US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
I mostly agree with all this, but come back to the point when you said the F-22's architecture was obsolete. What did you mean by that?

How was it obsolete in contrast to the F-16 or F-15? Avionics, radar, control systems can be updated as we saw with both 4th gen fighters.
F22 architecture was rendered obsolete by the degree of advancement the F35’s systems achieved despite being mostly based on F22 systems. The data links, optics, radars and interfaces are a paradigm shift.
F15 and F16 got upgrades but as fourth generation aircraft if the optics or countermeasures get obsolete you can bolt new ones on in pods. Fifth generation can’t do that it has to be

It doesn't have to be a literal mock up for my point to be valid. A non flying prototype would be as much a mock up as one made out of timber. My point being as the B-21 project progresses, it will inevitably encounter problems that need to be overcome. That's not even a hypothetical, we've seen that with both the JSF project, the F-22 and countless other American military projects.
B21 plans that the first two units will be flight demonstration prototypes then progress to production. F22 and F35 programs progressed at a slower rate as much of the technology in them was bespoke to them. F22 had to develop engines and radars and missile warning systems. F35 had to develop improved versions of the same plus. B21 is starting with off the shelf versions from them.
It's also ironic that you're accusing the Russians of corruption yet completely blind to the rampant corruption that exists in the American MIC.
No where near as rampant. When the Russian former President can state emphatically that roughly a quarter of the Russian MOD budget is lost to corruption that’s out of control. What would be a huge scandal in the US DOD would be a Tuesday in the Kremlin. The US has a system both inside and out hounding every line of the DOD budget. The system is such that those involved are more likely to be caught and be punished. Where in the Russian system giving a cut of the profits is more effective and the cover of national security is broader. The Russians have a higher tolerance for corruption.
The MIC saying the fundamental problems have been solved doesn't make it true. I think the F-35 was designed crippled from birth by shoehorning in the SVTOL concept into the multirole fighter platform.
It’s again the reverse. LM designed the jet as a fighter bomber then redesigned it to STVOL. This slowed things down and the additional navy version added on basically ending up with more of an F35, AV35 and F/A35 respectively. As each version required more changes. The supposed “bloat” of F35A is not that much compared to the mold lines of a Rafael. Where it does differ is as F35 has internal carry.
To put some perspective into what I'm saying; do I think the F-35 is a bad plane? No, but it could have been much better. America hasn't been punished for the mistakes because up until now it has been the only nation capable of producing 5th gen fighters at scale.
I disagree with this as first. F35’s “mistake” are often baseless or dated assumptions on air to air and air to ground combat. Where everyone draws conclusions of combat based on Top gun and Iron Eagle movies rather than the cold reality that long range engagement by air to air missiles is substantially higher than in the past. Sprinting to Mach 2 doesn’t help if you can’t find what just killed you.
As time progresses that will no longer be the case and I expect to see the Americans "forgetting" how to make the F-35 just like they did the F-22.
Again they haven’t forgotten anything. It’s that the industry base moved on. Without the base you can’t build new ones. Lockheed Martin, RAND and the USAF ran a study as to the cost of restarting production a few years back. The upfront costs was in the neighborhood of 10 billion before production. The USAF figured it would be just as much to design and build a new one. Hence NGAD. It’s not that they “forgot” it’s that it’s uneconomical. It’s like trying to justify building a business Typewriter factory.
 

SlothmanAllen

Junior Member
Registered Member
Just an aside to the current F-35 discussion, but I feel like what we view the F-35 as capable of today vs. what it will be capable of in say five to seven years could be massively different. The Block 4 (and to an extent technology refresh 3) basically transform the aircrafts capability! You have an entirely new processor, new cockpit display, new radar, new DAS sensors, new electronic warfare equipment, improved internal weapons storage (6 AIM 120 size missiles), and potentially integrating a new engine(s) which could allow for 25% better fuel efficiency and 10% more thrust.
 

ACuriousPLAFan

Brigadier
Registered Member
B21 plans that the first two units will be flight demonstration prototypes then progress to production. F22 and F35 programs progressed at a slower rate as much of the technology in them was bespoke to them. F22 had to develop engines and radars and missile warning systems. F35 had to develop improved versions of the same plus. B21 is starting with off the shelf versions from them.
I really have no idea why there are still people who is looking down on the B-21 as if it is a cheap, mass-production variant of the B-2... Like FFS, this is happening even when renowned Chinese military commentators are openly calling the PLA to exert extra caution and attention on the B-21...

