Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: China: OK I'm prepared for flying objects
Thomas    4/27/2013 5:44:46 PM
After my last venture in here, where I was generally considered a pathetic nut - now with senility added - I'm in for more humiliation. During the latest half year China has presented some new aircraft in the fighter arena. They appear generally to be all right - provided you are prepared to fight a 1970'ies war. I.e. they are on top of a Nimitz-class carrier, when it was launched. There are some improvements in the Chinese designs with respect to stealth - at least from certain viewing aspects; but that is about it. The bomber or attack plane would be very deadly with a nuclear device toss-bombed at the carrier. This is how the problem should have been addressed in 1970-75. But it presupposes that the rest of the systems are able to find the carrier for an attack to be mounted - even in distributed numbers along a broad front. That is to say send out enough and hope one of them will find the carrier and get close enough to release its weapon. That makes sense - provided there are enough of attacks so the chance of finding the carrier is reasonable. But it doesn't really take into account that the carrier might be escorted at some distance by f.i. destroyers with control- and warning facilities. Not that these destroyers are targets in themselves; but they just might be placed there to provide early warning so the carrier can launch fighters to deal with a low flying bat out of Hell, that doesn't turn very well. So to be honest the tactical concept - as far as I can judge - is marginal - at best. The real flaw is that the Chinese think, that the USNavy has stuck to their 1970'ies concept against the Russians. The typical French general staff assumption - that the Germans will fight the next war in the same way they lost the most recent. Sort of: "I'll honour my granddad's memory as an admiral, by doing the same dumb thing he did!" Why, with the USNavy everything is possible, but there must be admitted a fair chance that junior has not been totally lobotomised in primary school. For starters: As I said: The planes look all right as developments of f.i. the F-105 Thunderchief or perhaps something between late model F-4 and prototype F-15. What is apparently wrong is that present day F/A-18's are - if we are fair and conservative - two generations ahead of a F-105: Engine, avionics, weapons, range - you name it - might be a tad lower on manoeuvrability (compared to an F-16) supposing present day naval aviators guts are looser than their ancestors. This will mean that the death-wishing Chinese pilots are to face an enemy that in every respect is two generations ahead of him in the hardware department. This in itself reduces the chance of success (or even survival) from slim to remote. It also assumes, that the tactics of the USNavy will NOT take advantage of longer range and keeping destroyer scouts far ahead of the carrier - so the interceptors can be directed to the radar-reflecting butt of the attacker. So even if the carrier screen only uses hand-cranked AAA and not Goalkeeper or something like that few pension funds - even in the USA, where an death in infancy is considered a fair assumption - will even consider taking the Chinese pilot on as a client. Is the situation like that, that the Chinese are not to be taken serious? Oh no, nuclear weapons are always serious - ask in Tjernobyl. Even the remote risk of a nut-case getting through is devastating. The only real defence against nuclear weapons is being far away from where they explode - very far indeed. Here we come to the next point: Hardly had the Chinese revealed their latest prototypes with panache before the USNavy demonstrated to the Chinese chagrin an idea that made their second-hand carrier spilling off a fighter seem slightly silly. The USNavy sort of responded: "Nice for a first try; but why do You actually need a pilot?" They did this by launching a fighter size drone off a carrier. If that isn't urinating on their parade, I don't know what it is! Comparing generations it is safe to assume that the difference between the technologies of China and USA is around three - give or take the odd decade. It does vary from weapon to weapon. Helicopters are probably maybe two if you take the SeaKnight-Osprey distance. Furthermore it isn't a one off as the USS Dewey showed off a laser AAA - how practical it will be in actual combat remains to be seen. The practicality raises the issue of tactics: I can see at least two options with a stealthy drone - apart from the obvious recce. a) Use them as pack-mules to carry ammunition - or extra missiles which would force any Chinese fighter formation to fly through a crossfire of homing missiles with the controlling fighter somewhere well back. You might nail the drone; but which one? The drones might run out of missiles; but ehhmm what about their replacement - either transferred from the other fighter pairs or even launched from carrier before retrieving the empties. b) As an arial minefield: Drones with an autonomous evil temper shooting at everything within range and the defending fighters well back. This would mean constantly launching and retrieving drones - sure; but carriers have sort of that figured out. Anyhow, for how long would you need that mine field. Mines are generally a nuisance - not only during; but particularly after the war. The Baltic is still infested with mines from WW1 - where some might even be working today. I wouldn't count on it; but an attacker would be brave to disregard the possibility - and the possibility that the minefield might have been refreshed at a later date. The carrier? So far to sea from the coast that it will be out of Chinese worst case range. The conclusion is that this is a race China can't win! 1) Your weapons are outdated at the introduction into service - a drawback that might be compensated with numbers. 2) Not only that, but the successors to the weapons China is introducing are outdated. 3) The Americans are very cruel indeed. They only introduce the solution to China, when China is committed to large scale production - running of antiques off the assembly line. The yanks are even nastier: If China thinks they can skip a generation and catch up - that leap is met by an American generation ahead of that - while having plenty of elderly - but still advanced planes compared to the Chinese - in long term storage.
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT
Maratabc       5/1/2013 5:45:33 PM
  1. Tactics and boats for shallow water submarine operations are indeed very different. But to say submarines can't operate in very shallow waters ignores the greatest stomping ground for submarines: The Baltic sea - which Max Horton effectively owned during WW1 - with submarines. There are so many difficulties in ASW hunting in the Baltic - for one thing a thousand years of fighting and trade has left all sorts of hiding place in the form of wrecks and mines (which may or may not still work).


Look for China to try to wire their offshore continental shelf for sound,

  1. I do think the technological backwardness of the Chinese extends to submarines where I consider it highly unlikely that they will be able to operate outside the island chain north and south of Japan. The public Chinese posture of defence expansion does not come up well against hard facts. It does seem to ignore the possibility that their intended opponent just might have been thinking in the mean time. The recent American moves are a stark reminder to the Chinese that they should stop even thinking about challenging US naval domination: The USNavy has taken precautions - precautions the Chinese haven't even had the imagination to think of.

I would look for the Chinese to begin operations in the Marianas, Marshalls, and the Gilberts and points east. Submarines are too useful as first strike weapons to allow to simply languor. The Kilos and their Song copycats can survive long enough to launch cruise missiles. (Guam and Hawaii). The American bases are in deep water with the good possibility of creep approach by AIP boats to launch surprise attacks. Survival after is problematic.


  1. We are here not talking about the US Navy (or the Australian Navy for that matter) can whip China without taking either hand out of the pocket.

Not so sure about the Australian navy. Numbers matter. So does naval airpower. The Americans will be in trouble (shortage of carriers and aircraft) if they do not maintain 10 (hulls) x 70 (air wings) composite with at least a 50% aircraft reserve.

  1. It is not so much the hardware in sight - though awesome - the Chinese should worry about; but what they can't see and don't know about. If the yanks really have plans to build these weapons - or the weapons are just something that didn't pan out - well that is left very much to speculation (for the Chinese) as the USA has plenty to demolish China with what they have discarded, not to mention what is in current use.

The best estimate is what you do see. There is not much that the Chinese do not know.

  1. Aircraft are very much in evidence (though I have my suspicions of technology that might and might not have shown promise - which is the part the Chinese can see.


The question is what can the Americans field in a hurry? (Remotely piloted vehicles of various sorts.)


  1. As to Chinese carriers: They will not be able to operate out of coastal waters simply because they can't keep it supplied. The bloody Danish Navy (as one retired British admiral called us a year or so ago) could - if need be - prevent that.

If that admiral was Sandy Woodward, then I would ask him what drugs he smoked? An enemy only has to be smart to defeat you. It is hubris to believe that the Chinese cannot find a Gorshkov or a 21st

century Zheng He who can use what he has well. The Americans underestimated the Iraqis and it cost them a destroyer.


  1. As to China's submarine threat against US carriers. The Chinese are very vain (and they are vain) to think, that the USA has anywhere near shown the full hand.


This is true, but it is also true, it takes the Americans time to get their shots in.

 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       5/5/2013 2:50:04 AM


a) Look for China to try to wire their offshore continental shelf for sound,

         Of course they will! The problem is only if American subs will be there - which I think is unnecessary. And if they are there: Then with what?
Generally it is my suspicion that submarine tactics will (or have) changed due to greater "transparency" of the sea. Given a reasonable system with arrays of sonars. It will be hard to hide a submarine. The other thing is that command of your own submarines is just as important. You could then say, if you know where a sub is, then put it out of commission with aircraft. Well that is true, provided that there is no ice cover........
 

b) I would look for the Chinese to begin operations in the Marianas, Marshalls, and the Gilberts and points east. Submarines are too useful as first strike weapons to allow to simply languor. The Kilos and their Song copycats can survive long enough to launch cruise missiles. (Guam and Hawaii). The American bases are in deep water with the good possibility of creep approach by AIP boats to launch surprise attacks. Survival after is problematic.

 
      Ahm, no. When they leave port there will be time enough to glue a Los Angeles to them. And yes - I do know the ploy of sending out a horde of them - hoping to saturate the interceptors. It is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. The Russians complained about the US subs pinging their heads off around Murmansk - that was the ones they heard. The Russians always had plenty of subs not sailing, so the saturation tactic was an option. But the mere fact the Russians complained about it is an indication, that the US had wanted to inform them, that that was what they expected the Russian were up to.

c) Not so sure about the Australian navy. Numbers matter. So does naval airpower. The Americans will be in trouble (shortage of carriers and aircraft) if they do not maintain 10 (hulls) x 70 (air wings) composite with at least a 50% aircraft reserve.

Ahm no. Before there was 5 hull each for West and East coast. Today the US could probably cut down to about eight, as the Russians are not going to be able to put that much at sea. But You do have a point with respect to number of hulls. Personally - to the outraged fury of some in here - I consider the Nimitz (and the Ford) class too big. Not that they won't work - they will, but they cost too much I should think a greater number of smaller hulls could do the job as well: Aircraft range has gone up, accuracy has gone up. That together with the limited threat and the fact that the Virginia-class can handle it without quitting their day job.


 
Quote    Reply

Thomas       5/5/2013 2:56:58 AM
d) The best estimate is what you do see. There is not much that the Chinese do not know. That is precisely the misapprehension the US is rather keen to tear the Chinese out of. Whenever the Chinese reveal a new weapons system - the US reveal the cure - maybe on an experimental basis. Probably to keep them hunting spectres: Whenever you think you are getting somewhere - an even worse ghoul is tapping your shoulder. (sort of the argument against bigamy: When you marry number two - she reveals, that she has a mother too!). The other thing is that the US building programmes keep getting delayed - officially it is funding. Well it is - but the other way round. Funding is not forthcoming, as the need with the planning horisont isn't there. The situation is much different from the 1950'ies where every nutty idea had a chance of entering production. That in the hope that one in five projects would turn out to be a Mustang, a Phantom or a F-16. Now you have the time to perfect the design. I think the prolonged development of the Osprey has at least some part of that. The tactical planning imperative had become ever more pressing - and the SeaKnight really expensive to operate. When the need is there - so is the funding. e) The question is what can the Americans field in a hurry? (Remotely piloted vehicles of various sorts.) Well yes! That is the advantage of arrested development and the technological (and tactical) initiative. Once you got a type in service - albeit limited it is not a big thing to crank up production - it is a question of money. Same thing with prototypes - they take a bit longer to get into service. The gamechanger is tactics. Look at the C-130 which is still being turned out (I know it is a very different bird today), but there were prototypes to see if there was any real hope of a tactical development. Same thing with the Volkswagen Beetle. There were lots of prototypes - about one every two or three years - that stayed that way. They were stopped before the expensive tooling cost were necessary. Today they do build the expensive German Golf - now entering its 7th or 8th generation. That doesn't mean that the earlier ones aren't in production: They are produced in Spain and Czech Republic - slightly other bodywork, but otherwise... to take advantage of the cheaper labour outside Germany. As to drones: I think they are not the successor to manned aircraft, but a supplement - a sort of donkey to carry the luggage (i,e. ammunition). That is a tactical breakaway - all you need is just a better computer in the fighter.
 
Quote    Reply

Thomas    3rd   5/5/2013 2:59:55 AM
e) The question is what can the Americans field in a hurry? (Remotely piloted vehicles of various sorts.) Well yes! That is the advantage of arrested development and the technological (and tactical) initiative. Once you got a type in service - albeit limited it is not a big thing to crank up production - it is a question of money. Same thing with prototypes - they take a bit longer to get into service. The gamechanger is tactics. Look at the C-130 which is still being turned out (I know it is a very different bird today), but there were prototypes to see if there was any real hope of a tactical development. Same thing with the Volkswagen Beetle. There were lots of prototypes - about one every two or three years - that stayed that way. They were stopped before the expensive tooling cost were necessary. Today they do build the expensive German Golf - now entering its 7th or 8th generation. That doesn't mean that the earlier ones aren't in production: They are produced in Spain and Czech Republic - slightly other bodywork, but otherwise... to take advantage of the cheaper labour outside Germany. As to drones: I think they are not the successor to manned aircraft, but a supplement - a sort of donkey to carry the luggage (i,e. ammunition). That is a tactical breakaway - all you need is just a better computer in the fighter. f) If that admiral was Sandy Woodward, then I would ask him what drugs he smoked? [In fact I did! Didn't answer though - not me at least - but rumour has he provided some entertainment in Danish navy circles] An enemy only has to be smart to defeat you. It is hubris to believe that the Chinese cannot find a Gorshkov or a 21st century Zheng He who can use what he has well. The Americans underestimated the Iraqis and it cost them a destroyer. No they didn't really in so far as it didn't prevent the US from devinely whipping Saddams ass. If you keep surprises on that level the question is if the cost of considering even the remotest contingency quickly outstrips the losses. For one thing there are the losses from splendid screw-ups logistically. I don't think Gorshkov was very smart - except in ruining his country. When ever his latest project entered service in numbers the USA had added the few hundred miles extra range to the ICBM's that would make the Russians start all over again - without withdrawing the white elephants from service. g) This is true, but it is also true, it takes the Americans time to get their shots in. That is where I think you are wrong - the one the Chinese sub has to worry about is the Los Angeles - behind him. That would be how I would do it.
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 2:16:49 PM

Thomas 5/5/2013 2:50:04 AM


a) Look for China to try to wire their offshore continental shelf for sound,

Of course they will! The problem is only if American subs will be there - which I think is unnecessary. And if they are there: Then with what?

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/pacific_islands_1943_1945/pacific_ocean_depths.jpg

The areas shaded in black are SLBM missile boat lurking areas. These areas are also where cruise missile armed submarines hide . These areas, in my opinion, are where it would be impossible for an enemy who does not have certain skills could not track American or French nuclear submarines. The Chinese and Russians radiate too much noise, the British radiate too much heat.

Generally it is my suspicion that submarine tactics will (or have) changed due to greater "transparency" of the sea. Given a reasonable system with arrays of sonars. It will be hard to hide a submarine. The other thing is that command of your own submarines is just as important. You could then say, if you know where a sub is, then put it out of commission with aircraft. Well that is true, provided that there is no ice cover........

Hmm. You are the same Thomas who used to discuss how s hallow ocean thermal layers acted as sound mirrors behind which submarines could hide ? Who used to discuss how the Baltic nations used to bedevil the Swedes (their favorite practice victim) with sneaking into their coasts undetected because of all the noisy Baltic ocean sea life?

http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knud_Rasmussen-klassen

You mean what the Americans should have built instead of their Littorals Combat Ship?

b) I would look for the Chinese to begin operations in the Marianas, Marshalls, and the Gilberts and points east. Submarines are too useful as first strike weapons to allow to simply languor. The Kilos and their Song copycats can survive long enough to launch cruise missiles. (Guam and Hawaii). The American bases are in deep water with the good possibility of creep approach by AIP boats to launch surprise attacks. Survival after is problematic.

Ahm, no. When they leave port there will be time enough to glue a Los Angeles to them. And yes - I do know the ploy of sending out a horde of them - hoping to saturate the interceptors. It is a problem, but not an insurmountable one. The Russians complained about the US subs pinging their heads off around Murmansk - that was the ones they heard. The Russians always had plenty of subs not sailing, so the saturation tactic was an option. But the mere fact the Russians complained about it is an indication, that the US had wanted to inform them, that that was what they expected the Russian were up to.

It was a bluff, for note that the American submariners pinged loudly. The American navy is one famous for playing the psychological games. With the Russians this worked because for all their decades of cold war practice the Russians knew they wore the “Mark of Tsushima.” (The French term for the deficiency in Napoleon's admirals originally is “The Mark of the Nile”, for those present at the Battle of the Nile came to believe that the British were invincible at sea. It was the Mark of the Skaggarat if you were German. The Russians wear the Mark of Tsushima, and who were the ones who beat the Japanese? Not the British.)

The French Marine used to try to play tag with the British in the eastern Atlantic as a way to exorcise their British demons. (With the recent collisions between the French and British submarines in the European west continental shelf I assume they still do).

 
===============================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 3:47:22 PM
  1. Not so sure about the Australian navy. Numbers matter. So does naval air-power. The Americans will be in trouble (shortage of carriers and aircraft) if they do not maintain 10 (hulls) x 70 (air wings) composite with at least a 50% aircraft reserve.

Ahm no. Before there was 5 hull each for West and East coast. Today the US could probably cut down to about eight, as the Russians are not going to be able to put that much at sea. But You do have a point with respect to number of hulls. Personally - to the outraged fury of some in here - I consider the Nimitz (and the Ford) class too big. Not that they won't work - they will, but they cost too much I should think a greater number of smaller hulls could do the job as well: Aircraft range has gone up, accuracy has gone up. That together with the limited threat and the fact that the Virginia-class can handle it without quitting their day job.

On paper

1 aircraft carrier (1 or 2 building)

3 amphibious transport docks (2 building)

92 landing ship tanks (10 building)

26 destroyers (4 building)

49 frigates (4 building)

61 submarines: 11 nucleear powered + 26 diesel electrics which are credible threats (2 nuclear + 4 diesel electric building

1 OPV

122 coastal missile boats

231 coast guard vessel

110 mine warfare vessels.

5 replenishment vessels.

-----------------------------------

The current surface fleet, that which are not US practice targets, look to be meat for the Japanese maritime self defense force. But I seriously doubt that is the Chinese plan in ten years. They seek to dominate their neighbor through military bluff and economic intimidation. India is not at risk yet, but the Philippine Islands and Taiwan are. Will the Americans go to war over economic intimidation backed by military bluff?

The likely answer is no. Japan will not unless it is threatened. Neither will Australia. Even at that, if the Americans were to become insane and fight for say North Korea, the Chinese have a naval air force that is barely credible^1 on paper, even though their surface navy is not. So the bluff will work. Numbers matter to politicians not estimated capability. The Americans needed three times the Japanese air strength to force entry into seas adjacent to east Asia in the last naval war. I assume the same force ratios again.

That means the Americans will need at least seven hundred aircraft to defeat all Chinese air-power, not just their their naval aviation. Hence 10 hulls x 70 aircraft.

That Chinese naval air force if the JH-7 Flounder is an indicator may self immolate simply from combat operations. Like many Chinese designed aircraft it has a history of engine problems and airframe vibration that indicates a great deal of design flaws,

However the Chinese have about three hundred Sukhoi 27s of various subtypes. Those planes work quite well enough.



Quote Reply
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 4:11:47 PM

Naval air power?

 
CHINA
CHINESE AIR FORCE
Type                                                       Active        Ordered                    Notes>
Combat aircraft
H-6                                                        120                                        Tu-16 obsolete cruise missile carrier, dead meat.
J-7                                                         389                                        Mig-21 clone, dead meat.
J-8                                                           96                                        Improved Mig 21, still dead meat.
J-10                                                       200                                        Probably F-16, Gripen class. Credible .       
J-11 (Su-27/30)                                     273                     71                Good enough to be worrisome.
JH-7                                                        72                                         Aptly named the Flounder by NATO, a joke  
Q-5                                                        119                                         Pilot killer     
Su-35                                                       48*                                       About equivalent to an F-15, very worrisome.  
=====================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 4:13:04 PM
Special mission
737 (Comms)                                             2                                         About the same as Looking Glass for America
An-30 (Surveying)                                     4                                         ???? 
Il-76/KJ2000 (AEW)                                 5                                          AWACs. not very good. 
Tu-154 (Recce)                                          3                                         Missile controller  
Y-8 (Recce)                                              16                                         Same  
Y-8/KJ200 (AEW)                                      7                                         AWEACs, effective  
Transport
An-26                                                       25                                         It's Russian so its dependable in that it crashes.    
Il-76                                                         13                           7            It's Russian. it works.  
MA60                                                         9                                         AN 26 copy. 
Tu-154                                                       8                                         NATO name Careless says it all. Crashes a lot.   
Y-7                                                           50                                          An-24 copy.
Y-8                                                           59                                          AN-12 copy.
Y-9                                                             1                                          Improved Y-8 that did not work.
Combat helicopter
Mi-8/17/171                                          330                         52              Works well enough.  
S-70                                                         16                                          Just enough to operate, eventually duplicate
Z-8/SA321                                                 8                                          Super Frelon
Z-9                                                         210                                         Version of the Dauphin. good enough.  
Z-10                                                         10                                         Chinese attack helicopter, not very good.   
Z-11                                                        60                                           This is akin to the Bell Ranger, good enough.
Training aircraft/helicopters
AS350                                                       1                                           Where do you think the Z-11 came from?
HC120                                                    93                         57              EC 120 Hummingbird. (French)
JJ-7                                                          1                                            Mig 21 trainer. crashes                                             
JL-8 (K-8)                                            170                                            Similar to a Yugoslav Galeb, crashes a lot. 
 
