Since the cold war ended, that’s what we have been reduced to. Maintaining a defense industrial base is expensive, especially in today’s environment.
What would you have us do?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Hard Power and Soft Power
- Thread starter taxi1
- Start date
Since the cold war ended, that’s what we have been reduced to. Maintaining a defense industrial base is expensive, especially in today’s environment.
What would you have us do?
My employer has developed two cost-effective attack platforms in the past 15 years with company money. The US military took little interest in either. When the government starts selling war bonds to pay us to build up industry against an existential threat, I’ll get back to you.
Right now, I’d just settle for clarity in requirements, a DoD budgeting process that plans ahead (and sticks to those plans), and an adequate number of skilled tradespeople in the industry. There’s more to fix than that, but it would be a great start.
The requirements process is painfully stupid.
I remember when the USMC absolutely *required* a 70 ton amphibious jet ski. The contractor accepted the mission (and dollars) and attempted to violate the physics constraints imposed by current technology, until it was evident the job was impossible. After which 40 knots up on a plane was no longer required.
A supersonic hovering stealthy jet would have useful in WWII. Why no requirement for one?
The conditions described in that book don’t exist today. Not just the “in WW2” stuff, but the stuff they did to prep so much of industry to convert from commercial business to military production. America was a uniquely capable industrial and manufacturing powerhouse then that it is not today. We do remain good at coming up with exquisite high end stuff, and at automating the shit out of some things…but only if the demand and volume is there.
Which is where the problem comes from so often. We the government arent willing to pay for excess capacity, which would be a labor force and capital investment just sitting around under their full capacity (and profit making potential)…and we pay industry to make shit we’re not willing to let them sell commercially (taking non defense/ITAR stuff), so they can’t expand the market on their own.*
The other problem is how often we fall into just going for the “easiest” solution. It’s way easier in people’s minds to look at an improvement or modification to an existing product than to go clean sheet design.
Point is…if we didn’t actually need something else big and slow flying around armed, and wanted something transformational and “different”, make sure you get those requirements right from the start, or you get the shit show that is LCS or Zumwalt. Those were clean sheet, “innovative” concepts. The trap of doing the easy evolutionary thing springs from the fact it’s really easy to screw jt away when you try a revolutionary thing that is also actually achievable with near term technology.
*Relating it back to this thread…our foreign policy could potentially tank our FMS market…which will only make things a lot harder for maintaining our own domestic MIC.
Again, you keep repeating your problem statement, but have yet to articulate anything about the kind of platform that would address the issue. Tell us what capabilities you think you want... specifically.
Rob, some losses have been expected of both the P-3 and P-8 in the next near peer fight. You make it sound like Boeing has somehow duped our leadership into accepting that, but I'm pretty sure it's been built into the requirements all along and Boeing was just designing to the requirements.
Every historic MPRA has been fat, slow, and vulnerable relative to their threats. If you want an MPRA that puts no servicemembers at risk, it probably would be unmanned.
Every historic MPRA has been fat, slow, and vulnerable relative to their threats. If you want an MPRA that puts no servicemembers at risk, it probably would be unmanned.
@Brett327 can you PLEASE stop talking like you are lecturing your wardroom. My comments, and ideas, were meant to stir a conversation, strategically, about our current acquisition process and outcomes. The 737 was never designed, built, and deployed as the U.S. Navy's next gen premier ASW/ASUW/ISR platform of choice. We all know the "why" we got here. I'm thinking higher than what we are currently dealing with. Lots of people and organizations shoved square pegs into round holes IOT to justify the P-3 replacement. Got it. And the rationalizations for those square pegs are understandable - at some levels. What "would" a P-3 replacement look like if the DAS and DoD focused squarely on true requirements? I can't say, but i'm willing to bet, it wouldn't be a commercial airliner in service, and supported by, a company/industry that clearly benefitted from the decision.
So another C-130 variant? How original.
Well, you know how well the acquisition community replaced the A-6….A-12 Avenger (oops out of money)->F/A-18.Clearly, I have failed to articulate my point. I’ll bow out . . .
it’s much easier & cheaper to sell/buy something that is already built then to build a purpose built aircraft from scratch.
Navy VQ: EC-130->E-6->E-130 (basically another C-130 variant)
Navy VAQ: TBM-3Q->(AD-1/2/4/4Q)EA-1F->EKA-3B->EA-6A->EA-6B->EA-18G (another F/A-18 variant)
ES-3 enters the chat. Then leaves out the side door.
It wasn’t called the Shadow for nothing…
It took its severance pay and applied to Delta
Thought this was very interesting
Germany debates proposal to re-open Nord Stream pipelines – DW – 03/27/2025
Members of the conservative CDU party, likely to lead the next German government, have raised the possibility of importing Russian gas again. The far right has welcomed the idea.
amp.dw.com