I have not seen many projects that have been concurrent delivered in a controversy free manner on time and budget. Technically its asking for too many things from the designers that they won’t know and similarly from manufacturing. They may just end up producing bad parts faster. The tool design and redesign won’t be cheap and unless they go back to metals more assembly and tolerance issues are going to dig them all the way.

That’s not going to happen. To scrap concurrency they would have to stop all production until after SDD and that will not happen.

Highly unlikely I agree but if the structures they are currently making are prone to cracking then they may find in the future that it would be cheaper to freeze sort out the development problems and design issues and then carry on with production but that is a trade off that someone would have to do at that time.

i just think the JSF at the moment is risky and anything could happen, for sure the program and the airplane will survive the USAF and congress have no option but to plow money into the project, but how it survives and in what form is another story.

That will depend on what happens with the f35 the idea of con currency may be scraped and too a few lsp aircraft. which will put the cost up.

Can the MV 22 really take a AEW radar and a operations suite to accommodate on board operators? I need to find some old articles about adding a self defense canon and how that would effect its capability to carry troops…

I have to wonder how much of this had to do with the hacking of the US coms system since the downing of the Orion (?) way back then…

I know there was an article describing how the Chinese would once in a while hack into the US system and send fake messages to show the USAF that their systems were compromised..

I cant believe that does not have anything to do with a super secret stealth aircraft being hacked..

we only have a few days to find out (i hope).

The US gunships are for use in an environment of totally uncontested airspace – which is what I keep telling you is the only environment where your proposed aircraft can be used.

This is understood, agreed and not totally the idea I am going for.

Heavy bombers nowadays are either stealthy, cruise missile carriers, or only used in uncontested airspace – exactly as I have told you already. The idea of high-level penetration of defended airspace by non-stealthy subsonic heavy bombers went away a long time ago. Ditto their use tactically anywhere the enemy has a functioning air force. That was because it was recognised that they wouldn’t survive.

What you say is logical and factual, however I see a risk vs benifits balance, where both sides of the equation change depending on how and where you decide to use the aircraft and if it has support from ground based Sam sights.

Considering the relatively poor channels of communication in parts of north east and west India a missile strike to a road could potentially block access to a strategically important tract of land

If your missilier which cost you say 30million dollars plus cost of munitions, is able to significantly errode the communication line of your foe and make it less than or equal to the lines of communication you have by its first use then i would say the benefits outweigh the risk, if your plane is shot down but has dones its role and the pilots could be recovered because it is firing from your territory then potentially no big loss apart from capital.

yes there is a significant risk that it is detected early and is not able to do its job in which case 30million + wasted (note: 30 million arbitrary figure). But again all of this depends on the doctrin used by the the armed forces.

If you want a cruise missile carrier able to launch several missiles a long way from its bases, then your proposed aircraft could do that. What I’m arguing against is your proposal to use it tactically. That is only possible in uncontested airspace. Why do you refuse to address that? Can’t you see how vulnerable it is?

I can for sure see the vulnerability of it and the potential fools erronds, but in the same breadth its a risk assessment that would have to be made by the command on the day, however a mobile asset able to fire significant size warheads, in a high speed burst at ranges upwards of 300km could provide the armed forces a significant option and a potential advantage or leveller incase its own lines of communications are chocked or its own rocket artillery has been significantly damaged.

I keep refusing to say cruise missiles as in the Indian context i see expensive supersonic missiles which do not necessarily need that speed for land attack.

It all depends on the final cost of nirbhay I guess. I say rockets because I am thinking of a weapon potentially not in India’s arsenal yet that is long range cheap and carriers a significant warhead. although i do not have the wherewithal or patience to teach my self how, i can not but wonder what that the range of a ATACM type rocket or AGNI I rocket would be lobed at some inclined angle.

Even if we call it quits and agree that India could use a aircraft with the ability to carry a significant number of Nirbhays in its bays and fire them from within its territory from 33,000 ft at long ranges it would be something.

I did not say that North Korea is the only possible location of a high intensity war. I said it was the only place I could see a use for your proposed aircraft, i.e. somewhere there is a possibility of a high intensity war in which one side would rapidly achieve total air dominance, but still be faced by large conventional ground forces after that.

If the IAF play a defense role, I can believe that to be the potential case for India where the Army is quickly out manouvered because of old infrastructure poor roods etc and overwhelmed very easy but the IAF is able to at least hold its own and be dominent for atleast a day or two.