US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
There was a move to low-vis schemes because a general lack of [Within Visual Range] Combat. If you want a plane/planes painted you have to go to your Squadron Commander with a list and a reason to pull a plane (or planes) off combat for 72hrs- or longer if the paint scheme requires more than two steps.
Stealth planes can be painted, there's a reason there's show bird F-35s (the Bat one, a few National Guard ones and the USN's high-vis F-35C) or even the F-22 with a blue nose. The only real issue is the time it takes to maintain, which is why grey works out longer.
Its way harder to notice grey/greyish wear and tear. If you want some more nose art, the old F-15s stationed in the UK have nose art, and you can find a few of the bomber squadrons with markings.
Aggressor paint schemes for US aircraft aren't really intended to look representative of an enemy aircraft, but rather to look different from friendly US aircraft paint schemes.
In that sense, the F-35 aggressor is partly inspired from that J-20 prototype pattern but deliberately exaggerated in contrast so it is even more visually distinguishable from standard US F-35s
So just to provide context, the earnings call occurred this morning (10/21/25). And the snip of LockMart's stock price is below for reference. This is on a day when the markets as a whole moved sideways, with no appreciable gain or loss either way. Make of that what you will.
Last edited:
So this is Tyler's big piece that he hinted previously.
The obsession for vtol is weird. The guy Armor Harris claims to prevent runway destruction from PLA strikes but the problem is that the air base, supply, fuel , logistics and command are also there to be destroyed.
His idea of putting these onto non carrier ships is interesting. Yet that wouldn't help. USN will be sending a carrier fleet, and would prioritize defending the carrier, not launching short range(the 1000mile combat radius is pretty absurd claim especially with vertical launch and recovery burning your fuel) UCAV off an arleigh burke. Not to mention, Arleigh Burke is so heavy and packed already with so many years of upgrades, where do you find the space to support this? Is more than just a launcher, it requires logisticis, fuel, weapon and again, someone to control it.
The fundamental problem that USN has is that IF it survives the endless barrage of missiles to get close to use it's aircraft. The fleet should be out of SAM and unable to effectively reload them at sea or safely at port. It faces the conudrum of leaving the PLA A2/AD which means the fleet did nothing, or risk continuing on without any defenses.
In the end, it is a simple math problem, China should and probably have enough ASHM to make sure the third and seventh fleet out of SAM before it can do anything.
"Armor Harris: So, it’s been in development for about a year and a half at Shield AI. We’re actually moving towards demonstrator flights doing the vertical takeoff and landing component of the mission profile in the second half of next year. And then all-up flights in ’28, and really prioritizing, again, speed to the joint force."
So remains to be seen actually working on time, within budget, and promises fulfilled. He is from spacex falcon 9 so there are experience.
"Another example of a defense company interpreting the RFP and building something the military didn't ask for and doesn't want."
"If previous aircraft this complex are considered, it will be completed in 2035 at $30M a pop."
"Oh, and they do everything they are saying with an airframe that looks to be, at most, 1/3 the weight of an F-35. I guess it runs on hot air, because there is certainly no room for fuel."
"Guess you are not an engineer. The most advanced aircraft in the world, the F-35B, can take off vertically, but it carries only a small load and can only fly a couple of hundred miles. That is why F-35B's always have a short runway take off so that they can carry fuel and weapons.
But these folks are so much smarter. They use exactly the same technology (engines, aerodynamics, etc) but can fly 5 time further with a useful load. It's absurd. Only someone with too much money and not enough brains would find that credible. "
"Let’s do the math, shall we? The Valkyrie weighs 5000lbs and has an engine that generates about 4000 lbs of thrust. It requires rocket boosters for TO. It carries about 3000 lbs of fuel and has a range of about 1500 miles. It is very aerodynamic and cruises at a speed of about 500 kts. That means it burns fuel at an extremely efficient rate of 1000 lbs/hr.
The vehicle in the article weighs about 30,000 lbs and uses an F100 engine which generates 33,000 lbs of thrust in full afterburner. It likely carries about 10,000 lbs of fuel with a full combat load. To push a vehicle of this size through the air a F100 will burn fuel at a rate of about 5000 lbs per hour. The vehicle is not shaped for high speed so let’s say it has an efficient cruising speed of 350 kts.
You will burn 2000 lbs of fuel just getting this beast airborne. If you don’t believe me just find out the fuel burn rate of an F100 in full afterburner. That leaves 8000 lbs of fuel for the mission. At 5000 lbs per hr burn rate you have just over 1.5 hrs of flying time at 350 kts.
So your mission range is about 275 nautical miles, assuming you want to get back home.
So, yes, they have suspended the laws of physics and they have sucked you in because you want to believe you can get something for nothing. But, please, if you think I am wrong invest all your money in them."
Last edited:
The concept of a high-end vertical takeoff and landing (VTOL) drone is excellent, and I believe it offers unique advantages in actual combat. However, I consider achieving the claimed technical specifications extremely challenging. A tail-less design, vertical takeoff capability, stealth technology, ultra-long range, and unmanned combat operations—this is not a project that can be realized in the short term. Furthermore, while I find VTOL drones impressive, they face significant disadvantages in both performance and cost when compared to high-end supersonic drones launched from mainland China.