Considering that now military hardware is so complex, tech heavy and expensive that most nations have to organize into joint programs to make new desi...

Considering that now military hardware is so complex, tech heavy and expensive that most nations have to organize into joint programs to make new designs, were the reformers right all along? How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen that require decades to implement and can only be built in very few numbers?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    > were the reformers right
    No.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Fpbp.The West is averse to casualties and rich.Throwing money at the problem is our natural way of fighting.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        the west - NATO, if you're a thirdie - has thrown countless billions of dollars at a nation it has no formal alliances with
        you're moving on to copioids if you truly believe the US is averse to war

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Adverse to casualties, not adverse to war. We'll spend millions if not billions of dollars if it means one less casualty.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        It’s not even a casualty aversion thing. It’s a simple logic of “good pilots in good equipment are more effective than good pilots in shitty equipment, and wayyy more effective than shitty pilots in shorty equipment”

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          > shorty equipment
          ...autocorrect?

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            …yes. It’s definitely that and definitely not me being moronic.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >wayyy more effective than shitty pilots in shorty equipment
          Manlets, when will they learn?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Not only that but spending money can save money.
        Look at how much is cost to kill the ball bearing factory in Schweinfurt.
        >137 B-17s killed
        >179 B-17s damaged
        >2 Spitfires killed
        >3 P-47s killed

        These days a single F-15 would get the job done much cheaper despite being a more expensive plane dropping more expensive bombs.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The west is not averse to casualties. The west is averse to a fair fight, because the only unfair fight is the one you lose.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The west is averse to needless casualties, not casualties in general. Desert Storm and the pre-ground-war estimates should show you that the US and all its allies were not scared of losing men.

          F-16s nearly always carry tanks because lack of fuel is their biggest weakness.

          Well yes, but I believe the case the anon is talking about was done between an F-16 with drop tanks and an F-35 with flight testing instrumentation to figure out oddities in the F-35's flight control systems. I remember third worlders making fun of the F-35 at the time for "being unable to fight a clean F-16".

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            >I remember third worlders making fun of the F-35 at the time for "being unable to fight a clean F-16"
            I love their mentality
            >your new plane is so shit your 50yo planes beats it
            As if they have anything that competes with the 50yo plane.

            [...]
            Also an F-16 in an actual proper dogfight is going to drop tanks unless it has absolutely no choice. Tanks limit it to like 5G, which funnily enough means that an F-35 running on internal fuel without internal stores would be able to fricking style on an F-16 in that configuration.

            I have read F-16 pilots on combat missions would set up selective jettison for the tanks before entering the AO so it's one button to ditch them.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              >I have read F-16 pilots on combat missions would set up selective jettison for the tanks before entering the AO so it's one button to ditch them.
              Well I think it's actually two, one to get to the SJ page and then one to actually jettison, but yeah you're right. It's one button if you hit the emergency jettison.

              People don't talk enough about how insane the F-35 being able to do 800nmi+ missions on internal fuel is. Even just the lack of drag from the tanks is a gamechanger, let alone the lack of a G restriction.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >800 nmi
                Imagine taking off for a long range mission and then realizing that you really need to take a shit and realizing you're going to be trapped in that plane for 4+ hours.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Reminds me of that AAR video where the KC-135 boom operator was bragging about having water and fried chicken on the plane and the fighter jet pilot was audibly jealous.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The B-1 that did a 15 hour mission the other day must have been fun.
                >4 guys
                >1 3ft by 3ft area big enough to stand
                >no shitter
                I think for missions like that you just accept your fate and trust in the cyber diaper.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      this
      if we were fighting ww3 maybe we're churn out 10000s of VB-200 vvundervvaffens, but we're not and if we were.. nukes, so...

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      FPBP. The Reformers are glue-huffing morons who unironically believe that cheap-and-spammable is better than making an investment in technological superiority, and for a case study in what happens when the two face off, read up on the Battle of Rourke's Drift.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous
  2. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The low cost high numbers area is now filled by ground launched drones not manned kamikazes larping as F16s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This, but instead of drones it's cruise missiles using drones and ISR assets for targeting. Relying on shitty fixed wing UAS for attacks is a cope poor countries engage in.

  3. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The biltzfighter is trash and Burton was a lying hack, so no, they were not right.

  4. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were the reformers right
    Lol, no.
    >How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen that require decades to implement and can only be built in very few numbers?
    We can't sustain it today, that's why the F-15EX is entering production and this is the solution we'll see for other high cost systems.
    >build a few great ones
    >build a lot of ok ones
    It's the same old "high / low" system the air force has used for decades only today the "low" is a modernized "high" from the 70s.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >that's why the F-15EX is entering production
      no, dipshit, the F-15EX is for the National Guard
      the F-35 is the low
      the NGAD is the high

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The NGAD is the future high. It’s more accurate to call the f22 the present high

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      The price of a new F-15EX is higher than that of a new F-35A.

  5. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you wanted that shit show's capabilities youd be better off with a suicide drone. Cheaper, easier to replace, wont get the pilot (which you sunk training costs into) clapped by el cheapo aa.

    Uber capable platforms have their place, if in the current conflict the us decided tp use their f35s to clap the russian airforce for ukraine, there really isnt dick the russians could do but nook or die to anything airborne.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      In WW1 pilots had a few weeks of training, as long as the plane costs less than a private it is viable.

      post your indigenous space program from wherever you come from
      and post your brown hands thirdie
      it want to see what shitskin land you come from

      Several third world nations have space programs.

  6. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >that most nations have to organize into joint programs to make new designs,
    lmfao, sounds like a european nation problem

    first world nations like Russia, China and the US make their own fighters
    lmfao, even Turkeyeeeee figured this out

    lol enjoy your 4.5gen 25+ year procurement projects
    >expected 2035
    lmfao

    keep us posted

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >russia
      >first world

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        post your indigenous space program from wherever you come from
        and post your brown hands thirdie
        it want to see what shitskin land you come from

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          NTA, but Russia is a Second World.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            solid debooonk
            you convinced me
            i am now demoralized

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              being proud to be moronic is your right and you're mistaken in thinking anybody cares enough to stop you

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                k keep me posted

                russia is third world country

                this post just restored an oblast worth of land
                just a few more like it, and im putting on my beach shorts, and getting my jetski gassed up for the big crimean beach party™

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                your /misc/ peers will keep you posted. telegram even

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              russia is third world country

              how many times do i have to explain this to you morons? every single fricking week, i swear, you mouthbreathing imbeciles forget what 1st and 2nd world are. Fine, one more, I will inform them. There once was a thing you apparently haven't heard of, it was called WWII, and after that, another thing you haven't heard of, the cold war. Because of those things, there are three kinds of countries: There's the west, which is the first world, then there's USSR states, which are the inferior second world where starvation is guaranteed, and then there is everyone else, the irrelevant dirty smelly third world, like Africa and China.
              These are immutable catagories. You don't start or stop being a 1st or 3rd world country by having large shifts in economy or winning at futbal. History is over. You lose. Stay mad.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                reddit the post

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                k, keep us posted

                also, when does the pool open?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                The cold war ended over 30 years ago grandpa. The cold-war definitions no longer apply. First world is developed nations. Second world is nearly-developed nations. Third world is developing nations, and fourth world is decaying nations like R*ssia.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >Fine, one more, I will inform them. There once was a thing you apparently haven't heard of, it was called WWII
                You sound like a fricking parody of r*dditors or tw*tter homosexuals. Jesus christ.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                1990s polisci definitions mean nothing to the average joe outside of being a neat history lesson. in common language, 1st, 2nd, and 3rd world have become synonymous with living standards. 1st world paradises can become 3rd world shitholes and 3rd world shitholes can develop to at least 2nd world status. at the moment china is on it's way up while the US and the West slowly implode courtesy of our funny hat wearing 5th column sabotaging our countries from within and replacing our legacy populations with, you guessed it, masses of 3rd world street shitters.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >the irrelevant dirty smelly third world
                Russia is a third world country

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          russian federation is to ussr as holy roman empire is to roman empire

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          russia is third world country

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >leftover from the days of USSR
          >indigenous
          Dumb vatBlack person

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous
        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Russia
          >indigenous space program
          Russia's relation to technology is Imperium of Man-tier, squatting atop the ruins of a lost civilisation that actually knew how to build shit, only making things they have the STCs of, performing incantations and rituals because nobody knows how anything actually works anymore

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            Comparing Russia to the imperium is an insult to the Ad. Mech. At least the boys in red are TRYING to reverse engineer their way back to the golden age and their caution in the process is more than justified by the literal motherraping demons fricking with them.

            https://i.imgur.com/Hmwh8Xb.gif

            Considering that now military hardware is so complex, tech heavy and expensive that most nations have to organize into joint programs to make new designs, were the reformers right all along? How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen that require decades to implement and can only be built in very few numbers?

