Quote:The U.S. Air Force is bracing the public—and Congress—for the highly anticipated Next-Generation Air Dominance (NGAD) fighter and the sticker shock wave the world’s first sixth-generation jet will leave in its wake. The NGAD fighter, set to begin replacing the F-22 Raptor in 2030, will cost “multiple hundreds of millions of dollars,” easily two or three times the cost of the F-35. The fighter is being optimized for the Asia Pacific theater and will be accompanied into battle by robotic sidekicks.

Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall, in remarks reported by Defense News, told lawmakers that the crewed version of the NGAD fighter jet would cost “multiple” hundreds of millions of dollars. NGAD includes both crewed and uncrewed fighters; the uncrewed version would cost no more than half as much as the crewed version.

A per-unit cost of $200 million would easily make crewed NGAD fighters the most expensive fighter jet of all time. And to be clear, Kendall’s statement leaves plenty of room for the jet to actually cost in excess of $300 million. For context, the F-35A costs $77 million, while the new, updated F-15EX Super Eagle costs $80 million. If a crewed NGAD costs $300 million and the uncrewed version $150 million, that same pot of money could buy nearly six F-35As.

NGAD is a fundamentally different aircraft than the F-35A. The F-35A was designed in the 1990s as an economical replacement for several fighters, including the F/A-18C, AV-8B Harrier, F-16, and A-10 Thunderbolt. The F-35 was designed to fulfill multiple missions, including traditional fighter air-to-air roles, air-to-ground strike roles, and close air support. The new fighter is better compared to—and will replace—the F-22A Raptor, the world’s first fifth-generation fighter, designed purely for the air superiority mission.

We don’t know a lot about NGAD other than that it was designed and flown in less than a year. The strategic environment has changed a lot since the late 1980s, when the Raptor was first envisioned, and NGAD will reflect that. The aircraft is likely to be laser-focused on China, which means operating over the sweeping expanse of the Asia-Pacific region. A war with Beijing will involve moving tactical aircraft across thousands of miles; operating from remote bases carved out of tiny islands; and flying long-range missions against enemy air and ground defenses.

An NGAD might, for example, fly 1,400 miles from Guam to Kadena Air Base on the Japanese island of Okinawa. There, it could bolster the island’s air defenses, protecting the American and Japanese bases on the island from Chinese fighters attempting to establish air superiority and strike aircraft pummeling allied bases. On the way there and back, it could use its range to skirt around Chinese warships with long-range surface-to-air missile systems.

The F-35 can’t do that, but that’s not what the F-35 was meant for. The F-22, however, can’t do that either, and that’s what the F-22 was meant for in the first place.

What will NGAD look like? Stephen Trimble, defense editor at Aviation Week & Space Technology, spelled out some ideas at the Check Six podcast. Trimble suggests a long-range fighter with the ability to cruise at 70,000 feet—much higher than current fighters—above the speed of sound, using breakthrough technologies such as daytime or optical stealth.

One thing we can infer about the new fighter is that it will be big. Previous-generation fighters used external fuel tanks to extend their range on combat missions, allowing aerial refueling tankers to stay out of harm’s way. External fuel and weapons, however, ruin an aircraft’s stealthy profile, making it much more visible to radar. As a result, NGAD will have to store a large amount of fuel and air-to-air missiles under the skin, buried within the fuselage of the aircraft.

Trimble suggests NGAD could be as large as the F-111—a large, long-range strike aircraft that served from the late 1960s to the 1990s. The F-111 was 73 feet long, could fly from treetop level to 60,000 feet, had a maximum takeoff weight of 100,000 pounds, and with internal fuel alone had a range of 2,600 nautical miles.

The F-22 is 62 feet long, flies at up to 65,000 feet, has a maximum takeoff weight of 83,000 pounds, and has a range of 1,600 nautical miles while carrying 10,000 pounds of fuel in external tanks. This number suggests that, if the Air Force wanted an air superiority fighter with a 2,000-nautical-mile range (enough to fly from Guam to Okinawa), an F-111-sized aircraft is not far from the mark.

