Slashdot Mirror
Iran Builds Mock-up of Nimitz-Class Aircraft Carrier
Hugh Pickens DOT Com (2995471) writes "The NYT reports that US intelligence analysts studying satellite photos of Iranian military installations say that Iran is building a mock-up of an American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier with the same distinctive shape and style of the Navy's Nimitz-class carriers, as well as the Nimitz's number 68 neatly painted in white near the bow. Mock aircraft can be seen on the flight deck. The mock-up, which American officials described as more like a barge than a warship, has no nuclear propulsion system and is only about two-thirds the length of a typical 1,100-foot-long Navy carrier. Intelligence officials do not believe that Iran is capable of building an actual aircraft carrier. "Based on our observations, this is not a functioning aircraft carrier; it's a large barge built to look like an aircraft carrier," says Cmdr. Jason Salata. "We're not sure what Iran hopes to gain by building this. If it is a big propaganda piece, to what end?" Navy intelligence analysts surmise that the vessel, which Fifth Fleet wags have nicknamed the Target Barge, is something that Iran could tow to sea, anchor and blow up — while filming the whole thing to make a propaganda point, if, say, the talks with the Western powers over Iran's nuclear program go south. "It is not surprising that Iranian military forces might use a variety of tactics — including military deception tactics — to strategically communicate and possibly demonstrate their resolve in the region," said an American official who has closely followed the construction of the mock-up. The story has set off chatter about how weird and dumb Iran is for building this giant toy boat but according to Marcy Wheeler if you compare Iran's barge with America's troubled F-35 program you end up with an even bigger propaganda prop. "I'm not all that sure what distinguishes the F-35 except the cost: Surely Iran hasn't spent the equivalent of a trillion dollars — which is what we'll spend on the F-35 when it's all said and done — to build its fake boat," writes Wheeler. "So which country is crazier: Iran, for building a fake boat, or the US for funding a never-ending jet program?""
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/... & http://defensetech.org/2011/08...
> But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form
As long as you don't try to land it in cloudy weather.
http://www.alternet.org/fail-4...
Or on an aircraft carrier:
http://theaviationist.com/2012...
Or landing on the $1500/each tires twice in a row:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/...
Oh, and if the landing gear fails and the pilot has to eject, they can't safely eject over water. (See the first article.)
If we needed to build supersonic "launch-only" aircraft, we could have done so _much_ more cheaply.
This was debunked days ago, its a movie prop about the US shooting down an Iranian commercial fight in 1988. Don't the Slashdot editors have access to Google?
But the F35 is more or less combat ready in its basic form, it's mainly extended feature sets like the USMC's VTOL variant that are holding it back from being in use now.
Moral of the story, though... the people who mocked the F22 as the boondoggle to the F35 should have been fired from the DoD and run out of Congress. The F22 ended up being cheaper and still better (IIRC). There's no excuse for being naive enough to believe "oh yeah, we'll be much cheaper" when building something like the F35.
The fundamental problem is we seem to have fallen in love with the idea that their is one airplane that can do it all, for all the services. As a result, the plane's performance degrades as it suffers bloat that makes Windows look positively svelte. The best read on this is Coram's book, "Boyd" that details John Boyd's battle agains the Air Force bureaucracy.
The most telling line in TFA is that the F-35 is built in 45 states, thus ensuring it's survival since no Congressman or Senator wants to be accused of killing jobs in their home district or state. Wether or not the plane is what is needed is secondary to that; and woe be tide to any military leader that dares suggest killing it.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Its already in use by multiple air forces. The B version I think is the only one not in active duty at this point.
The F-22 and the F-35 fill different roles.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter. You send F-22s along with the F-35s on missions, the F-22s protect the F-35 from advanced air targets while they fly in heavily loaded and completely unable to perform any sort of meaningful air combat without dumping their fuel and weapons stores. The F-35 is like an F-16 configured for ground attack, the F-22 is like an F-16 configured for air superiority, though the F-35A in the proper configuration can maintain the same performance as the F-16 in an air superiority configuration, you're more or less unarmed at that point, which is also useless in combat.
The F-22 and F-35 are complimentary aircraft, not competing. You and many in the government could have saved yourselves a fuckload of ignorance if you listened to the people who fight wars when they told you why to make both. It wasn't until the things were in the air and the reality of what happens when you load a fighter aircraft down with a few tons of bombs that people outside the military got the clue.
Theres a reason you have multiple aircraft, just like theres a reason you have multiple types of foot soldier. Some are heavy armed and armored to take a pounding, some are fast as shit and light and are dead if you shoot them with a .22, and together they kick ass, alone, they can be annihilated by a well trained militia
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Could be just a movie in general, doesn't have to be propaganda.
Hollywood used to do stuff like this all the time, it wasn't because we were actually going to blow up a russian sub.
Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
Their plan is to come in at night and steal the real Nimitz, leaving the duplicate in its place
When it comes to building mock-ups, there is no one to beat the good ol USA
It seems to have built a complete mock-up of a democracy, complete with a mock-up judiciary, a mock up legislature and even a mock up of a functioning economy.
FTFY
Don't complain about syntax, grammar, or spelling. There is no.hell like input on android.
Talk about asymmetric warfare...
First, unmanned is not equal to autonomous, not man controlled. It's quite possible to control those drones, we're not talking Hitler's V1s here.
Second, price. Drones are dirt cheap compared to fighter jets. But that's not even important, I'll get to the reason why in a minute.
Because finally, and that's the real advantage drones have over manned jets, pilot safety. It is impossible for the pilot to go KIA or MIA, in other words your experienced pilots remain available for duty no matter how long the war drags out. You need not replace your downed veterans with green recruits, something a conventional army will have to eventually. And that's also pretty much the only thing that could stop an US army. When you look at its "inner workings", tactically, strategically and politically, you'll notice that the ONLY thing that could stop the US military from rolling over an enemy today is the loss of manpower.
If the past decade has taught us one thing then that the US congress, and in turn the US population, will accept near limitless military spending when they feel attacked. We're looking at a military budget where the amount of money blown DAILY could easily balance the foreign trade debt of smaller nations that they racked up in the past few decades. So whether a war that is deemed justified by congress and population needs 10 or 10 million drones, I guess it won't matter much.
OTOH, the US is very sensitive to the loss of their manpower. If too many US soldiers die in a war half a globe away, the general sentiment towards the war can very quickly change. This ain't WW2 anymore where something like that could work. Vietnam already showed that it's easy to lose support at home if too many of our boys die in what is then deemed a "pointless war". Drones work beautifully here because nobody gets hurt. Ok, nobody that matters to the average US news station, that is.
That's what makes drones so popular with military strategists. You can send them on suicide missions and nobody gives a shit.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
In all good nature, you're funny, kid. I was 65 a year and a half years ago. Guess I don't know how to participate in slashdot. Or build my own desktop, build and operate my own server, or write embedded computer software either, for that matter.
The F-22 is an air superiority fighter, the F-35 is an attack fighter.
First, if all they needed was a strike aircraft with overwhelming air-to-ground capability, they already had it with the A-10 Warthog (or Thunderbolt II for you purists). It can carry a cubic assload of bombs, has extended loiter capability, can take off and land on short, unimproved runways, is perhaps the best aerial gun platform in the history of aviation, and can take an immense amount of punishment, make it back to base, and be repaired for another strike before the pilot has time to grab a sandwich. Alas, it's not "sexy" enough so nobody wants to fly it. Fighter jocks look down on the "air-to-mud" boys, you know. But us grunts -- I'm a former Marine -- absolutely love knowing your call for CAS is being answered by a 'hog.
Second, the F-35 is not just being pitched as an "attack fighter" as you claim. It's being positioned as the Swiss Army Knife of airframes, the complete multi-role, multi-service, multi-theater, all-season do-it-all flying wonder plane. It's stealthy...but not terribly stealthy compared to other airborne threats. It's fast...but not very fast compared to fighters it's likely to face. It can flow slowly for accurate bombing...but not as slowly or as accurately as what we already have. It has endurance...well, not so much. And it costs less than what it's replacing...except it doesn't. McNamara tried this same crap back in the 60's and we ended up with the F-111, a "fighter" that couldn't fight. It was too big, too heavy, too complex, too expensive to make, too expensive to maintain, too hard to fly...and *nobody* wanted it. Today the F-111's are largely rusting away somewhere while B-52's are still flying, delivering bombloads much more effectively, reliably, and cheaply.
Honestly, what the US needs in the way of air power is this:
- A small but elite force of the stealthiest, fastest, most-maneuverable, most survivable, most advanced aircraft this country can possibly produce (i.e. F-22, B-2). These are our "alpha strike" planes. They go in on the first day of a conflict and kick the shit out of SAM sites, ground- and air-based RADAR, Command and Control facilities, fuel and ammo dumps, runways, and staging areas. After a brief but furiously intense campaign, the enemy is left without any effective way to defend against even basic air strikes. Then the war is turned over to...
- A medium-sized force of semi-stealthy and non-stealthy attack aircraft (fixed- and rotary-winged) which can now operate with near impunity due to degraded enemy defenses. A-10's, B-52's, F/A-18's, AH-64's...you get the idea. These are much more affordable than the "alpha strike" package to keep operational. They're also already bought and paid for, have large cadres of trained pilots, and can deliver much bigger attack loads than their stealthier brethren. This phase keeps up until the enemy is more or less fully subdued and organized resistance has almost been wiped out. Then things are turned over to...
- A very large force of unmanned and/or autonomous drones equipped for air-to-air and air-to-ground operations. These can be cheaply maintained for an indefinite period with absolutely zero political cost should one get lost to enemy action. Further, they act like omnipresent snipers, orbiting beyond normal aural and visual range but ready to deliver a laser-guided Hellfire "bolt from the blue" in an instant. The effects of such constant threats on enemy morale cannot be understated. Meanwhile, our "boots on the ground" are largely back home or operating in secure areas, reducing the chance of domestic upheaval by an unhappy populace over some "neverending war."
The biggest mistake this country is currently making is assuming we need just one type of aircraft for just one type of conflict. Modern wars have many different phases, most of which will involve a "low intensity conflict" in an area where large, high-value targets are not present. Having a fleet of super-advanced weapons which costs too much to make and too much to maintain is just stupid when there are better options on the table.
In the end they will lay their freedom at our feet and say to us, Make us your slaves, but feed us. - Fyodor Dostoyevsky
Helicopters have suffered for a long time from a lack of R&D, but some has been done...
The RAH-66 Comanche would have been wonderful, if it hadn't been killed, it was semi-stealthy and had a superior rotor system that allowed it to do things nothing else the military has can do. But it simply fell victim to budget cuts and a military that loves fast fancy airplanes rather than flingwings...
Want to see a cool advance?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
That uses some new technology that has been developed into this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...
Will it enter service? Hopefully, it really is pretty cool.
What you think of as limits to airplane performance is true only because of the old thinking of manned airplanes. I am a commercial airplane and helicopter pilot, flight instructor in both, and I see the future is dim for pilots in the air of any kind. Yes, a pilot is superior to programming, but 1 pilot isn't superior to 10 super cheap and super maneuverable drones.
That is the future, like it or not.