tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post3012598392350902650..comments2024-03-28T07:56:09.239-07:00Comments on Navy Matters: Missile EscortComNavOpshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comBlogger105125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-40008400690104094952023-09-27T06:52:07.025-07:002023-09-27T06:52:07.025-07:00"Europe cannot defeat Russia unilaterally.&qu..."Europe cannot defeat Russia unilaterally."<br /><br />Ukraine has proven that to be a false statement!ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-30438813750535654732023-09-27T06:37:54.188-07:002023-09-27T06:37:54.188-07:00"Who in Europe can stop Russia?"
Appare..."Who in Europe can stop Russia?"<br /><br />Apparently, Ukraine can. A country with a population of 35 million has stopped a country with a population of 150 million.<br /><br />I see no reason why numerous other countries couldn't do the same and no reason why a united Europe couldn't easily defeat Russia.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-6127343805956411482021-04-18T04:25:17.991-07:002021-04-18T04:25:17.991-07:00Nevermind, disregard that. I somehow instantly tho...Nevermind, disregard that. I somehow instantly thought of the LRASM when somebody mention JASSM. Although it is often said that the LRASM is a JASSM-ER with a new seeker, so who knows? The same logic may apply! :) lpnam9114https://www.blogger.com/profile/11976981950593478526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-10827149945714322352021-04-17T19:19:33.947-07:002021-04-17T19:19:33.947-07:00https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/07/21/Lockhe...https://www.upi.com/Defense-News/2016/07/21/Lockheed-demonstrates-LRASMs-surface-launch-capability/3651469110002/<br /><br />They did it 3 times as a demonstration (with little cost increases) so I believe it could work. They are also competing in the OASuW Increment 2 (And won OASuW Increment 1) against the NSM so the Navy is pursuing this option. Although the timeline is not exactly exciting, they are aiming for Initial Operational Capability in FY28-30. That's really way too long for a critical capability.lpnam9114https://www.blogger.com/profile/11976981950593478526noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68845038726873377322021-04-17T12:14:40.010-07:002021-04-17T12:14:40.010-07:00Coming in late but a few points I’d like to make. ...Coming in late but a few points I’d like to make. <br /><br />Europe cannot defeat Russia unilaterally. <br />If we ignore the complete imbalance between the russian armed forces state of readiness to that of all European nations,<br />At the outbreak of hostilities, Russia would simply turn of the gas and oil pipelines to Europe causing an energy crisis in the euro block. Then by airbursting munitions among the European wind farms and solar farms, Russia would bring Europe’s war economy to a screaming halt. <br />From there Russia’s 14,000 tanks and their dismounted infantry under Russia’s 4,200 strong airforce air cover would simply walk into Germany, Poland and beyond. <br />The uk and French nuclear deterrent will not be enough to make a stand against Russia alone. <br /><br />As for China, any operations in the SCS will come later in the war. China has built an asymmetrical missile defence system coupled with enough air and naval power that will prevent any large scale assaults on China from the SCS. There will be no attack on China from here at the outbreak of hostilities. There will most certainly be no amphibious adults throwing marines ashore from LHDs and LPDs either. At best containment of China from breaking out into the greater Pacific and Indian Ocean will be the primary role for the USN and her allies. <br /><br />Amphibious operations will happen in the Bay of Bengal and the western beaches of south east Asia and a ground campaign of taking and consolidating ground will ensure but to do this first the bases on Sri Lanka and coastal Myanmar will need to be neutralised. <br /><br />On the topic of further development of technological aircraft and stealth, the west is currently repeating the mistakes made by Nazi Germany. Nazi germany went to war commuting vast precious resources to developing wonder weapons such as the jet fighter and the v2. <br />Day and night the allies bombed Germany and its war infrastructure into the ground with lancasters and fortresses, and Germany did not have a long range bomber to do the same to the allies. The results of this was that Germany could not sustain and supply its war effort which bought about her demise. <br />What the west is doing today is akin to the