52:06.
This might be the number that marks a turning point in the discussion of the F-35. For the first time it was revealed that the Marine Corps is working on a plan B. This post is an attempt to give my 2 cents to what that plan might look like.
Harriers.
The Marine Corps a couple of years ago made the decision to buy the British Harriers that they were selling off. Critics said that it was a waste and that all available funds should be funneled into the F-35 program. Purist cheered. The F-35 was already late and this infusion of new planes and parts would ensure the viability of the Harrier past 2030. The reality of things are very clear now. The F-35, even if it goes forward, won't deliver combat capabilities of any worth till after 2025 at best. Any further delays could push that past 2030. Its obvious that the move was brilliant and that the Harrier is quickly becoming the backbone of the Marine Corps fleet. Legacy Hornets continue to age and the role filled by the F/A-18D needs to be addressed. Expect further enhancements to the Harrier. Its definitely part of the plan B.
Super Hornets.
The Marine Corps Aviation side of the house made its chops by being as affordable as the ground side. It did this by flying Navy aircraft whenever possible. It did this by flying Army aircraft whenever possible. Often it did it by flying these designs LOOOONG after they were replaced in other services. I'd like to see a return to the Marine Corps falling in on Navy or Army supply/training and maintenance houses. Using the Super Hornet to fulfill the Marine Corps carrier aviation requirement would yield immediate benefits. We could update the aircraft in line with the Navy. We could again make use of their supply/training/maintenance establishment. We could become cheaper and more lethal again. I disagree with the idea of downplaying warfighting in preference of HA/DR but if that is the case then we can wait for a 6th gen STOVL jet done right this time. The SH then makes even more sense.
Artillery.
What is available 24/7/365, in any weather, dust storms, snow, etc...suffers much fewer mechanical breakdowns than aviation, is totally dependent on the judgement of the end user and can generally strike with devastating results whenever its let off its chain? Artillery. What we'll actually be seeing with my proposed plan B is a more balanced force than currently envisioned by the CMC. I'd steal a few more HIMARS from the Army and see if we can develop a HIMARS mounted ATACMS but artillery could be a saving grace for future ground combat operations.
Wildcat Ideas.
I won't touch on the wildcat ideas that might be floating around. They range from using Gripens, to AT-6's (a return of light attack aircraft would be welcome though) and I've even heard suggestions that a squadron or two of S-3's be rebuilt to be used as forward tankers for Harriers so that their endurance can be increased. I don't know. I do know that the solution should be simple, straight forward and easily recognized as being a money saver. Its time to get to work. We know sequestration is going to continue. The light we're seeing isn't the end of the tunnel but the lights of a freight train about to run down the slow witted and unthinking.
This might be the number that marks a turning point in the discussion of the F-35. For the first time it was revealed that the Marine Corps is working on a plan B. This post is an attempt to give my 2 cents to what that plan might look like.
 |
| yeah, its a British Harrier make a pass through a valley (forgot the name...its famous though) but that's ok...we bought their planes a couple of years ago. |
The Marine Corps a couple of years ago made the decision to buy the British Harriers that they were selling off. Critics said that it was a waste and that all available funds should be funneled into the F-35 program. Purist cheered. The F-35 was already late and this infusion of new planes and parts would ensure the viability of the Harrier past 2030. The reality of things are very clear now. The F-35, even if it goes forward, won't deliver combat capabilities of any worth till after 2025 at best. Any further delays could push that past 2030. Its obvious that the move was brilliant and that the Harrier is quickly becoming the backbone of the Marine Corps fleet. Legacy Hornets continue to age and the role filled by the F/A-18D needs to be addressed. Expect further enhancements to the Harrier. Its definitely part of the plan B.
Super Hornets.
The Marine Corps Aviation side of the house made its chops by being as affordable as the ground side. It did this by flying Navy aircraft whenever possible. It did this by flying Army aircraft whenever possible. Often it did it by flying these designs LOOOONG after they were replaced in other services. I'd like to see a return to the Marine Corps falling in on Navy or Army supply/training and maintenance houses. Using the Super Hornet to fulfill the Marine Corps carrier aviation requirement would yield immediate benefits. We could update the aircraft in line with the Navy. We could again make use of their supply/training/maintenance establishment. We could become cheaper and more lethal again. I disagree with the idea of downplaying warfighting in preference of HA/DR but if that is the case then we can wait for a 6th gen STOVL jet done right this time. The SH then makes even more sense.
