture.

we deliberately sail in harms way, one group in the Persian gulf and one in the far east.

however, it should be noted that we have various methods of swarm attack that our surviving elements can apply as well.
kit
BRF Oldie
Posts: 6278
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 18:16

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by kit »

or maybe the Raptors are all about defending against an alien invasion :mrgreen: :((
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Capabilities of *any* army is based on how much freedom do they have to operate as a force they trained for. So, if the opponents decide on a totally different set of tactics (2006 Lebanon War?, where the Israeli war machine took a decent beating) or the trained forces are expected to fight with one hand tied behind their backs (IPKF? and current set in Iraq/Afghanistan/ISIS?) then the results are bound not to meet "expectations". On the flip side was the Kargil war, where highly trained forces (on both sides) fought as trained and the better side won (Paki's will take an exception to that, but then ....they are Pakis) (Indians did have their hands tied behind the back, but not on the Indian side.) (and yet they beat the Pakis!! Go figure.)

I have asked this before, IF we were to pit a F-35 and a T-50 or a J-20 in the middle of the Indian Ocean, what would happen. Second scenario: A) F-35s around Hainan Island vs. B ) a T-50/J-20 around, say, USSOUTHCOM, Florida, what could happen.

Hint: The F-35 is designed, ground up, by circumstances to operate around Hainan. Neither the T-50, nor the J-20, are, both of which have very similar features (as the F-22/35), but they do not have the rest of the infrastructure (yet) to manage the outcome.



Having said all that, a few years ago, there were parallel efforts (shear coincidence) in the US and India to train their Service people as diplomats too. Actually, in either 2014 or 2015, the two held a conf in ND on this topic (do not know the outcome of that conf), but I am fairly confident that the two (and may be there are more nations out there) that have started efforts to train their Army personnel as diplomats too. They are expected to get trained in various languages, cultures, customs, etc AND diplomatic relations. This is at the Corps level.


People need to discard old thinking in terms of techs and strategies. Times are changing. Political Correctness is being embedded into a fighting force. All these years PC had a "chain-of-command", so a pilot detected a ISIS operative, had that asset in sight and could blow him/her, but had to contact the President to get permission, because there was a 5 year old girl in the vicinity. Forget a network-centric F-35, even a Gnat or a Sopwith Camel cannot do a damn thing under those circumstances.

We, *all*, are here because our ancestors did not have to fight PC wars. They just did what they had to get done. And, just BTW, *all* our histories are extremely violent.
vishvak
BR Mainsite Crew
Posts: 5836
Joined: 12 Aug 2011 21:19

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by vishvak »

We, *all*, are here because our ancestors did not have to fight PC wars. They just did what they had to get done. And, just BTW, *all* our histories are extremely violent.
I disagree, and nothing gives an external power to have a say or for Indians to not have a say within India with such rhetoric. But this is OT for this thread.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

The question/concern I have (one of many) is what happens if by massive political influence/lobbying, one company forces the guvrmand/nation to spend essentially its entire Air force combat aircraft budget on **ONE** vehicle design, however cross-service/multi-purpose/versatile/reconfigurable that is.

I am not smart enough to figure out the ultimate counter to the F-35, but I suspect that other people are. And if they are allowed to focus 80% of their thinking on just the one system, well, they are going to come up with many more interesting ideas.

If the US commits as totally to the F-35 as the reports indicate, then there is this problem. Lockheed, so to speak, "wins over the Hearts and Minds of America" because it has America by the u-no-what.

The US Army tried to go in for the one-size-fits-all Commanche and gave up. Now they are trying to imitate the F-35 with the JMR.

