Pentagon Criticized for Losing Innovation Mojo

F-35 Armament, fuel tanks, internal and external hardpoints, loadouts, and other stores.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22961
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post18 May 2014, 15:12

I'm hoping this smart (perhaps now not fully informed?) person has been quoted minimally out of context; but, sadly the quote is here. Good article that indicates to me anyway that the relative ease of updating the F-35 - compared to earlier 'closed' weapon systems - will be of great future benefit.
Pentagon Criticized for Losing Innovation Mojo 18 May 2014 Sandra I. Erwin

"...The Pentagon's tactical fighter fleet, conversely, is an example of things going in the wrong direction, said Cartwright [Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James E. Cartwright]. "I was one of the engineers who built the Navy's F/A-18 [fighter plane]. Now we have the F-35. It doesn't go any further, doesn't go any faster, carries less weapons. ... And it costs three times as much," he said. "We're at diminishing returns."..."

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1509
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

smsgtmac

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 860
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2013, 04:22
  • Location: Texas

Unread post18 May 2014, 16:35

spazsinbad wrote:I'm hoping this smart (perhaps now not fully informed?) person has been quoted minimally out of context; but, sadly the quote is here. Good article that indicates to me anyway that the relative ease of updating the F-35 - compared to earlier 'closed' weapon systems - will be of great future benefit.
Pentagon Criticized for Losing Innovation Mojo 18 May 2014 Sandra I. Erwin

"...The Pentagon's tactical fighter fleet, conversely, is an example of things going in the wrong direction, said Cartwright [Former Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. James E. Cartwright]. "I was one of the engineers who built the Navy's F/A-18 [fighter plane]. Now we have the F-35. It doesn't go any further, doesn't go any faster, carries less weapons. ... And it costs three times as much," he said. "We're at diminishing returns."..."

SOURCE: http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/ ... a2&ID=1509


left my two cents worth:
RE: "Now we have the F-35. It doesn't go any further, doesn't go any faster, carries less weapons. ... And it costs three times as much," he said ...

This answers the question of how quickly out of touch a retired General can get: Darned near instantly. For the General to be accurate, and the statement 'true', it would have to be modified somewhat:

"Now we have the F-35. It doesn't go any further without a war load, but much further with one. It doesn't go any faster without a war load, but it goes much faster with internal fuel needed to go as far as it can, and with four or more weapons carried internally. It carries fewer weapons in a 'Day One' configuration, but if stealth isn't important, then it carries MORE weapons than the F-18 because it doesn't have to carry the external fuel, sensors and countermeasures the F-18 does. And while the early LRIP jets costs more, even inflated CAPE numbers now have the F-35 full-rate production estimates costing little more than any of the later legacy designs".

The good news for the General is that, if he has 'a hair', he has standing to get himself strapped in to an F-18 and experience the helplessness the non-LO aircraft will suffer against the F-35 anytime after delivery of Block 2B software. As written, the General's words have the ring of a LO 'Science-Denier'.
I also note that Hoss' jaw-jacking, which apparently treats precision weapons and LO as if they never happened, also brought immediately to mind what my late Father (career aerospace/test and gas turbine/helicopter man and aircraft restorer par excellence) told me years ago: "I knew you were starting to 'get' aircraft design when your first concern stopped being 'how fast does it go?'

They screen their comments but are pretty good about posting critical observations. We'll see if it takes. Thanks for the tip Spaz!
--The ultimate weapon is the mind of man.
Offline

cantaz

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 782
  • Joined: 26 Jun 2013, 22:01

Unread post18 May 2014, 20:41

Given that the Hornet program sold itself as not being particularly faster, longer ranged or carried more than its predecessors, but rather doing things smarter, I think the man might be getting senile.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post18 May 2014, 22:50

I take it then this former Marine was not a Harrier fan? Curious how he would shape Marine aviation minus STOVL?
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3281
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post19 May 2014, 01:09

"Platforms as a solution to a problem in the battlefield is not the way of the future," he said at the Atlantic Council. "You cannot deal in 15 to 20 year cycles. You have to deal in months," he said. The Navy's laser weapons and rail guns could be "game changers," he added.

