Flight II San Antonio LPDs are supposed to come with AN/SPY-6 radar. Same as in the Burkes.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
They practically cancelled it in its current form and have gone back to the drawing board because the current design failed the $ test.
TerraN_EmpirE
Tyrant King
You do know that’s satire right? Generally speaking the cost of new combat aircraft and other equipment increases are linked to to inflation. If you factor in inflation the most modern estimate of cost on NGAD is equal to that of F22 which equals F15 and in turn F14. Farther as Costs have “increased” the mission capability have expanded.
But much of the increase is related to the production lot numbers which in a world war are going to skew the curve.
In WW2 to knock a factory out of operation, you needed thousands of bombers to launch hundreds in a single sortie dropping millions of tons of bombs leveling dozens of square miles because the bombing was so deadly inaccurate. To get accuracy you needed dive bombing which was still iffy on accuracy and just as likely to end up with the pilot flying the bomb into the target as RTB. To get air superiority you need hundreds of fighters looking for enemy aircraft with their eyes to see maybe a couple dozen miles and making a single kill at 3 miles.
Today a single bomb could do the job dropped right through the smokestack. That could be a missile or a bomb dropped from a dedicated bomber or a fighter.
To get air superiority you have fighters that have radars that can see across a hundred miles supported by awacs that can see hundreds of miles and Air to air missiles that can kill a half dozen per aircraft for dozens of miles.
Then you have attritional factors. You needed huge numbers because you were going to take massive losses. Losses not just because of enemy actions but also mechanical, Obsolescence and human factors.
Planes get shot down. Sometimes by Foes some times by “friends”. In WW2 IFF was literally a question of how clearly you see things. Complex machines wear out especially when they are used a lot and war time often causes equipment to be used roughly and put away improperly. Causing premature breakdowns. We also had fast advances in technology from the 30s through the 70s in aviation. After the 70s it became more about computerization. But it was literally like the IPhone revolution every year for aviation. Humanity went from canvas and balsa wood to the moon in 70 years. Much of those early aircraft were going through major revisions and replacements programs in the space of a couple years.
And sometimes aircraft just were lost. Ditched in the sea damaged and tossed out vanished.
Demand factors. Bigger forces, larger armies, bigger budgets relative to GDP.
Also The US was exporting in huge quantities to armies that since haven’t had the opportunity to modernize as extensively as they were or moved out of the position to be import from the U.S. In WW2 Russia and China were buying weapons from the U.S. and in Significant quantities across all parts of their war machines. So yeah production numbers decreased, prices increased but effects increased significantly. Thats not limited to the U.S.. in WW2 everyone who could mass produce fighter and bombers and ground attackers did so by the Tens of thousands. The most prodigious fighter of the Jet Age the MiG 21 stopped just short of 14,000. The F16 the most prodigious of the 4th generation is restarting production at 4,606 units. F35 is like to be the most prolific 5th generation fighter by a long shot is already over a 1000 units and it’s about to be 2025. So that whole 1 plane bit doesn’t make sense.
But much of the increase is related to the production lot numbers which in a world war are going to skew the curve.
In WW2 to knock a factory out of operation, you needed thousands of bombers to launch hundreds in a single sortie dropping millions of tons of bombs leveling dozens of square miles because the bombing was so deadly inaccurate. To get accuracy you needed dive bombing which was still iffy on accuracy and just as likely to end up with the pilot flying the bomb into the target as RTB. To get air superiority you need hundreds of fighters looking for enemy aircraft with their eyes to see maybe a couple dozen miles and making a single kill at 3 miles.
Today a single bomb could do the job dropped right through the smokestack. That could be a missile or a bomb dropped from a dedicated bomber or a fighter.
To get air superiority you have fighters that have radars that can see across a hundred miles supported by awacs that can see hundreds of miles and Air to air missiles that can kill a half dozen per aircraft for dozens of miles.
Then you have attritional factors. You needed huge numbers because you were going to take massive losses. Losses not just because of enemy actions but also mechanical, Obsolescence and human factors.
Planes get shot down. Sometimes by Foes some times by “friends”. In WW2 IFF was literally a question of how clearly you see things. Complex machines wear out especially when they are used a lot and war time often causes equipment to be used roughly and put away improperly. Causing premature breakdowns. We also had fast advances in technology from the 30s through the 70s in aviation. After the 70s it became more about computerization. But it was literally like the IPhone revolution every year for aviation. Humanity went from canvas and balsa wood to the moon in 70 years. Much of those early aircraft were going through major revisions and replacements programs in the space of a couple years.
And sometimes aircraft just were lost. Ditched in the sea damaged and tossed out vanished.
Demand factors. Bigger forces, larger armies, bigger budgets relative to GDP.
Also The US was exporting in huge quantities to armies that since haven’t had the opportunity to modernize as extensively as they were or moved out of the position to be import from the U.S. In WW2 Russia and China were buying weapons from the U.S. and in Significant quantities across all parts of their war machines. So yeah production numbers decreased, prices increased but effects increased significantly. Thats not limited to the U.S.. in WW2 everyone who could mass produce fighter and bombers and ground attackers did so by the Tens of thousands. The most prodigious fighter of the Jet Age the MiG 21 stopped just short of 14,000. The F16 the most prodigious of the 4th generation is restarting production at 4,606 units. F35 is like to be the most prolific 5th generation fighter by a long shot is already over a 1000 units and it’s about to be 2025. So that whole 1 plane bit doesn’t make sense.
So in other words the amount of aircraft produced keeps going down as costs go up just like Augustine said.
FYI he used to be the CEO of Lockheed Martin.
The official inflation grew like 125% from 1980 to 2000. Consumer prices basically doubled. While prices of fighter aircraft seem to grow like 10x in the same period. F-16 vs F-35 price. Fighter prices increase faster than inflation.
FYI he used to be the CEO of Lockheed Martin.
The official inflation grew like 125% from 1980 to 2000. Consumer prices basically doubled. While prices of fighter aircraft seem to grow like 10x in the same period. F-16 vs F-35 price. Fighter prices increase faster than inflation.
Last edited:
antiterror13
Brigadier
The Navy chose a ship design already in use by navies in France and Italy instead of starting from scratch. The idea was that 15% of the vessel would be updated to meet U.S. Navy specifications, while 85% would remain unchanged, reducing costs and speeding construction.
Instead, the opposite happened: The Navy redesigned 85% of the ship, resulting in cost increases and construction delays, said Bryan Clark, an analyst at the Washington-based think tank Hudson Institute. Construction of the first-in-class Constellation warship, which began in August 2022, is now three years behind schedule, with delivery pushed back to 2029.
The final design still isn’t completed.
VLRAAM is not intended for enemy fighters because at ranges of 80km or more a fighter can out-maneuver any missile.
A missile engine runs for several seconds and the rest of the flight is conducted ballistically with course correction by aerodynamic surfaces. Only the latest variants of long-range missiles have a second pulse or a ramjet booster that can add energy in middle of the trajectory.
All missiles have three types of range:
- maximum range which is a single theoretical trajectory calculated with a launch from highest altitude and high speed against an approaching and non-maneuvering target at low altitudes, so no energy loss for course correction occurs.
- effective range which is a set of ranges dependent on the particular conditions of the engagement and changes depending on factors such as whether the target is closing in or moving away, whether the launch occurs above or at the same altitude as the target etc. However in most cases this refers to the range of a target that is on an approach vector and engages in evasive maneuvers.
- no escape zone which is a single theoretical trajectory where the missile expends 100% of kinetic energy while maneuvering (and increasing altitude).
- maximum range - any evasive maneuvers
- effective range - maximum evasive maneuvers
- no escape zone - impossible
- effective range as 2/3 max range
- no-escape zone as 1/3 max range
This is important, because it shows you that while fighters have limited fuel, they are expending energy much more efficiently than rocket motors and can afford to engage, provoke a shot, evade and re-engage. Some fighters may even do it two or three times. Which means that no BVR engagement is intended to kill a target unless it's approaching NEZ. You don't shoot to kill unless you have the target between NEZ and effective range. Otherwise you're shooting to force it to disengage which has its tactical benefits as the enemy target can lose energy and fuel and be forced to depart or be forced to disengage from a friendly target to evade.
In most cases ARH (active radar homing) missile launches are suppressive fire because time in the air is limited by fuel and any maneuvering consumes more fuel than the mission maximum. You can also feel out the pilot just like fighters throw fake jabs to test the opponent's reaction. Defeatig your enemy psychologically is better than defeating him physically because it takes less resources and forces the enemy to rationalise the decision to flee which typically starts a negative feedback loop. That's why entire armies break when a part of them begin to flee. Others don't know why those guys are fleeing but the can't be cowards right? Enter: panic.
