AN interesting article on which influential Washington Think-Tanks enjoy credibility with Sec. Gates.

http://defensetech.org/2010/05/04/gates-channels-csbas-big-brains-warning-navy-ships-risk-becoming-wasting-assets/

Gates Channels CSBA’s Big Brains Warning Navy Ships Risk Becoming Wasting Assets

Ask Washington’s defense cognoscenti to name the most influential think tank in town and I wager most would say the Center for New American Security (CNAS). While that may be true in terms of shaping the counterinsurgency strategy being applied in the current wars, when it comes to leaving a lasting mark on the future size and shape of the military, Defense Secretary Robert Gates made clear in his speech yesterday at the Navy League’s annual conference that the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) is the real brain trust.

Hop on over to the CSBA website and there are a number of reports and papers dealing with the direction and priorities that the US should pursue on topics such as UAVs, Long-Range Strike Capability, etc. Among four New Bomber options, its noteworthy that CSBA had recommended the model with both manned and unmanned capability, just like what the SECDEF seems to endorse. If indeed Gates and CSBA see eye-to-eye on this, we can look forward to a new bomber perhaps 80% the size of a B-2, with possibly a 20,000-lb bombload, 4000-5000 mile range, etc. Again, the CSBA report even lists existing technologies from the F-35, B-2, F-15E to help bring the new plane in on time and on budget.. something Gates also was very explicit about. CSBA projected that the new bomber could be built for $440M each in a total buy of 100 aircraft. I’m sure that got Gates’ attention.:D

Dear lord he makes immense amounts of assumptions on a very uncertain topic.

Credibility is everything. Does Kopp actually have any consultancy contracts with any government, private think tank, aviation company? If so, then that would indicate that what he preaches may actually be worth something.;)

Here’s a nice read from Popular Science circa 1997 which discusses some techniques for achieving stealth – RF, Optical, IR.

http://jmrc.tripod.com/fa/stealth/stealth1.htm

It depends on the opposition. Against alow-tech foe, a Cessna might get the job done. Against a modern IADS, the USAF says it would require 3 X the number of legacy F-15s/F-16s to do the job that a correspondingly lesser number of F-22s/F-35s could do. At greater risk to legacy pilots and planes. Funny to call Vipers and eagles “cheaper and less technical platforms.”

until you add AESA!:D

and netta this discussion is spilling over from the F35 topic.

Some people there refuse to countenance the idea that the F35 is not an air dominance fighter (its not).

Non F35 obsessed contributors were merely pointing out that on a one to one basis the Typhoon would have the upper hand over the as yet unproven F35.

nobody mention the SU35

The F-35 was never intended to be an air dominance fighter, a role filled by the f-22. But the ability to excel in A2A combat is one of the design considerations. I think its far from certain that the Typhoon would have the upper hand vs a F-35; it could very likely be the opposite case given the F-35’s advantage in stealth and sensors. And by no means is it a dog in terms of performance. Bottom line though is both sides can speculate all they want but I doubt neither will be able to convince the other.

Well, they are known to have tested models of (and presumably computationally simulated) almost every piece of Western hardware, much in the same way as TsAGI windtunnel-tested an F-35 model. That is obviously not the same as having access to the real deal, but combined with espionage efforts I would expect them to have a fairly good picture.

you mean, something similar to what Kopp did, determining the RCS of the f-35 based on photographs?:diablo: