Slashdot Mirror

Ah fuck off. I know there are F-35s stationed in Japan. I said that much. It's you who seem to be having a tone deaf problem. A coreographed display, like that one, is quite different from a real mission. The last reports I have claim VFMA-121 are using Block 2B, at best they could be using Block 3i. That means at best they have a G limit of 5.5. Nor can they even hit Mach 1.6. Less if they are loaded with fuel. This is documented. Do you even know what that means? The North Koreans may have a crap air force in the region, but if things really go to the shitter, like when the Korean War happened, when the Chinese and Soviet Union entered the war, you would have Chinese and Russian Over-The-Horizon radar stations to contend with and their air resources. The Russians could easily mobilize their air power resources in the Vladivostok area, and the Chinese in the Beijing area, over there. The Chinese will have more J-20's, alone, operational at the end of this year than that single F-35B squadron. If it wasn't for the F-22 and older fighter assets, the situation there would be quite grim.

Or forego "full" stealth and get the Rafale, a proven effective twin engine multi role fighter that is incredibly economical. Actually, it does have reduced radar cross section.

Compare the price: EUR 80 million fly away or USD 223 million for an F-35 once the engines have been added!

I've long maintained that the US could have done much better buying an off-the-shelf aircraft (like the Rafale) and making it autonomous, a "drone" if you will.

America give 4B in free arms to Egypt, 5-6B to Israel and 2B to Jordan. They wouldnt buy PAtriots if they were not free as they have their own Missile programs.

They wouldn't buy Patriots, you say?

So why did Egypt pay $1.3B for the Patriot missiles they purchased?
Source: http://www.nti.org/learn/count...

Or why did Israel take part in a purchase order with Kuwait, Taiwan, and Spain to purchase $12.5B in Patriot missiles?
Source: https://sputniknews.com/milita...

In fact, for a system you say that no one would buy, there seem to be an awful lot of countries lining up to pay for it...
- UAE - $3.3B
- Qatar - $2.4B
- Saudi Arabia - $1.75B
- Greece - $1.1B
- Japan - $1B

There were more countries and more links, but I'll stop there, since I think I've made my point.

Actually, if they create a fighter with the performance of the F-35, it wouldn't be a problem at all... as the F-35 is massively expensive http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2013/03/f-35-the-most-expensive-fighter-jet-ever-built/, taking years longer to develop http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-03-27/lockheed-s-troubled-f-35-said-to-be-unscathed-in-budget.html, and still can barely get off the ground http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/135080/f_35-reality-check-10-years-on-(part-1).html. It is a heaping pile of shith that we didn't need, and don't need, and may never get, and is sucking taxpayer money down like a drunk sailor in Subic bay.

On the other hand, maybe, just maybe, Chinese ingenuity will come up with a way to keep the Osprey from falling out of the sky and killing people (something we can't seem to be able to do). Once they fix that little glitch, maybe we can steal the plans back.

69 Million for 4 with the ground equipment. Compare that to some of the prices listed here. (first link with some current prices)
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/mo dele.pl?prod=72234&session=dae.22374897.1155673461 .ROItdcOa9dUAAEJP--Q&modele=feature?

> this looks like it will end up being AirBus space a 'company'
> which constantly has to be subsidized by European governments.

Actually, Airbus gets less government subsidies than Boeing:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/207500_boei ngeu12.html
http://www.buffalo.edu/reporter/vol35/vol35n40/art icles/Boeing.html
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/mo dele.pl?prod=45591&session=dae.26554147.1181794517 .@nCJ838AAAEAACY5icwAAAAB&modele=jdc_1

"Saved" is a bit strong, but there was a DHL A300 hit by an SA-7 over Baghdad that made an emergency landing: http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/29222_us. html Most man-portable SAMs would require a very fortunate shot to bring down something the size of an airliner. The traditional method used by aircraft flying in to high threat environments is a special approach, possibly combined with an automated flare ejection system releasing decoys on final approach. Naturally, this system would cause chaos on approach to most civilian airports. The system deployed on the FedEx DC-10 looks like the best solution if one believes that this is the way to go. The US military is placing its hope for protection from the full range of IR missiles in the Suite of Infrared Countermeasures http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/air craft/systems/siircm.htm but this package is far more than airliners need. The danger to airliners is from missiles with a relatively low effective altitude: an airliner at cruising altitude is not threatened by a guy with a missile on his shoulder. More info in some research here http://www.afrlhorizons.com/Briefs/Dec03/SN0303.ht ml

All your post makes tons of sense. Well, almost all. This paart is not real:

[India] don't seem to have an appetite for superpower status

Actualy they have.

Those who want to be superpowers have aircraft carriers. India has some and is building more. Se:

India as a superpower:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India_as_an_emerging_ superpower

Indian Navy carriers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier#Indi an_Navy

List of Indian carriers:
http://www.hazegray.org/navhist/carriers/india.htm

India begins construction of aircraft carrier
http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/english/doc/2005-04/1 2/content_433517.htm

"Moscow and New Delhi today signed a $1.6 billion deal finalizing India's purchase of a refurbished Russian aircraft carrier, fighter jets, and helicopters. Observers say it's a sweet agreement for both sides, allowing Russia to bolster its sagging arms industry and India its regional strategic capacity. "
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/mo dele.pl?prod=32130&session=dae.23771315.1164583691 .RWojC8Oa9dUAAHETeZY&modele=jdc_1

Grand Delusions: The Psychology of Aircraft Carriers
http://hir.harvard.edu/articles/1068/

India's Military, from CIA's factbook:
https://cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/in. html#Military

Peace!

