Pax Americana, Technological Readiness and broken weapons systems

[AdamG]

Wasn't this in "Hammer's Slammers"?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-will.html?m=1

[Azor]

Wasn't this in "Hammer's Slammers"?
http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/01...-will.html?m=1

These are intended to be cheaper than CHAAMP and more mindful of damaging civilian infrastructure.

[AmericanPride]

This is probably one of the underlying math problems that threatens U.S. military superiority. The rate of increase in cost (resulting in a reduction in the number of available physical assets) exceeds the rate of increase in capabilities. Therefore, even as the U.S. spends more money, it receives a declining amount of combat power per dollar. Related to this problem, the long development & implementation timelines for new generations of aircraft, submarines, etc exceeds the analytical capability to assess their utility by the time they enter service. The average in fighter aircraft development time was about one year in 1945 to over 20 years today. What is the security environment going to be like in 2037? Nobody knows. Ask an analyst in 1913 what the world would be like in 1933. We don't have the institutional flexibility to respond to paradigm shifts in security.

[AmericanPride]

Not specifically military focused, but related nonetheless:

Yet despite the remarkable success of the U.S. innovation economy, many players in both government and industry have been pulling back from the types of bold long-term investments in fundamental science that could seed the great companies of the future. The entire innovation ecosystem is becoming more shortsighted and cautious. And by failing to invest sufficiently in basic research today, Washington risks creating an innovation deficit that may hobble the U.S. economy for decades to come. This concern has become acute since the White House released its budget blueprint, which proposes crippling cuts to science funding.

How to Maintain America's Edge

[AdamG]

Top generals have been insisting for years that if North Korea launched a missile at the United States, the U.S military would be able to shoot it down.
But that is a highly questionable assertion, according to independent scientists and government investigators.
In making it, the generals fail to acknowledge huge questions about the effectiveness of the $40 billion missile defense system they rely on to stop a potential nuclear-armed ballistic missile fired by North Korean or Iran, according to a series of outside reviews.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/us-...cid=spartandhp

[AdamG]

Fighter jets with laser weapons set to take to the skies in 2021 as Lockheed Martin wins $26 million 'Lance' high-energy laser contract

'LANCE' contract will build on technology from the Athena and Aladin lasers $26.3m contract aims to design, develop, and produce system for fighter jets. An airborne platform is smaller, presenting more of a challenge, experts say

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...aser-jets.html



Anyone remember the last time the USAF traded up for shiny new weapons systems?


“There was this strange idea in the Department of Defense that the gun was passé,” says military aviation historian Richard P. Hallion. “And the gun has never been passé.” Compared to the missiles of today, he says, the air-to-air missiles arming F-4s and F-8s during Vietnam were primitive and unreliable.

[Compost]

There is potentially yet another problem with the F-35A CTOL variant of the JSF. For Air-Air Refuelling the F-35A has on its fuselage spine a standard US Air Force-style AAR receptacle designed to interface with the heavy flying boom of an aerial tanker. By contrast the maritime F-35B STOVL and F-35C CATOBAR variants for the US Marine Corps and US Navy are equipped with a retractable AAR elbow-probe designed to interface with a less heavy long hose-drogue towed by a tanker, or by a buddy fighter temporarily configured as an expedient tanker.

The refuelling boom carried by specialised tankers is subject to damage and malfunction due to slapping and ramming, and it can also damage the AAR receptacle on a receiving aircraft. However those large tankers typically have a boom and two underwing hose-drogue pods .On that basis and the redundancy factor implicit in twin hoses it is apparent that many receiver aircraft would be better secured and more employable if dual equipped with an AAR receptacle and an AAR probe.

There have been no reports of a version of the F-35A being either dual equipped or singly equipped with just an AAR probe. So those European and other forces which have traditionally employed buddy fighters and specialised hose-drogue - or boom and hose-drogue - tankers may be doing so knowing that acquisition of the F-35A CTOL will leave them with loose ends.