The theory of inflationary universe is indeed fascinating.

I am not a scientist but I think would also be interesting to speculate about the idea that intelligences could create universes by provoking inflations. Guth has written a paper about that. Other scientists have also speculated how it could be done.

In an extremely large inflationary universe, even very unlikely events would happen a very large number of times. This also includes the probability that an intelligence would appear that would create universes by provoking inflations (if it is physically possible to do that). Then there could be a sort of recursive process of universes created by intelligences. Each intelligence could create a lot of universes that are so large that the probability of intelligences appearing inside of them would be high. This recursive process would be infinite in the future.

As a scientist, what do you think of that idea?

As you can see from the patent’s drawing, it dates back from october 1987. I would be surprising that Northrop would not have proposed it. And as you said before yourself, it was rejected by the Air Force. Maybe Northrop was forced to use another design with 4 missiles because it was rejected, not sure about the details.

Also it appears that from looking at the drawing, those missiles are AMRAAMs with the large wings and fins. If you look carefully it seems that the distance between the missile is determined by the wingspan ( they would touch each other if they were closer ). With AIM-120Cs it could have been more compact vertically and narrower. 4 probably wouldn’t have fitted, 3 maybe.

USAF rejected that (any jam in mechanism would leave aircraft unable to fire missile), I believe there was some question whether such a stack system would fit. Weapon separation might have been smoother than in the F-22 as the bay was to have a swing out baffle to protect the missile from airstream.

Basically irrelevant, the YF-23 proposal had a trapeze system for 3 AMRAAM and 2 Aim-9, the F-23 EMD would have had 2 door mounted AMRAAM, 2 (possibly 3) on a pallet that would have been lowered, and 2 Aim-9 in a smaller forward bay.

That’s why I pointed out that it would have had 3 launchers which would have provided redundancy.

It is a very compact way of carrying AIM-120s, they’re even closer than on the F-22, vertically I mean. I wonder if NG could use their patent for the next gen fighter if they chose a design where the bay is behind the cockpit. They would have to prove that it works on their prototype to convince the AF probably.

What you describe is fundamentally the same as NIFC-CA where the F-35 assumes the “targeting role” for AEGIS. As I have said repeatedly, this is where the Army is headed as well but it will take time since IBCS is not yet mature and there are other sensors and shooters that are prioritized ahead of other USAF airborne sensors and for very good reason. Secondly, as I have mentioned in the past, the Patriot is fast becoming a large magazine, short-medium range anti ballistic and cruise missile defense system. Moreover, the US Armed forces are expeditionary in nature and as such the main responsibilities of the Patriot batteries is to protect the troops from saturated ballistic and cruise missiles, and now increasingly air-defenses are focusing on CUAS and CRAM mission as well. Air-Superiority is still largely the responsibility of the USAF. The Army hasn’t really looked at the LR AAW mission (which one would need for your scenario to work) or invested in it since the 1990s..The threat and the way that threat has invested has made them rightly focus on the TBM and Cruise Missile threat and only now are they branching out to the unmanned and RAM threat. For an 100% expeditionary armed forces, deploying with patriot battalions with LRAAW solutions is cost and logistically prohibitive..Thats a lot of C-17 loads to move around if you go back to 4 or 2 missiles a launcher. Better that long range sensor-shooter pairing come from arsenal plane concepts which incidentally are being developed as we speak. The first and foremost contribution the Patriot makes to the joint forces is to protect troop concentrations from saturated attacks from ballistic and cruise missiles. Same with THAAD although it has larger theater wide reach for the sensor and the shooter. On the Navy side this arrangement is different since an AEGIS vessel must protect ships and strike groups from all sorts of attacks, most of the time by itself.

The decision to focus investment on AAW has implications for the Air Force and the Army. It has logistical and cost implications and obviously it will have to take away from something to pay for another mission area focus. The Patriot will become logistically larger and less mobile and will consume more AMC assets to deploy to cover those missions. As mentioned, even the ground based surveillance mission is now increasingly the domain of the USAF and USMC and the Patriot taps into it. If the F-35 needs longer range, more numerous interceptors, it is best for USAF to task other manned or unmanned aircraft to provide those..

Sorry but your argument makes no sense. Against a high end threat you want as much firepower as possible, and the most cost effective way is to deploy the PAC batteries. Each battery has 6 launchers with 4 PAC-2 or 16 PAC-3s per launcher, that’s a huge firepower that the aircraft could exploit in a layered defense system.

The equipment to add MADL connectivity is not heavy for a ground vehicle, same for the computers. Maybe just a humvee could carry that.

Adding more stealth planes costing each 100 millions is very ineffective in comparison to surface launchers for that particular role. That’s what’s called synergy. And a PAC-2 or PAC-3 is well worth the cost of an enemy aircraft, which is a higher value target that a missile. The PAC-3 and PAC-3 MSE have enough range also to that kind of application if proper tactics are used. I think that if it is the pilot that controls the battery it could be made more dynamic than if it is the ground operators, so shorter range missiles can be used than only say PAC-2s.

Arsenal plane for air to air? I am not so sure I like the idea. The plane would probably have to be stealthy, it would launch in subsonic so wouldn’t give that much range to its missiles. It would probably need bigger missiles, which would cost more and could not be carried in large numbers. Using a 550 million LRS-B to launch 16 big AAMs, I am not completely convinced. This being said, giving bombers a couple of long range AAMs is probably a good idea if it has LPI modes.

Well combining tracks from all sorts of sensors can be very complicated too. We see that with the F-35 fusion. Not to say that it cannot be done but do not think it will be piece of cake.

In any case there has to be some coordination between the fighter and the battery. The fighter would most of the time be tracking the target, often in look down shoot down, it is closing very fast on the target, every second counts, the pilot knows what he is trying to do so it is more likely to work than if the decision is being done by an off board system.

I think I would try to do that first with the F-35, since it is going to become the mainstay of the USAF. The F-35 has the computing power and the datalink to do that kind of things. They need a protocol that enables the fighter to talk to the battery to order to fire on x number of tracks. The battery then is only used as a Gateway to transmit the target coordinates to the missile in flight Frankly it doesn’t make that much difference. I don’t see why it would necessarily be so hard to do.

Another advantage of using fighters instead of surface radars is that surface radars would not risk a counter attack by ARMs.

These are separate things and components with different uses. TTNT is an IP based large force gateway for long range, low latency C2 communication. MADL and IFDL are tactical data-links that share tactical information amongst smaller number of platforms in order to accomplish their mission more effectively. The goal is to maintain LPI/LPD integrity hence shorter range and likely small data pipe. TTNT was originally envisioned by AFRL to have a LPI/LPD component for the higher LO fleet but once the USAF dropped out, and decided to walk a different path the Navy chose to not pursue that end. The JROC chose the lower risk path of simply adding MADL capability to the F-22, B-2 and the LRS-B at a future date since the data link and its components were already funded. It was determined as a better and lower risk approach to since the largest component of the LO fleet (F-35) would not require retrofitting which would be the case with a completely new solution.

RC has demonstrated integrating MADL on the JTRS receivers but again this is not an overlap of the TTNT mission which is completely different.The AF had a choice and it chose MADL or “MADL Like” ADL instead of TTNT for its LO aircraft before sequestrations made the ALL MADL plans move to the right. As mentioned earlier, this would eventually take care of discrete communications amongst LO fleets..for the remaining fleet there is L-16 T/R capability that is also envisioned across the LO fleet and as other potential concepts are developed they could look to enhance the pipes by adding the TTNT as the Navy has done with its NIFC-CA. But for that there needs to be quite a detailed assessment of what the demand is going to be in the 2030s and beyond and an assessment whether this particular product can even meet those needs. It is too early to select TTNT when the Enterprise capability team is not even done an academic assessment of future needs. Perhaps the AF can re-visit this in the early to mid 2020s when there C2 concepts for the future are more mature.

I didn’t say they should necessarily select TTNT. Maybe MADL can be used as a physical layer. I’d be suprised if it didn’t support IP, all the more that you often hear the F-35 network being a flying internet.

The problem with using TTNT is that they have to modify both the stealth plane and the non stealth planes, whereas if they use MADL/IFDL they have to modify only the non stealth ones.

Perhaps, but the point still stands that there is absolutely nothing in their budget, or the program timeline when it comes to integrating it. As envisioned, the big pipe is not for ALL communications but specifically to aid in the C2 pipe hence strategically used by the E-2, EA-18s. The F-35 requires some way to discretely communicate with the legacy fighters (including the F-18/EA18) and as I have said multiple times this waveform and concept of operation doesn’t get them there. The Navy doesn’t have a very large LO fleet so to them this is less of an incentive to invest, but for the AF which already has and will continue to grow its LO fleet this is a top priority hence the reason why they along with multiple OEMs are currently experimenting with waveforms and concepts. I am sure if the AF, or RC could simply waive a magic wand and convert it into a directional, LPI/LPD data link they would have done it already but it is likely an expensive R&D effort since this component was not supported by the Navy when it took over the program. For discrete comms. much easier to build in MADL support to F-22s at a later block post OMS and to include that in the B-21 SDR.

Well, the F-35C is said to be able to integrate with the NIFC-CA, how is it going to do that?

There is already the ability to communicate and link air and ground based assets when it comes to sharing data, voice or targeting information. Additional integration is planned and a joint architecture exists for all three services to follow and adhere to. The thing with joint architecture is that it need not specify a particular PRODUCT like you are doing, but a joint set of standards that ensure interoperability. The same is true for NATO. There is communication and data sharing made possible at all major elements of the ground forces with the air-defense forces having the ability built into their C2 systems to communicate and share data across most Air-force and Navy networks via their JTRS etc.

The philosophy of having more integration between how the AF and Army fight is new. Nothing really concrete has been implemented yet AFAIK. They were probably not as interested in that kind of capability before. I am not particularily talking about a particular product, but maybe they should try to be more practical. Like how can the an MADL equipped aircraft talk to PAC batteries and can guide PAC missiles? You don’t necessarily need to integrate all the networks together for that.

For more general communications that don’t require that much bandwith and that much stealth, maybe more basic networks like L-16 can be used to reach much more network nodes.

Maybe missiles will evolve too to become drone/missile hybrids. The USAF is trying to build a mini drone that can carry AMRAAMs and that can be mounted on heavy pylons for instance.

A similar concept but super fast would maybe to have a first stage booster with an aerodynamics more similar to a hypersonic plane ( with extendable wings ) that would stabilize in flight horizontally to maximize range and a second stage that would be supermaneuvrable, maybe HTK. The advantage is that the missile would have real wings that would produce a lot more lift than the straight pieces of metal that missile currently have.

But I don’t see why the USAF could not benefit from the investment the Navy has already made in these programs of networked targetting. The F-35C WILL have the hardware, so the A could have it too. The hardware probably doesn’t take that much space otherwise they could not retrofit it in existing super hornets. That could help the F-15Cs be a more survivable and effective asset in a high threat environment.

The problem with inserting the Talon Hate is that it sounds very expensive, and it seems to be too big to fit in the legion pod.

Also the Army could use the same hardware to better integrate its anti-air systems with the Air Force fighters.