tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post4387338730749230504..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: 5 Years or You Didn't Know What You WantedComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger99125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47360010172774001322016-03-16T18:36:02.163-07:002016-03-16T18:36:02.163-07:00Hows this:
Computing power and radar strength are ...Hows this:<br />Computing power and radar strength are a generation ahead. The ability to target and queue multiple targets concurrently, gives the F-35 abilities its predecessors simply dont have.<br />The helmet with the Augmented reality, superimposing terrain/targets (essentially allowing pilot to see through his craft) and AA and ATG missiles that can shoot in a 180 degree (or greater) ark, again, leap the aircraft a generation forward.<br /><br />It may not fly as well, or turn as fast, but, it is a generation ahead of the aircraft you sighted as possible competitors.<br /><br />My 2 cents. If stealth works, and, its supposed to fly as part of an air supremacy platform, BVR and target queuing provided by awacs platforms, etc, its not a piece of ####. Its just being made by lock-mart, so, its going to take another decade to make all these goodies work properly.<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-2145681926851176202016-03-15T17:42:54.531-07:002016-03-15T17:42:54.531-07:00None of us have any idea about actual aircraft per...None of us have any idea about actual aircraft performance and certainly less so about Russian aircraft. All we can do is look at isolated specs like payload, fuel, g-limits, acceleration, etc. and make guesses. Take a look at the public specs and see how you think they compare. Let me know what you conclude.<br /><br />Approach it without bias. The F-35 is not without capabilities despite what some critics would have us believe. It compares badly to its projected enemies and is ill-suited to its role (whatever that is) but in your scenario of negated stealth, it is not without useful characteristics.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-47232262800649314842016-03-15T16:45:49.575-07:002016-03-15T16:45:49.575-07:00You persumed correctly. Take away the stealth from...You persumed correctly. Take away the stealth from the f35, then compare it to the f18 or a su33. Dose it still even compete?Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-24812353103761196702016-03-15T09:17:41.066-07:002016-03-15T09:17:41.066-07:00Presumably, you're asking what happens to all ...Presumably, you're asking what happens to all aircraft, friendly and enemy, if stealth becomes less effective. Stealth never provided invisibility. Stealth just made radar detection harder. If that advantage is negated, then all aircraft become more detectable. When that happens, A2A combat becomes a more long range affair. Aircraft will be detected and engaged at longer ranges. <br /><br />The F-35 has electro-optical (EOTS), EW, and IR sensors as well as radar to help it target enemies and detect/avoid incoming missiles.<br /><br />Of course, this assumes that the technology works as advertised which, so far, it hasn't. The sensor fusion and helmet display has been problematic, to say the least.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-23559288253865269112016-03-15T06:51:25.462-07:002016-03-15T06:51:25.462-07:00Let me ask a question thats been nagging me; what ...Let me ask a question thats been nagging me; what happens when the f35's stealth advantage gets degraded or worse, negated by let say some innovation in radar? What will be its effectiveness then or justification for the price for development and procurement? (The f22 at least had performance as a fail safe.)Andrew S.noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62879025720630633702016-03-14T09:07:42.405-07:002016-03-14T09:07:42.405-07:00Jim, if you want to understand Boyd and his missio...Jim, if you want to understand Boyd and his mission and philosophy, read the book "Boyd". Well worth it.<br /><br />In short, his belief was that you completely optimized for the mission. In other words, single function rather than multi-mission. Sound familiar? That's one of my recurring themes. His chosen mission was air to air. Therefore, he assembled every piece of data that existed related to A2A combat and, from that, came up with the ultimate A2A aircraft for his time. Not a single pound of machinery went on his aircraft design that didn't directly and most efficiently contribute to the A2A goal. Thus, an adaptive engine whose main benefit lies in the non-combat portion of the flight profile would be rejected. It would add weight and complexity without contributing to the A2A. And so on.