            Picrel. No. They're not sane nor right.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Fricking Sparky

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I love that man like you wouldn't believe. When he croaks I'll cry more than I did at my grampa's funeral.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >JBIR
                Every goddamn time.

                Points for “Houthifricktards” tho

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                You know what, no. I’m fricking mad at you Sparky.
                The ENTIRE GODDAMN POINT of the F-35B is that you DON’T need a ramp or catapult to take off. So why would you spend BILLIONS reactivating battleships and modifying them with a flight deck if you can just chuck a couple of helipads and call it a day?

                Also, why the frick are you having billion dollar battleships escorting convoys? That is quite literally what you use “tin cans” for.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Well. I have... AN explanation.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I shoudl elaborate. Basically, sparky sees naval combat as SW space battles, with "ships" only being there to do the work of the "star destroyers" (aka launch planes and "killer bee battleboxes" at each other, and have big guns for seemingly almost no reason), also missiles are just not a thing in his vision. And most of the combat would be handled by a mix of planes, paratrooper boarders, and picrel basically doing everything from logistics, support, asw, just everything else (like medium ships in star wars). No. SERIOUSLY. UNIRONICALLY. THIS IS HOW HE THINKS NAVIES WORK.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I mean…a modern Catalina would be based as frick.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                That's the thing I love about Sparky so much. He's bonkers. He's a schizoid can on bud lite. But the world of his delusions would make for such an immensely based videogame or movie. He's somehow crafted this ibtricate mythology, alt history (he's a hollow earther btw), alt tech, etc. And if it was fiction it would be fricking LoTR level. Only other schizo I found that gets to his level is Jordan from Spirit Science. (The guy that thinks the earth is a donut.) These 2 little gremlins put most authors out there to shame!

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Sparky. Sparky please. Gib mantis gf. Please.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                this is frickin wild man, saved, I need more schitzoid references and this guy is pretty good

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                No prob, fren.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                I should add... He hates the F-35B and this Picrel is what the navy should be using.

                This btw is why, as most point out, his designs don't seem to have any way for the planes to land back on the ship. Indeed, he expects them to land on the ocean and then be craned away or back into the ship. Indeed, they're basically on a one-way trip.

  7. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >why can't Russians just shoot down Blitzfigher?
    >because.... because.... just because chud!

  8. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Can literally use a 2010 smartphone with custom software and some pin outs as a missile flight computer and achieve 10 meter CEP
    Keep larping about that Soviet 1950s equipment as good enough.

  9. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The issue is that at a certain level of tech advantage you can basically style on your opponent. The F-14 could basically snipe MiG-21s from so far out that the Iraqis didn't even realize they were being attacked. The Serbians never recreated their F-117 shoot down despite continued F-117 bombings. NATO basically gave up any wargame involving facing the F-35 in BVR and now demands all mock dogfights start in visual range with the F-35 carrying drop tanks.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >drop tanks
      F-35s don't have drop tanks, you're probably thinking of F-16s being flown with them, which I believe they did at points for testing.

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        F-16s nearly always carry tanks because lack of fuel is their biggest weakness.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          The west is averse to needless casualties, not casualties in general. Desert Storm and the pre-ground-war estimates should show you that the US and all its allies were not scared of losing men.

          [...]
          Well yes, but I believe the case the anon is talking about was done between an F-16 with drop tanks and an F-35 with flight testing instrumentation to figure out oddities in the F-35's flight control systems. I remember third worlders making fun of the F-35 at the time for "being unable to fight a clean F-16".

          Also an F-16 in an actual proper dogfight is going to drop tanks unless it has absolutely no choice. Tanks limit it to like 5G, which funnily enough means that an F-35 running on internal fuel without internal stores would be able to fricking style on an F-16 in that configuration.