Um, how do you square that pair of claims?
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post19 May 2014, 01:40

count_to_10 wrote:
"Platforms as a solution to a problem in the battlefield is not the way of the future," he said at the Atlantic Council. "You cannot deal in 15 to 20 year cycles. You have to deal in months," he said. The Navy's laser weapons and rail guns could be "game changers," he added.

Um, how do you square that pair of claims?

Lasers and rail guns have most definitely taken more than "months" to get to their chrrent stage of development...
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 848
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post19 May 2014, 01:42

Wow, I never knew the USN could develop rail guns and lasers in months! And good luck asking for support from the Navy's lasers and rail gun when you are inland hundreds (perhaps thousands :D) of miles from the coast.

More to your point SSgtmac, if the good general strap himself into a hornet (especially the legacy hornet) and flew into a competently run and well equipped IADS, he sure wouldn't be enjoying that trying to belatedly build a mental picture of his tactical situation from the seperate/federated sensors of the hornet whilst the RWR is screaming at him with a warning that big freaking missiles/SAMs are heading his way....fast (especially if they are double digit SAMs). I think the good general will find that flying the F35 (competently flown that is) in such a situation is a more calming experiencing :D.

It is very telling that senior military officers who have flown in or against fifth generation platforms knows where the game is actually heading!
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5902
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post19 May 2014, 23:56

cantaz wrote:Given that the Hornet program sold itself as not being particularly faster, longer ranged or carried more than its predecessors, but rather doing things smarter, I think the man might be getting senile.


^this.

words like "innovation" and "mojo" are not what I think of when it comes to the Pentagon. Also, You have to have something in the first place in order to "lose" it. I thought a lot of the innovation came from industry anyway.

Oh well Did not read article anyway
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7683
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post20 May 2014, 00:26

He was a maverick while in uniform so don't expect him to change now that he's retired.. my apologies to the General for calling him a "former" Marine though, no such thing from what I understand..
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22961
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post13 Jun 2014, 04:35

I wonder what that former Marine will make of this:

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Media-Center/Pr ... Laser.aspx
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22961
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post14 Aug 2014, 20:10

Here is some more USN laser innovation.... When will we see aircraft with laser weapons.
Navy to deploy vehicle-based laser weapon
14 Aug 2014 Jason Lomberg

"...The U.S. Navy recently awarded an $11 million contract to Raytheon to develop a vehicle-based, short-range laser weapon capable of defeating low-flying threats like enemy drones.

Raytheon’s directed-energy weapon will comply with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) Directed Energy On-the-Move Future Naval Capabilities program (catchy, huh?), which calls for a field demo of a Humvee-mounted short-range laser with minimum power output of 25 kW....

...Raytheon will use its proprietary planar waveguide (PWG) technology as the basis for its directed-energy weapon. A single PWG, as big as a 12-inch ruler, can help power high-energy lasers that can successfully defeat small aircraft.

The finished directed-energy weapon will be similar to the Navy’s shipboard Laser Weapon System (LaWS) and DARPA’s Project Endurance – which aims to develop a laser countermeasures system for manned and unmanned aircraft – but the scope for Raytheon’s system will be much smaller and the environment radically different....

...Later this year, researchers will test out a 10 kW laser as the first step toward a 30 kW directed-energy weapon, and the 30 kW system should be ready for field testing by 2016. The system will eventually deploy on the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), set to go into production in 2015.

Much of the PWG architecture was already used in the GBAD program, and the Marine Corps sees great utility in a vehicle-based laser countermeasures system.

According to Col. William Zamagni, head of ONR’s Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and Combating Terrorism Department, “GBAD employed in a counter UAV role is just the beginning of its use and opens myriad other possibilities for future expeditionary forces.”"

CAPTION: "Raytheon’s laser architecture is implemented in a number of directed-energy weapon applications, including the Laser-Phalanx derivative of the classic naval Close-In Weapon System. Illustration: Raytheon."
http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/ ... ser400.jpg

Source: http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2014/08/nav ... ser-weapon
Attachments
ciws_laser400.jpg
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2632
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post15 Aug 2014, 00:02

spazsinbad wrote:Here is some more USN laser innovation.... When will we see aircraft with laser weapons.
Navy to deploy vehicle-based laser weapon
14 Aug 2014 Jason Lomberg

"...The U.S. Navy recently awarded an $11 million contract to Raytheon to develop a vehicle-based, short-range laser weapon capable of defeating low-flying threats like enemy drones.

Raytheon’s directed-energy weapon will comply with the Office of Naval Research (ONR) Ground Based Air Defense (GBAD) Directed Energy On-the-Move Future Naval Capabilities program (catchy, huh?), which calls for a field demo of a Humvee-mounted short-range laser with minimum power output of 25 kW....

...Raytheon will use its proprietary planar waveguide (PWG) technology as the basis for its directed-energy weapon. A single PWG, as big as a 12-inch ruler, can help power high-energy lasers that can successfully defeat small aircraft.

The finished directed-energy weapon will be similar to the Navy’s shipboard Laser Weapon System (LaWS) and DARPA’s Project Endurance – which aims to develop a laser countermeasures system for manned and unmanned aircraft – but the scope for Raytheon’s system will be much smaller and the environment radically different....

...Later this year, researchers will test out a 10 kW laser as the first step toward a 30 kW directed-energy weapon, and the 30 kW system should be ready for field testing by 2016. The system will eventually deploy on the new Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV), set to go into production in 2015.

Much of the PWG architecture was already used in the GBAD program, and the Marine Corps sees great utility in a vehicle-based laser countermeasures system.

According to Col. William Zamagni, head of ONR’s Expeditionary Maneuver Warfare and Combating Terrorism Department, “GBAD employed in a counter UAV role is just the beginning of its use and opens myriad other possibilities for future expeditionary forces.”"

CAPTION: "Raytheon’s laser architecture is implemented in a number of directed-energy weapon applications, including the Laser-Phalanx derivative of the classic naval Close-In Weapon System. Illustration: Raytheon."
http://www.ecnmag.com/sites/ecnmag.com/ ... ser400.jpg

Source: http://www.ecnmag.com/blogs/2014/08/nav ... ser-weapon


It's only a matter of time due to miniaturization of technologies before we have laser point defense systems on ships, tanks, large aircraft, than fighter aircraft.

Once we have it on fighter aircraft, dog fighting might become that much more important since it will force the enemy to always
1) Waste alot of missiles trying to down our fighters
2) Forcing them to get in close whenever possible
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22961
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Aug 2014, 00:11

Your scenario needs more explanation. IF the laser was long range then NO dogfighting will occur. How will the enemy get close to a laser equipped stealthy fighter? As you can see - more explanation required. Why will not stealthy fighters with/without a laser not down enemy fighters with long range missiles in first instance (whilst remaining undetected by the enemy)?
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

archeman

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 709
  • Joined: 28 Dec 2011, 05:37
  • Location: CA

Unread post15 Aug 2014, 00:29

popcorn wrote:
count_to_10 wrote:
"Platforms as a solution to a problem in the battlefield is not the way of the future," he said at the Atlantic Council. "You cannot deal in 15 to 20 year cycles. You have to deal in months," he said. The Navy's laser weapons and rail guns could be "game changers," he added.

Um, how do you square that pair of claims?

Lasers and rail guns have most definitely taken more than "months" to get to their chrrent stage of development...


And how exactly can you field this Navy Laser or Rail Gun without a new Platform built (or rebuilt) for the purpose?
Unless of course your an Evil Genius with a Genetic-Bio-Weapons-Division...


DrEvil_Lasersimages.jpg
Daddy why do we have to hide? Because we use VI son, and they use windows.
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 22961
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post15 Aug 2014, 00:49

This PDF will have been mentioned on another thread: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=16676&p=212183&hilit=Dunn#p212183
Operational Implications of Laser Weapons
Sep 2005 Richard J. Dunn, III

"...the concept for integrating a SSL [Solid State Laser] into the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would place the laser system in the fan cavity of the short-take-off-and vertical-landing version of the aircraft and use the fan shaft to power a megawatt-sized generator..."

Source: http://www.northropgrumman.com/analysis ... _of_La.pdf (345Kb)
Attachments
F-35laser100kW.gif
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Next

Return to F-35 Armament, Stores and Tactics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests