I wish I could spit on it.
Meanwhile, all the Gates assumptions about the emerging threat picture have been verified as 100 percent rubbish.
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Gates ignorant assumptions about air power--verified
Gates, one of the contributors to the reduction of U.S. Air Power Dominance, got his portrait, unveiled in the Pentagon the other day.
I wish I could spit on it.
Meanwhile, all the Gates assumptions about the emerging threat picture have been verified as 100 percent rubbish.
I wish I could spit on it.
Meanwhile, all the Gates assumptions about the emerging threat picture have been verified as 100 percent rubbish.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
As Eric has appropriately pointed out the arrival and recent "test" flight of the J-21/31 yet again demonstrates the folly of Mr. Gates and his failed policies on US air power.
BTW - the aircraft in the test flight seems extremely well finished to be the first prototype of a new class of PLAAF fighters.
Does anyone really believe that this is the only flying example of Shenyang's new stealth fighter?
IIRC Gates didn't talk about prototype first flights, but about in-service inventories.
PAK-FA/T-50 and the Chinese VLO aircraft won't be in service in substantial numbers (=more than F-22) until after 2020.
SO.At least they will in service be before the
F35 due in 2022
And you know this because?
Firstly, 120 combat coded F-22's is not, by any means, a substantive number.
Now, since you obviously struggle with basic concepts and common sense, let's keep this really simple.
2020 - 2012 = 8 years
So far, 3 types of non-US origin 5th Gen Fighters.
Now an average production rate of 10 aircraft per year per type over 8 years = 240 non-US stealth fighters, all of which are likely to achieve similar if not better LER's against the F-35A as the F-22A would.
For the 2025 date that Mr Robert 'Next War-itis' Gates proclaimed America would still have vastly superior numbers, the number of non-US 5th Gen aircraft in that timeframe would likely be in excess of 500 and by some degree.
An average yearly production rate of 10 is a pretty low rate, especially for countries that are regarded by many as having some of the best productivity based capitalists in the world!
We in the West should know this. After all, we helped them become this way.
By now you should be getting a somewhat sinking feeling in the pit of your gut, or is that denial thingy still working for you?
That's not for sure either.
These supposedly very advanced aircraft types could very well take more than 6 years of development after the first flight, and additionally 2-3 years until they're actually combat-capable and not just a dozen mistake jets in a pilot type certification outfit.
SO, you class yourself as a Military Historian,according to you site.
If so(sorry for the pun),how could you underestimate what China and Russia will achive?
SO
Your comments are overly optimistic. We are outmatched because we are broke and China will have a trillion dollar defense budget soon and completely obliterate us, see their new ICBMs. Look at the engineering disaster called the F-35. it only holds 2 AAMs internally, severe buffeting issues, too slow, no supercruise, 200 mill/plane. The J-21 has 2 engines, big advantage. We need to move quickly to the FXX to give USTACAIR a chance. Let's move away from marketeering and go back to engineering. And maybe a President Romney will bring back the F-22.
S O's latest comments suggest he may be suffering from an acute case of complacency and mediocrity.
However, according to his blog, the third aim of his posting on the Internet is:
"Warn about mediocrity and complacency, an unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to Western military forces armed bureaucracies."
Pretty sad when some one is unable to heed their own message.
(Sorry about that, S O, but you did lead with your somewhat glassy jaw just begging to be KO'd).
I am optimistic?
Well, either that or you guys are quite pessimistic and believe in fact that the Chinese and Russians can push a plane much quicker into readiness for production than anyone else.
The Swedish Gripen program was one of the very few rather well-run development programs for modern combat aircraft. It still took them nine years to put it into service after first flight.
The relatively simple JF-17 Thunder took four years.
I expect the two Chinese VLO designs to take about six years till operational status, which leaves only three years for production till 2020 (some overlap).
The Russians first need to demonstrate their ability to complete an entirely new design of PAK-FA's sophistication. Their project may take up to fifteen years till substantial numbers are in service.
Also keep in mind the Russian budget is dependent on raw material export success and budget issues can slow development down a lot.
There may be an unsatisfactory match-up in the 2020's, but hardly prior to 2020.
@Superraptor; there's nothing special about Chinese ICBMs other than that the Chinese have few since they are content with few nukes.
SO:
You're basing these comments on what data and evidence? With the J-20 it took them a year from a "first" prototype to the weapons ready AESA equipped 2003 that has just surfaced. 6 years is a guess and based on what we've seen to date not a very good guess at that.
And how will we know when these aircraft enter service and are no longer "prototypes" when there is no similar development cycle in the west to compare too? Further how can we evaluate the technology represented in in the two Chinese stealth fighters with 10+ years of successful hacking and harvesting of secure information to build on?
Quite simply you have NO idea what you're talking about.
The United States is broke because of projects like the F-35, B-2, F-22, et al. The United States is broke because the majority of its economy is built around the defense industry.
Technology is extremely important in the West, particularily the US. As important as it is for the civilian to have an iPhone 5 before everyone else, it's really the same with the military; having the latest technology is extremely important. Whether that technology is any good or mature or useful doesn't matter. Nor does it matter that doctrine is shaped around technology rather than necessity and sense.
A considerable portion of the requirements presented in these projects are not requirements, they're desires. Many seem to think that you can just throw money at technical issues and tell engineers to "Fix it, or you're fired", and then throw technology at whatever tactical, strategic or even physical problem there is.
Ultimately it's a product of, in part, materialism and capitalism, and of only having fought banana republics for the past 40-odd years. It has bred a kind of gunboat diplomacy attitude where wars should, ideally, not really be wars, but rather military duckhunts. Aside from the various ethical issues, you end up with a military only capable of fighting said banana republics. So whenever that military faces an equal opponent, and an opponent with a more appropriate doctrine, it'll get spanked.
As John Boyd said; people, ideas and then technology, in that order. The M1 Garand didn't win WWII, the people that carried them did.
@superraptor
The F-35 is indeed a disaster. Trying to make a small, lightweight, cheap(!) stealth aircraft of any real use is pretty much impossible. It'll either have a tiny weapons bay or stub wings.
Supercruise, however, isn't a very stealthy way of travelling. As the aircraft pierces the air at supersonic speed, it creates a shockwave, which in turn creates a sharp rise in temperature around the aircraft. Since most modern combat aircraft are now being fitted with IRST systems (and very capable IRST systems), even stealthy aircraft can be detected at range. And these are passive aswell, as opposed to radar (thought neither IRST nor radar will necessarily give you an accurate reading at a given range)
I've been a long-time reader of Eric's blog, since before he moved to Blogger. I've noticed rather recently that the amount of mudslinging in the comments sections has increased, mostly by F-35 fanboys (especially after Bogdans entrance, funnily enough). It's a shame to see it, and I'm dissappointed that Monty chose the ad hominem. Whether SO was "leading with his chin" or not is irrelevant; it was unnecessary.
Just my two cents.
To SO,
You say nothing to be concerned about, as competitor 5th gens won't operate in relevant quantities until after 2020.
Well, neither will US have credible quantities of 5th gens in operation until well after 2020.
So with those global 5th gens cancelling each other out by the early 2020s, what will be counter-balancing the Su-35s, Su-34s, Mig-35s, J-11s, J-10Bs and J-15s?
Oops.
Talk about catastrophically flawed (clouded) TACAIR recap planning and policy making.
Cocidius;
I agree there's no certainty in my six year guess, but I'd like to remind you (or rather everyone who reads this) that there's no certainty in the guess that these aircraft will be militarily relevant earlier either.
You guys (and this includes Eric, who is focusing on very few topics and beats them again and again) are raising the alarm.
Fine. I personally don't are as much about the Far East as it would be understandable for an Australian, but I understand the general point that Western combat aircraft R&D and procurement is unsatisfactory.
What you guys don't seem to consider is that the Chinese performance is in part for show and not 100% substance either.
They may put a LO fighter into production quickly, but then it's likely not a high-end machine with few remaining bugs.
They may put it into production after thorough development and then it's likely a '90-95% solution' as is the F-22.
"However, according to his blog, the third aim of his posting on the Internet is:
"Warn about mediocrity and complacency, an unsatisfactory state of affairs in regard to Western military forces armed bureaucracies."
Pretty sad when some one is unable to heed their own message."
Turning an opponent's own argument back on them is a well recognised and legitimate debating tactic.
Hardly an ad hominem.
SO, exactly what they said about the physically impaired and technologically impaired Japanese in 1939.
Great post Cormorant.
President Eisenhower warned regarding the potential power of the US military-industrial complex. In more recent times, it has consolidated into just a few very big and diversified conglomerates causing dilution of design/engineering expertise and lack of competitiveness.
Governments are now moreso than ever dancing to the desires of these powerful entities who offer much fewer options in military hardware choices and are producing gear that has less utility worldwide. Did anybody consider the consequences around the world of not offering an enhanced F-16 for other operators of the 4,400 plus platforms who do not want to go down the F-35 route? There seems little doubt that project is foundering so what are the options for F-16 operators? Even an enhanced F-15 might not be cost-effective for some Air Forces and production of more would likely be pretty slow rate.
Thinking European industry, BAE Systems seems to have become more interested in playing corporate games than maintaining specialist expertise and the once solid British aircraft industry has been largely dismantled. Visit almost any forum addressing UK defence matters and the criticism of BAE is scathing; yet Australia has very dumbly allowed them to strongly involve in multiple defence projects, including military shipbuilding.
It behoves political and military leaders of any nation to maintain continual adequate and credible defence capabilities consistent with national priorities and affordability. But the notion peddled by the major arms manufacturers that everybody must begin equipping for futuristic combat scenarios instead of progressively optimising existing capabilities is weakening the western world's military capacity. What is in service must be enhanced to best effect until it can be replaced by something that works, at acceptable cost.
Majority of nations just cannot afford some big ticket defence hardware and the likely consequences are that western military forces will shrink. Western world defence industry really needs to take a reality check.
Hi Cormorant
Also stealthy aircraft can be detected by the NNIIRT 55Zh6M Nebo M Mobile “Counter Stealth” Radar and L-Band AESAs on the Su-35S Super Flanker-E and T-50 PAK-FA on the front leading edge flaps and on top of the tail fins.
I wonder if the J-21/31 will be fitted with supercruising engines?
Peter
@Anon1;
no, they said very different things.
Keep in mind I am merely arguing that the Chinese won't be twice as fast as Westerners between first flight and combat readiness.
That's very different from disparaging foreign aviation companies for supposedly producing inferior bamboo and paper aircraft.
How can you say the F35 is not up to it if you don't know the classified information?
To Anon above... that's a flawed argument in itself as nobody could say the F-35 is up to the job, or up to a cost-effective and sustainable production process, unless they too had access to classified information.
And even then, even with access to classified information, politicians could even more so overlook any such potentially classified info about the program suffering from a likely unsustainable business plan too.
But the boys who will strap it on an: have to go to war in it, who have access to classified information, and who's life work is to understand the threat they will be facing, do say its up to the job.
Brewster Buffalo story aside, which from an era different enough to not make a be all end all anecdote.
Weak argument with the "it's classified" meme. Interesting is that those with all the supposed special access have been consistently wrong on program risk and timeline. And, the "it's classified" meme also doesn't allow one to ignore the rules of aircraft weight as one example. As for those that fly it, tell me what are they flying? TR-2 hardware won't be out until 2016 at the earliest. This is needed to drive Block 3 software which--by definition--has been watered down in capability. If there are no more goof ups (which so far would be against the established history of the incompetent program management up to this point), a real, active squadron (not a test one), might have real tribal knowledge about how the aircraft acts operationally after 2020. So, delivering a aircraft made to fight Operation:ALLIED FORCE in 1999, 21 years later isn't such an achievement. Along with that, an intelligent buyer of military hardware shouldn't sign up for this farce until after it has been evaluated--post 2020.
Post a Comment