  10. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    no, the 30mm cannon is not enough to attack armored ground targets, guided bombs and missiles are much more effective

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      It's almost as if the A-10 was more useful as a missile truck than a flying gunboat.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      At the same time, having a 30mm on a ground attack plane isn’t a bad thing. It’s more effective at plinking lightly armored stuff like IFVs and trucks than 20mm. That being said, the GAU-8 has was too high a RoF, so it eats ammo quickly. Something on the order of 600 rpm would be more ideal I think

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The cost of even a cheap plane + pilot is enough that it's insanely irresponsible to put it at risk by engaging with guns instead of dropping bombs/missiles now that PGMs are dirt fricking cheap.

  11. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous
  12. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Complex systems engineering, including aircraft, is currently undergoing a revolution. The B-21 is probably the first example of a MIC product with the new processes.

    Basically, if you steal all the "agile development" crap from the software world, notably the concept of continuous integration, you can start to automate all of the expensive and error-prone bureaucracy inherent to systems engineering. You make sure that your system is properly modeled, and that all of the engineering documents are either automatically generated and kept up to date, or generate warnings and errors if they drift from your master model. Thus you reduce the issue of the workshop making a part that's two revisions out of date, for an assembly that just got fixed the night before and when you have the parts in front of you they don't fit together. Or, you get rid of the 15 people who's only job was to make sure that precisely that didn't happen.

    This shit is brand new. Model based systems engineering (MBSE) got started around 2005. The tools are in active development, and the next version of the tool everyone is excited about, SysML 2.0, is currently in beta (when it's not stuck in committee). Pretty soon we're going to have physical machines with the same level of arbitrary complexity as the craziest (non-pajeetified) software projects.

  13. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    frog foot but worse

  14. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The F-16 started out as a cheap and mass-produceable day fighter, and it sucked balls. Nowadays the F-16 is a premier all weather multirole platform, and they turned her into that by bolting as much tech as they could to her. They basically had to un-reform her

  15. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >what if we deliberately get just absolute shitloads of our most highly-trained and valuable officers killed for nothing and permanently cripple our military because I fantasize about being a WWII dogfighter?

    Hmm, gotta say "no" to this one, chief.

  16. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were the reformers right all along?
    No
    >How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen
    You mean modern hardware that does not rely on early 20th century military theory? Until the latest modern standard arrives.

  17. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >military hardware is so complex, tech heavy and expensive

    When its built by old defense contractors in the same ever worse method that's been followed for 80 years now
    yes

    There are orders of magnitude of cost savings available in all aspects of military contracting

  18. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >itt: no one knows what third world means

    You are aware that The Swiss and until two years ago Sweden were 'third world' and it has nothing to do with economy or development levels right?

  19. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    A piece of shit that cannot do anything, but get shot down really was the way to go.
    >Be POS
    >Does not have radar
    >radar is just a fad, bro
    >Does not have missiles
    >BVR will never catch on
    >Does not have bombs
    >Just a small gun
    >Made to fly low to take fire from AK-74 to MANPADS to short and medium range SAMs
    Oh yeah, dude, that is why ever military on earth went to these useless shitboxes, except the USA.
    GTFO of here and never comeback.

  20. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    i believe that the current saying about military tech development being unsustainable is just a bunch of bullshit put out by
    >journos who doompost for cheap clickbaits
    >contractors that need to justfy their lobbyist policies
    >boomer generals that want to scare parliaments into investing more into defense
    >EU/HATOgays that want to develop relationships between member states
    but other than that i believe that the current market state is caused by sheer laziness and opportunism. long passed are the days of national pride where everyone had their own version of something.

  21. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think they'd jack their dicks off at militarized COTS.

  22. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >can only be built in very few numbers?
    3 F-35's a week peacetime production sounds pretty good to me. Especially with the capability gap between 4th and 5th gen
    I don't know if you've been paying attention but they tested out a new procurement strategy for the B-21 instead of the usual, and it's on time and on budget
    So once the old procurement strategy finally dies off completely new stuff is gonna get developed a lot faster and a lot cheaper

  23. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you adjust for inflation, the F15 and F100 series were all very expensive too. That's why you share costs where possible. In the future you'll probably see
    >American super fighter (NGAD, F22 style)
    >American heavy carrier fighter
    >Multirole generic western stealth fighter (ie., F35)
    >Possible eurofighter, if they can figure out stealth or if they just skip it because they don't care
    >Russian cope fighter that probably just dies as generic mook fighter in a videogame
    >Chinese and Indian fighters that may be copying parts or wholesale stuff from competitors

    You'll see rich countries like the Saudis piggyback by being the piggybank so they get access to the newest stuff possible.