========================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 4:43:43 PM
  CHINESE NAVY
Type                                                 Active                   Ordered            Notes.
Combat aircraft
H-6                                                       14                                          Tu-16, anti-ship missiles, dead meat 
J-7                                                        30                                          Mig 21, dead meat.                                           
J-8                                                        48                                          Mig 21 improved, (Su-15), still dead meat    
J-10                                                        6                                          Chinese navy wants it less than the air force.
JH-7                                                     35                                          Refer to its crash history above.    
Q-5                                                      30                                           A Mig 19 with none of the virtues.
Su-30/33/J-15                                     23                            50*         F-15E capability.      
Special mission                                                                                 
Y-8 (MPA)                                            3                                            P3C equivalent.
Y-8 (Recce)                                           5                                            Missile guidance 
Y-8/KJ200 (AEW)                                8                                             Less capable than Hawkeye
Transport
Y-7                                                       9                                             See above. 
Y-8                                                     12                                             See above.   
Combat helicopter
AS365/565                                           6                                             Best ASW helo.
Ka-28                                                17                                              Adequate ASW helo
Ka-31                                                  2                               7            AEW helicopter for planned carriers(3) not good. 
Mi-8                                                    8                                             Marines.
Z-8/SA321                                         16                                             Marines
Z-9                                                     25                                            Dauphin built by Chinese. effective.   
Training aircraft/helicopters
JJ-6                                                   14                                              Kills pilots, Mig 19 so its expected.
JL-8 (K-8)                                         12
                                              See above.   

 
Unless one expects that conglomerate of aircraft to form a unified national vision of air power, such as the national air forces of the Americans, the French, the Russians, or the Israelis do, then one must conclude from what the Chinese copy and what they have built, that they have no idea about what an air force does or what a navy does either.     
 
Otherwise they would not spend their money so foolishly.
 
A nation builds what it needs to actually do its military work. The  Chinese must not expect to last very long over the oceans because most of their aircraft are RUSSIAN in design philosophy. 
 
=================================>
 
Quote    Reply

Maratabc       5/5/2013 4:58:00 PM

Thomas 5/5/2013 2:56:58 AM

  1. The best estimate is what you do see. There is not much that the Chinese do not know.

That is precisely the misapprehension the US is rather keen to tear the Chinese out of. Whenever the Chinese reveal a new weapons system - the US reveal the cure - maybe on an experimental basis. Probably to keep them hunting spectres: Whenever you think you are getting somewhere - an even worse ghoul is tapping your shoulder. (sort of the argument against bigamy: When you marry number two - she reveals, that she has a mother too!). The other thing is that the US building programmes keep getting delayed - officially it is funding. Well it is - but the other way round. Funding is not forthcoming, as the need with the planning horizon isn't there. The situation is much different from the 1950'ies where every nutty idea had a chance of entering production. That in the hope that one in five projects would turn out to be a Mustang, a Phantom or a F-16. Now you have the time to perfect the design. I think the prolonged development of the Osprey has at least some part of that. The tactical planning imperative had become ever more pressing - and the Sea Knight really expensive to operate. When the need is there - so is the funding.

 
Or it could be that the machines or the solutions don't work. For a long time, it was suspected that the F-22 program was a hideous failure. Not until two years ago, when the extent of Lockheed Martin's incompetence was revealed in actual operational aircraft (wingbox design failure) was the full extent of what that program got wrong fully revealed. from a weapon bay that was too small to an avionics architecture that was obsolete and ill adapted to emerging NATO or American net-centric data sharing technology was the full problem understood. The aircraft will have to be relegated to a niche role, and it will have to be worked around. The F-35 promises to be another debacle of equivalent proportions almost as catastrophic as the Lockheed F-105 Starfighter fiasco.  
 
The Boeing UAS, The Northrop Grumman  X-47, and the General Atomics unmanned combat drones had better work!
 
========================================>
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics