Answer. Air Dominance.
If you're like me and you wonder why, then wonder no more. I believe Lt. General Pawlkowski let the cat out of the bag. Check this out from Military.com.
"We are going to be facing adversaries that are as modern as we are if not more so. This provides us the opportunity to leverage the entire world market of technology development through our collaborative activity with our allies," she said.We're seeing a slow burn to an obvious truth.
The effort, which includes work with the Air Force Research Laboratory and the Pentagon's research arm, DARPA, is looking at a wide range of future applications including hypersonics, stealth, advanced sensors, cyber technologies, drones, space systems and directed energy weapons, Pawlikowski said.
"We're taking a more enterprising look at understanding and exploring the capabilities we are going to need in the future," she said. "It is not just looking at a next-generation fighter but looking at these issues in the context of leveraging all of the capabilities that can accomplish that."
The F-35 isn't close to being good enough and to paraphrase former Commandant of the Marine Corps, James Amos, "they've got one chance to get the next airplane right".
Maybe I'm reading too much into her statement but it also appears that the USAF is slowly "evolving" to the USN position that stealth isn't enough.
But the part that make me wonder is the highlighted portion..."facing adversaries as modern as we are if not more so"?
That should be a chilling statement for an airpower advocate. Why? Remember the Rand "Clubbing baby seals" report? I've wondered aloud what another such report would reveal today especially since F-35 advocates say that the plane is "reaching maturity" but we have yet to see it. Surely the USAF has had one conducted.
My bet. The news was horrible and they classified it.
The more we hear from the USAF, USN and the less we hear from the USMC convinces me of one thing.
A bad bet was placed, the alcohol is wearing off and people are just now beginning to tally up the financial losses.
The more we hear about a 6th gen jet the worse that sim must have been.
SIDNOTE: This is for my buddies over at F-16.net. The death spiral is here. I found this from a Rebecca Grant report on "maintaining air dominance in a fiscally constrained environment". The chart tells the tale.
 |
| Procurement plans for fifth-generation fighters declined by nearly 19 percent over the fifteen-year period....note that the decline has continued as it does not take into account the latest USN decision on F-35C purchases. |
Offtopic
ReplyDeleteHa! It looks like the Donbass rebels go USA’s aid -t LCMR (Lightweight Counter-Mortar Radar).after
running out Ukrainians in the Debali’s pocket.
http://ic.pics.livejournal.com/zvezdochettt/14950308/59059/59059_original.jpg
on the vid from 4:30
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kjf95WiAo3g#t=270
Offtopic
ReplyDeleteM29C Weasel with 37-mm Gun T32 at Aberdeen Proving Grounds
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wWd7t7H5iI
Bazooka is obviously more stable in firing then a light 37-mm gun!
@Info-Infantry
ReplyDeleteIt can be without too much problem replace by bigger and more advance plants of Azot or Nitrogen. The plant in Donetsk was small.
Optical plant in Feodosia produce the best laser rangefinders... not the only one but the best ones. And they specialize in that, rest is manufactured elsewhere.
Barrels... of course they can produce barrels, it a bloody Kharkov a core of Soviet tank industry. Every tanks plant can produce barrels, that's normal thing. A proof... they build and maintain tanks, you can't do this without a barrel plant.
They have the capacity, they sell tanks... they have problems with manufacturing because lack of funds. We give them credits... EU give them cash. They will build own tanks. That's for sure.
@We give them credits... EU give them cash. They will build own tanks. That's for sure.@
ReplyDeletetime will show
That is why I advocate for a not necessarily stealthy hypersonic fighter that can maneuver is based on a as cheap to build and easily maintained as possible air frame with a powerful air/ground radar as few digital components as is cost effective. It needs to be quick, maneuverable and tough.
ReplyDeleteI think you've nailed it, Solomon, we're seeing a sea change from 20th to 21st century technology and the old thinking is obsolete.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like Pawlkowski is totally in-sync with the Pentagon's new Third Offset Strategy championed by DepSecDef Work.
The third offset program is envisioned as a multi-administration effort to encourage rapid innovation in the defense sector in the fields of robotics, autonomy, long-range strike and big data. And its ambitions demand that the Pentagon find ways to work with the commercial tech sector in order to gain from the rapid advancements that have been made there; leaps in capability that have left many in the defense sector trying to catch up.
Hopefully Pawlkowski can get James's ear, and then Welsh will have to follow. In fact they will have to, because Third Offset is now Pentagon policy, with a new techno-savvy SecDef on board.
Wasn't this a repeat post?
ReplyDeleteYeah already posted... and info' c'mon man... you can buy those in every hunter ship around the corner.
ReplyDeleteBggg
ReplyDelete