Large missiles like R-37 have larger motors primarily because they have to move a larger mass and a larger volume with higher air resistance. The extreme ranges that are given are maximum ranges only where all of the kinetic energy can be transferred to movement. The effective range or no-escape-zone for those missiles is surprisingly close to the likes of AIM-120C8 or D because momentum and air resistance of larger volumes have a proportionally greater effect on its energy expenditure. If you throw a heavy load at a certain speed and that load suddenly has to change vector it will take more energy to redirect it than a lighter load because you have to counter all of the momentum necessary to propel that load to high speeds.
Lighter missiles with larger aerodynamic surfaces are better at maneuvering but they are lighter so they carry only so much chemical energy to generate range. Heavy missiles with smaller aerodynamic surface are worse at maneuvering but they can reach further because their initial mass stores more energy.
So a R-37 may have a maximum range of 400km but its effective range is within 100 to 200km and its NEZ likely doesn't exceed 80km. Rocket engines are extremely inefficient at expending chemical energy to generate kinetic energy.
This is why VLRAAMs have a very narrow use. Because of their physical limitations they are intended against targets with poor kinematics i.e. low maneuverability like AEW and aerial refueling aircraft.
The regular use of R-37s against fighters in Ukraine is misleading because what is usually left out of most reports is that Ukrainian aircraft lack missile detection systems that do not rely on RWRs signalling a specific type of radar beam used for target illumination. All Ukrainian aircraft are old 80s Soviet fighters which were designed for SARH (semi-active radar homing) missiles. To launch a SARH missile a targeting radar must set its beam to "guidance" or "tracking" mode which differs from "scanning" mode and then needs to keep that beam locked on target for the missile to see it.
Modern Russian missiles - either R-77 or R-37 - are ARH which means that they can be launched in general direction of the target in track-while-scan mode meaning that the radar computer records the position of the target while maintaining a scanning beam. The missiles in turn only activate their radars when in terminal phase. So when a Russian fighter launches a R-37 at a Ukrainian Su-27 the target doesn't even know it's being targeted until it is being illuminated by the missile's guidance radar. And considering that Ukrainian aircraft tend to fly low to avoid detection by Russian GBAD it means that when R-37s turns on its radar the target has to suddenly gain altitude and energy and it may simply not be able to do it in time.
That will not be the case in a hypothetical air-to-air engagement between US and China. What the air-launched SM6 is intended for is Chinese AEWs and tankers, just as Chinese VLRAAMs are intended for US AEWs and tankers.
And as for J-20 getting in range - new radars of E-2D and E-7 will be able to detect them just in time for Super Hornets to launch SM-6 in their direction and that's a risk that no J-20 pilot will want to take, especially that the current tactic is to put F-35C in the front and keep F/A-18E/F at the back. It won't be Superbugs that the J-20 will have to worry about but the likely NEZ of F-35C's missiles.
So the reality is that SM-6 is being introduced not because USN doesn't know how to handle Chinese missiles but because China finally has sufficient number of targets that a large and heavy SM-6 makes sense.
Superbug with SM-6 can receive targeting data from F-35C, E-2D or from AEGIS ships. AN/SPY-6 has range and resolution far in excess of what is necessary to effectively use the missile. It also has sufficient power to burn through most EW at practical ranges. The fighter really only needs to gain altitude and speed to maximise starting energy then approach to a safe launching position and release the missile. Even without the booster an air-launched SM-6 has sufficient range to reach all viable targets.
It's not really a viable offensive measure but it no VLRAAM currently in service is an offensive solution.
US is still ahead of China when the entire system is considered. There simply was no need for SM-6 to be air launched before because lack of targets. People shouldn't confuse shift from advantage toward parity in technology and China's decisive geographical advantage with China maintaining a lead in technology. These two are not the same thing.
And Russia isn't even in the race. Only vatniks think that it is but no one intelligent cares what a vatnik thinks.
No. It's a measure of independence.
It's trivial to damage a ship via direct or indirect sabotage. Most people don't know how little it takes to keep a ship in port. The ability to maintain, repair and upgrade it on your own is the measure to which you're independent in your ability to project power at sea.
This guy is clearly a Trumper blowhard but even a broken clock is right twice a day. "Diversity" and "inclusion" are parasitism. Only parasites and idiots say otherwise. You want proof? Enter a leftist safe-space and demand diversity and inclusion. See what happens.
Double standards always indicate malice aforethought.
Wanna bet that delivery gets pushed back to 2030?
By then, either next batch(es) of 054B FFGs would've been built, or the new 054C-class FFG would've been underway.
but but but but our Frigate is much better than even Chinese (Temu) Type 055
Those fire extinguishers and water tight doors are just too damn expensive.