Artillery.
What is available 24/7/365, in any weather, dust storms, snow, etc...suffers much fewer mechanical breakdowns than aviation, is totally dependent on the judgement of the end user and can generally strike with devastating results whenever its let off its chain? Artillery. What we'll actually be seeing with my proposed plan B is a more balanced force than currently envisioned by the CMC. I'd steal a few more HIMARS from the Army and see if we can develop a HIMARS mounted ATACMS but artillery could be a saving grace for future ground combat operations.
Wildcat Ideas.
I won't touch on the wildcat ideas that might be floating around. They range from using Gripens, to AT-6's (a return of light attack aircraft would be welcome though) and I've even heard suggestions that a squadron or two of S-3's be rebuilt to be used as forward tankers for Harriers so that their endurance can be increased. I don't know. I do know that the solution should be simple, straight forward and easily recognized as being a money saver. Its time to get to work. We know sequestration is going to continue. The light we're seeing isn't the end of the tunnel but the lights of a freight train about to run down the slow witted and unthinking.
One important factor that limits any planning by any of the three services involved in the long-running, mismanaged, behind schedule, over cost, concurrent development/procurement JSF program is that it is a non-transparent program. I doubt if HQ-MC knows much more about the program than we do. What we know is almost entirely negative, but then we -- including the services -- get the platitudes that everything will be okay, and besides think about all the jobs that excessive cost is enabling. The more expense, the more jobs, and thus more political support. Who says the government can't provide jobs!
ReplyDeleteSo we've gone through a recent no-information, non-transparent phase, ever since Dr. Gilmore, the chief tester, testified to Congress in June with a lot of bad news. The program office can't sustain that secrecy on both cost and performance forever. There will have to be some reports that responsible people will have to, and will be able to, respond to.
This week was supposed to be a review by the Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation (CAPE) people. Some real numbers on production and sustainment costs are supposed to come out of that. But there's not been a peep (guess why). Maybe next week? And then in a few months perhaps another report from DOD test and evaluation. We're not learning hardly anything about test results, meanwhile. Just some PR releases. This wonderful stealth plane can do this and that, and also that, -- but they can't prove it, including even the stealth. We haven't seen the test and evaluation results.
Decision-makers can't make decisions without facts. The program office knows that. Bogdan made a show about being independent at first, but obviously now he's totally in bed with LM. No facts in a stealth program.
a buddy of mine, Peter, pointed me to that Vanity Fair article with Bogdan. when i read it i thought we were finally getting someone in that office that would tell the good and the bad. i see it differently now. i think he sees the train wreck coming and used Vanity Fair to protect his name when the history of this failure is written. i really believe that once the facts are known its going to be a scandal that damages the Pentagon in ways we can't even imagine. we'll probably see a massive reogranization of pentagon procurement practices and GAO might get an even bigger oversight role. this JCS group is going to be listed as the worst in modern history. i'll go so far to say that they'll be blamed for failures in the next war because of the decisions that they're making today.
DeleteStill, Bogdan is the go-to (go-at) guy on the JSF. He's the program manager, with full and total responsibility. He's the one who is sandbagging not only the public (us) but also the services including the JCS. It's not Frank Kendall, it's not Martin Dempsey, neither James Amos, nor anyone except Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan, F-35 program executive officer.
DeleteBogdan is the stealth program guy, really.. All others are in the dark, and can justly deny any claims of responsibility for this failed program. Bogdan's the guy we have to go after. Bogdan runs a virtual empire, with flacks, Lockheed empire, and stenographic scribblers (like Why F-35, Amy Butler, etc.) dutifully carrying his water.
Sure, on other programs, generals are muffing it. But on the JSF it's Bogdan, and only Bogdan. Blaming anyone else just lets him off the hook.
Today we get a non-news report on the high-level JSF CAPE meeting they held last Monday when "officials would receive an update on how the program was meeting cost and schedule targets, as well as progress on technical challenges including the millions of lines of software code being written for the planes."
DeleteThe only "news" on that important meeting was that the program must put new language in its future contracts to assure "the quality and reliability of the F-35 fighter jet" and this must have been correct because it came from "officials, who were not authorized to speak publicly."
No cost figures, no test results. Nada, zip, zilch. So the cover-up continues, as does the stealth JSF program with higher production rates. It's a symptom of a larger problem, what Bob Woodward has called the "secret government."-- “They need to review this secret world,” he said of the Obama administration on “Face the Nation" on CBS. “You get to a point where it’s what do you worry about? Secret government."