  24. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related

  25. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >insist on muh SOVEREIGN CAPABILITY
    >unable to afford anything bigger than an armed turboprop
    >ma I want aerial superiority
    >WE HAVE AERIAL SUPERIORITY AT HOME!
    >aerial superiority at home:

  26. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    How is that thing survivable when it has to get into gun range to engage literally anything?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >missiles are a meme
      >radars are a meme
      >infrared is a meme

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        I do not see malice in that which can be explained by stupidity.

        But if I did, I would think that these frickers are foreign agents whose job is to slow down technological innovation by some "gun is fine" mentality.
        Sadly, they are just stupid.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Imagine this:
          Soviet/russian military likes to boast about their wunderwaffels, but they know that it's all bullshit. It' just smoke and mirrors and parade toys, and in actuality half of their shit doesn't work in real war.
          And they see US taking whatever claims they make at face value, and then just ACTUALLY making something along those lines that works, and mass producing it in huge volumes.

          Soviets/Russians have some BMP's and T-72's but that's about it. Their other tanks are newly repackaged old ones or something that they can't really afford to produce (at least in the same specs as they claim on paper). Their air force have very little planes that can actually do what they claim on paper. Their radars and air defense is hopelessly obsolete and only propped up by some urban legend how one of them dropped a stealth bomboer and thus it's actually good. But they know it's just smoke and mirrors. Opiates for the masses.
          And this creeping feeling starts to get to them that US has a significant lead in technology. US forces starts to pull a longer and longer lead to them.

          So what if they could convince Pentagon that all this high tech is useless? What if someone could say to US military industrial complex "No we don't need fancy smart weapons, the gun is fine!"? That would keep the US on roughly same tech level as the soviets, and they wouldn't have to keep up with the ever increasing arms race.

          Enter the Reformists.
          (now, I don't really believe the reformists are actually some foreign agents, but they keep spouting the bullshit that is indistinquishable from actual psy-op to keep US military on low tech level. They are just home-grown narcissistic morons who don't know jack shit about military technology and have their own pet ideas that they like to spout. And make a living as a bullshit artist.)

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The Reformers really just wanted to cut military spending and replace it with social(ist) programs.

  27. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >can only be built in very few numbers?
    Over 1000 F-35s got build already and production is still ramping up

  28. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were the reformers right all along?
    No.
    >How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen that require decades to implement and can only be built in very few numbers?
    Infinitely, modern systems aren't just one off superweapons, they're platforms and technologies that are either built to capitalize and learn about new development in technology, or create new developments.
    The only reason they're built in smaller numbers is because, until very recently, it was assumed that proper global scale war was unlikely.

  29. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Lives are worth a hell of a lot more than aircraft ever could be.

  30. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >most nations have to organize into joint programs to make new designs
    Seems like a great incentive for conflict reduction.

  31. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >How long can we sustain this policy of making überpowerful wunderwaffen that require decades to implement and can only be built in very few numbers?

  32. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    If you send a few remote controlled decoys along with every pilot, there would be too many for modern air wings to shoot down with missiles.

  33. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The reformers did have some good points and some of their concepts would have worked well in the right context.
    A lot of it was valid criticism of some extremely poor operational concepts that got a lot of pilots killed in Vietnam, like it absolutely shocked the Air Force that they were losing so many F-105s to MiG-17s, basically souped up MiG-15s.
    A lot of the tech that was core to how things were meant to operate just straight up didn't work.

    In the context of pre all aspect SRAAM, pre reliable IFF, pre pulse Doppler A2A combat the reformer concept of the lightweight high EM, low tech fighter would have cleaned house.
    The F-5 would have done very well in early Vietnam combat, so would the F-16A.

    However a lot of it was very quickly invalidated by technological trends (some before they came up with it! In late Vietnam Phantoms were quietly but very successfully engaging in networked BVR combat) and a lot of it was just stupid.