No matter what NGAD actually looks like, it will probably be unlike anything we’ve ever seen before. It will also cost a lot more than we’ve ever paid for a fighter jet before. But in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which many predicted would never happen, it seems likely that the U.S. will indeed pay whatever it costs—both to deter China from launching a similar attack on Taiwan or, if deterrence fails, clearing the skies of People’s Liberation Army Air Force fighters.

Link

There's a 90% chance that China will have their version available to their pilots long before US does.

The Chinese stuff is usually based on Russian export aircraft. There's nothing like this in existence for the Chinese to copy. Assuming this US aircraft ever makes into full production, the Chinese will no doubt manufacture a plane they claim is a match---but past history tells us it wont be anything close to a real match. The F-22 entered US service nearly 25 years ago and the Chinese still dont have a plane that can really challenge its abilities as a air superiority fighter.

I question if such a plane even makes sense anymore. A plane that expensive is almost too valuable to risk---yet its primary job is inherently the most dangerous mission of any aircraft. Its job is to face a high air threat environment and then to eliminate those threats to create full control of the air. We are heading for a future where that will be a job better performed by relatively cheap drones.

$200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

I don't understand the limited release of the F-22.

Raptors are seriously awesome aircraft.

(05-09-2022 01:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  $200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

Maybe the Chinese will bankrupt themselves trying to keep up with a mirage?

(05-09-2022 02:26 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't understand the limited release of the F-22.

Raptors are seriously awesome aircraft.

We were supposed to get something like 800 Raptors and they killed off the program with around 180 delivered.

Since we basically didn’t need air superiority fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan they decided we wouldn’t need a large fleet of them and pumped the money into JSF.

It was an overall mistake, but a symptom of always planning to fight the last war.

(05-10-2022 07:19 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 02:26 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't understand the limited release of the F-22.

Raptors are seriously awesome aircraft.

We were supposed to get something like 800 Raptors and they killed off the program with around 180 delivered.

Since we basically didn’t need air superiority fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan they decided we wouldn’t need a large fleet of them and pumped the money into JSF.

It was an overall mistake, but a symptom of always planning to fight the last war.

I love the Raptor and I wish they would have made more but it was the right call to stop production. I didn't think that at first but I do now. No one in the world, I mean no one, has a plane that is close in numbers. Yes maybe Russia and China have a plane or two that may come close but that is it. The Raptor is almost 20 years into its service life and 30 years old overall. Hard to believe.

The F-35 is much better than originally thought and we have over 500 in active service right now. The F-35s sensors are better than the Raptors. Raptors concentrate on air superiority and the F-35s have the rest.

(05-09-2022 01:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  $200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

Agreed.

Japan is set to buy 147 F-35s

(05-10-2022 08:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 07:19 AM)U_of_Elvis Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 02:26 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't understand the limited release of the F-22.

Raptors are seriously awesome aircraft.

We were supposed to get something like 800 Raptors and they killed off the program with around 180 delivered.

Since we basically didn’t need air superiority fighters in Iraq or Afghanistan they decided we wouldn’t need a large fleet of them and pumped the money into JSF.

It was an overall mistake, but a symptom of always planning to fight the last war.

I love the Raptor and I wish they would have made more but it was the right call to stop production. I didn't think that at first but I do now. No one in the world, I mean no one, has a plane that is close in numbers. Yes maybe Russia and China have a plane or two that may come close but that is it. The Raptor is almost 20 years into its service life and 30 years old overall. Hard to believe.

The F-35 is much better than originally thought and we have over 500 in active service right now. The F-35s sensors are better than the Raptors. Raptors concentrate on air superiority and the F-35s have the rest.

Correct. The F-35 already has the sensor/networking suite capable of controlling other available weapons platforms or future drones. I suspect we’d be better off developing long range drone interceptors to pair with the F35 as that likely is a much cheaper and more efficient way to perform the air superiority mission going forward.

(05-09-2022 01:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  $200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

Since at least Joe Stalin, the Russians are fond of saying, "Quantity has a quality of its own."

My thinking is that we need some top-of-the-line superstar aircraft (and ships and tanks and so forth) but that we also need some affordable and easily maintained kit to flesh out the numbers. My active duty Navy time included the term of Elmo Zumwalt as CNO, and his approach was called High/Low. We built nuclear aircraft carriers, submarines, and cruisers that incorporated state-of-the-art technology, but also built ships at the lower end of the spectrum--46 Knoxes (which were already being built when Zumwalt took over) and 52 Perrys, both of which turned out to be pretty good anti-submarine warfare (ASW) platforms. Building those in numbers contributed significantly to the ability to build toward the "600-ship navy" championed by SecDef Cap Weinberger and SecNav John Lehman during the Reagan administration. There are conflicting opinions as to how much the USA military buildup drove defense and economic stress that brought about the ultimate collapse of the Soviet Union. But one thing for sure, the major Soviet naval threat during the time frame was from submarines, and an extra 98 ASW platforms was hugely important militarily, even if the economic effect was not totally game-changing. From my point of view, the immediate triggers for the Soviet collapse were internal economic and demographic pressures, but the need (and difficulty) to keep up with the USA militarily clearly imposed additional stresses.

Enough history. I think we are severely handicapping ourselves by our fascination with high-tech, high-cost solutions to every military need. On the USN side, we are spending $14B each on Ford-class aircraft carriers that offer only modest (if any) improvement over the $9B each Nimitz class. And so far, the Fords have been plagued because their state-of-the-art systems have not proved to be reliable--specifically catapults, arresting gear, weapons lifts--and toilets. So they do everything well except launch and recover aircraft, arm those aircraft prior to launch--and provide a place to take a leak or a crap when necessary. We also spent roughly $700-800MM each on 35 "littoral combat ships" that possess few, if any, combat capabilities, and virtually nothing of use in a littoral scenario. If the USN had been willing to reduce top speed from 45 knots (for which nobody has made a convincing need-based case) to 30 knots, studies indicate that the ships could have been built for half the cost or less. They would still be pretty useless (a 57mm popgun plus a flight deck that is too light to handle large helos, and armor and damage control limitations that require abandoning ship if it take a hit) but at least it would be useless at a cheaper cost. The worst part is probably that the USN decommissioned the Knoxes and Perrys ahead of their time to make room for the LCSs, and in doing so along with prematurely decommissioning the Spruance class destroyers (probably the best ASW surface ships ever) severely kneecapped our ASW capability, which today is pretty close to nil (taking the S-3 ASW/patrol aircraft off carriers did not help either). In another area that is a particular peeve of mine, the USN has replaced the then-existing amphibious fleet (the ones that haul Marines around) with the LHA/LHD "big deck amphibs" and the LPD-17 class, both of which are too expensive to risk in close to an enemy coast (3-5 miles, from which amphib operations can be conducted) so that we can essentially haul Marines around to virtually anywhere on earth, but have no capability to put any of them ashore except as small ultra-ultra-light infantry detachments (which I liken to a bunch of boy scouts with BB guns). There are a number of other examples all across the fleet. What the USN currently needs badly are ASW, anti-surface/ship missiles (ASuW), mine countermeasures (MCM), naval gunfire support (NGFS), a redesign of the amphibious force back to smaller amphibs, and combat logistics force (CLF) ships to support operations. Fortunately, all of those (with the possible exceptions of big-gun battleships and cruisers needed for the NGFS mission) would be very much low-end ships in the High/Low concept, reducing cost/ship and enabling much greater numbers.

