Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Worth bearing in mind Germany already operates both the Tornado and the Typhoon - something that seems to be overlooked in this news is that just because Germany may favour the F-35 as a Tornado replacement, it doesn't mean that they might not also be interested in another future aircraft to compliment it, such as the proposed Airbus fighter. I'm not saying thats what they'll do, or that it would make sense operationally or financially, but as we all know the F-35 can't dogfight (at least according to the internet forums on which all military purchasing decisions are made... ;)) so the Germans might be interested in a 7th Gen 5D thrust vectoring hyper-agile mind-controlled Mach 4+ fighter to go alongside it...

Edited by F-ZeroOne
Typos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess. Though none of the launch customers of the A400M or NH90 seem to have any confidence that Airbus can deliver on their promises. Are there any other viable European entities that could deliver capability (and workshare)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No link, but Saudi Arabia has expressed interest in buying the Textron Scorpion light attack aircraft. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny that on a political level, France and Germany want to co-develop a successor to the Typhoon and Rafale, while the french and german branches at Airbus are basically at war with each other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

'twas ever thus. France was one of the initial partners for what became the Typhoon, and left in a huff, and the Royal Navy was originally a partner for a pan-European warship design before leaving and developing the Type 45 on their own... the obvious answer to "European entities" is BAE Systems, though to the best of my knowledge they've never created a fighter aircraft entirely on their own before. (Or maybe... SAAB?).  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2017-11-09 at 7:45 AM, electric indigo said:

And the Tornado replacement is now the Typhoon/Rafale successor:

http://www.janes.com/article/75550/airbus-reveals-future-new-fighter-concept

1712546.jpg

I gotta say I have a soft spot for some of these defence industry commercials, a lot of them are slick and well done. I particularly like the BGM in this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When the autonomous drones surrounded the New Fighter, did anyone else call them Simon, Peter, and John?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ghosts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/13/2017 at 11:02 PM, AN/ALQ128 said:

I gotta say I have a soft spot for some of these defence industry commercials, a lot of them are slick and well done. I particularly like the BGM in this one.

 

Let me just pipe up with a stupid question, why would anyone ever buy a fighter from a company called Airbus.  You might as well buy sexy from a company called pile of crap.  Seriously, given Airbus's trouble with the A400M, does anyone realistically want that particular company to do a new fighter?

I think they missed a line item in their bullet points at the end.  HACKED.

Edited by kalvasflam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Let me just pipe up with a stupid question, why would anyone ever buy a fighter from a company called Airbus. 

Why would anyone buy a fighter from a company called Boeing? Oh, that's right, the US. Because Boeing purchased McDonell-Douglas. Maybe Airbus hired on some folks with experience in fighters. 

 

12 hours ago, kalvasflam said:

Seriously, given Airbus's trouble with the A400M, does anyone realistically want that particular company to do a new fighter?

That, I believe is a more legitimate concern over Airbus producing a fighter. Especially given how networked the thing will supposedly be. 

On 11/14/2017 at 2:02 AM, AN/ALQ128 said:

I gotta say I have a soft spot for some of these defence industry commercials, a lot of them are slick and well done. I particularly like the BGM in this one.

I'm really skeptical of this. There are too many points of failure built in to this. Not to mention, the workload on the pilot. It had better be a 2 seater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 11:07 AM, Valkyrie Driver said:

I'm really skeptical of this. There are too many points of failure built in to this. Not to mention, the workload on the pilot. It had better be a 2 seater. 

Sensor fusion is the hot new thing in the defence industry. Supposedly, that means the sensors and computers will cut away/automate a lot of the extra work needed on gathering and processing data, leaving the pilot more time to focus on planning and executing the mission.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

Sensor fusion is the hot new thing in the defence industry. Supposedly, that means the sensors and computers will cut away/automate a lot of the extra work needed on gathering and processing data, leaving the pilot more time to focus on planning and executing the mission.

Call me old fashioned, but, I'm skeptical. I see the potential benefits, but I also see the glaring weaknesses. When I was in the USAF, they tried to automate my job, and tried to make me a glorified button pusher. Sad reality was, I could do the job better than the computer, and I prayed for the system to go down, so I could go back to doing it the old way. I feel that some of the skill gets lost when you add too much technology. Also, I feel that we are way too reliant on technology, I personally know too many people that would be lost without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The huge push for automation, in all aspects of life, is frightening and a bit confusing. With all the talk about creating jobs and reducing unemployment, people still want to push for automation which just eliminates jobs. If everything is automated what is everyone supposed to do? This isn’t the world of Wall-E.

Chris

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I mean it's not that I mind the push for automation. I'm all for making things easier and more efficient. I think that the headlong rush is bad. In a military context though, networks are one of the most vulnerable systems, and as we saw with Bradley/Chelsea Manning, all it takes is one knucklehead with a removable storage device to compromise the system. There is also the fact that writing the programming for such a system is hugely complex, and the ways the various programs will interact with one another is unpredictable as well. Which means there must be a lengthy debug phase.

Furthermore, I tend to oppose the use of drones, except in the cases of the three D's; Dull, Dangerous, and Dirty. I'm all for replacing the U2 with a drone aircraft. High altitude ISR, is also dangerous and dirty, due to the fact that the pilot could be exposed to intense solar radiation. Dangerous missions mostly would include things like operating inside denied airspace. Heck even using them to augment SEAD missions is fine. Use the drones to light up the radars so that manned aircraft can target the air defenses. Dirty missions would include missions into areas that have been contaminated by Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear materials. Essentially, I believe that drones should stay restricted to their current roles, and that manned aircraft should make up the bulk of US airpower. Increasing the integration of systems is fine, but we shouldn't rush into it, because when we do, we often haven't given the technology a chance to mature. I've seen integrated systems get launched before they were ready, and they make work harder. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

http://www.ponarseurasia.org/memo/russias-military-modernization-plans-2018-2027
Looks like the Su-57 is encountering difficulties around getting the proper engines.

I'm kinda glad. For now the US keeps the edge in Stealth fighters. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good news, that. One less thing to worry US war planners. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/25/2017 at 11:07 AM, Valkyrie Driver said:

Why would anyone buy a fighter from a company called Boeing? Oh, that's right, the US. Because Boeing purchased McDonell-Douglas. Maybe Airbus hired on some folks with experience in fighters. 

That, I believe is a more legitimate concern over Airbus producing a fighter. Especially given how networked the thing will supposedly be. 

I'm really skeptical of this. There are too many points of failure built in to this. Not to mention, the workload on the pilot. It had better be a 2 seater. 

Boeing has a tradition for military aircraft that started from WWII.  Granted, most of its aircraft were bombers, Boeing knew what it was to build warplanes before the purchase of McD.  (not McDonalds)  It isn't a hard conceptual leap to go from bombers to fighters.  Airbus on the other hand was formed from civilian companies.  While I think it has some experience on the Typhoon, it's track record, especially with the A400M should make anyone worry.

That puff piece Airbus put out is nothing more than a fancy powerpoint.

Sensor fusion is absolutely marvelous as long as it isn't vulnerable to some form of interference, consider the F-35, it is great if it can be hack proof, but considering how critical it is when acting as a fusion node, if that plane's system gets hacked, the entire system gets compromised, including all the shooters.  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some crappy pics I took of the KC-46 that came to Guam last week.  They came out to do some humidity testing and flew circles in our airspace for a couple hours (no phallus patterns that I could tell).  One picture shows a Hainan Airlines B737-800 parked next to the KC-46.  We see alot of ferry flights come through Guam.  Almost weekly new B737-800s are making their way across the ocean from Seattle to China.

IMG_20171215_114654.jpg

IMG_20171215_160131.jpg

IMG_20171215_160133.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×