same. <br />We are so focussed on developing stealth weapons and platforms that have huge unsustainable operating costs, that we are then penny pinching on the proven weapons and platforms we have today that more than bring a match to any enemy. I’m not saying we shouldn’t innovate but that innovation should not come at the expense of maintaining current strength. <br /><br />The f22 is a marvel of an aircraft that they say has a cross section signature of a small bird but that small bird will be flying at 700 miles an hour. Do we really think that a sophisticated radar installation will not flag that anomaly to it’s operator? <br />Like stealth ships. You do know a ship is in broad daylight for 14 hrs a day. If one was to go on planet labs website you could look to the SCS and clearly make out both the American and Chinese fleets operating in the area. By knowing the ships specs (eg flank speed), and by measuring the wake to ferret in speed at the time of the photo, one could overlay a grid over the photo (say the ship has a top speed of 30knts), one could make each square 30nmls, and you could then determine where that ship would be over the time elapsed from when the photo was taken. If you had air and sea assets in range, you could send out 2-4 assets to search that block and destroy the ship. No amount of stealth architecture can prevent this. You can’t hide a ship from the sun and the satellites above. We are likely pouring billions of dollars into a gavel project when we should be focusing on further hardening our existing platforms and improving the lethality of our current weapons systems. Samhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11439396807312331801noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-15679410912874949432021-04-16T13:29:42.618-07:002021-04-16T13:29:42.618-07:00"VL-JASSM-XR"
The wings fold, so that&#..."VL-JASSM-XR"<br /><br />The wings fold, so that's okay. Someone would probably have to figure out how to fold/package that tail for VLS cell fit. Assuming that could be worked out, I'm all in favor of the cheapest weapon that effectively meets the mission requirements. If that's the JASSM-XR, that's fine.<br /><br />It concerns me that I've never heard a word about a vertical launch JASSM. That suggests that there's some good reason why it can't be done (the tail?) but it's certainly worth someone's time to look into the option.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-39211596096268561052021-04-16T12:37:40.006-07:002021-04-16T12:37:40.006-07:00Agreed about the LRASM cost and the retirement/cos...Agreed about the LRASM cost and the retirement/cost of the -129, but what are your thoughts on a naval VL-JASSM-XR?<br /><br />At only 1.5 million (say $2M for a canister with booster) they seem like an improvement over tomahawk's low survivability. I would pair them with penetration aids that resemble your saturation missile concept, but for very long range strikes the cost of a minimal platform to deliver a payload is already high enough (nominal tomahawk at $1M) to justify some investment in survivability - the question is at what point that investment becomes pointless "gold plating". It's hard to put numbers on it, but if we can cut missile attrition in half (or better) with a missile that costs twice as much, we're breaking even financially and able to deliver comparable strikes with less VLS cells - or we can spend the money and get more strike power period.<br /><br />For shorter range engagements and assault type scenarios I definitely agree on the preference for "dumb" munitions with very good cost ratios, but for standoff-range strategic strikes into heavily defended IADS zones I just don't think you can effectively deliver those types of weapons.Darth Anubishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007164480607753952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-68420854201479002352021-04-16T11:39:47.888-07:002021-04-16T11:39:47.888-07:00" if we went all-in on making this our main s..." if we went all-in on making this our main strike cruise missile and bought thousands, we could probably get them for $4M each in today's dollars"<br /><br />What we lack is a cheap, decent strike missile that can be procured and expended in very large quantities. Once upon a time, large caliber naval shells filled that need but the Navy has abandoned cheap firepower. <br /><br />Expensive, highly capable missiles certainly have their place but, at $4M a pop, we can't afford the quantities needed to fight a peer war. Worse, the build time is far too long to replenish them in a useful time frame. We need to be able to produce thousands per week, not hundreds per year … or, we need the aforementioned simple, cheap missile.