Clark Griswold Posted August 3, 2018 Author Posted August 3, 2018 On 7/30/2018 at 7:09 PM, YoungnDumb said: $20 says nothing comes of this (and I hope I'm wrong). That's a safe bet (unfortunately) but one can hope. I'm not sure if the idea of an all 5th gen fleet has finally impacted with the brick wall of financial reality but it appears to be getting closer. The only critique or input I would offer and it is likely addressed in details in the actual proposal but why not specifically design a 4th gen compliment to the 5th gen fleet and keep the Industrial Base dynamic (can't just all be LM)? That is use the same sub-system, engines, landing gear, tires, seat, etc... as your 5th gen to the maximum extent appropriate to minimize cost for both fleets? Additionally dff load to the 4th gen compliment fighter the capabilities you want in the 5th gen but are too costly too add after the fact, still get them in the strike package just not on the 5th gen aircraft Aerial Warfare is changing but it is not changing so much that we don't have an overriding need for a relatively affordable, new & modern 4+ gen multi-role platform to perform the traditional mission set(s) while being valuable to the new Night 1 fights.
FourFans Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Clark Griswold said: Aerial Warfare is changing but it is not changing so much that we don't have an overriding need for a relatively affordable, new & modern 4+ gen multi-role platform to perform the traditional mission set(s) while being valuable to the new Night 1 fights. Indeed. "Quantity has a quality all of it's own." The Chinese know this. We need to figure it out BEFORE the shooting starts. Google "Puba's Party" (better yet, read about it in Every Man A Tiger) in WW Gulf War I to see how we put the principle of mass to good use there. We let the Iraqis shoot down a bunch of target drones so we could shoot their SAM radars in the process. I'm curious how we're planning to overcome superior numbers without a large number of Gen 4 aircraft. UAVs might be the answer. One thing is for sure, you can't do any of this without pilots and operators. Good luck with that USAF. Edited August 3, 2018 by FourFans130
brabus Posted August 3, 2018 Posted August 3, 2018 Current 4th gen already compliment the 5th gen; as long as funding is appropriately provided to continued development of vipers and both eagle variants (not hogs, because that'd be treason), well be OK with 4th gen mass supplementing smaller numbers of 5th gen. The big question is if the CFGs will allocate the funding required to keep our 4th gen fleet advancing at the required rate. 1
Clark Griswold Posted August 3, 2018 Author Posted August 3, 2018 2 hours ago, brabus said: Current 4th gen already compliment the 5th gen; as long as funding is appropriately provided to continued development of vipers and both eagle variants (not hogs, because that'd be treason), well be OK with 4th gen mass supplementing smaller numbers of 5th gen. The big question is if the CFGs will allocate the funding required to keep our 4th gen fleet advancing at the required rate. Bingo. We can't be the force we used to be plus the new capes, the money is just not there. Ultimately we have to decide what kind of AF we want/need to be and somehow Jedi mind trick Congress into letting us reform into that.
YoungnDumb Posted August 4, 2018 Posted August 4, 2018 Well we can't provide mass if we can't get a 40 year old airplane in the air.
Lawman Posted August 7, 2018 Posted August 7, 2018 If this idea of trying to teach a 46 year old airplane how to be relevant in a peer/near peer fight doesn’t highlight the stupidity of the last 15 years of acquisition decisions I don’t know what does...“Hey Air Force, we can make you a Super Eagle... that does cool stuff... because you guys didn’t buy the 500+ F-22s when you had the chance and now this is gonna be more expensive than it would have been then to do that, but your only “cheap” option today.”
Clark Griswold Posted August 8, 2018 Author Posted August 8, 2018 23 hours ago, Lawman said: If this idea of trying to teach a 46 year old airplane how to be relevant in a peer/near peer fight doesn’t highlight the stupidity of the last 15 years of acquisition decisions I don’t know what does... “Hey Air Force, we can make you a Super Eagle... that does cool stuff... because you guys didn’t buy the 500+ F-22s when you had the chance and now this is gonna be more expensive than it would have been then to do that, but your only “cheap” option today.” Yet here we are so we have to play the hand we're dealt. If we do this right (acquire a new design 4+ gen fighter) to compliment and enhance the capes we wish we had in the existing 5th Gens then we have a better overall package (sts). More missiles, more range/station time, more sensors, ea, etc... while not altering the LO of the F-22 or hampering the delivery of the F-35, that camel is about 1 straw from failure... What the hell is it that drives us to buy white elephants? Every time I buy a car I don't demand it has to get mileage 3x better, go 3x faster and be self-aware. Now I get I don't use my car in life or death battles but the point is there, not every soldier needs to be Delta and not every fighter needs to be Firefox.
Sprkt69 Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 2 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Yet here we are so we have to play the hand we're dealt. If we do this right (acquire a new design 4+ gen fighter) to compliment and enhance the capes we wish we had in the existing 5th Gens then we have a better overall package (sts). More missiles, more range/station time, more sensors, ea, etc... while not altering the LO of the F-22 or hampering the delivery of the F-35, that camel is about 1 straw from failure... What the hell is it that drives us to buy white elephants? Every time I buy a car I don't demand it has to get mileage 3x better, go 3x faster and be self-aware. Now I get I don't use my car in life or death battles but the point is there, not every soldier needs to be Delta and not every fighter needs to be Firefox. Does one need to learn how to think in Russian to fly this Firefox you speak of? 1
FourFans Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 3 hours ago, Sprkt69 said: Does one need to learn how to think in Russian to fly this Firefox you speak of? You'll have to excuse my friend...he's a little slow. Ensure is a hell of a drug. He clearly meant Starfox.
Guest Posted August 8, 2018 Posted August 8, 2018 You'll have to excuse my friend...he's a little slow. Ensure is a hell of a drug. He clearly meant Starfox.
Clark Griswold Posted August 9, 2018 Author Posted August 9, 2018 Does one need to learn how to think in Russian to fly this Firefox you speak of?полностью
FourFans Posted August 10, 2018 Posted August 10, 2018 11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: полностью I knew it. Griswold was just a cover! 1 2
Clark Griswold Posted September 20, 2018 Author Posted September 20, 2018 Fox 2 (computer voice) https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/19/mq-9-gets-first-air-air-kill-training-exercise-air-force-official-says.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true
Magnum Posted September 20, 2018 Posted September 20, 2018 4 hours ago, Clark Griswold said: Fox 2 (computer voice) https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/09/19/mq-9-gets-first-air-air-kill-training-exercise-air-force-official-says.html/amp?__twitter_impression=true "The Air Force wants to leverage artificial intelligence, automation and algorithmic data models to streamline opportunities for airmen watching drone feeds." It's finally happening...
Clark Griswold Posted September 23, 2018 Author Posted September 23, 2018 On 9/20/2018 at 1:28 AM, Magnum said: "The Air Force wants to leverage artificial intelligence, automation and algorithmic data models to streamline opportunities for airmen watching drone feeds." It's finally happening... Tin foil hat on... check... Yup, the first step in autonomous unmanned air systems, sifting thru the 95% chaff to get the 5% wheat of X-INT feeds, with this AI being done on board the vehicle and only transmitting/cueing when it has good data, thinking of persistent ISR in a contested environment main but I could see that being applicable for Air Dominance also, unmanned wingmen out front of the manned platforms either active or passively sensing and relaying/engaging only when they have something determined on air/ground threats... nothing original in that comment but it is probably that time to start the manned/unmanned teaming to get ready for the next war
FourFans Posted September 23, 2018 Posted September 23, 2018 it is probably that time to start the manned/unmanned teaming to get ready for the next war We could call the team skynet.
Lawman Posted September 23, 2018 Posted September 23, 2018 .... it is probably that time to start the manned/unmanned teaming to get ready for the next war Biggest danger is selling ourselves on the belief that a capability exists in this arena that cannot match the paper.The Army leadership wholesale believes that the Apache/Shadow manned-unmanned team is a concept working in practice. Nothing could be further from the truth. Shadows are basically kept and fed by an aviation unit so their operators are more proficiently focused on aviation duties, but they are separate and not equal to the rest of the aviation in the Brigade. We drag them to field problems and gunnery and put together canned scenarios where they “lase” for us but it’s all bull. Deployed, hey are cast off as independent task forces to ground unit X to be used in the same “these are my toys for my never ending TOC porn” way they always have.Meanwhile we’re writing doctrine and war gaming like the cool promo videos of drones being piloted by Apache front seaters to smash the armored advance is a real thing.We have wholesale bought into our own PR campaign. Makes you wonder who those promo videos the manufacturer makes are really for. We know congress is gonna keep buying crap if it’s in their district. Seems we just need the generals to believe that stuff works.Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk 1
Clark Griswold Posted September 24, 2018 Author Posted September 24, 2018 23 hours ago, Lawman said: Biggest danger is selling ourselves on the belief that a capability exists in this arena that cannot match the paper. True. We've had ad nauseam examples of that but... we still kept up with development and eventually what didn't actually work eventually did. Crawl, walk, run. Start simple, develop the first generation with realistic capes for where the technology is and the actual requirement. My humble suggestion would be to work on a common air vehicle for an unmanned wingman and an RPA capable of operation in contested airspace. Radar or satellite link in the nose, your choice... wild oversimplification but that's the basic idea. Keep it real and don't demand unrealistic capes of the unmanned wingman or RPA versions like 9G load factor, supersonic, etc... but looking at the Avenger concept, a weapons bay for at least 4 missiles/stand off weps, combat radius + 35% of the F-35 to cover egress, etc... useful capes but not shooting the moon on the first gen...
Clark Griswold Posted March 30, 2019 Author Posted March 30, 2019 Good article and interesting idea of bifurcation of air domain responsibilities: https://warontherocks.com/2019/03/the-developing-fight-for-tactical-air-control/
Majestik Møøse Posted March 30, 2019 Posted March 30, 2019 On 9/24/2018 at 7:38 AM, Clark Griswold said: Crawl, walk, run. Start simple, develop the first generation with realistic capes for where the technology is and the actual requirement. My humble suggestion would be to work on a common air vehicle for an unmanned wingman and an RPA capable of operation in contested airspace...but looking at the Avenger concept, a weapons bay for at least 4 missiles/stand off weps, combat radius + 35% of the F-35 to cover egress, etc... useful capes but not shooting the moon on the first gen... Why? We have dogfighting, disposable, supersonic UASs right now called AMRAAMs. You want separate, subsonic UASs to launch them? Why not just more F-35s? We’ve already designed those, and they can “autonomously” execute an entire mission
Clark Griswold Posted March 31, 2019 Author Posted March 31, 2019 56 minutes ago, Majestik Møøse said: Why? We have dogfighting, disposable, supersonic UASs right now called AMRAAMs. You want separate, subsonic UASs to launch them? Why not just more F-35s? We’ve already designed those, and they can “autonomously” execute an entire mission To have a persistent active & passive sensor equipped platform for air to air data / fires, AI enabled wingman, remote arsenal platform, SEAD, EA, ELINT, ISR in contested airspace, etc... The competition is working on this also, it's gonna be a factor in the next peer on peer conflict: https://theaviationist.com/2019/01/25/lets-talk-about-russias-hunter-next-gen-unmanned-combat-air-vehicle-spotted-on-the-ground-at-Novosibirsk/ https://www.defenseworld.net/news/22676/Chinese_Unmanned_Fighter_Jet_Could_Have_Extreme_Maneuverability#.XKASMORlI_w
matmacwc Posted March 31, 2019 Posted March 31, 2019 (edited) If the Russkies are hinting at something that loudly on social media, sumpin’ ain’t right in the puddin. As far as the Chinese, I can draw pictures too. Edited March 31, 2019 by matmacwc
Clark Griswold Posted March 31, 2019 Author Posted March 31, 2019 1 hour ago, matmacwc said: If the Russkies are hinting at something that loudly on social media, sumpin’ ain’t right in the puddin. As far as the Chinese, I can draw pictures too. Valid critique and suspicious for them to showcase a capability they say they are developing but still indicative of their thinking, marketing ploy for potential customers (China, India, Iran) and/or propaganda also. As to the Chinese, more than pictures are emerging of their Dark Sword LO RPA https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/21324/image-of-chinas-stealthy-dark-sword-fighter-like-combat-drone-emerges This could be just a mock up but then again maybe not.
VMFA187 Posted March 31, 2019 Posted March 31, 2019 18 hours ago, Majestik Møøse said: Why? We have dogfighting, disposable, supersonic UASs right now called AMRAAMs. You want separate, subsonic UASs to launch them? Why not just more F-35s? We’ve already designed those, and they can “autonomously” execute an entire mission Filling the skies with additional "targets" may provide some benefit. Ever hear "Nine groups" and think "F###"...? 2
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now