<br /><br />Boyd would be horrified by the F-35 - a combination A2A, A2G, strike, EW, ISR, deep penetrating, network node, amalgamation of features that don't perform any of the missions well and costs a fortune doing it.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-26620580686674695172016-03-14T08:31:24.499-07:002016-03-14T08:31:24.499-07:00Okay. I think that I'll bow out. I don't u...Okay. I think that I'll bow out. I don't understand enough of his theory, or what he understood his mission to be, to intelligently comment on how it would fit into our current strategic environment. <br /><br />As to what my understanding is of our mission, my viewpoint is entirely from the late cold war air/land battle mission. I thought our High/Lo mix worked well for that type of environment, but again, more reading is required. <br /><br />I did see this (maybe worth a post, CNO?) of a bit of rationality out there?<br /><br />http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/ov-10-broncos-were-sent-to-fight-isis-and-they-kicked-a-1764407068<br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-3109671042944833742016-03-13T15:36:48.294-07:002016-03-13T15:36:48.294-07:00Smart people always do!Smart people always do!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42538063430633312922016-03-13T14:54:18.544-07:002016-03-13T14:54:18.544-07:00COMNAVOPS
Turns out the higher ups are coming aro...COMNAVOPS<br /><br />Turns out the higher ups are coming around to your way of thinking.<br /><br />This:<br />http://www.combataircraft.net/view_article.asp?ID=9498&pubID=49&t=0&s=0&sO=both&p=1&i=10<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-50568600370379510362016-03-11T15:52:22.698-08:002016-03-11T15:52:22.698-08:00Jim, I don't think that you quite understand w...Jim, I don't think that you quite understand what I am saying.<br /><br />An adaptive engine is totally counterproductive for the type of aircraft.<br /><br />I don't think the Boyd team was against better technology. They would just use more advanced technology differently. <br /><br />Things like higher inlet temperatures would lead to a better turbojet. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-70331658394402727832016-03-11T07:47:57.212-08:002016-03-11T07:47:57.212-08:00"I suppose this is one place where we'd h..."I suppose this is one place where we'd have to part ways."<br /><br />It's not about you and Boyd parting ways. It's about understanding what his "mission" was. He wanted to create the ultimate, pure, CHEAPEST, air to air combat fighter possible. An adaptive engine would decrease readiness (more complex means more maintenance and more mechanical failures) and increase cost. Further, once combat starts, the adaptive engine would offer no benefit. It's benefits come only in certain portions of a flight and combat is not one of those. The added weight, however, would decrease the aircraft's performance.<br /><br />So, where you're parting ways is in determining what your "mission" is. Boyd knew exactly what his "mission" was. You, apparently, have a somewhat different mission in mind.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-33221939899587966222016-03-11T06:59:13.517-08:002016-03-11T06:59:13.517-08:00I'll throw the giant caveat of 'If they ca...I'll throw the giant caveat of 'If they can get it working'. <br /><br />I'm not talking an F-35 like 'lets put this baby in cuz it would be SWEET! We'll develop it while we design an airplane around it!'. <br /><br />I'm saying if the companies R&D shops can get it to a point where its reliable enough to justify putting in an aircraft. JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-54219716295695322982016-03-11T06:57:24.257-08:002016-03-11T06:57:24.257-08:00"I'm a big believer of single role aircra..."I'm a big believer of single role aircraft. "<br /><br />Agree. <br /><br />A&M: "Adaptive engine is counterproductive to the type of aircraft they are proposing."<br /><br />CNO" Just guessing but an adaptive engine would probably be the last thing Boyd would want. It would add weight and complexity - two things Boyd was death on."<br /><br />I suppose this is one place where we'd have to part ways. <br /><br />Engine technology is HUGE in aircraft. If they can get the adaptive engines working there is no reason not to go to them, IMHO given the increases in efficiency that could be gained. <br /><br />Piston engines were infinitely more reliable than turbojets early on and for awhile. It didn't mean that they weren't the future. <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-56576700702547866772016-03-11T06:53:13.801-08:002016-03-11T06:53:13.801-08:00"While 12% of the workforce went into the arm..."While 12% of the workforce went into the armed forces, Women were never integrated into the workforce, not like they were in England and America. That alone was a huge detriment to the German war effort/economy. "<br /><br />I wonder if their whacked out race theories and hideous slave labor practices made them think they could fudge the numbers. <br /><br />JFWhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16095723023404412328noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42375133410391516592016-03-10T21:52:58.721-08:002016-03-10T21:52:58.721-08:00Yep,
Reliability, cost, manufacturing bottlenecks...Yep, <br />Reliability, cost, manufacturing bottlenecks, Krauts should've stuck to Pz IV's. Easy to produce in mass numbers, good enough gun, quick enough, easy to maintain. All the things that made the t-34 and Sherman success's. <br />Above story was endemic to German engineering efforts in the war. Ballistic missiles, that couldn't carry a very effective warhead or guidance, so far ahead of their time as to be useless in war. Jet fighters ready to fly in 1942, pulled down to become bombers instead. The above 2 programs alone could've sunk the German war effort. <br />Stories innumerable like those. <br />The real reason, well, not one real reason, many, but, Germany never went on a war footing.<br />While 12% of the workforce went into the armed forces, Women were never integrated into the workforce, not like they were in England and America. That alone was a huge detriment to the German war effort/economy. Never mind not driving the huge social changes for Women suffrage enjoyed by their British and Yank counterparts. <br /><br />But the tech they produced sure was handy for the cold war adversaries. <br /><br />Vernan Von Braun :<br />“Mr President, our Germans are better than their Germans” <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7129003721228102162016-03-10T21:40:45.213-08:002016-03-10T21:40:45.213-08:00The classic Jack of all trades, master of none pro...The classic Jack of all trades, master of none problem. <br /><br />I'm a big believer of single role aircraft. <br /><br />As far as the engines go, as I indicated, a turbojet would be the way to go for a supercruise aircraft that spends most of its time at supersonic speeds. <br /><br />Adaptive engine is counterproductive to the type of aircraft they are proposing. AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12947589439640350292016-03-10T20:37:33.339-08:002016-03-10T20:37:33.339-08:00@ Jim
Although they could be lethal when they wor...@ Jim<br /><br />Although they could be lethal when they worked, German Tiger tanks were unreliable. More had to be blown up by their own crews in many cases than destroyed in actual combat (due to fuel shortages). Yes, the Tiger tanks did have frequent transmission failures. <br /><br />Although there is no record of a Tiger 2 ever having its front armor breached in WWII, it was still far from invulnerable. <br /><br />The Panther too suffered from reliability problems. <br /><br />It's also important to remember that the Tiger was a very expensive tank too so the opportunity cost argument comes in. <br /><br />AltandMainhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01014823246265859953noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-11117013945961749212016-03-10T15:32:23.268-08:002016-03-10T15:32:23.268-08:00Liberty ships were being built at a rate of one ev...Liberty ships were being built at a rate of one every 3 days, 8000 ton cargo ships, made largely of concrete, good for 2-3 crossings of the Atlantic (which is the other, separate huge war america was fighting concurrently). US industrial base, combined with UK industrial base was 70% of worlds production output at the outbreak of war. <br /><br />Yamamatto spent a lot of time in the US. He saw the behemoth, and knew what it meant for his country. <br />ZTEV, your nitpicking the numbers is irrelevant, my point stands, the technological difference was astronomical. Germany started WW2 with 7 million horses, and by wars end 95% of German munitions had been hauled into position by horse. The US didn't bring one to Europe. The 25,000 Deuce and a half's that the Russians built/received as lend lease were still the primary movers in the Soviet economy into the 60's. Some still operating at cold wars end.<br />The naval equivalent was happening to Japan in the Pacific.<br />Japanese were brilliant, and fought well and truly above their weight class. But never stood a chance. <br />The ability to produce so many hulls so quickly, meant every other nation was irrelevant. The technology gap was equivalent to being half a century ahead. <br /><br /> Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-31508691513576298012016-03-10T15:21:39.775-08:002016-03-10T15:21:39.775-08:00Ztev.