<br /><br />A simple, cheap missile would be only moderately stealthy (shape only, no coatings), have a simplistic guidance mode, would not be all that accurate, and we would expect that the enemy would shoot them down in some numbers. The missiles would be the saturation missile. Each individual missile might be only moderately effective and survivable but, like a massive naval bombardment, the total effect would be decisive.<br /><br />Can we build such a missile? Certainly not if we gold plate it like we always do but if we identify the MINIMUM requirements and stick to them fanatically, maybe we could.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-7763697616955324152021-04-16T11:37:12.878-07:002021-04-16T11:37:12.878-07:00"AGM-129". The Advanced cruise missile m..."AGM-129". The Advanced cruise missile may make a good inspiration, but the platform itself is dead. Except for museum pieces (almost all carry and maintenance trainers) the last one was shredded at Hill almost 10 years ago. I worked on them in the early aughts. The -129 was also very weirdly shaped. it had an oval cross-section, and a 'beaver-tailed exhaust annulus tail-cone meant to help hide the exhaust from infrared detectors aimed from 6 o'clock High. No way you could have conveniently added a booster to push it out a VLS.<br /><br /> The stealth coating were developed during the early 80s, and never saw the upgrades the B-2 did. It was a massive maintenance hog. the AGM-86 fleet was (is) 5 times bigger, and both missiels broke even on maintenance time and money, inspite using the same engines, fuels, and warheads. <br /><br />AGM-86 got a conventional variant conversion for the older missiles, 129 never did. the juice wasn't considered worth the squeeze, not even for a super-long ranged stealth strike missile that made the JASSM-ER look like a slow whistling bottle rocket. AGM-129 was never internally carried inside the B-52, because the shape was just to weird to stick on a rotary launcher in the bomb-bay. <br /><br />That being said; a similiar weapon with similiar parameters would be a great idea. THere is nothing wrong with reinventing the wheel if you scrapped the wheel over a year ago, and have nothing left like it. THe transfomationalist want hypervelocity SCRAMjet telephones from God. A reimagined AGM-129 would do the job for much cheaper. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-55349979284667821672021-04-16T10:57:20.348-07:002021-04-16T10:57:20.348-07:00I looked through the comment section expecting sev...I looked through the comment section expecting several more mentions of the AGM-129 and the general need for a tomahawk replacement. To be clear, we have a bunch of tomahawks and I like CNOps' tactics for using them. <br /><br />That said, a redeveloped AGM-129 designed to fit strike length VLS - alongside some long-range penetration aids and an air-launched variant that is identical save for the booster - could go a long way to eliminating the need to escort our cruise missiles into the enemy IADS zone. This would free up NavAir for a greater focus on fleet defense and sea control, while primarily launching cruise missiles from SSGNs, VPMs, and bombers will allow the CG/DDGs to focus on AAW/ASuW/ASW fleet defense. As you noted, submarines can still perform ASW/ASuW with their torpedoes after launching cruise missiles, so they're going to be a preferred launch platform regardless of what missiles we acquire.<br /><br />The one issue with the AGM-129 - particularly as a primary strike platform - of course is the cost per unit. A big part of the ~$4M (1990 USD, 8M in 2020 USD) unit cost was the truncated buy, plus stealth coating and high-efficiency turbofan technologies have matured somewhat and we can aim for a ~1000 mi range rather than 2000, but the W80 warhead weighs less than a tomahawk's at only 290 lbs so a lot of that range loss is going to come from putting in a bigger warhead rather than reduced size/cost. Realistically, if we went all-in on making this our main strike cruise missile and bought thousands, we could probably get them for $4M each in today's dollars, the same as the LRASM... wait, this is starting to sound a lot like the LRASM:<br /><br />- Stealthy<br />- Conventional 1000 lb warhead<br />- 1000 mi range*<br />- Fits Mk41 VLS<br />- Also Air Launched<br />- Large block buy<br />- ~$4 Million a pop<br /><br />One problem - the 1000 mi range version is hypothetical and would have a lighter warhead, the actual LRASM has 300 mi range. It's probably designed pretty close to optimally so we can't get a better missile out of Mk41 VLS cells - we've got to choose between payload and range.