US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
I wished I could see through this smokescreen, I'm curious what those two are up to, which was unacceptable to the SecDef who soon would be gone, but didn't take their Force Structure Assessment anyway
 

Brumby

Major
Several unmanned systems were featured in the latest Flight International magazine. One of the more interesting writeup in my opinion is pertaining to the XQ-58A Valkyrie. It has the potential to significantly alter the strategic landscape in the Western Pacific by undermining the entire concept behind the A2AD threat bubble. It is significant because it is not runway dependent; offers deep penetration strike capability; and changes entirely the cost exchange equation.

1583395498517.png

XQ-58A Valkyrie is part of the AFRL’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program. Some details that are known include :
  • The XQ-58A is capable of being launched and recovered without a runway;
  • It is stealth configured (but not coated);
  • Has a range of 3,000nm and a cruising speed of Mach 0.72;
  • It can carry 270kg (600lb) of ordnance internally – either two small-diameter bombs or two air to-air missiles;
  • It cost between $2 to $3 million each depending on quantities ordered
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Several unmanned systems were featured in the latest Flight International magazine. One of the more interesting writeup in my opinion is pertaining to the XQ-58A Valkyrie. It has the potential to significantly alter the strategic landscape in the Western Pacific by undermining the entire concept behind the A2AD threat bubble. It is significant because it is not runway dependent; offers deep penetration strike capability; and changes entirely the cost exchange equation.



XQ-58A Valkyrie is part of the AFRL’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program. Some details that are known include :
  • The XQ-58A is capable of being launched and recovered without a runway;
  • It is stealth configured (but not coated);
  • Has a range of 3,000nm and a cruising speed of Mach 0.72;
  • It can carry 270kg (600lb) of ordnance internally – either two small-diameter bombs or two air to-air missiles;
  • It cost between $2 to $3 million each depending on quantities ordered

So in the space of 6months, you now agree with me that unmanned combat drones with a range of 4000km is not just a game changer, but entirely feasible?

Your post below.
I reckon a well-run Navy programme (piggybacking off the Air Force) should take 7 years.

Your whole argument is premised on a think thank paper about a range of conceptual USN air wing construct. Such constitution bears no relationship to any USN program of record that would possibly achieve such a state by 2040. On top of that you then infer that PLAN can equally get to that state by 2040 because it has the money to spend.The only conclusion I can draw is that your propensity to imagine and to extrapolate is very healthy.

Since you think my imagination is very healthy, what does that say about your imagination and knowledge base?
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Several unmanned systems were featured in the latest Flight International magazine. One of the more interesting writeup in my opinion is pertaining to the XQ-58A Valkyrie. It has the potential to significantly alter the strategic landscape in the Western Pacific by undermining the entire concept behind the A2AD threat bubble. It is significant because it is not runway dependent; offers deep penetration strike capability; and changes entirely the cost exchange equation.


XQ-58A Valkyrie is part of the AFRL’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program. Some details that are known include :
  • The XQ-58A is capable of being launched and recovered without a runway;
  • It is stealth configured (but not coated);
  • Has a range of 3,000nm and a cruising speed of Mach 0.72;
  • It can carry 270kg (600lb) of ordnance internally – either two small-diameter bombs or two air to-air missiles;
  • It cost between $2 to $3 million each depending on quantities ordered

I agree that this has the potential to alter the strategic landscape in the Western Pacific.

But why do you assume the Chinese Air Force can't build an equivalent?

That would mean the Chinese Air Force can push air superiority drones to 2000km from mainland China.
That compares to a range of 800-1000km using manned fighter jets today.

Here's an old analysis post on the Valkyrie drone that I did

If the future is in simple, low-cost unmanned combat drones like this, that suits the Chinese military just fine for the following reasons.

1. This does count as a *revolution* in airborne operations, and makes existing investments in manned aircraft a lot less worthwhile.
For example, if each manned fighter controls 10+ drones in the future, and it is drones doing the fighting, you don't need 2000 manned fighter jets like the F-35.

2. From a manufacturing perspective, producing large numbers of *low-cost* *good-enough* drones plays to the strengths of Chinese industry.

3. If we have large numbers of airborne drones fighting, it becomes a war of attrition.
And from a budget perspective, the Chinese military should be able to outbuild their competitors, given a larger military budget circa 2030-2035.

4. Geographically, fighter-sized jets struggle to project air power past 800km.

But large numbers of reusable unmanned drones with a combat radius of up to 2000km would allow the Chinese Air Force to project a lot more airpower over Japan (which is a maximum of 1300km from Chinese territory).

China has a lot more in the way of safe rear-area airbases and overall land area to work with, than the 1st Island Chain has available.

It's also easier to project drone airpower to Guam and the Marianas islands.
 
Last edited:

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
it's actually interesting
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

Yes. The US Military wants to keep the best 5G spectrum, whereas the rest of world is using this for commercial purposes.

So in the future, we can look forward to the US companies being severely disadvantaged, when compared to their hi-tech competitors in Europe and Asia.
 
Several unmanned systems were featured in the latest Flight International magazine. One of the more interesting writeup in my opinion is pertaining to the XQ-58A Valkyrie. It has the potential to significantly alter the strategic landscape in the Western Pacific by undermining the entire concept behind the A2AD threat bubble. It is significant because it is not runway dependent; offers deep penetration strike capability; and changes entirely the cost exchange equation.

View attachment 57977

XQ-58A Valkyrie is part of the AFRL’s Low-Cost Attritable Aircraft Technology program. Some details that are known include :
  • The XQ-58A is capable of being launched and recovered without a runway;
  • It is stealth configured (but not coated);
  • Has a range of 3,000nm and a cruising speed of Mach 0.72;
  • It can carry 270kg (600lb) of ordnance internally – either two small-diameter bombs or two air to-air missiles;
  • It cost between $2 to $3 million each depending on quantities ordered
did anything happen since Sep 3, 2017
interestingly, "The Air Force set a target of under $3 million per unit." ...:
Skunk Works Sees Big Opportunity For ‘Attritable’ UAVs

Aug 31, 2017
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


lcaatflight-lockheedmartin.jpg
? I mean in addition to 'song and dance' you've now posted LOL
 
Yes. The US Military wants to keep the best 5G spectrum, whereas the rest of world is using this for commercial purposes.

So in the future, we can look forward to the US companies being severely disadvantaged, when compared to their hi-tech competitors in Europe and Asia.
I've noticed China is full of 5G 5G 5G 5G 5G which I suspect is some Chinese attempt to infiltrate the West to be able to shut down its (=Western) networks
 
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


tragicomic to talk "more breathing room for deterrence missions against Russia, especially in the Black Sea" while Russia could freeze out like half of Europe by turning off gas and oil taps
 

AndrewS

Brigadier
Registered Member
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


tragicomic to talk "more breathing room for deterrence missions against Russia, especially in the Black Sea" while Russia could freeze out like half of Europe by turning off gas and oil taps

I think indicative of a sick mindset, which is that the US military needs to be dominant everywhere.

What use would US Navy ships ever be in the Black Sea?
The enclosed Black Sea is entirely within 500km of the Russian coastline, which is far too close for US Navy ships to be survivable in a conflict.
And how much use would Navy ships actually be in a land conflict involving Russia?
 
Top