No where near as rampant. When the Russian former President can state emphatically that roughly a quarter of the Russian MOD budget is lost to corruption that’s out of control. What would be a huge scandal in the US DOD would be a Tuesday in the Kremlin. The US has a system both inside and out hounding every line of the DOD budget. The system is such that those involved are more likely to be caught and be punished. Where in the Russian system giving a cut of the profits is more effective and the cover of national security is broader. The Russians have a higher tolerance for corruption.
Indeed, that's true. When you even have your sole capital warship of the entire navy and the only aircraft carrier available to your country being holed through the deck because the supposed funding to buy diesel fuel for the emergency pumps of the floating drydock was stolen - Something is seriously wrong with how money was distributed and managed across the armed forces.

This video by Perun explains the corruption problem within the Russian military rather well.

And TBH, I am sincerely and really rooting for Xi and the PLA CMC to observe this war REALLY closely - And do everything it takes to root out as many corruption practices that still remain among the PLA ranks as possible. We should know that it is pretty much impossible to eliminate corruption (greed is part of human nature ever since the first humans left the apes), but minimizing that amount and scale as best as possible should be the permanent, ultimate goal.

It’s again the reverse. LM designed the jet as a fighter bomber then redesigned it to STVOL. This slowed things down and the additional navy version added on basically ending up with more of an F35, AV35 and F/A35 respectively. As each version required more changes. The supposed “bloat” of F35A is not that much compared to the mold lines of a Rafael. Where it does differ is as F35 has internal carry.
I suppose this is the major driver of why the Pentagon has decided to pursue NGAD and F/A-XX seperately for the USAF and USN respectively?
 
Last edited:

TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
At very close range or optimal angles yes. AESA depends on how it’s employed. Low probability isn’t no probability but it’s not an easy thing and requires alot of technical expertise and technology.
F22 or F35 can be defeated in theory under optimal circumstances however getting those is hard to do. Especially in real life.
 

pmc

Major
Registered Member
Indeed, that's true. When you even have your sole capital warship of the entire navy and the only aircraft carrier available to your country being holed through the deck because the supposed funding to buy diesel fuel for the emergency pumps of the floating drydock was stolen - Something is seriously wrong with how money was distributed and managed across the armed forces.
Russia has used carrier in Syria. they know its limitations. They are not going to overspend money on it or allocate its best workers to built rebuilt and operate it. Ukraine has proven beyond doubt that money carrier has no place in modern warfare. not even a carrier based AWACS or HALE UAV can contribute anything.
 

Atomicfrog

Major
Registered Member
Russia has used carrier in Syria. they know its limitations. They are not going to overspend money on it or allocate its best workers to built rebuilt and operate it. Ukraine has proven beyond doubt that money carrier has no place in modern warfare. not even a carrier based AWACS or HALE UAV can contribute anything.
That carrier is a dead horse, the state of his airwing is probably in a sad state too. I think they have a lot more on their hands to repair than that ship anyway.

Not even sure how many the US will pump out of theirs, power projection is a thing but building the carrier fleet need to follow.
 
Last edited:

pmc

Major
Registered Member
That carrier is a dead horse, the state of his airwing is probably in a sad state too. Would have been better to buy one Chinese remake of the type.
it was already decided to keep it afloat with bare minimum. airwing is new. I am talking about practically reality post Ukraine-Covid when world will become much poorer for effective carrier operations.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Nevsky Design Bureau CEO Sergey Vlasov earlier said the Kuznetsov would be repaired without modernization. Only some equipment will be replaced, he said.
 

Strangelove

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

U.S. Weapons Industry Unprepared for a China Conflict, Report Says​

The war in Ukraine is highlighting the inability of U.S. arms companies to replenish the military’s stocks​


By
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
Jan. 23, 2023 9:00 am ET

WASHINGTON—The war in Ukraine has exposed
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
that may hobble the U.S. military’s ability to fight a protracted war against China, according to a new study.

The U.S. has committed to sending Ukraine more than $27 billion in military equipment and supplies—everything from helmets to Humvees—since Russia’s invasion of the country last year. The infusion of arms is credited with helping the Ukrainian forces blunt Russian President
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
’s invasion in what has become the biggest land war in Europe since World War II.

But the protracted conflict has also exposed the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
as weapons inventories fall to a low level and defense companies aren’t equipped to replenish them rapidly, according to the study, written by Seth Jones, a senior vice president at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank.

im-707821


The U.S. has sent large numbers of its Javelin missiles to Ukraine.Photo: Michael Ciaglo/Getty Images

“The bottom line is the defense industrial base, in my judgment, is not prepared for the security environment that now exists,” said Mr. Jones in an interview. Industry now is operating in a manner “better suited to a peacetime environment,” he added.




Mr. Jones said the study, which reflected input from senior military, defense, congressional, industry and other government officials, showed how quickly the U.S. military would run out of munitions in a potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific.

