I would guess 1MW for whatever is needed on NGAD which I assume includes a laser.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
According to the data, 35,801 individuals "received a discharge or separation because of real or perceived homosexuality, homosexual conduct, sexual perversion, or any other related reason from the period October 1, 1980 to September 20, 2011." Of those cases, 81% were denied honorable discharges in the form of a general discharge, other than honorable discharge, bad conduct discharge or dishonorable discharge.
Underscoring the long-standing confusion over the number of service members affected, the military has within weeks offered contradictory figures. When CBS News reached out to the Defense Department about the new figures, officials there produced different numbers from its Office of Legal Policy indicating most service members separated on the basis of homosexual conduct from 1970 to 2011 were discharged under honorable conditions.
After requesting more detail, the department shared a partial breakdown: 23,392 honorable discharges, 11,023 general discharges under honorable conditions and 5,374 uncharacterized discharges. It did not provide statistics on the most punitive forms of discharges.
While it's unclear why the figures from the Defense Department's Office of Legal Policy differ from those provided by its own Freedom of Information Division, it is not surprising, experts told CBS News. Scholars, activists, and lawmakers have wrestled for years with how to count and identify these individuals in the absence of clarity and transparency from the military itself.
"The numbers confirm the magnitude of the discrimination and injustice suffered by so many service members who joined our Armed Forces with the hope of honorably serving our country," said Elizabeth Kristen, the director of Legal Aid At Work's Gender Equity & LGBTQ Rights Program. "It also quantifies the substantial number of service members who carry the harmful stigma of a discharge status that is less than an honorable discharge, impacting their right to receive the benefits that this country has seen fit to provide to all other veterans."
Instead of Don't Ask Don't tell. It was effectively just "Don't tell and pray your superior officer doesn't find out when he asks"
Imagine being willing to die for a country that has absolutely zero respect for your service.
2027, damn that's insane long...
So much for saving ridiculous time and money with digital design. I hope this is enough of a hint for people who expect development of NGAD to be especially swift like the Air Force is claiming it will be. This trainer is a repurposed Gripen fighter, uses much the same architecture design, and they still goofed it up enough it is now projected to be delayed 3 years and counting. Boeing cannot seem to make anything right.
NGAD is supposed to use brand new engines, brand new airframe, and brand new everything, yet people somehow think it will be done in basically a third the time it took to make the F-22 or F-35. Good luck.
Claims by the USAF they "already tested the prototypes" for NGAD also do not pass muster. It is quite clear they did tests with virtual mockups of the airplanes, not the airplanes or actual physical prototypes. There is a whole lot of difference between a virtual prototype and a real one, as they seem to be finding here. The level of fidelity simply isn't the same. Virtual prototype environments are, by definition, massively simplified. So when you pass from the virtual prototype to a real world thing, you end up finding out stuff that is not working as intended and then you need to do redesigns.
Aircraft keep getting more complicated so the expectation you will massively reduce design time is kind of bogus. The variable cycle engine they claim they will use in NGAD is a good point in that. Massively complicated Rube Goldberg device with great capabilities if they get them to work properly, but massive potential for program failure as well.
NGAD is supposed to use brand new engines, brand new airframe, and brand new everything, yet people somehow think it will be done in basically a third the time it took to make the F-22 or F-35. Good luck.
Claims by the USAF they "already tested the prototypes" for NGAD also do not pass muster. It is quite clear they did tests with virtual mockups of the airplanes, not the airplanes or actual physical prototypes. There is a whole lot of difference between a virtual prototype and a real one, as they seem to be finding here. The level of fidelity simply isn't the same. Virtual prototype environments are, by definition, massively simplified. So when you pass from the virtual prototype to a real world thing, you end up finding out stuff that is not working as intended and then you need to do redesigns.
Aircraft keep getting more complicated so the expectation you will massively reduce design time is kind of bogus. The variable cycle engine they claim they will use in NGAD is a good point in that. Massively complicated Rube Goldberg device with great capabilities if they get them to work properly, but massive potential for program failure as well.
Last edited:
Isn't the V-280 meant to be a (better) replacement for/successor to the V-22?
Well, the V-280 Valor was chosen for FLARA so clearly the investment in Tiltrotor technology has paid off for Bell.
Edit: Also, they built almost ~500 of them so I don't see how that is a bad production run considering it is the first Tiltrotor put into production.