Another (very) Air Force Project Contemplated

[unhappycamper]

unhappycamper note: Since the ‘Pentagon’ (Righthaven LLC? Gannett?) has ‘requested’ that I only post one paragraph from articles on Army Times, and Airforce Times, To keep in that same (new) tradition, I will also do the same for for articles on Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, stripes.com and military.com.
To read the article in the military's own words, you will need to click the link.

Read all about Fair Use here. It sure is beginning to smell like fascism.

unhappycamper summary of this article: Come on guys. The Navy builds a $40 billion dollar aircraft carrier and you need a replacement for the $66+ billion dollars worth of F-22s we already own? And don't forget those very expensive $243 million dollar F-35s you're still trying to get working.

Welcome to the my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick club.







Air Force Kicks Off Search for 6th-Gen Fighter

The Air Force is interested in a plane, dubbed the Next Generation Tactical Aircraft, equipped with: “Enhanced capabilities in areas such as reach, persistence, survivability, net-centricity, situational awareness, human-system integration, and weapons effects,” a November 4, presolicitation noticestates. “It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030–2050 timeframe.”

[Duchess]

1. Sweet

I don't think this is the my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick club. It takes decades to develop a new weapons system. If we are going to stay ahead of the cure then we need to start now. Almost all of the money spent on this project will be spent here on contractor, federal civilian, and military jobs. Any technology developed will work it's way to civilian applications. Think of it as a giant stimulus program that the Republicans won't obstruct.

Now, we could spend this money on schools and education. But how useful would those schools be when they are shaking the chain linked fence at a Chinese re-education camp while screaming"AVENGE ME!" at the top of their lungs. ;)

[Scuba]

5. Chinese re-education camps? If they put us in camps, who would buy all their crap?

[Duchess]

11. Their Co-Conspirators...

in South America and the EU.

[Scuba]

13. That tin foil hat looks good on you. Bottom line: we don't need another expensive aircraft.

[Duchess]

20. Bottom line...

We pay these people to wear the tin foil hats for us. Their job is to prepare for a future war because we won't have 6 months to get our shit together if we really have a conflict. I hope we have a lot of people who spend all day thinking about "What if?" scenarios. Hoping things will be all rainbows and lollipops is fine but hope is not a plan. Hope sounds good but doesn't survive first contact with reality unless you have some plan to produce the outcome you hope will happen.

We don't need another expensive aircraft right now...true. But you'd be complaining if we didn't have the new planes in 2030 if another country had air superiority over the US. These programs create high paying American jobs and promote development of new technologies. Peace doesn't motivate technological innovation as much as war (or preparing for war).

I really don't know how you could be against these programs. The produce a product or expertise that is useful and they can actually survive politically... usually.

[jpak]

25. Oh NOOooooes Salvadoran Air Superiority!!!!!!!111

:rofl:

[Duchess]

27. It's funny until it's true.

Though I think our guys have done enough to slow down South American progress so that they won't really be a threat in the foreseeable future.

[jpak]

31. Guatemalan Air Superiority!!!!1111 Run for yer Liiivves!!!111

:rofl:

[Duchess]

33. You probably don't even have a zombie rife...do you?

:)

I think you have a 99.9999% chance of being right. I just think it's more fun to think about the other .0001% sometimes.

[jpak]

34. Paraguayan Air Superiority!!!!111 AAaiiiieeeee!!11

:rofl:

[Duchess]

35. Interesting point...

elaborate, please.

[Scuba]

41. You know, dollars for nurses actually are better for the economy than....

...dollars for airplanes.

Nurse spend their pay. The wealthy stockholders who will profit from the MIC's continued warmongering aren't spending their.

[Duchess]

45. Yeah, that would probably be a good way to spend the cash.

But who wants to touch sick people...that's not a cool as blowing things to bloody hell at twice the speed of sound.

Seriously, I like that idea...depending on how it is implemented.

Maybe a teach for America type program where the gov would pay for their education but they would have to train in the specialty of the gov's choice and serve in a specified area for an given period of time...or serve as a doctor in the military.

Best of both worlds!

[Scuba]

48. I think you're on the wrong forum...

I love the sick people in my life, and touch them every day.

[Duchess]

49. Sorry about the inappropriate joke.

I meant no offense, I just don't like blood and I'm pretty germaphobic (so I work with machines not people). I have nothing against sick people it would just be very hard for me to take care of one. That's why I think Doctors and Nurses are a valuable resource...they can do things that I never could.

[entanglement]

42. tinfoil or Dr. Strangelove got himself/herself a DU account

;)

[Posteritatis]

16. Dammit, now I want to watch that movie again

Reason #35178 not to read DU on rainy weekends...

