The US Air Force will still be the second most powerful, so it won't be irrelevant.
But that is more a reflection of how everyone else (except for China) has far smaller ambitions and resources
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
The US Air Force will still be the second most powerful, so it won't be irrelevant.
But that is more a reflection of how everyone else (except for China) has far smaller ambitions and resources
You could be right, but I don't have much hope for their future given their recent behavior towards production, current government stupidity, likely hood of continued domestic political problems and further industrial erosion.
Well, think about who the 3rd most powerful Air Force would be?
1. Russia is barely buying any 5th gen aircraft. And I expect the same will apply to 6th gens.
2. In terms of GCAP, it's about 100 each for the UK, Japan and Italy. And it's debateable whether GCAP is actually 6th gen
3. I suspect France and Germany are also looking at 100 each for FCAS
4. India isn't worth mentioning
So you can see the US and China will be far above anyone else.
Last edited:
How can Iran have wedge-wing glider missiles like China and North Korea (likely supplied or assisted by China) when the US has not put one into service. It makes me doubt Iran's Fattah 2 which is their only non MaRV or bi-conical "glider".
Bi-conical gliders are relatively abundant and appear to be a low tech branch. Iran has several, North Korea iirc has a few and China has more than I care to count. The US has a history of this development since Pershing II but the glide capability through the generations vary. The US' LRHW and "Common Hypersonic Glide Body" bi-conical types to me represent the peak of bi-conical gliders.
Okay that's biconicals, so many have them and have had them for so long. Winged and "wedge" gliders are exclusive as they come, literally only China and North Korea and known to have these in service along with this Fattah 2. North Korea's appear to be supplied or created with Chinese assistance. North Korea having complete in house capability in a field that the US hasn't completed to their satisfaction? Either the US just has much higher standards or the cost is prohibitive, or more likely, North Korea got lots of these from China. China has had several public programs for gliders usually handled by universities. The military only showed DF-17 and YJ-17 as military service gliders but the PLA is likely to have many more that they haven't shown to the public. This technology appears to be something China mastered back in the 2010s for gliders to proliferate so much within both the PLA and public space.
Fattah 2 is in an elite club then. If we attribute NK's three distinct gliders to China, then Iran is the only other nation to have shown a glider. I find it exceedingly hard to believe Iran's tech in this space is beyond the US. The US has expressed interest in fielding gliders. So cost isn't quite a barrier since they will field glider/s even as a token gesture and piece of kit. Maybe they are aiming far higher than Iran's Fattah 2? We'll have some more ability to judge this when US eventually put their glider into service and show it. I suspect they are aiming for the highest tier performance whereas Fattah 2 represents a lower tier effort but one that Iran is able to achieve.
Iran has a % of a small fraction of US MIC funding. Iran has nothing that compares to US MIC experience, industry, academic and technology access. The US basically has access to more or less the best in the world even if there's a field they do not have a lead in they could approach an ally that does. Only where it comes to China holding the lead, that may be a subset of component they can't match China in.
So how could this statement be made in good faith - "The US does not have hypersonic missiles with highly manueverable self-propelled propelled glide warheads like Iran has."
This is like saying US does not have shahed style suicide drones that Iran has. Okay the US sort of has these and certainly had higher capability equivalents well before Iran created the Shahed.
-Subsonic cruise missile which even if LO imo has extremely low odds of penetration even In salvo against a country with extensive, well networked AEW/elevated sensing like China. Also apparently won't be integrated with B-21 (B-52 only) for who knows how long.
-Sure I guess, but similarly poor ability to directly penetrate airspace & deliver nuclear ordnance against advanced opponent.
-Gravity bombs requiring ability to reach/directly overfly target delivered by the above.
-Okay. But RCS the size of a mountain and therefore difficult to even deliver LRSO before being shot down.
-Not really relevant with the W88 being an excellent warhead already, but I guess needed for smaller weight/size to maintain similar warhead count on SSBN force (uploading each SLBM without severe range penalty) due to 24->16 tubes per Columbia & fewer boats planned.
-D5LE using existing missiles hardly qualifies as a modernization more than routine maintenance imo, & D5LE2 also who knows how far off.
-Meaningless unsurvivable subsonic munition that also who knows when will progress past vapourware.
-Well, yeah, it better, there are barely enough MM3s for test flights anymore. But even once installed is imo a very mediocre ICBM at best, not much more than a modernized MM3 with still low throw weights.
Russia is building a dozen Su-57 a year.
Production will likely double once the Su-57M is in full production. And then you will have the twin seater and Su-75.
Western analysts also said the Fattah 1 was non funcional. Now we have a video of one hitting a power plant at Haifa in Israel.
The US does not even have a MaRV in service.
History of an ancient advanced lost Americana civilization.
More like peak vaporware.
It is the difference between talking smack and actually working on missile technology unceasingly for decades.
And yet they are relying on tech bros. The US MIC is ossified.
Because it is true. All the US has right now is non funcional prototypes and Powerpoint slide presentations. Or maybe a Pershing 2 in a museum somewhere.
The problem with the US was that its rigid military-industrial complex charge so expensive that every project inevitably went over budget.
Since the US military have to pay such high prices, it naturally overlooks the Pershing III project focuses on "disruptive" high-end project, such as HALO and HACM. Like the Zumwalt, Constellation, and so on, all plans were distorted because the Pentagon felt, “we've spent so much money on this, it shouldn't just have these limited capabilities.”
Look at how arrogant they were back then; CSIS report downplayed biconical vehicles as MARVs, or some pro-HACM dude called waverider glider (DF-17) "not a hypersonic." But how can you understand these things if you can't make a real bi-conical?
As the U.S. military sees one unrealistic project after another fail, while they genuinely need a usable hypersonic weapon, all this “disruptive” research offers little actual benefit to the Pershing III (C-HGB). Everything must start over again.
AND OVER BUDGET, AGAIN. Because LRHW has still been distorted.
Since the US military have to pay such high prices, it naturally overlooks the Pershing III project focuses on "disruptive" high-end project, such as HALO and HACM. Like the Zumwalt, Constellation, and so on, all plans were distorted because the Pentagon felt, “we've spent so much money on this, it shouldn't just have these limited capabilities.”
Look at how arrogant they were back then; CSIS report downplayed biconical vehicles as MARVs, or some pro-HACM dude called waverider glider (DF-17) "not a hypersonic." But how can you understand these things if you can't make a real bi-conical?
As the U.S. military sees one unrealistic project after another fail, while they genuinely need a usable hypersonic weapon, all this “disruptive” research offers little actual benefit to the Pershing III (C-HGB). Everything must start over again.
AND OVER BUDGET, AGAIN. Because LRHW has still been distorted.
Last edited:
I doubt production of the Su-57 will double, given the situation Russia faces and how there are no export customers. Plus it's debatable whether it is stealthy enough to be considered 5th gen.
Let's see what happens with the Su-75, but I expect it will suffer the same fate as the Su-57.
---
But let's suppose you're correct.
Russia is still nowhere near China or the US.
Here we go again......
It’s Australia and I’m not even trolling.