    The matter of fact is that if you want to engage in a long range air campaign, you need heavy fighters in order to have the range, so ultimately even ignoring tech you were going to need to build expensive fighters at some level at least to be able to support an air campaign in the way that the US intends to fight.
    Focusing on solving BVR combat actually synergises very well with that.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >some good points and some of their concepts would have worked well in the right context
      The issue I have with saying that is that many of their "good points" can often be boiled down to "[thing] should be better", without a proper understanding of how to actually make [thing] better. They'll get some element stuck in their head, focus on enhancing that and end up ignoring how that element isn't relevant in the greater picture.

      Pic mostly unrelated

  34. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >were the reformers right all along?
    It really depends on the kind of war. If you're doing 20+ years of one-sided counter-insurgency innasandbox vs farmers with AKs, I think the high-tech stuff is the way to go. If it's WW2 levels of trying to out-produce the enemy for cheap, and with high attrition rates, the reformers do have a leg to stand on there.
    But it's all israeli money-printing anyways, so someone will get rich regardless. Which israelite do u want to get rich?

  35. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Nobody would have taken them seriously at all if there weren't major problems with how the air force was operating before.
    Phantom pilots went into battle with practically no relevant ACM experience and were frequently caught out by the known handling quirks of their own aircraft (the Phantom's roll controls reverse above 15° AOA? Well just don't fly above 15° AOA!).

    They basically had to relearn Korean war era tactics, it was a total shit show.

  36. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The cost and complexity is high not because of the tech. It's high because the military industry is a slow, cost plus, pork barrel jobs program. If the drive was there high tech cruise missiles and drones could be optimized to be mass produced by the gorillions for a cheap-ass unit cost. Just like how SpaceX got dat Mars zeal to ass-frick the MIC boomers by taking this space rocket shit more seriously then to spend decades meticulously milling isogrids for a billion dollars a piece stagnant mediocrity.

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >spend decades meticulously milling isogrids for a billion dollars a piece
      what do you mean?

      • 2 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        The way they make the whole rocket is they take a huge fat expensive block of aluminum and mill 99% of it away. Yes technically it has better strength to weight that way but it costs frick ton and takes a lot of time. SpaceX stir welds sheets together and welds stamped stringers where extra strength/stiffness is needed. They do it that way because they actually want to produce stuff at volume affordably.
        An even more egregious example from SLS (On SpaceX Falcon 9 that's a composite part):
        https://twitter.com/Astro_Chuck/status/1699907444187783352

        This is just one example but it's like that in everything and it adds up. This is a result of cost plus pricing in government contracts. Defense/aerospace corporations are incentivized to spend as much money as possible because it directly increases their profits.

        SpaceX is big on fixed price as their competitive advantage. If they frick up, the expense is on them. You know the SpaceX Dragon spacecraft? The one thanks to which Americans can go to the International Space Station again since 2020 without relying on Russians? It's a result of a fixed price commercial contract by NASA. Boeing was another competitor with their Starliner. They actually got more money than SpaceX but they're yet to carry crew. It's plagued with problems and Boeing lost billions on it. Boeing recently came out and vowed to never do fixed price ever again, only cost plus. The traditional defense/aerospace companies are optimized to slowly suck government money titty. They're not optimized to be an agile, well oiled production machine.

        • 2 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >Boeing recently came out and vowed to never do fixed price ever again, only cost plus.
          Well, Boeing is the same company that literally outsourced MCAS code to India (that's not me being racist, they literally, genuinely, outsourced the critical flight control software to an Indian company because it was cheap), received it, didn't check it for basic safety measures in all avionics (does it rely on several data sources instead of one, does it handle failure well, can the pilots override it), slapped it into the 737 MAX, didn't bother to write anything in the documentation to make pilots aware of it, and made the light warning the pilots the system had detected a failure condition/activated an OPTIONAL EXTRA THAT COSTED MONEY.

          And then when two flights went down because MCAS activated and violently, repeatedly, nosed down the plane, and the pilots were unable to manage literally everything else (sudden departure below 10,000, having to communicate with ATC, troubleshooting, trying to figure out if it was trim messing up or something else) alongside the MCAS trying to pull a UA 93, Boeing blamed BOTH FLIGHT CREWS AND PULLED A BUNCH OF USEFUL IDIOTS OUT OF THE WOODWORK TO CLAIM THEY WERE UNEDUCATED SAVAGES WHO "COULDN'T HANDLE RUNAWAY TRIM".

          NOT A SINGLE BOEING EXECUTIVE WENT TO PRISON FOR THIS BTW.

          Sorry I went on a bit of a rant there. Point is Boeing is a failed company running on inertia and you shouldn't trust anything they make. I'd trust an electric car made by Airbus engineers while drunk and high over whatever the frick Boeing has cooked up.

          Except old school well maintained 737 NGs. Those things are rock solid.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            By the way, runaway trim is a memory item so it's something you're supposed to be trained for, but the real thing that caused both crashes was MCAS activating for literally no reason below 10,000 feet. Boeing used the excuse that the pilots were undertrained simply because it was an available excuse, in fact they were probably thanking god/buddha/allah/yahweh that it wasn't a US flight crew that nosedived into the ground at 400 knots. They used racism to try to get people to think that MCAS was merely a possible but unlikely failure mode instead of a severe engineering frickup that maxed out BOTH PILOTS SIMULTANEOUSLY and resulted in a crash.

            > The mean value of the airspeed data transmitted by Flight 610 was around 300 kn (560 km/h; 350 mph), which was considered by experts to be unusual, as typically aircraft at altitudes lower than 3,000 m (10,000 ft) are restricted to an airspeed of 250 kn (460 km/h; 290 mph)

            You have to frick up really, really badly to completely task saturate two very experienced pilots (captain had like 6,000 hours) to the point they throw the 250-under-10,000 rule/guideline out the window in an attempt to figure out what the hell is going on with their plane.

            Boeing is a dogshit company and half of its executives should be in prison.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Oh finally, here's a part from the NTSC report before some moron jumps in to pretend to be a super cool elite 9000 hour F-22/AC-130/F/A-18EFJGH/737/A380 pilot and tell me that they were just stupid Black folk:

              > 9. The multiple alerts, repetitive MCAS activations, and distractions related to numerous ATC communications were not able to be effectively managed. This was caused by the difficulty of the situation and performance in manual handling, NNC execution, and flight-crew communication, leading to ineffective CRM application and workload management. These performances had previously been identified during training and reappeared during the accident flight.

          • 2 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            > can the pilots override it
            Which they can.
            Presuming the pilots aren’t moronic and know their memory items like they’re supposed to.

            • 2 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              Yeah, here it is. Boeing's immediate appeal to racism stuck with a lot of pilots.

              Let me just say it once, so you can get it through your head:

              THE FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEM ISSUING REPEATED ERRONEOUS NOSE DOWN TRIM COMMANDS WITHOUT WARNING THE CREW OF SAID ERRONEOUS CONDITION IS COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE, AND THE CREW BEING "ABLE TO JUST DISCONNECT ELECTRIC TRIM" IS NOT AN EXCUSE. BOEING IS CRIMINALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DEATHS OF ALL OF THE PASSENGERS AND CREW OF THOSE TWO AIRCRAFT.

              Now go on, call me a libtard and say I love blowing Black person dick or some shit.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, you’re just a moron.
                The remedy for MCAS was the exact same procedure for runaway trim every single 737 produced in the last forty years. If the pilots could not recognize a runaway trim situation and correct it, then that is 100% a failure on the part of the pilots, no matter where they come from.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Nope, it's a failure on the part of Boeing. See the $2.5 billion settlement.

                >Boeing will pay a total criminal monetary amount of over $2.5 billion, composed of a criminal monetary penalty of $243.6 million, compensation payments to Boeing’s 737 MAX airline customers of $1.77 billion, and the establishment of a $500 million crash-victim beneficiaries fund to compensate the heirs, relatives, and legal beneficiaries of the 346 passengers who died in the Boeing 737 MAX crashes of Lion Air Flight 610 and Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302.

                Are you going to tell me that the Department of Justice are moronic as well?

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Yes.

              • 2 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Ok, you're just completely moronic then. Thanks for admitting it at least. If you actually do work for an airline please make all of your coworkers aware of your opinion on this so that at least one of them can record it and present it to the FAA/management/etc.

  37. 2 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [...]

    Naaaaah. You think?

    • 2 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >people like this are allowed to drive, sign contracts, and have control over the lives of children

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *