US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
The last Zumwalt has been launched.
and with that we are seeing the final configuration for the first, given the shortcomings imposed bu the Obama administration's actions.
But that is okay. The hull is going to be used for some neat things in the future and I believe they will ultimately receive the rail gun as well as LAWS.
A CG(X) version of the umwalt could carrry 160 VLS cells, one large bore rail guns, and then CIWS rail gun, laser, as well as Sea-RAM.
Add to that a goodly number of ESSM and a large number of SM-3, as well as plenty of room for later configurations of AEGIS and dual band APARs, and you end up with a very strong crusier for all of the carrier groups as well as the large Amphibious groups.
And with the rediculous notion that they spent all that money on the AGS, but then cancelled the munitions (which was almost assured when they cut the number back to three), it is clear (to me and those I talk with) that the rail gun is destined to be on these vessels.
The role is going to change to. You will find these vessels as the centerpoint of a hunter killer SAG with ASM, paritcullarly abnti-shipping ASM in mind.
@TerraN_EmpirE @Obi Wan Russell @bd popeye @SamuraiBlue
and with that we are seeing the final configuration for the first, given the shortcomings imposed bu the Obama administration's actions.
But that is okay. The hull is going to be used for some neat things in the future and I believe they will ultimately receive the rail gun as well as LAWS.
A CG(X) version of the umwalt could carrry 160 VLS cells, one large bore rail guns, and then CIWS rail gun, laser, as well as Sea-RAM.
Add to that a goodly number of ESSM and a large number of SM-3, as well as plenty of room for later configurations of AEGIS and dual band APARs, and you end up with a very strong crusier for all of the carrier groups as well as the large Amphibious groups.
And with the rediculous notion that they spent all that money on the AGS, but then cancelled the munitions (which was almost assured when they cut the number back to three), it is clear (to me and those I talk with) that the rail gun is destined to be on these vessels.
The role is going to change to. You will find these vessels as the centerpoint of a hunter killer SAG with ASM, paritcullarly abnti-shipping ASM in mind.
@TerraN_EmpirE @Obi Wan Russell @bd popeye @SamuraiBlue
Jura The idiot
General
I think they could probably reduce B-21 upkeep costs if they made two versions. One with the more finicky and expensive RAM materials and another one without. If it is anything like other stealth aircraft in terms of cost of RAM coatings. Also I think the B-52 does not have a radar. So just deleting that would reduce costs even more. Modern AESA radars are not cheap especially a large one for a penetration bomber type. If later the budget allowed for it those systems could be installed and have the plane airframes resurfaced. They just need to figure out a way to cut production costs on the B-21 to the Bone (heh). You would have the expensive version replace the B-1/B-2 and the inexpensive version replace the B-52.
With regards to reducing the costs I think the CBO is forgetting that if the Navy replaces the F/A-18 Super Hornet dual engine fighter with a single engine aircraft, assuming it is reliable, it should have lower total parts count and lower upkeep costs. Alternatively just delay F-35 purchases to the minimum level required to replace lost airframes. Or even don't replace the old airframes at a 1:1 ratio. Wasn't there a pilot shortage? Cut the number of active aircraft. Use a dedicated refueling aircraft in the Navy instead of using buddy-buddy refueling.
Also, figure out some way to cut down on F-22 operational costs. I think one way would be to simply relegate all aircraft in combat duty or patrol duty to minimal activity in 2nd echelon bases to keep the hours per airframe low. Don't waste F-22 aircraft in Syria or other environments like that.
Given current US engagements, do you really need anything better than a turboprop aircraft for like 70% of the operations? Consider aircraft available off the shelf or in storage with lower cost per flight hours. If all you need to do is lob JDAMs and Laser Guided bombs at insurgents an A-10 will suffice. Heck even an A-26 turboprop can do it.
Alternatively just disengage from pointless conflicts. Afghanistan is a waste of resources. Iraq and Syria are another cesspool of resources. Even worse is that in Syria you actually have some opposition so you actually need to use at least 4+ generation aircraft in there if you have a human pilot. Kerry once said the Saudis were willing to foot the bill to oust Assad. Well... are they? If they are not then pull every US soldier out of the Syrian theater of operations and only use drone attacks. Tell the Saudi Coalition that either they find someone else to take care of Al-Tanf or that you will cede control of it to the Russians. Keep air drone support and small weapons material supply to the Kurds, negotiate a peace deal between Assad and the Kurds which provides them with expanded autonomy like the Kurds of Iraq have or better then just eject. Make Syria a federal state and negotiate a tri-partite deal between the Russians, Turks, and the USA where: the Turks agree to expel foreign fighters from the Idlib pocket, and install their own observation posts patrolled together with the Russians to be replaced with UN observers later, the Turks agree to respect the Syrian border in the SDF controlled areas with first US then later UN oversight over the border outposts, Al-Tanf is ceded to Russia which in turn will give it to the Syrian state, Assad agrees to a federation with broad autonomy in the Idlib and North-Eastern Kurd pockets in exchange for taxes on the income of the oil extracted in the Kurd controlled areas. Those funds would be allocated to help rebuild Syria and be split on a per-capita basis. Those states would have the right to have militias but no heavy weapons like artillery. Expand the pipeline network from North Iraq to Turkey to double its capacity and extend the pipelines to Saudi Arabia, also connect a Saudi Gas pipeline to the Arab Gas Pipeline and complete the extension of that gas pipeline to Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Syria would get paid transit fees and gas for each of the pipelines respectively. As a peace gesture Iran could connect to the gas pipeline network in Northern Iraq and Lebanon would have access to Arab Gas Pipeline natural gas. Iraqi and Syrian Kurds would get gas and oil transit fees.
