Joint Force 2035: Lasers, Biotech and Global Instability

In terms of scientific spending, the authors suggest that the Pentagon should invest in applied meta-materials, man-made composite materials that can manipulate electromagnetic radiation to reduce signature; nanotechnology that can lead to improved material sciences; bio-engineering that could lead to “construction of new biological parts, brain-computer interfaces, or the re-design of natural biological systems to manufacture drugs, chemicals, materials, or food”; and super dense batteries with greater energy output

That’s a nice wish list

We need to see the oversized load statistics. Again, a single variable if of no use when dealing with a complex problem.

Let’s wait and see what will surface in the press. The MRTT is not devoid of fault and in the context of a P8 buy, it will make more senses for India to focus on one single platform. We will have more insight if the AWAC is pursued or not.

Again, there is perhaps traces of a failure in the Airbus market policy. it’s year that a long range persistent, quick transit time sea hunter was expected and airbus got stuck with a cheap/high ROI C295. Where is the Poseidon counterpart?

EDIT:

I have to admit that I failed this post (read below – Swerve). However, the fact that UK is buying the P8 should have justified the design of an equivalent platform. The P3 obsolescence and Atlantic lack of suitability in the Asian theater is not a niche but an attractive market. Just have a look at the number of long range fighter and latest subs…

Ok… Kc46?

USAF seeks two new close-air support aircraft

I don’t think that the A29 is the plane that fits the US doctrine. The main problem I see for that is the very low range of the plane when fitted with a sensible loadout. It force you to base your assets at close proximity of the front, hence, somewhat when dealing with assymetrical war or counter-insurgency, among the sympathizing base of the population. Man should see how Colombia operated its Super Tucano. They where based among or nearby insurgency point. This is acceptable for an army base with helo that can be defended more easily with its concentration of fire power and small surface. In the case of an airport with runway long enough to let an heavy laden airplane to operate from, the base defense is more tricky (and the human cost difficultly bearable). I would even say that what you just spared with a low cost turbo prop, will be swallowed quickly into base defense and supporting infrastructure.
In Afghanistan, the supporting cost are already there. It is then transparent.
In Colombia, this has led to an equilibrium of force that might have increased the momentum for peace (some might have here a more informed opinion). But in the case of US force, this is of no effect.
A modern counter insurgency plane must have range while having in the same time a transit time compatible with the mission needs**. I am sorry to say so, but a 2000hp turboprop is passé.*

I can’t think at another choice than the Scorpion (unless a new design – extrapolated from the army future air lift ?).

*they are new Turbines that will fulfill the needs
** or be a VTOL.

Mi 17. Written above
Shot down assumption -> read the press
DGSE yes, we learned afterwards

And Mr Hollow, stop bullying my avatar and depicting me like this way. You are ridiculous. You can’t understand what you can’t figure. This is a trait of dumb people, should I remind you?

I think you are reading wrongly as if everything should be packed in one deal. IMO they are decoupling it altogether: Urgent IAF needs, Make in India and ToT.