Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

sferrin · by **sferrin** » 16 Jun 2018, 14:29

McCain can't go soon enough. He stirs the pot just so somebody will stick a mic in his face.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 16 Jun 2018, 16:44

Sen. McCain is not affected by the ACA and its eternal premium increases. He is completely oblivious to assert that there needs to be a 2 party approach to solve the problems facing US health care. Did Lord Obama and his party feel the same way back in 2010 concerning their legislation?? The answer is a resounding NO.

Americans should not hold their politicians as near divine. Regardless of his service, he is simply out of touch-

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 18 Jun 2018, 00:56

kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

Which is why McCain wants hundreds of two-seater manned light attack aircraft?

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 18 Jun 2018, 02:39

madrat wrote:I think he was referencing my post. I have no love for McCain or any other confederate doing the bidding that our opponents wouldn't dare try directly. His track record speaks volumes about his loyalty. The people of Arizona could have done way better.

Perhaps.
However his "ad hominem attacks" accusation on the wild and the fact that I consider and posted that Senator McCain is "senile" left me to believe that he was (also) addressing me. I guess that the fact that he didn't mentioned anyone in particular also leaves the possibility that he was actually referencing/replying to both of us as well as to any other poster that shared and posted a similar opinion as us.

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 18 Jun 2018, 04:47

kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

who do you think builds unmanned platforms?

kostas29 · by **kostas29** » 19 Jun 2018, 00:57

rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

who do you think builds unmanned platforms?

it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

marauder2048 · by **marauder2048** » 19 Jun 2018, 02:22

kostas29 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

who do you think builds unmanned platforms?

it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

Except the margins are often better on unmanned systems than manned systems.
And contractors can not only produce them but also operate them on the government's dime.

madrat · by **madrat** » 19 Jun 2018, 02:25

kostas29 wrote:You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

No, not really. I'd be targeting the middle ground between quality and quantity, and play a wider swath of sales potential. Sales theory revolves around a curve. Would you corner yourself off to one slope or the other when you have so much in the meaty center? Never.

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 19 Jun 2018, 02:48

UCAVs also get "lost"' more often so in the end you build a lot more.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 19 Jun 2018, 04:01

John McCain is all about keeping pressure on the US Military. Just like a Drill Instructor is to a New Recruit! Yet, in the end you're stronger for it. Something he knows a great deal about.....

Honestly, odd that so free people get it or respect him for it.

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 19 Jun 2018, 07:55

UCAVs are great for some things but they are not going to replace manned aircraft during the next 50 years IMO. More and more of them are going to be used and they will have larger role in the battlefield, but it will take a long time before they are going to replace manned combat aircraft in meaningful way.

Currently and in the near future (next 20 years) they are going to be used in reconnaissance and limited strikes in single units or very small co-operative groups. In the future they are going to be used for more and more demanding missions as their capabilties improve and in larger co-operative formations.

I do think that the techologies and other aspects needs to be studied and new designs made. They are the future for sure with almost unlimited potential, but it will take a relatively long time before they rule the skies. Even the newest designs are still very limited in capabilties and are very expensive. I think there needs to be at least couple new generations of UCAVs before they can do what F-35s with a pilots can do now. I'd think UCAVs as supporting and supplemental platforms for manned aicraft and not a replacement.

zero-one · by **zero-one** » 19 Jun 2018, 17:29

SpudmanWP wrote:You have to love their logic.. Stealth might not be survivable but non-stealth (with better weapons and sensors) could be????

This is absurd since the stealthy platforms should also have access to the same weapons and sensors (often better ones).

I'm trying to find their logic....After a lot of "soul searching" I think I may have gotten it.

Maybe what they mean is. Stealth won't survive no matter how stealthy. So better divert resources to the development of better stand off weapons.

Makes sense????? anyone?

SpudmanWP · by **SpudmanWP** » 19 Jun 2018, 18:06

A VLO platform will always be able to get closer & survive longer (vs a 4th gen platform) so the weapons used will be smaller, will cost less, and the platform will be able to carry more of them thereby requiring less platforms to be bought.

Throw in the fact that VLO platforms will need less escort, decoy, ISR, and ESM support and the choice is clear: VLO platforms will always get the job done for a cheaper price vs current 4th gen platforms.

rheonomic · by **rheonomic** » 20 Jun 2018, 03:31

kostas29 wrote:You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

That's really not how it works. The customer arrives with a set of requirements, you and a group of competitors submit a proposal, and the customer selects based on various figures of merit. If you want any chance of winning you're going to follow those customer requirements as closely as possible. This, of course, does not imply that the customer requirements have to make sense; in fact the vast majority of costs ends up baked in at the requirements definition phase. (Simply put, bad requirements kill you...)

Not to mention the government customer gets to tell you how much profit you can make (if you ever suffer from insomnia, I suggest attempting to read the DFARS).

hornetfinn wrote:UCAVs are great for some things but they are not going to replace manned aircraft during the next 50 years IMO. More and more of them are going to be used and they will have larger role in the battlefield, but it will take a long time before they are going to replace manned combat aircraft in meaningful way.

This is largely in line with my own thoughts on the matter. I'm not entirely convinced that unmanned aircraft will ever have the flexibility and adaptation enabled by a human pilot. I'm also concerned about datalinks. In the event we're ever in the type of conflict that would require such assets (over say something like a Reaper) I'm not convinced that satellite datalinks will even exist, much less that we can guarantee assurance. Of course, you can always pre-program missions, but then you're going open loop and I don't think that's something that we in the West will do with armed vehicles (at least, not until we start losing at which point all bets are off).

hornetfinn wrote:Even the newest designs are still very limited in capabilties and are very expensive.

I think it's safe to say that UCAVs will continue to be expensive.

hornetfinn wrote:I think there needs to be at least couple new generations of UCAVs before they can do what F-35s with a pilots can do now. I'd think UCAVs as supporting and supplemental platforms for manned aicraft and not a replacement.

The various "Loyal Wingman" programs are going to be very interesting to follow. (This also solves the datalink problem mentioned above with LOS options like MADL.)

SpudmanWP wrote:A VLO platform will always be able to get closer & survive longer (vs a 4th gen platform)
[...]
Throw in the fact that VLO platforms will need less escort, decoy, ISR, and ESM support and the choice is clear: VLO platforms will always get the job done for a cheaper price vs current 4th gen platforms.

geforcerfx · by **geforcerfx** » 20 Jun 2018, 05:58

rheonomic wrote: Of course, you can always pre-program missions, but then you're going open loop and I don't think that's something that we in the West will do with armed vehicles (at least, not until we start losing at which point all bets are off).

Cruise Missiles? Programmed missions, only recently adding data links allow to allow more flexibility.

For a strike mission I don't see any issue with having a programmed mission. Plane can use the same systems already in the F-22/35 to avoid detection and pick the best route to the target, deploy weapons and leave back out. They have to shoot it down to stop it, and we get to reuse it if they can't, a lot cheaper then current cruise missiles.