Bottom line, the current USN plan is to build a 355 or so ship navy (not really clear how big exactly, because the latest "plan" has so many alternative scenarios that it is impossible to come up with one number) at an average cost of $2.8B/ship, spending roughly $850B on ship acquisition in the next 30 years, or $28B/year (compared with current shipbuilding levels of $20-22B/year). By going with a High/Low mix, the cost/ship could be reduced to $1.4B, enabling the construction of a 600-ship fleet (funny how that number pops up again) for the same or lesser cost/year--or spread it out over 40 years, and you'd have a 450 ship navy at the 30-year mark, and 600 at 40, and that fleet could be built and maintained going forward for $21B/year, which is right in the current spending range.

One other thing is not addressed often enough in these discussions. The fascination with high-cost, high-tech systems not only decreases the number that can be built, but is also reduces the number of defense contractors that can build them. We won WWII because our industrial base vastly out-produced those of Germany and Japan. In particular, Kaiser produced 747 cargo, troop transport, and amphibious ships, along with 50 escort carriers ("Jeep carriers"). These were all decidedly low end ships, but they basically won the war in the Pacific by overwhelming the Japanese navy in numbers. We need more than two combat aircraft manufacturers (LockMart and Boeing/McD) and more than five navy shipbuilders (Bath, HII, Electric Boat, Fincantieri/Marinette, and Austal) in order to have the surge capacity to respond effectively to a major war. A High/Low approach would open up the field for a number of other players, creating not only ramp up capability in wartime but also building a cadre of trained and experienced workers who could help overcome the current maintenance backlogs. And having more providers to bid on contracts could reduce significantly the cost/unit.

(05-10-2022 10:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 08:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  I love the Raptor and I wish they would have made more but it was the right call to stop production. I didn't think that at first but I do now. No one in the world, I mean no one, has a plane that is close in numbers. Yes maybe Russia and China have a plane or two that may come close but that is it. The Raptor is almost 20 years into its service life and 30 years old overall. Hard to believe.
The F-35 is much better than originally thought and we have over 500 in active service right now. The F-35s sensors are better than the Raptors. Raptors concentrate on air superiority and the F-35s have the rest.

Correct. The F-35 already has the sensor/networking suite capable of controlling other available weapons platforms or future drones. I suspect we’d be better off developing long range drone interceptors to pair with the F35 as that likely is a much cheaper and more efficient way to perform the air superiority mission going forward.

High/Low.

Although I am not as big a fan of drones as many of our current military leaders appear to be. I think they may be useful for strike ops, if nothing else than because their use theoretically avoids the potential loss of a highly-trained pilot, but I am not convinced that they can be truly effective in the fighter/interceptor/air superiority role.

(05-10-2022 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 10:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 08:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  I love the Raptor and I wish they would have made more but it was the right call to stop production. I didn't think that at first but I do now. No one in the world, I mean no one, has a plane that is close in numbers. Yes maybe Russia and China have a plane or two that may come close but that is it. The Raptor is almost 20 years into its service life and 30 years old overall. Hard to believe.
The F-35 is much better than originally thought and we have over 500 in active service right now. The F-35s sensors are better than the Raptors. Raptors concentrate on air superiority and the F-35s have the rest.

Correct. The F-35 already has the sensor/networking suite capable of controlling other available weapons platforms or future drones. I suspect we’d be better off developing long range drone interceptors to pair with the F35 as that likely is a much cheaper and more efficient way to perform the air superiority mission going forward.

High/Low.

Although I am not as big a fan of drones as many of our current military leaders appear to be. I think they may be useful for strike ops, if nothing else than because their use theoretically avoids the potential loss of a highly-trained pilot, but I am not convinced that they can be truly effective in the fighter/interceptor/air superiority role.

What Im advocating is more of a hybrid approach. The manned aircraft would control one or more highly capable drone escorts that fly ahead. Theoretically, a drone should be more capable than a human in actual combat if for no other reason than it has no real physical limitations. The problem with the kind of plane they are contemplating is its so expensive it cant be built in substantial numbers and thus, is going to be rarely risked. If your afraid to use it---it kinda undermines its purpose.