Sol,
ReplyDeleteId like to see arty start workin on some new rounds. Somethin like copperhead but that actually works. Same for himars, like to get a rocket that isnt just gps dependent.
As a jtac, I would love the corps to give me more cas, upgrade our birds pods to sniper or newer lightning 4 models, put a laser spot tracker on the cobra and huey. And finally finish acquisition of a newer lighter more usable strikelink system. Digital cas is coming, the faster we decide to accept it and bring it into our tool kit the better.
The former tracker in me wants a new acv/mpc for the amphib boys. We already are about to lose 2nd tracks to just a few companys lets at least have bettwe vics
digital strike. i like that. as far as warheads i thought excalibur was coming down the pike to at least give you better options when it comes to naval guns (i don't know if it'll be used for m777). my question for you though is simple. will you get enough CAS to make up for a lack of artillery if they follow through with current plans?
Deleteoh and good to have you back.
We have a battery to support each bn, thats always been the standard, and it looks like we still have that. Excalibur is a good round and it is used by 777, but its a gps dependent round, no good if the target moves or if your grid is off. But I you happen to make it laser guided at a point you solve alot of those problems.
DeleteWith the new ddg coming soon, Im hooin for a rebirth of naval guns. If they happen to do right they mount himars and atacms those boats could become a huge player in the years to come.
Digital fires is the future, arty is really push it hard, this rollin thunder 10th marines just did used it alot. Systems like the Modular Tactical System are going to make it a portable option for a fo or jtac to use. I just imagine sending a 9line to a aircraft 30+ miles out and just having to get readback for a attack.
Raytheon already has an internally funded project to put a SAL targeting capability into Excalibur and LRLAP.
DeleteI can only speak on Marine artillery but here is the lowdown.
ReplyDeleteHIMARS has worked wonderfully in Afghanistan. It is GPS guided and does need those satellites to work but so does everything else. I have not heard of any plans for a laser guided round and after the experience of copperhead i do not see any push for laser guided artillery. It is the same interchangeable pod that shoots either the 6 GMLRS or 1 ATACMS.
I know the Germans tried to navalize the GMLRS/ATACMS pod and failed. Between TLAMS and LRLAP the Navy has shown zero interest in navalizing pod.
I have seen some Gazette articles pushing to change the firing battery composition, but nothing official from HQMC. The ideas were to either add 2 HIMARS launchers to standard 6 gun battery or to reduce the guns by 2 to 4. Or to add an additional firing battery to every cannon battalion and to task organize them on request by the supported unit commander.
Germany tried a navalized version of PzH 2000 for F125 fregattes. Costs were to high to do it. Instead the "Oto Melara 127/64 Lightweight (LW) naval gun "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Otobreda_127/64 was chosen. With the right ammunition the intended range for MLRS could also be covered. I guess a projectile is still cheaper than a rocket.
Deletehttp://www.diehl.com/en/nc/diehl-defence/press/155-mm-vulcano-sal-guided-ammunition-scores-direct-hit-at-33-km-range/6.html
I thought i had read something about them trying to navalize the rockets as well. I know the idea has been floated but no one as every put it into production.
DeleteUpdate on MLRS on German Navy ships
DeleteThe RBS-15 MK3 missile are already in use on K130 Braunschweig-class corvettes and MK4 will be used on F125 frigates.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RBS-15
RBS-15 originally was an aircraft anti-ship missile but was upgraded with busters for surface launch and inertial/GPS to attack land based targets (MK3). MK4 is expected to have a range of more than 1,000 km (550 mi).
The Polyphem missile was discharged in exchange for Vulcano ammunition for gun.
Polyphem:
length: about 3 m
weight: 145 kg
range: 60 km.
HIMARS makes little sense for a navy ship. The standard HIMARS missiles have rather short ranges and ordanance delivery rates can be accomplished by both 5" and AGS. ATACMS have roughly the same cost of TLAMs with reduced range and payload but higher speed.
DeleteThe Super Hornet is really the best thing that could have happened to the Navy at this time period. It's cheap, rugged, reliable, heavily armed, semi-stealthy, and available before it was scheduled to be. Pretty much everything the F-35 was meant to be but isn't. With congress bought off in the form of campaign funds and incompetent leadership, the Navy has truly found the perfect tool for them to satisfy their needs.
ReplyDeleteLockheed Martin is trying to use increases in the F-35 funding to snuff out current Super Hornet funding. There is already funding for roughly 22 additional Super Hornets in the proposed FY2015 budget. LM knows this and it is freaking them out. After doing a little research, now I see why.
I used to be very angry that I thought the Super Hornet numbers had not cut into the JSF orders earlier. I looked back and it turns out that the Super Hornet has already done some REALLY BAD damage to the JSF orders. This article is from 2007: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/picture-us-navy-super-hornet-deal-could-cut-jsf-numbers-215598/
When the Super Hornet program was made it was done with the vision of 1,000 fighters being made and shared between the Navy and Marine Corps. When the F-35 program hooked the Navy and Marines that number was cut to 460 Super Hornets and 90 Growlers (a total of 550 air frames) only for the Navy with the USMC having been focused entirely on the F-35B. The USN alone had planned to buy 600 F-35Cs at an early point in the program. Navy officials began scrambling to try and recover Super Hornet orders. The current numbers are telling. As of right now the Navy has ordered a total of 552 Super Hornets and 135 Growlers. If you count the EA-18Gs the USN has 687 Super Hornet air frames ordered and now plans to only buy 260 F-35Cs. The way I see it, the Super Hornet beat the F-35C a long time ago in the Navy. More Super Hornet orders after the program is proposed to be finished would be an embarrassment of the highest scale to LM.
HIMARS removes problems. Also I would like to see a USMC F-18F qualified for M-77: (750 lb) air-dropped incendiary bomb. M-77 saves lives. Ours.
ReplyDeleteThe M-77 is banned by the UN and EU
Deletefuck the UN and the EU would ban handguns they're so anti-war. hardly definitive sources. additionally have you seen who sits on the human rights counsel? please don't quote them as sources.
DeleteYeah well they also ban cluster bombs and landmines. There is only one nation that matters with regards to banning that stuff, and this is us. If we don't sign those treaties, then who the fuck cares?
DeleteIf the US government starts a STOL(Not STOVL) naval jet project, there the US could sell at least 120 of these overseas as neither Japan nor Korea plan to develop their own naval jets, even if both have airforce jet projects.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.defensenews.com/article/20131026/DEFREG03/310260005/S-Korea-Envisions-Light-Aircraft-Carrier
The Navy also puts a priority on acquiring reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft. In particular, the service laid out plans to buy the Lockheed S-3 Vikings retired from front-fleet service aboard aircraft carriers by the US Navy in January 2009.
The service will purchase 18 S-3 jets and modify them into a new configuration meeting the Navy’s operational requirements. If adopted, it will be the first fixed-wing jet patrol aircraft operated by the South Korean Navy, which flies 16 P-3CK turboprop patrol aircraft.
“The S-3 introduction will offer a great opportunity for the ROK Navy to operate a carrier-based jet, as the service envisions deploying aircraft carriers in the future,” Kim Dae-young, a research member of the Korea Defense & Security Forum, a private defense think tank here. “From the operational perspective, the S-3 is expected to be used for various purposes, such as patrol, surface warfare and aerial refueling.”
Ignore the light carrier stuff in the article, it was the result of some quick and dirty study which was widely panned for non-senses, like claiming that a STOVL carrier would cost $30 million a year to operate while a Nimitz class super carrier costs $700 million. What the ROKN has in mind are two regular carriers. Likewise Japan too is looking to build two carriers, so you have an immediate oversea requirement of 120 for a STOL jet plus USMC requirements should the F-35B canned.
it would have to be STOVL. the plane would be for the Marine Corps so that means operating off an LHA...which means assault ship use, not small carrier.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteWe already discussed this topic, that the America class needs to be stretched to 280 m and be equipped with arresting gear to make this STOL jet plan to work. A ski lamp may not be needed if the TVC engine can vector the thrust by 15 degree(same effect as a 15 degree ski jump). And the TVC engine will also help to lower the landing speed too, further reducing the landing stress.
The Sea Gripen in Saab's study requires a 240 m runway to take off from a 20 knot ship with a 17 ton take off weight, and this is a near full-load level for the Gripen. I am sure the American aerospace industry can beat the Sea Gripen's performance targets.
we hadn't discussed anything. stretching the America class would not be in the interests of the Marine Corps or the US Navy. we have FULL SIZE AIRCRAFT CARRIERS. we don't need to make mini-anything. what we need is a capable STOVL airplane to operate off our amphibious ships. if that means that Japan, S. Korea or any other navy needs something else well fine. build it or buy it elsewhere, but to stretch the America would be to endanger our more capable full decks for less capabilities.
Deletewhy would we do that?
Solomon
DeleteStretching America class ships is a lot cheaper and simpler than trying to make the F-35B work.
you're putting forward false choices. we don't have to choose between stretching the America class OR making the F-35 work. we can simply start over and build a 6th generation STOVL fighter.
DeleteSolomon
DeleteSTOVL exerts a huge performance penalty on the jet, regardless of generations. A 6th gen STOVL will be no better than the Harrier and the F-35B.
And yes, the plane cost is inversely proportional to the size of ships it operates on. If the carrier was a mobile naval base 900 m long, then one could operate stock F-16s with some anti-corrosive coating on them and save hundreds of billions of dollars too.
In this case, the optimal cost/value balance is to reduce the burden on the airframe by lengthening the carrier and removing the need for a vertical landing.
I never understood the reasoning behind the USN's insistence that the USMC operate its fast jets off short LHDs and not longer ships as STOL jets.
Wow, talk about the most convincing thing I've read yet that the US NEEDS the F35.
ReplyDeleteUsing what is listed we might as well just admit China will have more advanced, as well as much larger force, before 2019. And that we have opted for the B1tch out old soviet model that we always beat in mere days. I guess we need to try it out ourselves and lose before m0rons figure it out.
how do you come to that conclusion?
DeleteInferior air power and technology, trying to make up with mass units and artillery.
DeleteSoviet model exactly.
I would say we're trying the German model right now - sacrificing mass for limited numbers of gold-plated platforms.
DeleteHint: didn't work out for them too well.
There is a balance. The F-35 offers no huge capability leap over the Super Hornet. We're paying billions of dollars more for a jet whose only significant advantage over a 4th generation airplane is stealth (and not apparently great stealth at that). There are some in the aviation community who don't even consider the F-35 a true 5th gen aircraft, since it lacks both supercruise and post-stall maneuverability.
Presumably (we hope) the days of platoons being established in remote combat outposts in the Hindu Kush and like places, which require CAS, are over. The days of large armies engaging on a battlefield also seem anachronistic.
ReplyDeletefrom Information Dissemination :
David Kilcullen's new book, Out of the Mountains, is based on the premise that demographic trends and the democratization of technology will force many, if not most, future wars into highly connected, densely populated, littoral areas.
It is in these kinds of areas where accurate naval gunfire might be useful. Benghazi comes to mind.
no. don't be fooled by Kilcullen. he's pushing the SOCOM and now big Army talking point that people are where wars are fought. he is in essence thinking that Afghanistan in the city will be the rule.
Deleteif he's right then he's talking about a mad max, horror show that no army will be able to influence. think stalingrad. think berlin at the end of ww2. think Seoul during stages of the Korean war. think Hue city. think Fallujah. when combat ensues people flee.
he's trying to make the point that we will be fighting international criminal organizations, conducting never ending HA/DR, and low level wars till the cows come home.
he's full of shit and making a play for increased budget.
Kilcullen is correctly saying that's where it's been happening. I'm not advocating participating in it, I'm suggesting a way to put ordnance at the desired locations if they do insist on getting involved.
DeleteWe're talking potential scenarios here that require CAS or a substitute therefore. What's yours? Because without a scenario(s) and missions there can be no intelligent discussion of weapons systems.
I've already mentioned COPs and conventional war. Is there kickback on those not being likely? Or what? IOW we may not be talking "wars" in the conventional sense, in which case any CAS is out-moded. Missiles, submarines and mines are more of a factor now, is one consideration. Area denial is another. The floor is open....
sorry but Kilcullen is part of the COIN mafia. he loves these dirty, small, intractable wars that last decades. my vision of the future has it where we either don't participate in those types of wars or if we do, we simply bomb whatever source of modern living they have back to the stoneages and then we leave it to our allies like the French.
Deletewe will only concentrate on issues that affect the US directly. wars over oil? wars over territory? not our business. this stuff dates back to before the existence of the US. we can be self sufficient in energy if we switch to natural gas and islands don't interest me.
if we decide to aid the japanese against china well thats simple. airpower/ sea power/ Marines taking islands. but the shit that Kilcullen is talking about is simply a reverse power grab.
additionally i have concern about the continued focus on precision strike. what happens when we need to take out an entire grid square because we believe that an armored division is resting in it? can we do that? outside of B-52's i don't think so....and i don't think you want to send a old bomber over a modern armored formation...even if it is going to evaporate everyone there if its shot down.
Okay, you're against power grabs, and so am I, but it's US policy to rule the world. Let's move on.
DeleteNow we've got two scenarios.
-- taking islands. Do we need an expensive airplane to do that, given naval weapons?
-- taking out grid squares. B-2 bombers and/or drones. Admiral Mullen predicted a couple years back that the next bomber would be unmanned. (But now we've got Lockheed/Boeing teamed up [!!] on a B-3.)
We see how well militaries do in urban areas like the Brazilian favelas or the cities of Mexico. It is an inconvenience at best to organized cartels.
DeleteKilcullen seems to be rehashing Martin van Crevald's work in the Rise and Decline of the state in that force is no longer the sole, legitimate domain of nation-states. Criminal cartels, terrorists, gangs, pirates, warlord and other non-state actors have started to use force and in fact install themselves as alternatives to nation-states. There are parts of Mexico, for example, that are not ruled by the government, they are governed by the cartels who use corruption and graft to use the machinery of the state to rule. They simply buy politicians, police, and other organs of government.
And sadly, in spite of what Kilcullen wishes, nation-states are ill-equipped at dealing with non-state actors militarily due to massive resources needed to try to wage unconventional conflicts.
At best, it is the province of SOCOM types, since conventional militaries are not trained or equipped to deal with enemies who refuse to reveal themselves or fight out in the open.
the real work of the state is to "the left of BOOM", dealing with the conditions that give rise to chaos and criminality, so that there are fewer disgruntled citizens for non-state actors to recruit.
Sol,
ReplyDeleteDon't get your hopes up. After the pressure exerted to South Korea, you think LockMart will allow USMC to go Plan B?
The so-called "Plan B" could be USMC HQ's way of getting heat off their back. Just my 2 cents.
The plane B should be to just scrap the B version of the plane that is the most expensive, redesign the A and C to be cheaper now that they don't need to accommodate B.
DeleteGoing back to the 1960s harrier and abandoning anything more advanced than an F-18 would have been though UNIMAGINABLE for this country in 1990.
To be honest this is the closest thing I've ever come to experiencing so called american decline. The nature of this discussion right here and what people are suggesting. Steps backwards.
Or screw it, plan B could be just scrapping the F-35 and starting a new 5th generation plane in it place.
ReplyDeleteWhatever it is, WE ARE GOING TO NEED a new generation of technology in the air eventually. Saying 'it doesn't work, screw it lets give up and stick with the basics we got' is just so ridiculous. Do that for 20 years and we will go from the leading military to a laughable one.
Point is, its gotta happen sooner or later. And the longer we wait the more its gonna suck for us and hurt.
A phony dilemma if I've ever read one.
Deletenobody seems to be able to afford entire fleets of only stealth aircraft either. It's a mix of gen 4.5 and a limited number of gen 5 like F-22, F50 or J20.
Russia, China, India and certain European countries are building hundreds of gen 4.5 aircraft and will be flying them for another 25 years so let's stop pretending the issue is Go Stealth or Go Home. That's just Lockheed Martin marketing bullshit.
There is a market and need for Gen 4.5+ aircraft and there will be.
And we're not even sure the F35 is even going to be stealthy enough with the old-school, barn-sized low-band radars that Russian and China are developing.
I didn't even say we need a full fleet of stealth, but going to F-18s only is rung below what we can expect opponents to field in the future.
DeleteWe should be looking to get one foot out of the 4th generation trap at least. Just to keep up with others...
And stealth will always be a viable technology, it has the technical initiative.
DeleteStealth could theoretical progress to the point that there are no longer any waves that it bounces back, then radars no matter how powerful they are are a non-entity.
Like i said, if the F35 proves not enough, then the next step MUST be to redesign a new future fighter. Not turn tail and cry to the F-18.
You're describing the F/A-XX.
DeleteFor what i know, even with more and better technology, we hopped to resist 7 days to URSS attack over europe, without using ADM... So US having thousands of less technological weapons could crush a china, even with higher technology... Don't expect china having technological and numeric advantages : Never any country in history had both !
ReplyDeletechina hasnt been a leading power in recent history though.... and we are fighting them in their backyard while we are spread across the globe...
DeleteAt least the Navy has a real plan B
ReplyDeletehttp://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/us-navy-considers-extending-fa-18-procurement-into-fiscal-year-2015-392306/