War is never logical…………and the next war is never like the last one!

Yes, any issue is easily resolved with ankle-deep fortune cookie platitudes.

No, I mean VLO technology, period. Afterburner plumes at that speed are nice fat radar targets. Lockheed realized very early on in the A-12 development process that they’d face the same issue. Then you have the aerodynamic heating at such speeds. Talk about a massive IR target. And airframe shaping? Not so good either. Airframes will flex and contort at very high speed, potentially irritating any shaping you’ve worked out to decrease RCS.

That’s all thinking in today’s technology. What do you think would have happened if you had described the F-22 to the Wright Brothers? 🙂

For the sake of the original argument though: Let’s say Mach 2 in supercruise then. Sounds expensive but potentially doable, with funding and expertise. Adding that on top of VLO and EA would be even more effective. Would it be currently worth it?

VLO and Mach 5 cruise are not compatible.

You mean current VLO technology perhaps? Just a matter of money I would expect. Most things become possible when enough money is thrown at them.

I wouldn’t rule them out, but when you combine them with VLO, then they’re even more effective.

But would that be a critical increase or non-critical? And what cost increase would be justified by which increase in mission success rates or bring back rates?

I mean, combining EA and VLO with Mach 5 would be even more effective, but would it be worth the cost at the moment?

The problem with Mr. Sweetman’s desire to upgrade 4th gen aircraft, because stealth may someday be less effective, is that these aircraft are vulnerable right now. Any nation with S-300/400 or equivalent level of SAM, is going to inflict high losses against legacy aircraft, or prevent them from operating freely in a given battlespace. Additionally, they wouldn’t provide overwhelming superiority against the emerging fighter threat aircraft either.

Which leads us to EW/EA. Which I assume is a topic as closely guarded as stealth. You haven’t mentioned them. Are you confident in ruling them out?

Not sure if I agree there, but I’d put it at 100:0 in favor of we should not intervene in any capacity in China’s internal problems. If we don’t recognize Taiwan as an independent nation then we have to concede that they are in fact still part of China, making this therefore an internal problem for China to handle as it sees fit.

It’s not as easy as that I think. De facto independent governance also enjoys legal support and a protected status by international law and UN perspective. I’ve read a lengthy legal essay on that when South Ossetia was in the news during the recent conflict, which also related it to Kosovo. And, in such cases, it truly is “perception creating reality”. Depending on how many G8 states look at it in which way (and potential benefits), it suddenly ceases to be an internal issue only.

Whether that should prompt the US into action though is a matter best decided by the US. Personally, I don’t expect this small-scale protection and recognition of independent governance to be enough to cause military intervention.

Where has Sweetman done any such thing?

That’s the impression I got from the presentation. He looked at why fighters are needed at all, and then which kind of fighter best fits current and expected strategic requirements. Part of that, it seemed to me, was wondering whether the cost increase by going with the F-35 (versus upgrading or purchasing a 4.5th gen fleet) provided enough increase in critical capability to justify the purchase, additionally viewed under the light of potential technological developments that could decrease LO’s advantages, which would leave the plane with the expensive, but then potentially useless, remnants of its stealth technology.

Now, before you start attacking that, keep in mind that this is my summary of what I thought he wanted to do in this presentation.

Personally, I’m an advocate of the F-35, but I do think that Mr. Sweetman’s stance on this (or his personal take) is valid and shows concerns that aren’t completely unfounded. Whether they will become true is another discussion, and whether his exact presentation of the circumstances has a personal slant or presentational deficiencies not exactly serving his point yet another.

As with pretty much anything, I’m not claiming to give answers. All I do at most is trying to add another perspective. 🙂

Money is not everything. Why did America go to war with Iraq and the majority thought it was the right thing then ( in 2003 ) and is still suffering from the financial burden.

Which majority thought it was the right thing?

And as for Iraq, there are lots of things that are about money there. Iraq will have to pay things off for one. Secondly, Iraq was allegedly about to start trading their oil in Euros, which would have critically hurt the USD (and was among the first things to be “rectified”). Then you’ll have to look at the rebuilding contracts and who benefits from them and who’ll enjoy future benefits in deals with Iraq. Then you’d also have to figure in, how preventing terrorism might save money in the long run. How much did the economy suffer after 9/11? How much money was lost there? What if it happened again? Would it stifle markets even more? Slow growth even more?

Perhaps somebody will be able to grasp in fifty years’ time, whether it was worth it.

Many things considered “being the right thing to do” are considered that way because natural selection shaped our material strategies in iterative evolutions of genetic and memetic interplay. Usually they make long-term fiscal sense.

In your ideal world your theory makes sense, but the world is hardly ideal, sometimes nutters take over, sometimes a conflict in interest is so large that unless you go to war your countrys pride is shaken.

Iran situation is one example.

Iran would be an example of an irrational player not on a level with us. Do you think they are truly able to offer symmetric resistance? It’d be a walkover.

The Taiwan issue further down will be another. If Taiwan is attacked America cannot and will not standby i feel.

That would be an interesting test. I don’t share your viewpoint though. I consider it likely that we’ll hear loud protest, and not much more. I’d put it at 60:40 in favor of the US not intervening.

We all know what Chamberlain and the likes of him did during the 1930s, your thinking is in that line. When you need to draw a line, you must draw a line, even if that means war and related implications. The leaders of the world know this, hence the build up of millitary.

I’m not saying that battles are never going to happen again or have become impossible. But I do think that major theaters with large-scale symmetric warfare are as unlikely as they haven’t been in the last 3000 years before and they are growing increasingly unlikely with every year. If I had to bet money now, I’d put it on “US not going to war with either Russia or China in the next 50 years.”

Unless you want to talk about the Big Water Wars of 2050. 😀