I'd like to see them do something with the Raptor that increases its range and upgrades its suite to F-35 capabilities (maybe more since it has a better radar). If we build it, we have to build it in enough numbers that the overwhelming fear of losing one doesnt completely drive its use.

I like your high-low theory a lot. Thats one reason I advocate doing something to make the remaining LCS fleet more useful. Just slapping 4 to 8 VLS cells on the things vastly improves their usefulness by giving them a reasonably robust mid-range anti-air capability that will allow them to half-way defend themselves or perform light escort duties. Id look at converting the Freedoms and their balky engines to anti-mine duty. Dont need to ever use the combining gear for that duty. No reason the anti-mine module cant be redesigned using the best of currently in service tech. It can always be updated later if something better comes along. Ease of future updating was one of the key motivations behind the modular design concept. Its going to be well into the 2030's at best before replacements for the LCS's will arrive in any numbers. It just doesnt make sense to me to dump 35 almost new hulls that can still potentially perform lower end duties, thus relieving some of the mission load the rest of the combat capable fleet will have to perform. I agree they arent very good vessels, and they were a mistake---but like the Jeep Carrier of WWII---not every vessel had to be an Essex class fast carrier. Like the Jeep Carrier, the LCS can still potentially be useful in the Navy handling low end duties until something much better arrives.

(05-10-2022 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like your high-low theory a lot. Thats one reason I advocate doing something to make the remaining LCS fleet more useful. Just slapping 4 to 8 VLS cells on the things vastly improves their usefulness by giving them a reasonably robust mid-range anti-air capability that will allow them to half-way defend themselves or perform light escort duties. Id look at converting the Freedoms and their balky engines to anti-mine duty. Don't need to ever use the combining gear for that duty. No reason the anti-mine module cant be redesigned using the best of currently in service tech. It can always be updated later if something better comes along. Ease of future updating was one of the key motivations behind the modular design concept. Its going to be well into the 2030's at best before replacements for the LCS's will arrive in any numbers. It just doesn't make sense to me to dump 35 hulls that can still potentially perform lower end duties, thus relieving some of the mission load the rest of the combat capable fleet will have to perform.

The LCS is remarkable for having been designated a "littoral" combat ship, but possessing virtually no capability of use in a littoral scenario. The 57mm popgun can't do NGFS, engine noise prevents doing shallow water ASW, and the MCM module does not work.

What can be done to make the LCS fleet more useful would be to replace the engines and combining gears with a basic diesel plant that would give them something in the 25-30 knot speed range, and turn them over to the Coast Guard as cutters. The lack of damage control capability is theoretically not a problem for cutters, but is a disqualifying problem for any ship that intends to go in harm's way. Slapping 4-8 VLS cells on a ship that has to be abandoned if it takes a hit strikes me as a good way to send 4-8 valuable missiles to the bottom of the ocean, but not much else. One other thing that would have to be addressed before making them cutters is that for the sake of cutting weight to get speed, the helo decks are apparently too light to handle anything but light helos, and in a cutter role you might want to operate something larger.

One problem with the mine countermeasures (MCM) mission arises because there are two ways to deal with mines--sweeping or hunting. The LCS MCM module is exclusively for hunting. Hunting is the more thorough process, you can get 100% of the mines that way, but it is incredibly slow. Military operations require risks and timing. At some point a commander may say, "I need to go by a certain date and time. If the risk is below a certain level at that time, I will take the chance." That really doesn't work with hunting. Another obvious problem with using LCSs anywhere near a mine field is the one-hit-and-abandon-ship doctrine. Working around a mine field, taking hits is a reality that goes with the mission. Even a distant mine explosion could send out shock waves that cause severe damage to such a lightly-built ship. An abandoned LCS is a worthless platform for MCM or any other purpose.

My approach to MCM would be twofold--sweeping and hunting. Use a combination of two platforms for sweeping--helo sweeps like the USN used in Haiphong and other North Vietnamese ports after that war ended, and drone sweeps like the Germans have used for years. Both helos and drones need mother ships. and I would propose something like a small LSD/LPD that could carry maybe 2 helos on deck, and in the well 2-3 sets of helo sweep gear and 4-6 drones. ComNavOps (screen name), over at Navy-matters.blogspot.com, has an interesting proposal--a bunch of relatively cheap small underwater vehicles that could be sent up a channel and programmed to seek and destroy anything that looks like it could be a mine without worrying about the time-consuming classification process. The mother ship could carry a bunch of those, as could the second ship type--a minehunter. The new Belgian-Dutch minehunter might be a way to go for that platform.

(05-10-2022 10:11 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 10:09 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 08:28 AM)UofMTigerTim Wrote:  I love the Raptor and I wish they would have made more but it was the right call to stop production. I didn't think that at first but I do now. No one in the world, I mean no one, has a plane that is close in numbers. Yes maybe Russia and China have a plane or two that may come close but that is it. The Raptor is almost 20 years into its service life and 30 years old overall. Hard to believe.
The F-35 is much better than originally thought and we have over 500 in active service right now. The F-35s sensors are better than the Raptors. Raptors concentrate on air superiority and the F-35s have the rest.

Correct. The F-35 already has the sensor/networking suite capable of controlling other available weapons platforms or future drones. I suspect we’d be better off developing long range drone interceptors to pair with the F35 as that likely is a much cheaper and more efficient way to perform the air superiority mission going forward.

High/Low.

Although I am not as big a fan of drones as many of our current military leaders appear to be. I think they may be useful for strike ops, if nothing else than because their use theoretically avoids the potential loss of a highly-trained pilot, but I am not convinced that they can be truly effective in the fighter/interceptor/air superiority role.

Pairing an air superiority fighter with a UAV "wingman" is an interesting concept in a stealth world, especially given the long range initial engagements and the increase of radar profile while launching ordinance from stealth platforms.

For that first 100+ mile salvo where you are using targeting data from another platform to stay stealth from an emissions standpoint your UAV wingman can launch that first strike from a different heading to the target.

(05-10-2022 11:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-10-2022 11:08 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  I like your high-low theory a lot. Thats one reason I advocate doing something to make the remaining LCS fleet more useful. Just slapping 4 to 8 VLS cells on the things vastly improves their usefulness by giving them a reasonably robust mid-range anti-air capability that will allow them to half-way defend themselves or perform light escort duties. Id look at converting the Freedoms and their balky engines to anti-mine duty. Don't need to ever use the combining gear for that duty. No reason the anti-mine module cant be redesigned using the best of currently in service tech. It can always be updated later if something better comes along. Ease of future updating was one of the key motivations behind the modular design concept. Its going to be well into the 2030's at best before replacements for the LCS's will arrive in any numbers. It just doesn't make sense to me to dump 35 hulls that can still potentially perform lower end duties, thus relieving some of the mission load the rest of the combat capable fleet will have to perform.

The LCS is remarkable for having been designated a "littoral" combat ship, but possessing virtually no capability of use in a littoral scenario. The 57mm popgun can't do NGFS, engine noise prevents doing shallow water ASW, and the MCM module does not work.

What can be done to make the LCS fleet more useful would be to replace the engines and combining gears with a basic diesel plant that would give them something in the 25-30 knot speed range, and turn them over to the Coast Guard as cutters. The lack of damage control capability is theoretically not a problem for cutters, but is a disqualifying problem for any ship that intends to go in harm's way. Slapping 4-8 VLS cells on a ship that has to be abandoned if it takes a hit strikes me as a good way to send 4-8 valuable missiles to the bottom of the ocean, but not much else. One other thing that would have to be addressed before making them cutters is that for the sake of cutting weight to get speed, the helo decks are apparently too light to handle anything but light helos, and in a cutter role you might want to operate something larger.