Nothing to show for it.
New tech being ret...Ztev. <br />Nothing to show for it. <br />New tech being ret-conned into older models, you can't use that as a bench mark for successful development. AESA radars being shoehorned into F-16/18/15's are developments of the F22/35, but you dont count that as a success for those aircrafts developments. If you were going down that path, you'd call IAI's Levi a successful program (3 operational flying craft, 2 more part finished), as it gave Israeli tech firms a huge boost in terms of developed technologies etc that went into their aerospace industries.<br /><br />When i say nothing to show for it, i mean, PAK is no where near flight ready. You tell me, form current status how close they are to being production ready. Sure, the ancillary technologies that you devolve into your legacy fleet is nice (examples, off bore sight missiles, helmets with integrated VR to let you shoot at any angle while looking 'through' your feet, etc etc etc) but the developed craft isn't going anywhere fast.<br /><br />PAK is now 14 years into its development cycle, with huge Indian cash injections to keep it running.<br />TAJAS is close to 40 years in development, and, no where near production ready (doubt that craft will ever be).<br />It could just be that these things are very hard to make these days.<br />Or, without conflict/existential threat, we're just too complacent and not very good at finishing what we started. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03052381474961878621noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-76853851527980728922016-03-10T09:38:47.268-08:002016-03-10T09:38:47.268-08:00Also, please note that NTE is not a new type of co...Also, please note that NTE is not a new type of contract. It's a standard contract used in industry. I've both issued and worked under such contracts many times.<br /><br />It may be new to DoD but so is responsible program management!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-22437431334631794512016-03-10T09:36:08.568-08:002016-03-10T09:36:08.568-08:00The point of an NTE contract is to break a major p...The point of an NTE contract is to break a major program (typically and R&D one) into bite size chunks that are affordable and have cost limits. If we can achieve that with existing DoD contract types then I'm all for it. However, I've seen zero evidence of that, hence, my call for an NTE contract that forces that behavior. <br /><br />Honestly, there's not really anything to disagree with. <br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-42521151024019254182016-03-10T08:55:12.363-08:002016-03-10T08:55:12.363-08:00The bigger Boyd picture here is understand what ma...The bigger Boyd picture here is understand what makes a great aircraft. Boyd himself was focused on Fighters true, but Sprey using a rigorous requirements analysis process, and SOME of Boyd's EM work, produced the A-10 the best CAS A/C ever.<br /><br />Probably the biggest overall Boyd lesson is that mixing missions produces sub-optimal A/C FOR ALL missions.<br /><br />So applying Boyd in this context - Get the best Strike flyers in a room and figure out what makes a GREAT Strike aircraft, then focus and build ONLY that A/C.<br /><br />Only since the 1960s (thanks McNamara) have we started trying to make one item to do EVERYTHING. Because we haven't been in a Peer War we haven't seen that it will NOT do all missions well enough.<br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-51100397660085231792016-03-10T08:47:10.975-08:002016-03-10T08:47:10.975-08:00That we need an NTE type of contract.That we need an NTE type of contract.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-63599861270271954292016-03-10T08:30:54.456-08:002016-03-10T08:30:54.456-08:00Just guessing but an adaptive engine would probabl...Just guessing but an adaptive engine would probably be the last thing Boyd would want. It would add weight and complexity - two things Boyd was death on.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-86591171638954477052016-03-10T08:28:57.409-08:002016-03-10T08:28:57.409-08:00I agree with everything you said. So, what am I w...I agree with everything you said. So, what am I wrong about?ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.com