Not for long man:

X-45 J-UCAS Unmanned Combat Air System

And the clock may be ticking. Perhaps an even larger imperative, according to Richards, is that the United States is not the only nation that recognizes the future of integrated battlefield robotics.

"We believe that other countries or groups will pursue robotics," Richards said. "We can be at the vanguard, or we can lag behind and some day have to oppose a lethal robotic force. Better to be in the lead."

Most of the invested money was "borrowed" from the governments of France, Germany UK, and Spain. The terms of the "loans" specify that if the market projections were wrong, then the "loan" doesn't have to be paid back.

If the loan is paid back, it is at an extremely low interest rate, far below the prevailing commercial rates. Why can't you and I get a loan like that?

There is nothing else we could throw at an incoming asteroid. The simple reality is that if we humans spotted a big rock coming at us, even with a month or two to prepare for it, all we could really do is dig a shelter, store food away, and pray that it comes down on the OTHER side of the planet.

Wouldn't something like the National Missile Defense program be able to put a large enough warhead on the target to help out? Maybe 100 mile above the earth, or 15,000 mph, or 120lb warhead isn't enough...but hopefully with some bubblegum and bailing wire we could save humanity.

Most of the "evidence" presented by the article are just speculations. Its no secret that UASF's pouring tons of money in TSAT http://www.defense-aerospace.com/produit/46086_us. html, and all those quotes and phrases used to describe this space weaponary can be readily applied to TSAT, a powerful communications satellite for the military.

Alrite, I should stop talking before I get pulled from TSAT and thrown in jail...

But what do we do when the current supply runs out? Fitting ordinance which is no longer manufactured when we do not have the means to manufacture it ourselves seems pointless.

I looked into the torpedo thing. It looks to me like Australia is buying US MK48 ADCAP torpedos. That is the standard US sub torpedo. If that is what is being bought, that will be around for a very loooooong time.

the forty year old sea sprite helicopters are being delivered in a year or two.

Found them. It is a helicoper that was originally designed almost 50 years ago, but has been regularly updated. It looks like they are still being made. The US Navy still uses them. New Zealand bought some too, and they seem to think they will be a powerful addition to their fleet. I don't think that I would we sweating that one too much either..

lot has been written as to why the M1 tank is not suitable with small mobile forces

For a small, mobile force, the real question isn't Leopard or M1. The real question is: tank or something else. Tanks are heavy, including the Leopard, and that is the real killer when it comes to mobility, especially by air. The M1 and all of its contemporaries (Leopard 2, Challenger, Le Clerc) are all too heavy to move by anything but the largest aircraft. The Leopard 1 is only marginally better. If small and mobile is what is needed, then it is time get get something like the AMX-10RC. I don't think that will happen though.

For what its worth, the Australian Army wants a force that is capable of combined arms operations, which is reasonable. That generally means you want to have tanks available. If you are going to have tanks, they better be good ones given the increasing lethality of hand held anti-tank weapons. If you don't have good tanks, all you get is human torches jumping out of a brewed up tank.

Today, the Leopard is extremely vulnerable compared to the M1 in terms of armor protection. The M1 can hit and kill a target at a considerably longer range. You are much better off with M1s than Leopard 1s if you are going to have tanks. If you aren't going to have tanks, I will let you break it to the men in 1st Armoured Regiment.

Cheers.

One last thing. I'm not sure where you are getting your defense related information from, but as far as I can see from the quick looks that I took, your sources are not serving you well.

The US lobbying system has confused me, paticularly since I live in a part of the world where members of a previous goverment were jailed for taking bribes. How is lobbying prevented from turning into outright bribery, paticularly in the defence sector where almost everything is kept secret?

The vast majority of defense business in the US is not secret, but public. The defense budget is published and included the procurement of ships, planes, tanks, and other equipment. There is a small percentage of equipment, like the development of stealth aircraft, which is hidden, but that is a minor fraction.

Bribery is a crime, lobbying is not. There are strict limits on the size of gifts, meals, etc., that a government employee can accept. I've seen government employees reimburse a company I worked at for coffee and donuts at meetings. Outright bribery isn't a big problem in the US, but there is a "revolving door" in which former members of government take jobs in industry. That has some negative effects. Much more troublesome is the desire by members of the legislature to win defense contracts which include production in their districts. There may not be a lot that can be done about that.

I think you are distorting the facts regarding some of the defense purchases Australia has made. I wonder if you understand the issues?

The torpedo issue is not as silly or straight forward as you seem to think.

The M1 tank purchase is cost effective given the alternatives, and provides a significant upgrade for the Australian Army over the ancient Leopard tanks they have now. I kind of have to laugh... I didn't track down the reference to 40 year old helicopters that you complain about, but the use of 40 year old, severly outclassed and increasingly expensive to operate and maintain Leopard tanks doesn't bother you. I think you can rest easy, even mighty Norway has concluded it is time to replace the Leopard. The M1 isn't a bad choice. It is battle proven, lethal, reliable, and heavily protected. Its cruising range isn't as long as the Leopard, but you generally dont' want to move tanks long distances under their own power anyway. You should use tank transporters to move them long distances since it is much cheaper and cuts down on maintenance. The Australian Army has plenty of data to decide if the M1 tank's range is a problem or not based on their own experience, and the 1991 & 2003 Gulf Wars.

Regarding the anthrax investigation, it continues. Last fall, IIRC, the FBI drained a pond looking for evidence. Maybe the source will be found, maybe not.

Cheers.