|
obvert -> RE: OT: Fear of F-35 rewrites Iranian defense forces (7/25/2019 7:37:22 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Chickenboy
quote:
ORIGINAL: Macclan5
I am uncertain if the love / hate / extreme differences in views on certain military systems or weapons is politically motivated or not ?
Using my most balanced tone:
1) Never assume that other nations weapons or systems work when NATO / American systems are noted to have flaws, gaps, or require potential improvements.
Since the 1940's
2) They very lessons of this game are forgotten. The Japanese Zero was a superior dog fighting aircraft with a better climb rate and turning radius than every American fighter through 1945. It had its own gaps which in the end doomed it; including progressive thinking in tactics to take advantage of its gaps.
2) Growing up as a young man 1970/80's - I was assured by many knowledgeable sources reporting the USSR had superior missile tech to NATO. They could plant an ICBM in Yankee stadium if fired at home base. Subsequent proofs over the years have demonstrated this to be false; Soviet missiles were as likely to hit Moscow as New York. This was recently displayed once more during the fight verses ISIS where Russian Cruise Missiles launched against anti Governmental Syrian forces (pro American) failed spectacularly.
I need not mention the Russian Aircraft carrier issues demonstrated.
3) The history of the F18 Hornet / Super Hornet is enlighting. Too big, too slow, to many design issues in 1979 .... and up until very recently it commanded air superiority in any and every theater it was engaged.
The lessons are:
* No systems / weapons are perfect as launched by any nation. We are perhaps more aware of Nato/American gaps because of Freedom of the Press.
* It takes sustained investment in development / improvement and tactics to project force far from the home front
* While many Nations have "good" weapons or systems on an individual basis - unless sustained investment to project that force exists (as above) they are only good for the home front / defense
* While many Nations have large military systems - they lack the sustained logistics to support any action far from the home front compared to America and her Nato Allies - to this day.
* If one uses a reasonable proxy to compare Nations ability to afford sustained investment - i.e. GDP per capita - one would see despite growth or size of economies America and her Nato Allies are the only Nations that can sustain such investment.
This may be even more true of the future where "demographics" suggest significant challenges for China / Russia ...but NOT for India / Turkey
Good post, Macclan5. Well thought out. [8D]
Yes. Reading a book right now called "Grunt" by Mary Roach. It's all about innovations and the process of protecting and maintaining the soldier in the field. A lot of examples of systems adapted to unexpected circumstances. She's a very funny writer, and it's an easy read.
When it comes down to it the future of the manned fighter is a bit irrelevant. Drones will take every role in the air war soon enough, much sooner than the lifetime of the F-35 or other current airframes. Drones are cheaper, smaller, can be made to fit any combat role and don't need to be made to fit every role. The F-35 Is also already being thought of as a QB of the flight "team" including manned and unmanned aircraft in a battle zone.
When entering enemy airspace filled with counter-air systems, the Valkyrie could conceivably soak up enemy fire or even attack enemy positions and aircraft.
The F-35 has been touted by the Air Force chief of staff as the “quarterback of the joint team," and not simply another stealth aircraft. The fifth-generation fighter is expected to come with a suite of information fusion capabilities, enabling its pilot to process information and coordinate on the battlefield like never before.
https://www.airforcetimes.com/news/your-air-force/2019/03/08/air-force-offers-glimpse-of-new-stealthy-combat-drone-during-first-flight/
https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/defense/2019-06-13/loyal-wingman-part-future-air-combat
Miniturization is the future of combat systems. Imagine about 200 small, stealthy interceptor drones flying mach 1 heading up to meet 20-30 of any nations best fighters. You won't have enough ordnance to even hit all of them and the lot would be cheaper than 5 of the fighters they're shooting down. The smaller they are the more difficult it will be to find and hit them.
|
|
|
|