“How do you effectively deter if you don’t have sufficient stockpiles of the kinds of munitions you’re going to need for a China-Taiwan Strait kind of scenario?” Mr. Jones said.

For more than the last 20 years, the U.S. fought insurgency warfare in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, a troop-intensive strategy, but the Ukraine conflict is a largely conventional war that relies more on heavy weaponry. A potential conflict with China in the Indo-Pacific would be different from the largely land war taking place in Ukraine, but would nonetheless need to draw deeply from U.S. arms stockpiles.

The problems with the industrial base, in part the result of outdated military contracting procedures and a sluggish bureaucracy, are now affecting the ability to create a credible deterrent in the Indo-Pacific region or face-off against China in a military conflict, according to the study’s finding.

“These shortfalls would make it extremely difficult for the United States to sustain a protracted conflict,” the report said. “They also highlight that the U.S. defense industrial base lacks adequate surge capacity for a major war.”

The rate of consumption of weaponry by the Ukrainians is quickly demonstrating the challenges the U.S. industrial base could face in an extended conflict over Taiwan. The number of Javelin shoulder-fired missiles sent to Ukraine since last August, for example, is equal to about seven years of production based on fiscal 2022 production rates, the study said.

The number of antiaircraft Stinger systems provided to Kyiv represent roughly the same number of systems exported abroad over the past 20 years, the study said. Meanwhile, the more than one million rounds of 155 mm ammunition sent to Ukraine by Washington has shrunk the U.S. military’s own supplies, which the study says are now considered low.

Inventories of the Javelin system, howitzer artillery and counter-artillery radars are also all considered low, according to the study.

Platforms, like the Harpoon coastal defense system, which is seen as a significant piece of Taiwan’s defense strategy, are considered medium, though current stocks might not be sufficient for wartime, the study said.

“The history of industrial mobilization suggests that it will take years for the defense industrial base to produce and deliver sufficient quantities of critical weapons systems and munitions and recapitalize stocks that have been used up,” the study said.

im-707825


Antiaircraft Stinger systems are being used by Ukrainian soldiers in Bakhmut, Ukraine. Photo: Pierre Crom/Getty Images

Military leaders have also expressed increasing frustration about the industrial base in recent months. Adm. Daryl Caudle, the head of U.S. Fleet Forces Command, called out the defense industry for the delayed supply of arms.

“I am not forgiving of the fact they’re not delivering the ordnance we need,” he said when asked about balancing the U.S. military’s readiness amid the U.S. shipments of billions of dollars of assistance to Ukraine.

“All this stuff about Covid this, parts, supply chain—I just don’t really care,” he said. “We’ve all got tough jobs.”

While the U.S. and its allies have been able to send billions of dollars of arms to Ukraine since last year’s invasion, Pentagon planners expect that Taiwan couldn’t be easily resupplied after the start of a conflict, since Chinese forces would likely blockade the island. There is already a
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
of U.S. arms to Taiwan, based on sales approved since 2019.

The CSIS study took particular aim at the U.S. government, which has failed to adapt, remaining “risk averse, inefficient and sluggish” when it comes to the industrial base. And the government regulations that govern foreign military sales are outdated, according to the study, which said the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
.

im-707833


Javelin antitank missiles at a Lockheed Martin facility in Troy, Ala. Photo: nicholas kamm/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

“In trying to prevent military technology from falling into the hands of adversaries, the United States has put in place a regulatory regime that is too sluggish to work with critical front-line countries,” the report said.

The study cited one example in which the decision to provide an unnamed weapon system to Taiwan using the U.S. foreign military sales process added two years to the delivery date, which meant it took four years to get to the island counting the two-year production time.

“This is a significant and problematic difference given the ongoing tensions in the Taiwan Strait,” the study said.

While the kind of weaponry U.S. officials believe Taiwan needs for a fight is in many cases different than what has been sent to Ukraine, the conflict in Europe has nonetheless exposed fissures within the industrial base and the government for contending with the problem, Mr. Jones said.

At the same time, the government has yet to adapt to what Mr. Jones and others believe is a wartime mentality that requires governmental agility and efficiency to enable the defense industry to produce more weapons.

China’s autocratic government, on the other hand, has invested heavily in recent years in military modernization.

A series of wargames CSIS conducted in recent months showed that the U.S., in the case of a conflict with China, could run out of some weaponry, including long-range, precision-guided munitions, in less than one week.

Mr. Jones recommends that the
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!
, urging Congress to hold hearings on the matter. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Army Gen. Mark Milley said in November that such an effort is already under way.

The study also suggests reassessing American requirements for replenishing its stockpiles, creating a strategic munitions reserve and determining a sustainable munitions procurement plan to meet current and future requirements.
 
Top