<br /><br />Enter, the JASSM-XR: <br /><br />- Stealthy<br />- 2000 lb payload / 1000 mi range variant<br />- 1000 lb / 2000 mi variant<br />- Fits Strike length Mk41 VLS (~7 m with tomahawk-size booster, just barely - see next link)<br />- Also Air Launched<br />- Large block buy<br />- $1.5 Million a pop<br /><br />size estimate from relevant blog discussion with sources: https://www.secretprojects.co.uk/threads/jassm-extreme-range-jassm-xr.30782/<br /><br />Not sure what business the Navy has buying $4M LRASMs instead of these.Darth Anubishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03007164480607753952noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32565587684312866012021-04-14T13:15:24.431-07:002021-04-14T13:15:24.431-07:00Tomahawks are subsonic and cruise at around 500 mp...Tomahawks are subsonic and cruise at around 500 mph. Therefore, A 30 min flight would be around 250 miles. If you're going to be pedantic, at least try to get your basic arithmetic correct.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-84866656741022553102021-04-14T10:16:50.068-07:002021-04-14T10:16:50.068-07:00"This is a modern version of the old "sh..."This is a modern version of the old "ships vs forts" problem."<br /><br />This comment was deleted as there was nothing factually correct in it. This is not the blog for people who do not have a basic grasp of naval and military operations.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-59809062417020914702021-04-14T10:11:42.021-07:002021-04-14T10:11:42.021-07:00"In WWII, we really didn't use the Navy f..."In WWII, we really didn't use the Navy for strategic strikes much."<br /><br />You really need to study your naval history. Every island that was seized was a strategic target! In addition, every attack on Rabaul, Truk, or any other major base was a strategic strike. My goodness, you've got a lot to learn!<br /><br />"A carrier can deliver a smaller strike every day at long range."<br /><br />Of course it can't. As demonstrated off Vietnam, a carrier can sustain small strikes for a matter of days and then has to cease operations and resupply. Unlike Vietnam where carriers could leisurely resupply in the forward area, in a peer war carriers will have to pull hundreds or thousands of miles back, generally to a port.<br /><br />"Bombers can deliver a sizeable strike every other day or two."<br /><br />Again, no. We have around 15-19 operational B-2 bombers. They can conduct one, maybe two, missions per week for around two weeks and then they'll be down for long term maintenance. B-1/52 bombers are not capable of strategic strike because they're not survivable in enemy air space.<br /><br />I say this gently, you need to study how campaigns are actually fought before you continue commenting. <br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82323173471564313832021-04-14T09:40:15.047-07:002021-04-14T09:40:15.047-07:00"Might we not need to deter the Russians, Ira..."Might we not need to deter the Russians, Iranians and North Koreans at the same time?"<br /><br />If we're embroiled with China, Id expect the Japanese to be involved, since our forward-deployed ships there would be too juicy of a first strike target to pass up. Also possibly the Brits and Australians. Since wed be operating "in the neighborhood", I dont think NK would need much dissuading. Europe can deal with the Russians, and frankly, the Iranians as well. They should be anyway. At the first true signs of an impending Chinese conflict, our diplomats should be talking to the Nato/European countries and letting them know that its their turn to fully police the Persian Gulf, as we will be massing everything we can elsewhere. That would also give us the opportunity to not return to the endless deployments and world-policing afterwards. That might be the tiny silver lining to a WestPac conflict, since continued peacetime will never see us changing how we do things...Jjabatiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15723421088164000364noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-25851228704204336892021-04-14T08:59:36.618-07:002021-04-14T08:59:36.618-07:00"Have you ever studied WWII? That's exact..."Have you ever studied WWII? That's exactly how naval campaigns are fought. Go out, execute a mission, return to port to reload, replenish, repair, and plan the next mission."<br /><br />In WWII, we really didn't use the Navy for strategic strikes much. That was primarily an Army Air Corps mission. <br /><br />I can only think of one strategic strike mission in WWII where the Navy went out, executed one strike and went home - the Doolittle raid. <br /><br />Every other time they were executing a campaign that lasted days or weeks or months, involving many sorties, hitting many targets.<br /><br />There were naval battles like Midway that were fought over a day or so, but that's different from strikes.<br /><br />We have 68 DDG 51s, if we need 17 per strike, the Navy can execute a grand total of four strikes with ALL of its DDGs before needing a few weeks to reload. Pretty pathetic rate. SSNs and SSGNs won't add much more. <br /><br />Can we really dedicate EVERY warship and submarine? Might we not need to deter the Russians, Iranians and North Koreans at the same time? Some ships will be down for maintenance. <br /><br />A carrier can deliver a smaller strike every day at long range. Two or more at closer range. Bombers can deliver a sizeable strike every other day or two. <br /><br />Ship-launched cruise missiles are good for surge strikes, but not good for sustained combat. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-82108163887127867672021-04-14T07:55:03.120-07:002021-04-14T07:55:03.120-07:00"Requiring your entire fleet to return to por..."Requiring your entire fleet to return to port after each strike to reload doesn't seem like a viable way to win a war."<br /><br />Have you ever studied WWII? That's exactly how naval campaigns are fought. Go out, execute a mission, return to port to reload, replenish, repair, and plan the next mission.<br /><br />"The Chinese will have weeks between Navy strikes."<br /><br />???? You do know that we have a couple hundred combat ships/subs, right? There would always be some at sea, executing missions. Again, you should study WWII naval operations.<br /><br />One of the requirements to comment on this blog is a fundamental understanding of how navies operate.<br />ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-72309290665466503412021-04-14T06:30:51.722-07:002021-04-14T06:30:51.722-07:00Even if you build more (a lot more). Still need s...Even if you build more (a lot more). Still need something to shoot them. Requiring your entire fleet to return to port after each strike to reload doesn't seem like a viable way to win a war. The Chinese will have weeks between Navy strikes.<br /><br />Oh and before you say it, good luck with at sea reloading. Never been able to get that to work safely or quickly. And even if you do, still talking many days to reload enough ships for another strike.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-32186420897726222442021-04-14T06:14:07.709-07:002021-04-14T06:14:07.709-07:00Hmm … good point. If only there were a some kind ...Hmm … good point. If only there were a some kind of … oh, I don't know … maybe a building or something where people could go to assemble small pieces of seemingly unrelated things and the end result would be a new missile and they could do it on a continuous basis so that there would always be new missiles available … hmm … Oh well, just wishful thinking, I guess.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-12734342498850667772021-04-14T05:59:44.568-07:002021-04-14T05:59:44.568-07:00If the Navy limits itself to only using cruise mis...If the Navy limits itself to only using cruise missiles for strike, they'll be out of the strike business real soon in a major war. The 880 missiles used in this story amount to nearly six SSGN's worth (we only have four), or 22 Virginias, or 17 DDG-51s if half of their cells are devoted to strike. <br /><br />And that's just to strike one island twice. China is a big place. <br /><br />Cruise missiles are good for surge strikes, but not good for sustained combat. Just run out of them too quickly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-62943280560589425052021-04-13T20:42:20.697-07:002021-04-13T20:42:20.697-07:00"Real war operations will involve quantities ..."Real war operations will involve quantities of ships, aircraft, and missiles that we, today, cannot imagine and have not been seen since WWII."<br /><br />My humble opinion is that future's war has moved into information center - the one can control spectrum (imply press enemy's), has upper hand. As both side use radars to detect others' whereabout, the one can jam enemy's but keep its own function wins. There is a slogan - as soon as we find, we can destroy immediately. The one can control spectrum just need to shot 1-2 missiles to a target and ensure its destruction. Lots of guns and missiles but fire control radars are all jammed are next to useless.<br /><br />It was Soviet Union which first developed anti-ship missiles. Before end of the Cold War, Soviet Union had developed long range anti-ship missiles but Navy was not afraid of them. There was one big problem for Soviet Navy -- guidance of long range missile as ship's radar, due earth's curvature, cannot see very far. Soviet's solution was to use strategic bomber to perform intermediate guidance. Since these bombers were slow and no match to F-14, Navy didn't pay too much attention. Today, China's long range anti-ship missiles (DF-26, DF-21D, YJ-18, etc.) have revolutionized guiding system (their advanced satellites play a great role). They don't need to send an aircraft to fly around. Even if they need, the WZ-8 displayed in the Oct. 2019 parade caused serious attention from Pentagon. Originally, I thought that it had no big deal but later, after red something and then understood why Pentagon is so concern about it.<br /><br />Can't remember which year (you can Google online to find out), in recent years, in an Army drill, commander decided to fly an AC-130 to test Army's function under strong electronic interferences. Commanders were shocked that a whole Bradgate's communications all reduced to yell. Years of anti terrorisms made Army ignored electronic warfare as their enemies don't have any.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-27447185265396314972021-04-13T17:46:26.097-07:002021-04-13T17:46:26.097-07:00Any pressure will be indirect, i.e., prevent North...Any pressure will be indirect, i.e., prevent North Korea from diverting forces meant to "deter attacks from Imperialist puppets" (South Korea), against US forces in theater. South Korea will likely declare neutrality in a Sino-American war, unless China stupidly attacks it first; trying to force Seoul to join the US in such a war, will just piss off Korean nationalists.Aim9snakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155683689549263688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-92051174182344251702021-04-13T17:28:28.572-07:002021-04-13T17:28:28.572-07:00Per Defense News, "KAI said the plane will un...Per <a href="https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2021/04/09/south-korea-unveils-prototype-of-homegrown-kf-x-fighter-jet/" rel="nofollow">Defense News,</a> "KAI said the plane will undergo ground testing this year before its maiden flight scheduled for July next year." They also report that "40 KF-21s will be delivered to the Air Force by 2028 and 80 more jets will enter service by 2032."<br /><br />In addition to what you pointed out that needed fixing, like the F-35C, the KF-21 would also need larger wings to enable lower landing speeds. <br /><br />I hope they succeed as that would put some pressure on China. Fighting Irishhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03062665701910071556noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-85616548598566173002021-04-13T17:22:29.791-07:002021-04-13T17:22:29.791-07:00The F-22 and F-35's infamous problems, and the...The F-22 and F-35's infamous problems, and the delays they caused, probably scared the Koreans into restraining their expectations and their declarations to the press.Aim9snakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155683689549263688noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-18526807684734499862021-04-13T17:09:24.439-07:002021-04-13T17:09:24.439-07:00Fair enough. What I find disappointing is that th...Fair enough. What I find disappointing is that the aircraft won't reach significant service numbers until 2030 and that's if testing goes perfectly with no problems - and that never happens. For a stripped down plane made of existing technologies and pretty pedestrian specs, that's very poor progress.<br /><br />You would think that one solid year for flight testing ought to do it, not 5-10 yrs.ComNavOpshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09669644332369727431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5579907756656776056.post-53564694187121077272021-04-13T16:58:39.646-07:002021-04-13T16:58:39.646-07:00https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/202...https://www.defensenews.com/industry/techwatch/2021/04/09/south-korea-unveils-prototype-of-homegrown-kf-x-fighter-jet/<br /><br />"KAI said the plane will undergo ground testing this year before its maiden flight scheduled for July next year."<br /><br />It's admittedly not yet flight capable. I guess I misinterpreted the journalist who, in turn, failed to distinguish between ground test articles and actual prototypes.Aim9snakehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04155683689549263688noreply@blogger.com