Maybe these are all massive exercises in disinformation and chaos generation. But look at what has happened: they have shut down the competing engine, and the competing fighter airframe production capabilities. Maginot Line.
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by KrishnaK »

UlanBatori wrote:All said and done, if the Chinese launch 100 missiles per US plane, the US plane is toast. The cost is so high that the numbers that the US can bring to bear in any one theater, will be meager.
How are they going to pick up those planes and well enough to provide a firing solution for a 100 missiles ? If they develop technology to do so, is it going to be any cheaper to field enough planes to fire a 100 missiles at the US plane ?
KrishnaK
BRFite
Posts: 964
Joined: 29 Mar 2005 23:00

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by KrishnaK »

UlanBatori wrote:The question/concern I have (one of many) is what happens if by massive political influence/lobbying, one company forces the guvrmand/nation to spend essentially its entire Air force combat aircraft budget on **ONE** vehicle design, however cross-service/multi-purpose/versatile/reconfigurable that is.
How is such a subversion possible for any stretch of time by just one company ? This seems to be a persistent theme on this forum. Other vendors have money as well, recourse to law and there's anti-trust law that limits how far any one company can corner the field.
TSJones
BRF Oldie
Posts: 3022
Joined: 14 Oct 1999 11:31

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by TSJones »

the Boss was just knee high to a Bactrian camel when he was called from the Gobi to toil in the salt mines of Lockheed in Minas Tirith.

so we must forgive his biases.

I was a volunteer orc in Sauron's forces so I have a somewhat different outlook.
UlanBatori
BRF Oldie
Posts: 14045
Joined: 11 Aug 2016 06:14

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by UlanBatori »

How is such a subversion possible for any stretch of time by just one company ? This seems to be a persistent theme on this forum. Other vendors have money as well, recourse to law and there's anti-trust law that limits how far any one company can corner the field.
er... look around?
F-16: Lockheed
F-117: Lockheed
F-22: Lockheed
F-35: Lockheed
Sikorsky (builder of X2): Lockheed owns them.

Last 3 generations of fighters have gone to Lockheed. Plus, now all services are going to the one fighter. The only alternative is the 1970s-era F-18, which was never that agile nor fast to begin with. I once crashed one (in a combat simulator of course) :(( The damn thing couldn't fly - is it MY fault that it didn't tell me I had forgotten to increase the thrust after I pulled back, hain?)

As for "how will the chinese put the missiles in the air", well, balloons can take missiles up to 80,000 feet if needed. Rockets can too, the Chinese have had those since the 14th century BCE.
Viv S
BRF Oldie
Posts: 5303
Joined: 03 Jan 2010 00:46

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by Viv S »

UlanBatori wrote:er... look around?
F-16: Lockheed
F-117: Lockheed
F-22: Lockheed
F-35: Lockheed
Sikorsky (builder of X2): Lockheed owns them.
F-15/F-15E: Boeing
F/A-18: Boeing
F/A-18E/F: Boeing
EA-18G: Boeing (separate dev.)
KC-46: Boeing
P-8A: Boeing
AH-64: Boeing
Chinook: Boeing

F-22: Lockheed Martin-Boeing JV
V-22: Bell-Boeing JV

AH-1: Bell

UH-72: Airbus

F-14: Grumman (later Northrop Grumman)
E-8: JSTARS: Northrop Grumman
E-2: Northrop Grumman
B-2: Northrop (later Northrop Grumman)
B-21: Northop Grumman
RQ-4/MQ-4: Northrop Grumman
RQ-180: Northrop Grumman

MQ-1: General Atomics
MQ-9: General Atomics
Last 3 generations of fighters have gone to Lockheed. Plus, now all services are going to the one fighter. The only alternative is the 1970s-era F-18, which was never that agile nor fast to begin with.
How many alternatives to BAE, Dassault, EADS & Saab do UK, France, Germany & Sweden respectively have? How many alternatives to Sukhoi will Russia have once the MiG-29 finally goes out of production?
Last edited by Viv S on 22 May 2016 06:39, edited 1 time in total.
NRao
BRF Oldie
Posts: 19226
Joined: 01 Jan 1970 05:30
Location: Illini Nation

Re: US military, technology, arms, tactics

Post by NRao »

Not that it matters, but Northrop-Grumman and BAE SYSTEMS are big players in the F-35.

Not to mention the international companies from Canada and other nations.
Post Reply