[Duchess]

30. "We are here to help"

They are remaking Red Dawn (since it seems like current producers/filmakers can't come up their own ideas anymore). It should come out early next year.

www.reddawn2011.com

[walldude]

39. Wow clueless much?

Do you have any idea how advanced our weapons systems are? Why build a new fighter when the Drones are working perfectly. Do you know how much it costs to train pilots? Do you have any idea how much we spent on the useless Joint Strike Fighter which is the plane they told was would take us to 2040?

Or how about the 20 billion we spent trying to figure out how to shoot marines out of torpedo tubes so the Navy could stay busy during a war in the desert? True fucking story.

The Pentagon is missing 2 TRILLION DOLLARS. They can't account for it. 2 TRILLION. And you want them to spend billions and billions more on yet another plane that won't fly because the Chinese might come and get us?

Yeah, good fucking plan.

[Duchess]

50. Yeah, I know they are pretty advanced.

JSF is stupid. You can't design one plane that can fill every role. Something that you try to make good at everything about the project ends up sucking. My main point is that even if the JSF takes us to 2040 we need to start designing the plane that will take its place now.

They probably didn't lose 2 Trillion...but they probably just won't say were it went.

The Chinese could come and get us but it could very well be the Australian Union and the Fracogermanic Chinese Alliance...who knows where the imaginary lines will be drawn in 30 or 40 years.

[Greyhound]

52. The phrase is to "stay ahead of the curve" and this is a complete waste of our resources

that can be better spent in a thousand ways.

"Chinese re-education camps"? Are you serious? I seem to be having trouble telling the difference as the level of discourse falls off the cliff here.

[Duchess]

56. Not serious about the camps. NT

Money could be better spent...but would it be better spent or just wasted in a less useful way?

[Duchess]

57. Not serious about the camps. NT

Money could be better spent...but would it be better spent or just wasted in a less useful way?

[Greyhound]

53. The phrase is to "stay ahead of the curve" and this is a complete waste of our resources

that can be better spent in a thousand ways.

"Chinese re-education camps"? Are you serious? I seem to be having trouble telling the difference as the level of discourse falls off the cliff here.

[Scuba]

2. The 2030 - 2050 timeframe, huh? That means....

... we expect the Taliban to develop high-tech fighter/bombers by then?

Our military is reportedly bigger than the next eleven combined, ten of which are allies.

How much is enough?




(disclaimer: I'm a USAF veteran)

[unhappycamper]

3. What's your take on this Scuba?

I was in the Army.

[Scuba]

4. More $$ for stockholders. More toys for the Pentagon....

...get ready for "you're not a patriot if you don't support defense spending" and "the economy will collapse if we cut military spending."

[rasputin1952]

29. I wonder if they build these engines in Boehner's district?

Like Maddow pointed out about a week ago...it's all about funneling cash into districts.

[walldude]

40. Funny thing.. most of that shit is built in Colorado

where we kicked some serious RED ass on Election day.

[NeoGreen]

38. This AF Vet agrees with your assessment n/t

[MilesColtrane]

17. "we expect the Taliban to develop high-tech fighter/bombers by then?"

No. They expect the U.S. to be fighting over diminishing arable land and freshwater resources by then.

[Duchess]

21. Exactly...

AGW is happening. We won't be able to get past the engineering, political, and economic challenges required to stop it in time. I hope the government is preparing for the worst case scenario. We should be working to mitigate AGW/Population growth while preparing the tools required to be the last man standing during a worst case scenario.

Submarines, Air Superiority, Missile Defense, Human Intelligence, and renewable/nuclear power systems are all expensive long lead time projects that we should have ready and must be generations ahead of our competitor's products.

[rasputin1952]

28. While I like technology...there must also exist a reason for the

new technology. Our defense system now is so incredibly redundant I am amazed at how these "demands" keep coming up. I figure we could reach virtually any place on earth within 30 minutes with what we have out there now. The hundreds of billions spent on more carrier groups, newer, faster aircraft and a host of other things, (I won't even touch the incredible waste of "Star Wars"), "defense will eventually become "offense". History is replete with examples of this and I am amazed we have not yet learned lessons from all of this.

When I was in the Army, and this still holds true today, the last one's with their boots on the ground won the battle; F4's often had difficult time tracking targets becasue of their speed to visual ratio...F-15's/16's made it even tougher when it came to any kind of ground support. Hence, the A-10 "Warthog", we actually had to take technology backwards to be of help. Nothing in the sky can beat what we have now, (exception, much cheaper AA missiles)...why is this thing even being built at this time?

[Duchess]

32. "defense will eventually become "offense"

That's why we need these systems. Most other countries don't have much of a military to speak of for one of 3 reasons.

1. They think the US is an ally therefore let them spend all of their money on weapons systems and we will just use our money for other things.
2. They think that it would be easier just to buy some of our systems to counteract local threats.
3. They think...f' it. We can't compete...lets just make sure we are a low priority target and can defend against our neighbors. If we get invaded the US might help us out if we let them build a base in our country.

So, fewer countries are building up their militaries because of our military. The likelihood of another country turning Defense to Offense is lower (even regionally). That makes the world more stable for us to make profit...thus, the reason for building these system that so 50 years beyond what our competitors produce.

It is even useful to develop the technology and set up the systems required to build it but put it on the shelf if it is too expensive for the time being. If we need it in the near future then we can pull it off the shelf and put it into production without having to wait 5 years for R&D.

[rasputin1952]

43. "Defense will eventually become offense" actually refers tot he

fact that inevitably, people will use what they have developed simply because they can.

[Duchess]

51. Exactly

So, if few countries have a large military then there is less chance they will use a large military.

[jeff47]

46. Because technology marches on

"why is this thing even being built at this time?"

Well, it isn't being built. Solicitations like this allow the AF to take a look at what could be built, but it doesn't pay for it to move beyond the conceptual phase.

That useful to 1) Figure out what other people might be able to build, 2) figure out if our own stuff is going to be suddenly obsolete, and 3) find out if the new plane is going to be a big enough improvement to make it worth building them.

[rasputin1952]

55. Point of it is, the "ooh-aah-"attitude takes over and those that

can make decisions generally base those decisions on "overly" presented material that inevitably proves to be out of touch w/reality. One of the technological advances we have undergone is the "presentation" phase, just watch a NASA presentation for high grade presentation material. What then happens is the concept goes from an "original" to a hybrid of what was planned. Take the F-16, designed by pilots and engineers to be a low cost highly efficient fighter to back up the F-15, but on a better cost level. Turned out to be an excellent aircraft....right up to the "tinkering" point. Bomb loads, rockets ad a host of other accouterments drove the price sky high, dropped the rate of speed as well as the efficiency and theyy added enough options as to make it, if fully loaded, a lumbering joke of what it was designed for.

It happens all of the time. We had it in the Army as well, all kinds of "ooh-aah" stuff, but try to get a couple of cases of ammo for the range, it was, quite often, non-existent. I could fire up some pretty cool night vision goggles w/$9 batteries, but I couldn't get .45 ammo...lesson, now you could barely see what you could pistolwhip.

Presentation like lobbying is all about "gee-whiz"...the more pizazz the better the outcome for the company. Half the time I don't think a project is anywhere near feasible, yet the presentations make it look like we entered an entirely new dimension. Reaganesque borderline reality has already cost us vast amounts of cash for basically a "dream", just think "Star Wars". I love technology, I embrace it, but the thought of just how many good things can be done with cash tossed into a hole we need not be digging I have to wonder about where our priorities lie. One less aircraft carrier will not make a dent in our safety as it is, but the cost is enormous, unwanted by the Navy, has to planed, manned, nuclear activated, a small fleet must be built around it just for support. That single carrier and it's attendants will not make any safer, but he money for that single carrier and it's required equipping, manning, and the attending frigates, destroyers etc...could refund the entire educational system...and that would really protect us, intelligent, educated youngsters coming through a valid educational system that will learn that diplomacy is often a far better path than just screaming "war".

We can use technology to build or destroy, I choose build, but build things that better the humanity we are all part of.

edit: typo

[jeff47]

60. There is history here

"the "ooh-aah-"attitude takes over and those that can make decisions generally base those decisions on "overly" presented material that inevitably proves to be out of touch w/reality."

The thing is the people receiving the presentation are accustomed to receiving really good presentations. They lose their effect when it's your 100th really good presentation.

And there's history here to act as a guide. There were a lot of "next-gen fighter" proposals between the F-15 and the F-22, and no "next-gen" fighter was built between the F-15 and F-22. (There were fighters built, obviously, but they weren't 'next-gen' relative to the F-15.)

[DireStrike]

59. Well, it costs $50 million to kill one Taliban fighter

They must be doing SOMETHING right. We can't be that stupid. Can we?


Can we?

[Ghost Dog]

6. I read "situational awareness", but also "human-system integration";

Such a platform would be designed as a UAV from the start, would it not?

[Posteritatis]

12. Controlling a UAV would count as HSI

Your reading this message counts too, actually.

[baldguy]

7. The two main requirements:

Can it turn a profit for the military-industrial complex? And: Can it efficiently kill farmers with brown skin?

[DainBramaged]

8. The aliens are coming, they know, so maybe they are actually preparing....

[Duchess]

26. You never know...

Didn't they produce the Smurfs to get us used to the idea of little blue men?

[Bosso 63]

9. I never studied economics, but

getting deeper and deeper into debt with China so we can buy weapon systems we can't afford sounds like a bad idea.
Hey, but what do I know?
Perhaps I should get a second mortgage on my house and max out my credit cards so I can build a mote around my house and turn it into a super cool fortress; because, you know "freedom isn't free".

[Duchess]

22. Doesn't matter if you get into debt with China

then wait for them to start a war over Taiwan or attack the US...then crush them...cancel the debt to them...and spend a lesser amount on reconstruction. If the intelligence community makes this happen the right way and China looks like the aggressor then I don't think our credit rating will take a hit.

If you build the fortress and arm it correctly...how will the bank re-posses it?

[Ghost Dog]

36. It's a perfect plan, isn't it. That's why you named "submarines"

first on your list above, I guess, although "full spectrum dominance" as a term would have served.

So, we will see WWIII and a One-World US Imperial Police State after all, to the great benefit of financiers.

It's good to hear the official State Dept./Pentagon strategy put so clearly.

[Duchess]

54. Well, that's what I would do if I didn't want to repay a huge amount of money

As far as the submarine part goes...check this out. A good read and totally available on Amazon.

http://www.amazon.com/Chinas-Future-Nuclear-Submarine-Force/dp/1591143268/ref=sr_1_fkmr0_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289080575&sr=8-1-fkmr0

[Bosso 63]

66. They couldn't take my fortress as long as I stay inside.

I would only be free as long as I never left the compound, which kinda sucks.
But going back to China, I will concede to your point that it might be possible for the U.S. to "crush them", but I suspect the process would have a dramatically negative impact on real estate values through out the Western U.S., if not the world. Chernobyl was more than 20 years ago, and I think the local housing market is still depressed from the fallout of that incident.

[msongs]

10. primary target of this weapon: the US treasury nt

[Greyhound]

62. Right to the point, as usual.

:thumbsup:

[Posteritatis]

14. Sort of depresses me that militaries are about the only things willing to plan that far ahead. nt

[hobbit709]

15. This line

“It must be able to operate in the anti-access/area-denial environment that will exist in the 2030–2050 timeframe.”

What's it going to fly on? Can't get enough gas by then.

[Duchess]

24. By then...

we be able to produce enough bio-fuels for military use at least.

[Chan790]

44. Nuclear reactor.

Just like a submarine. :D

(Kidding.)

[jeff47]

61. You may be kidding...

but we did develop a nuclear-powered jet engine in the 1950s. Air was sucked in the front, superheated by radioactive material, then the air shot out the back...filled with a few unfortunate by-products. It worked very well, but the 'by-product' problem couldn't be overcome.

[Chan790]

63. I'm scared by that a bit.

I was kidding because when one it crashed, it'd be a kamikaze nuke. I didn't think we'd ever do anything that dumb.

[Duchess]

64. We're still working on nuclear rockets

We've figured out how to make them work without releasing fission fragments. Some of the people working on it gave a presentation at an ANS conference last year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_thermal_rocket

[jeff47]

65. Nah, it wasn't critical

A nuclear explosion requires criticality. Each fission reaction has to create at least 1 more fission reaction. That's what happens in a nuke or a nuclear power plant.

The nuclear jet engine relied on the fact that some fission occurred naturally. Basically, we used self-heating rocks. But they couldn't cause a nuclear explosion.

Still, a crash would leave a rather unhealthy debris field.

You also have to remember that it was developed in an era where we didn't really know much about radioactivity, and today the pendulum has probably swung too far away from nuclear sources of energy.

[MilesColtrane]

18. "anti-access/area-denial environment"

= invisible and EMP proof?

[ikri]

19. That'll be useful

In the war against who exactly? France, Britain, Russia, China? Scratch those countries off the list and you could probably fight any other country in the world with a WW2 era air force.

[Duchess]

23. I wouldn't scratch those countries of the list...

I hope we don't make plans based on who our allies are but who our enemies could be. Basically, anyone could turn at any time. You should take advantage of the time you are friendly to find out their weaknesses and strengths and determining how to crush them.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

37. It's expensive to "protect" us from imaginary bogeymen. But, very profitable for the MIC.

[jeff47]

47. There's a key bit of information people seem to be glossing over

And that is: no planes are being built.

The USAF comes out with these kinds of proposals periodically. They want to see where the 'state of the art' is, so they can find out what someone else might be able to build, and how it might affect our own systems. It only leads to a new plane if it's a big enough improvement to make it worth building.

There were a lot of "next-gen" fighter solicitations between the F-15 and F-22, which did not lead to new aircraft being built.

[spanone]

58. nothing says more about the human race than the amount of $$ we spend on offense/defense

[Ghost Dog]

67. ... About US humans in particular, at present it appears.

No others attempt to aggressively dominate the world; some at most dare to develop defensive capability.

[proteus_lives]

68. Key words: "at present"

"No others attempt to aggressively dominate the world"

They have in the past, they will in the future. Human nature.

[Richard Steele]

69. K&R