One problem with the mine countermeasures (MCM) mission arises because there are two ways to deal with mines--sweeping or hunting. The LCS MCM module is exclusively for hunting. Hunting is the more thorough process, you can get 100% of the mines that way, but it is incredibly slow. Military operations require risks and timing. At some point a commander may say, "I need to go by a certain date and time. If the risk is below a certain level at that time, I will take the chance." That really doesn't work with hunting. Another obvious problem with using LCSs anywhere near a mine field is the one-hit-and-abandon-ship doctrine. Working around a mine field, taking hits is a reality that goes with the mission. Even a distant mine explosion could send out shock waves that cause severe damage to such a lightly-built ship. An abandoned LCS is a worthless platform for MCM or any other purpose.

My approach to MCM would be twofold--sweeping and hunting. Use a combination of two platforms for sweeping--helo sweeps like the USN used in Haiphong and other North Vietnamese ports after that war ended, and drone sweeps like the Germans have used for years. Both helos and drones need mother ships. and I would propose something like a small LSD/LPD that could carry maybe 2 helos on deck, and in the well 2-3 sets of helo sweep gear and 4-6 drones. ComNavOps (screen name), over at Navy-matters.blogspot.com, has an interesting proposal--a bunch of relatively cheap small underwater vehicles that could be sent up a channel and programmed to seek and destroy anything that looks like it could be a mine without worrying about the time-consuming classification process. The mother ship could carry a bunch of those, as could the second ship type--a minehunter. The new Belgian-Dutch minehunter might be a way to go for that platform.

lol---well---I guess we can forget getting much out of the Independence variant LCS's. The Independence variant hasnt had the engine issues that Freedom class suffered from----but its apparently been found to have a hull defect causing cracking in its aluminum hull. I suspect the entire class will be gone before long. I dont see any hope of seeing increased US Navy ship numbers for decades. In fact, we will see continued declining numbers for at least the next decade (likely the next two decades) there is nothing we can do about it at this point. What a waste....and worse yet---I think we still have 4 still under construction. There should not be another bolt turned on those new vessels until its decided if the Independence class is even safe to operate.

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/th...e-cracking

(05-09-2022 01:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  $200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

Depends. Do you want your kids or grandkids speaking Mandarin?

(05-09-2022 02:26 PM)umbluegray Wrote:  I don't understand the limited release of the F-22.

Raptors are seriously awesome aircraft.

I think the expectation was the difference between the F-22 cost and F-35 cost was going to be much greater than it eventually was. The F-35 was supposed the be reasonably priced volume backbone of the air force. Secondly, the decision to cut the program back occurred during a period when the Soviet Union had dissolved and the Chinese had yet to become much of a serious military threat. Given their high cost, building 750 F-22's (the original expectation) seemed excessive---especially in a post Soviet Union collapse environment. In a world where everyone was looking for that elusive "peace dividend"----it seemed like buying the almost as capable coming F-35 Joint Strike Fighter would be a more reasonable and economical option.

(05-12-2022 03:57 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-09-2022 01:55 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  $200 million is way too much for a plane. The F-35 is already ridiculously priced. We'll bankrupt ourselves pursuing this kind of nonsense.

Depends. Do you want your kids or grandkids speaking Mandarin?

My concern is that its simply going to be too easy to overwhelm a 200 million dollar aircraft with 50 1-million dollar drones. I have the same concern with future carrier fleets. If I can throw 50 small fairly cheap autonomous sub drones at a carrier fleet----how likely is it that my escorts will take out all 50 before one slips through? We have to be perfect---they just need for one or two to slip through out of 50 tries.

Attackcoog, I agree 100% with you, but 50 one million dollar drones don't bring in a lot of money to the government stooges aka Congresspeople, just like a simple Covid drug that costs about $10 dollars didn't bring in a lot of money to Big Pharma, that's why the propaganda about it not working. It's all about the Benjamins as the muslim hypocrite said.