US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

tphuang said:

I don't see anything in there that's controversial.

Click to expand...

“There’s been discussion over taking F-35s and putting them into an aggressor unit, but the fact is we have some older [build] Lot F-35s that will never be combat coded – we will take those assets, decrease some of their capability, and make them a perfect representation of Chinese threats,” explained Mills.

Click to expand...

I agree in a sense that that isn't controversial; it's just wrong. No disrespect intended, but there's a fact that you don't seem quite able to wrap your head around: Chinese military technology is quite a bit more capable than you think. It's certainly a lot more capable than Mills seems to think.

ZeEa5KPul said:

I agree in a sense that that isn't controversial; it's just wrong. No disrespect intended, but there's a fact that you don't seem quite able to wrap your head around: Chinese military technology is quite a bit more capable than you think. It's certainly a lot more capable than Mills seems to think.

Click to expand...

The J-20 should be a lot more agile than the F-35 because of the canards. That is one.

First F35’s aerodynamics are still underestimated a legacy of the years of RT and other Media’s propaganda combined with the legacy of the so-called “fighter mafia”/“Reformers” with their insanity of flying M113 “Gavin” and radar less missile less fighters.
The main aim of 65th Aggressor with F35 is to offer a platform with VLO characteristics, modern sensor integration. Make no mistake F35A in this role should be viewed as the USAF taking the emergence of red 5th generation fighters seriously.
older F117 are really only suited to simulate VLO drones, or BVR threats due to their design limitations and lack of both manouvering and situational awareness. F117 was the first generation of modern Stealth and it traded off almost everything to get that signature reduction.
The F117 pilot who was shot down in Serbia didn’t know he was flying over a radar couldn’t know he was being targeted until he saw the missile. Basic defensive systems common in 4th generation platforms and even 3rd generation fighter like radar warning receivers, chaff, flares and jammers was all left out of F117 in favor of its angular design and inches of Ram materials.
B2 in the role would be to much and better suited to simulate hypothetical Stealth bombers. Yet as H20 doesn’t exist yet and PAK Da is Vapor at best that’s a mission set that sits in the hypothetical realm.
F22 would be an awesome platform for the mission possibly far more realistic. Yet it’s age and limitations of numbers come into play. It lacks much of the sensors found in F35, and with less than 200 units is an asset better kept at the front line than in the training primary mission. It’s aerodynamic performance though is impressive yet not as necessary for the mission.

I've listened to them a few times. They've been complaining ever since the budget came out. It makes sense for AF to complain, but taking away money from Navy would kill US military power around the world. They keep boasting about needing 100 B-21s to replace the B-1/2/52. But if the service is already talking about reducing B-21 numbers before it has even made its first flight, I just don't see how they are going to procure the number they need. I can't recall a single new program in the recent years where they actually got things on budget and in the numbers that they want. Even F-35s procurement looks unlikely to reach the number they've talked about for years.

siegecrossbow said:

Click to expand...

Did these people actually state that the J-20 costs $120 million? And they run the USAF? lel.

tphuang said:

I've listened to them a few times. They've been complaining ever since the budget came out. It makes sense for AF to complain, but taking away money from Navy would kill US military power around the world. They keep boasting about needing 100 B-21s to replace the B-1/2/52. But if the service is already talking about reducing B-21 numbers before it has even made its first flight, I just don't see how they are going to procure the number they need. I can't recall a single new program in the recent years where they actually got things on budget and in the numbers that they want. Even F-35s procurement looks unlikely to reach the number they've talked about for years.

Click to expand...

The cost of B21s are really just lol, what's more the supposed drones for the B21s is supposedly also something that is gonna cost some hundreds of millions of dollars as well.

Basically, good luck with getting their set out number of B21s and their complementary drones with how things are now.

Either a big increase in military budget is needed (push the % of gdp up to maybe say 5% from current ~3.8%) or they actually have to wave around the knife and make cuts/changes or possibly even nationalize their big defence companies (I say incredibly unlikely, more defense budget more likely, and also unlikely that they will make massive cuts to say other branches like say the navy or army, although maybe the army?).

tphuang said:

I've listened to them a few times. They've been complaining ever since the budget came out. It makes sense for AF to complain, but taking away money from Navy would kill US military power around the world. They keep boasting about needing 100 B-21s to replace the B-1/2/52. But if the service is already talking about reducing B-21 numbers before it has even made its first flight, I just don't see how they are going to procure the number they need. I can't recall a single new program in the recent years where they actually got things on budget and in the numbers that they want. Even F-35s procurement looks unlikely to reach the number they've talked about for years.

Click to expand...

Loosing parts of the Empire means there is less money for the Imperial Army ,means loosing more part of the Empire and so on.

Loosing Russia and part of China means less money.


Now USA has to move back whole industries AND increase the military spending at the same time. Good luck for that.

gelgoog said:

The J-20 should be a lot more agile than the F-35 because of the canards. That is one.

Click to expand...

If they use lot 1 to 6 f-35 for aggressor, they are locked at low G rating. They had structural problems inducing engine blades excessive rubbing... they are sitting duck without functionning radar and degraded manoeuvrability. They were low initial production fighter and more or less empty of capabilities.

No f-35 have full capabilities right now. They are thinking about 2029 for full Block 4 capabilities, including weapons integration to work properly. It's still a capable fighter but they clearly don't need to downrate it.