Have the Russians, Saudis, and Iranians agree on transit limits and capacity for natural gas transit in the region with the EU as a moderator and the USA with observer status.
With regards to reducing the costs I think the CBO is forgetting that if the Navy replaces the F/A-18 Super Hornet dual engine fighter with a single engine aircraft, assuming it is reliable, it should have lower total parts count and lower upkeep costs. Alternatively just delay F-35 purchases to the minimum level required to replace lost airframes. Or even don't replace the old airframes at a 1:1 ratio. Wasn't there a pilot shortage? Cut the number of active aircraft. Use a dedicated refueling aircraft in the Navy instead of using buddy-buddy refueling.
Also, figure out some way to cut down on F-22 operational costs. I think one way would be to simply relegate all aircraft in combat duty or patrol duty to minimal activity in 2nd echelon bases to keep the hours per airframe low. Don't waste F-22 aircraft in Syria or other environments like that.
Given current US engagements, do you really need anything better than a turboprop aircraft for like 70% of the operations? Consider aircraft available off the shelf or in storage with lower cost per flight hours. If all you need to do is lob JDAMs and Laser Guided bombs at insurgents an A-10 will suffice. Heck even an A-26 turboprop can do it.
Alternatively just disengage from pointless conflicts. Afghanistan is a waste of resources. Iraq and Syria are another cesspool of resources. Even worse is that in Syria you actually have some opposition so you actually need to use at least 4+ generation aircraft in there if you have a human pilot. Kerry once said the Saudis were willing to foot the bill to oust Assad. Well... are they? If they are not then pull every US soldier out of the Syrian theater of operations and only use drone attacks. Tell the Saudi Coalition that either they find someone else to take care of Al-Tanf or that you will cede control of it to the Russians. Keep air drone support and small weapons material supply to the Kurds, negotiate a peace deal between Assad and the Kurds which provides them with expanded autonomy like the Kurds of Iraq have or better then just eject. Make Syria a federal state and negotiate a tri-partite deal between the Russians, Turks, and the USA where: the Turks agree to expel foreign fighters from the Idlib pocket, and install their own observation posts patrolled together with the Russians to be replaced with UN observers later, the Turks agree to respect the Syrian border in the SDF controlled areas with first US then later UN oversight over the border outposts, Al-Tanf is ceded to Russia which in turn will give it to the Syrian state, Assad agrees to a federation with broad autonomy in the Idlib and North-Eastern Kurd pockets in exchange for taxes on the income of the oil extracted in the Kurd controlled areas. Those funds would be allocated to help rebuild Syria and be split on a per-capita basis. Those states would have the right to have militias but no heavy weapons like artillery. Expand the pipeline network from North Iraq to Turkey to double its capacity and extend the pipelines to Saudi Arabia, also connect a Saudi Gas pipeline to the Arab Gas Pipeline and complete the extension of that gas pipeline to Saudi Arabia. Iraq and Syria would get paid transit fees and gas for each of the pipelines respectively. As a peace gesture Iran could connect to the gas pipeline network in Northern Iraq and Lebanon would have access to Arab Gas Pipeline natural gas. Iraqi and Syrian Kurds would get gas and oil transit fees.
Have the Russians, Saudis, and Iranians agree on transit limits and capacity for natural gas transit in the region with the EU as a moderator and the USA with observer status.
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
It's not about looks it's about function the turret in the Griffin is a trimmed down Abram turret returned to 105mm mounted on a ASCOD 2 Hull the same hull as the British Ajax vehicle.
M8 was nearly ready to go all those decades ago. So it's seems like it has an edge in this.
Glad to have @Jeff Head back. Always good to see you.
note no price tag on how much this wonderful scheme to buy new F16 and F/A18 is.
The Marines want F35B for a reason the USAF wants F35A for a reason retiring F22A would basically cut out the one Peer to peer advantage the U.S. has undisputedly in air superiority Numbers of Fifth gens.
That's basically removing the whole reason for being of the B21. If all we wanted to to drop bombs B52 or better yet B1 would be fine. B52 has only really stayed in Service because it's launched cruise missiles.
B1 is the better conventional bomber but against a peer level air defences both go down in flames.
B21 is already aimed to reduce costs by leveraging existing technologies from F35 and F22 and even UCAVs.
and removing the radar would cost as you have to do it then find work arounds for the missing radar. It would also render what little survivability it has gone.
B52 hasn't been a penetration bomber for decades. Advances in radar for fighter interceptors like the Mig31 and Fourth gen fighters like Mig29 and SU27 combined with upgraded surface to air missile systems mean that outside of a Dale Brown novel B52 is only useful in peer on Peer for launching cruise missiles. In Asymmetric it doesn't matter fly them all you want if all the adversary has is AKs nothing can touch it. I would rather see the B52 retired it only does one or two jobs these days.
B1 is the better conventional bomber but has a high life cycle to. B2 has a higher life cycle because it seems when every we try to get a new bomber the CBO drops a report that cuts orders drastically increasing cost of aircraft monstrously.
No. The Navy wants to Keep and upgrade it's Super Hornets to Super Duper Hornets... I mean Advanced Hornets. The F35C is supposed to take the place of Plain old Hornets.
Super Advanced Mega Ultimate GO GO Mighty Power Hornets are supposed to be replaced by F/A-XX in the 2030s.
oh the Russians would love that... Basically the Most advanced mission ready fighter on the planet becomes North Korea's Mig29s. With low pilot hours, no actual use and oh yeah the Middle East being a no go zone for the USAF until F35 is full mission rated because none of our fighters can be risked in S300/S400 missile systems.
Current out of Syria no but then again you fight with what you have and if we then have to roll into a Peer in peer that turboprop is useless.
The rest of this is just politics.
Jura The idiot
General
Sunday at 8:51 PM
LOL while compiling it (from links originally posted by
anzha EDIT you're good, LOL) I thought someone would say something like this:
... is the announced development cost of B21
LOL while compiling it (from links originally posted by
anzha EDIT you're good, LOL) I thought someone would say something like this:
Last edited:
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
I never said it was free. But end costs are the factor. 1Billion+ per B2 is not reasonable and how did that happen? 25 units.
Sometimes the best fighter is the one you don't use. Retiring the F-22 from service like the CBO wants is insane. There is nothing with those specs to replace it. But keeping the F-22s just as a reserve capacity serves a similar purpose to the 'fleet-in-being' naval concept. They don't need to be in an area where they are being constantly sand-blasted. Pivot them to East Asia.
When I said a 'penetration bomber' I was talking about the B-21 as currently planned to be. The bombers don't all need to have the full capability suite as planned. Not if it is to be a B-1/B-52 replacement. Half the bomber units could be simplified. Heck some people even proposed converting Boeing 747's to cruise missile arsenal aircraft in the past. Does that have a radar? Does that have stealth? It doesn't matter for most uses. If you manufacture 200 bombers then like 80 could be full stealth ones and the rest simplified types. Share the engines and the fuselage, landing gear, etc, and simplify the bolt-on expensive items i.e. platinum plating which don't matter much.
The B-1 needs to be replaced because it can't be maintained properly anymore. Remember those guys who ejected from one a couple months back? The airframe will last way less than a B-52's.
They could at least reduce the number of T/R modules on the cheaper bomber radar to make it, well, cheaper. An F-35 radar would probably be an improvement over the B-52's. Most modern AESA radar systems are modular in design. I am sure the USAF will just want a B-1 sized radar. Well that's expensive. It's like 3x the surface area of an F-16 radar for example IIRC.
The turboprop can be used as a flight trainer aircraft with the US National Guard if it isn't in combat use. Trump's always complaining about the border with Mexico not being watched properly. Heh.
The "Super Duper Hornet" should just be merged with the F-22 replacement program. Just make a version for the USN and then lighten it up for the USAF.
When I said a 'penetration bomber' I was talking about the B-21 as currently planned to be. The bombers don't all need to have the full capability suite as planned. Not if it is to be a B-1/B-52 replacement. Half the bomber units could be simplified. Heck some people even proposed converting Boeing 747's to cruise missile arsenal aircraft in the past. Does that have a radar? Does that have stealth? It doesn't matter for most uses. If you manufacture 200 bombers then like 80 could be full stealth ones and the rest simplified types. Share the engines and the fuselage, landing gear, etc, and simplify the bolt-on expensive items i.e. platinum plating which don't matter much.
The B-1 needs to be replaced because it can't be maintained properly anymore. Remember those guys who ejected from one a couple months back? The airframe will last way less than a B-52's.
They could at least reduce the number of T/R modules on the cheaper bomber radar to make it, well, cheaper. An F-35 radar would probably be an improvement over the B-52's. Most modern AESA radar systems are modular in design. I am sure the USAF will just want a B-1 sized radar. Well that's expensive. It's like 3x the surface area of an F-16 radar for example IIRC.
The turboprop can be used as a flight trainer aircraft with the US National Guard if it isn't in combat use. Trump's always complaining about the border with Mexico not being watched properly. Heh.
The "Super Duper Hornet" should just be merged with the F-22 replacement program. Just make a version for the USN and then lighten it up for the USAF.
Last edited: