the USN kinda hit the ball out of the park with the forrestal design. today they are still building carriers based off of that original design that will be serving in front line service roughly 100 years after the forrestal was first launched. that’s kind of amazing when you consider how so much else in our world seems to change at ever increasing paces. granted, the internals of the ford and forrestal will be quite different, but the overall conceptual design remains surprisingly similar.

Not coincidentally, the closest we’ve come to a naval conflict between adversaries living on the same planet since then is the Falklands. It’s no different than the evolution of the battleship pre-WW2. Newton’s First Law applies as much to the military as to physics. The US Navy is the most conservative of the services (and the Army the most adaptive) because it has been the least (most) challenged. Major changes will only occur when events demonstrate that the status quo is no longer tenable.

The only consolation is that the navies of the world’s rising powers are by and large aspiring to follow the same path as the US Navy, much as a rising Germany was obsessed with emulating the grandeur of the Royal Navy’s battleships.

Because it isn’t needed (threat index: zero; Europe doesn’t care about China) and European states have little use for wasteful (and often even prudent) military programs, particularly those that would promise to stretch national resources even in the best case scenario. Needless to say the current and likely future economic climate (being defined by ageing populations and thereby reduced economic output and increased pension outlays and healthcare requirements) only reinforces these things. Barring the resurgence of fascism on the continent one can only expect European military investment to become ever more anaemic over the next few decades. And they’ll get away with it too if the draw-down of national capabilities is paired with increased integration of capabilities, i.e. an EU state. There are significant challenges to that path, but few alternatives lest the individual European states wish to be left subject to the whims of fate.

And the American-centric ‘Generation’ nomenclature can’t hide the fact that the Eurocans are fundamentally more evolved airframes than F-14/15/16/18 and MiG-29/Su-27. False equivalence is false. Rafale and Typhoon at least will continue to evolve until at least 2030 and will suffice as the principal combat platforms until UCAVs come of age.

Sounds like internal political cluster******y to me.

Neither aircraft is remotely capable of replacing the hypothetical B-1R in its hypothetical role, lacking in payload, range and speed.

I would be interested to hear in which respects the Mi-28’s advocates believe it to be superior to Apaches of the same era.

Well the general position I am starting from in this question (and thread) is that the West (and to a lesser extent, China) believe they can make these things work.

Sure, I just think the discussion is a little premature is all.

Unmanned systems will certainly form an increasingly large part of the picture in decades to come, but there are some hard realities that’re going to have to be faced too. If you want an unmanned aircraft that moves like an F-15, with the capabilities and payload and range of an F-15, then it’s not going to actually be that much smaller or cheaper than an F-15. Indeed the benefits of eliminating the pilot are greater for small aircraft than larger ones. I suspect the first high-performance UCAV will probably be an unmanned variant of an existing fighter platform.

As to exports, I don’t see them as fundamentally different from any other piece of technology. Generally you’re not going to want to export something you’d have trouble dealing with yourself to those who aren’t reliable, long-term allies. But we’re not talking about ‘silver bullet’ technology here like the F-117/B-2 were: everyone is making UAVs and the general principles are well understood. Even if America won’t sell you Global Hawk, you’ll probably be able to go and pick up a similar platform 80% as good from someone else.

the third PAV gave tongue for the first time

Oh my I didn’t know it could do that. :diablo:

Apparently the cost is not increasing that much, or US would not aim for JDRADM as their main weapon.

Clearly you and I are thinking of different ‘United States’ here. :rolleyes:

So far as I can see JDRADM as a thing dates back to 2006 … smack bang in the middle of the recent ‘om nom nom’ phase of Pentagon budgeting.

What is more is that only part of the inventory need to me dual-role to offer the vastly improved flexibility, 2*Meteor + 2*MeteorDL (dual-role) would be a good weapons fit, and obviously you’d fire off the first version first in AtA,
the MeteorDL being kept as backup for either AtA or AtG, depending on need.

Makes sense.