US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
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
Well, why would Huawei ever want to shut down its own equipment and be blacklisted by its customers?
It would only ever happen if there was a war between China and that country.

But the long-term economic trend favours China immensely, which means China can get what it wants without a war.
The converse is that the USA wants to have the option of going to war with China, without having its networks run by Huawei..

Elon Musk says Chinese economy will surpass US by 2 or 3 times: ‘The foundation of war is economics’

  • Elon Musk predicted that the Chinese economy will surpass the United States’ at least two-fold.
  • The two nations already are the world’s two largest economies, although the U.S. economy is currently larger.
  • China overtaking the American economy would likely cause increased tension between the two countries, which are already at odds on issues such as trade and 5G technology.

Read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 
Well, why would Huawei ever want to shut down its own equipment and be blacklisted by its customers?
Yesterday at 8:35 PM I didn't say or mean Huawei, Yesterday at 8:35 PM I said "Chinese" and meant military cyber force


It would only ever happen if there was a war between China and that country.
... or in a prelude to war (for instance as a part of PSYOPS) which then might not happen, as the West would quit because it couldn't know what else was bugged by China (so assumed everything was)


But the long-term economic trend favours China immensely, which means China can get what it wants without a war.
The converse is that the USA wants to have the option of going to war with China, without having its networks run by Huawei..
I'll now add to Yesterday at 8:35 PM this:
if 5G were really important, and by "really important" I don't mean sales talk, the West would've set it up already
 
"... a concept where the U.S. fleet can herd Chinese ships into a contested area where the Marines can do damage from the shore."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


right now I'm sitting up in my chair, not sure if to laugh or to make a facepalm or to ask the USMC brass if they're - serious to think it'd be possible to "herd" the Chinese navy
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
"... a concept where the U.S. fleet can herd Chinese ships into a contested area where the Marines can do damage from the shore."
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


right now I'm sitting up in my chair, not sure if to laugh or to make a facepalm or to ask the USMC brass if they're - serious to think it'd be possible to "herd" the Chinese navy
Yes, if you look at a map and China's probable moves, there's no way that the US fleet can get close enough to the First Island Chain, and then herd Chinese ships close to a small island with anti-ship missiles.

If Chinese ships approach close against an island, it's because the island itself is the objective.

The US Marine Corps is trying to justify its existence, because you might as well have Army Artillery guys operating antiship missiles on land.
 

Brumby

Major
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.



Since you think my imagination is very healthy, what does that say about your imagination and knowledge base?
In every debate of opposing ideas, it is imperative in my view that the context and scope of the conversation is defined or else we can easily end up talking pass each other.

If I remember correctly, your reference point is a CSBA document which you used to substantiate your idea of what a future PLAN carrier group might look like. Specifically, your focus was on the adoption of unmanned platforms as a means to achieve certain operational concepts. My reply to your idea is what you have chosen to pick on as a carry on from that conversation. The main problem is that you are equating that conversation on unmanned platforms as if they are equivalent in nature. I disagree and I will explain why.

First of all is context. The nature of the unmanned capabilities that were featured in the CSBA document is best illustrated by a graphical representation taken from that document.

1583485576412.png

You will note from that CSBA document, those capabilities include tanking, ISR, and DCA. In contrast, the XQ-58A Valkyrie is basically an attritable focusing on long range strike.

Secondly, my view was at that time and remain so is that there is no program of record in the USN currently that goes beyond the scope of tanking. By extension the idea of having unmanned ISR and DCA capable platforms remain an idea into the future. It doesn’t mean that such capabilities are not achievable but that there is no current program of record that may possibly lead to such an operational state by 2040. Such a view is grounded on how the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program has evolved into the MQ-25 ‘Stingray’, or Carrier-Based Aerial Refuelling System (CBARS). The USN’s budget submission for the 2017 fiscal year decided on a much less technically and operationally ambitious CBARS requirement. In other words, an ISR and strike program was too ambitious given the state of the technology. The CSBA document even further extends the capabilities sought to include DCA. As is, the MQ-25 (tanking only) is slated to undergo at sea testing in 2022/2023 and IOC remain uncertain.

Finally, the XQ-58A is an Air Force Research Laboratory program that has yet reached the stage to formally demonstrate proof of concept. While the program itself seems promising it is very early days and no service including the USAF has committed to it. It is basically an attritable long range strike drone that does not require a landing strip.

Your argument in my view is rather carte blanche in application that the two concepts are somehow similar and comparable as a basic premise. They are not.
 

AndrewS

Major
Registered Member
In every debate of opposing ideas, it is imperative in my view that the context and scope of the conversation is defined or else we can easily end up talking pass each other.

If I remember correctly, your reference point is a CSBA document which you used to substantiate your idea of what a future PLAN carrier group might look like. Specifically, your focus was on the adoption of unmanned platforms as a means to achieve certain operational concepts. My reply to your idea is what you have chosen to pick on as a carry on from that conversation. The main problem is that you are equating that conversation on unmanned platforms as if they are equivalent in nature. I disagree and I will explain why.

First of all is context. The nature of the unmanned capabilities that were featured in the CSBA document is best illustrated by a graphical representation taken from that document.

You will note from that CSBA document, those capabilities include tanking, ISR, and DCA. In contrast, the XQ-58A Valkyrie is basically an attritable focusing on long range strike.

Secondly, my view was at that time and remain so is that there is no program of record in the USN currently that goes beyond the scope of tanking. By extension the idea of having unmanned ISR and DCA capable platforms remain an idea into the future. It doesn’t mean that such capabilities are not achievable but that there is no current program of record that may possibly lead to such an operational state by 2040. Such a view is grounded on how the Unmanned Carrier-Launched Airborne Surveillance and Strike (UCLASS) program has evolved into the MQ-25 ‘Stingray’, or Carrier-Based Aerial Refuelling System (CBARS). The USN’s budget submission for the 2017 fiscal year decided on a much less technically and operationally ambitious CBARS requirement. In other words, an ISR and strike program was too ambitious given the state of the technology. The CSBA document even further extends the capabilities sought to include DCA. As is, the MQ-25 (tanking only) is slated to undergo at sea testing in 2022/2023 and IOC remain uncertain.

Finally, the XQ-58A is an Air Force Research Laboratory program that has yet reached the stage to formally demonstrate proof of concept. While the program itself seems promising it is very early days and no service including the USAF has committed to it. It is basically an attritable long range strike drone that does not require a landing strip.

Your argument in my view is rather carte blanche in application that the two concepts are somehow similar and comparable as a basic premise. They are not.
A land-based Valkyrie and naval-based Valkyrie are very similar in concept. They are almost identical in terms of:

1. launch
2. flight
3. fighting

The big difference is the parachute recovery, which would be trickier in the ocean.

There's no longer any fundamental risk to a viable Air Force Valkyrie programme.
Only engineering challenges involving time, effort and tradeoffs between the different characteristics.

Whilst neither the USN nor USAF have committed to the Valkyrie, it is also very clear that the Valkyrie is the way forward.
This applies to both strike and air-to-air.

You're going to have to argue with the USAF and Elon Musk if you disagree. See below.

SpaceX’s founder tells US Air Force the era of fighter jets is ending

During a fireside chat at the Air Force Association’s Air Warfare Symposium, Lt. Gen. John Thompson, who leads the Space and Missile Systems Center, asked Musk whether he had any innovative ideas about how aerial combat could be revolutionized.

The answer was less whimsical than what was probably anticipated.

“Locally autonomous drone warfare is where it’s at, where the future will be,” Musk said. “It’s not that I want the future to be this, that’s just what the future will be. … The fighter jet era has passed. Yeah, the fighter jet era has passed. It’s drones.”

Hushed murmurs and laughter rippled across the audience.

Read more
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
 

Brumby

Major
A land-based Valkyrie and naval-based Valkyrie are very similar in concept. They are almost identical in terms of:

1. launch
2. flight
3. fighting
What does similar concept actually mean?

So does a WW1 fighter plane. It takes off, fight and then lands like any 5th gen fighter.
There is a plethora of logical fallacies out there because people has very innovative way of invoking false logic.

There's no longer any fundamental risk to a viable Air Force Valkyrie programme.
Seriously? Based on what?

Only engineering challenges involving time, effort and tradeoffs between the different characteristics.
So does any technological based project. You have a propensity to say things without saying anything actually meaningful. It is normally why I don't usually respond to your posts because it is a black hole.

Whilst neither the USN nor USAF have committed to the Valkyrie, it is also very clear that the Valkyrie is the way forward.
This applies to both strike and air-to-air.
Maybe but what is your point?

You're going to have to argue with the USAF and Elon Musk if you disagree. See below.
I am not a fan of Elon Mask. If you wish to make an argument you need to articulate your position. I am not going to read something to try to figure out why it is even relevant to a non stated position.
 
Yes, if you look at a map and China's probable moves, there's no way that the US fleet can get close enough to the First Island Chain, and then herd Chinese ships close to a small island with anti-ship missiles.

If Chinese ships approach close against an island, it's because the island itself is the objective.

The US Marine Corps is trying to justify its existence, because you might as well have Army Artillery guys operating antiship missiles on land.
first of all, the Chinese could split into a smaller "being herded" group and a larger (striking) group, to outmaneuver "herding" USN assets (and deal with the USMC later)
 

Top