kalvasflam

Crazed Andromeda AI wreaks havoc on Gamilas, news at 11.

Heh heh, as 2202 goes on, I get the vibe that goes back to the old scene from "Enter the Dragon."  The part toward the end where the main bad guy is sending his unnamed yet unique underlings against Bruce Lee and John Saxon in an effort to overwhelm them.   The funny part is he starts by naming them individually and ordering them to attack, even though they're just stormtroopers.

Oh my goodness, that's a whole lot of ships, and dare I ask what the Black Berserk Battlion is?  I mean, ok, I know that's what BBB stands for.  But my goodness.  I see three Andromeda variants, and a better look at the Gamilas version of the Andromeda.  Very interesting.

Now they have Andromedas in battalion formation.  Ha ha.

22 minutes ago, JB0 said:

Actually, sitting president has made such declarations. As opposed to the last president, who did his best to gut NASA completely.

Oops, didn't realize, the only thing I ever heard him say is about Space Force.  oh well, here is to hoping NASA makes it back to the moon by 2030.  We can all hope, right?

Well, I place my faith in industry, not any of our political leadership, haven't had faith in those for almost two decades as far as space is concerned.  All they are is about talking, and they don't do anything more than that... one is about going to Mars, another about the moon, neither had done anything.  At least the current one has had the good grace to not say anything yet....   keeping my fingers crossed.  Although I do have to hand it to NASA to have been brave enough, or I suppose desperate enough to try to pull in the private sector in the early 2000s, and then succeeding with SpaceX.  Hopefully Blue Origin will kick in something as well, Bezos seem to be very quiet, not like Musk, hope his efforts produce something spectacular like he has done with Amazon.

That would be kinda cool, I wonder if that extra bit of memory is adding to the weight restrictions...  

Personally, I can't wait until they start launching the crewed versions of either the Dragon or the starliner.  It'll be good to get space exploration going again.  After the money sink that was the ISS, I hope the next set of exploratory effort will be more cost effective and interesting.  Hopefully, we'll get to a see a return to the moon before the end of the next decade.

You know, there should be a sommelier (like the one from John Wick) for the combat aircraft.

Sommelier: "General, what can I interest you in today?"

General: "I need something big and bold, makes a statement on a tank column."

Sommelier: "Big, Bold, tank column...  Might I suggest the A-10 Thunderbolt II.  GAU-8 Avenger rotary cannon, shots 30 mm depleted uranium rounds, total capacity of 1,174 rounds.  goes through armor like paper, infra-red sensor for low visibility environments, eleven hardpoints on the wings carrying any combination of Maverick missiles, Paveway laser guided bombs, JDAMs for stand off requirements, and cluster bombs for those wide area targets.  Two GE TF34 turbofan engines mounted on the aircraft, stall speed of 138 mph when you need to perform more accurate gun runs.  Cockpit encased in a titanium tub, capable of withstanding 23 mm rounds, just in case you run into those pesky mobile anti-aircraft artillery platform.  An American classic."

At least JEJ is still the king

2 hours ago, GMK said:

Good points & rationally argued. That said, the rationale underpinning your point doesn’t seem to take into consideration expeditionary operations as part of a coalition, or to meet alliance commitments that occur outside domestic or near-domestic airspace. 

Well, I did think about that.  But let's play a game here of thinking about the missions, and what might be a role for a country like Canada.  I think we can agree that Canada won't take an expedition on its own.  So what are the missions.  The ones I could think of right off the bat.

1. Cooperate with the US to defend North American air space and control of nearby sea lanes.

2. Engage in support missions as a part of an expeditionary force, i.e. defend Europe against the Russians, support the Japan and So. Korea against an ultra aggressive China, support peacekeeping missions.

3. Patrol and control its maritime borders.

Ok, so from that perspective, what can we expect, for missions 1 and 3, there is no need for stealth fighters.  Canada would need maritime patrol aircraft, and aircraft that can support extended range missions, especially up north (probably in support of USAF in Alaska) and its own regions near the Arctic circle.  Then there is the swaths of Atlantic that it borders.  So, for maritime patrol, P-8s and Global Hawks would be perfect, probably supported by tankers, whether they are KC-46 of the A330 derivatives doesn't matter.   It would be useful to have a few of their own AEW aircrafts, but that can be covered by the US to some extent, but half a dozen E767 variants like those from Japan or even E-2Ds wouldn't hurt. 

For defense of North American airspace, we think about what could be threatening.  You can class those into two categories, cruise missiles, and bombers.   (not thinking about ballistic missiles, because in that case, the world is hosed anyway)  So, we're talking Bears, Backfires (are there still any left?) and Blackjacks.  Forget about Russian fighters, they don't have the legs anyway, if they did, it would require massive tanker support which is likely not practical.  There are wartime situations, or peace time, where you're intercepting bombers, for that, you need fighters with legs and lots of missiles, stealth characteristics are unimportant.  You don't need an F-35 to sneak up on a Bear or a Blackjack, you need a fighter that can detect the target, go fast, and show off its AAMs, and with a big radar to boot to light up somebody's threat detectors.  None of those characteristics come anywhere to resembling an F-35.   The fighter that most resemble that requirement is the F-15.  Something fast, loaded for bear, and has a big fat radar.

Now, onto the final point, expeditionary activities, any expedition will be conducted jointly with the US.  That's just the reality.  In that case, you're talking about an integrated air force going in.  All sorts of assets from partners  like F-22s and 4.5th generation fighters to do counter air.  Specialty aircraft to do SEAD.  Then, lots of bomb trucks to do air support.  There, you can see perhaps Canadians needing a few F-35s in highly defended air space to support counter air and SEAD, and may be highly specialized anti-ground missions requiring stealth.  Everything else is literally pointless.

Given limited budgets, the best thing might be a formation of like sixty to seventy F-15s, and a couple of squadrons of F-35s.  The current generation of -15s sold for exports are good both for countering 4.5th gen fighters and as ground support.   Those same -15s supported by tankers would be perfect for control of North American airspace.  The rationale is simple, unless Canada decided to get aggressive and start picking fights by itself, they aren't likely to encounter J-20s or Su-57s in the foreseeable future.   By the time fighters of potential opposition get the legs to reach all the way to Canada from Russia or Asia (at least another half a century), the Canadians would've long since deployed 6th generation fighters to face those.  (And if somehow the US became the enemy, well, there is no real defense against that anyway)

I do wonder though if countries should be really looking at themselves as part of an integrate whole rather than a stand alone when it comes to their military budgets.  For example, if you were the Benelux countries, what would be the most effective bang for the buck, and then given the context that the countries are part of NATO.  The calculus changes of course if there was no NATO or no nearby allies that can provide immediate support.

If we take a more distant example, Australia, you can kind of see their rationale for the type of planes they've picked.   F-35 for the more advanced air to air role, superhornets to act either as missile trucks or in an anti surface role once anti-air assets are cleared out, Growlers to support in EW role as needed, given their country's proximity to potential enemies, P-8s to provide maritime coverage, and tankers to extend range.  This works very well with their geography and the relative lack of immediate allies nearby unless there happens to be US carriers in the vicinity.  But the scarcity of potential adversaries helps as well, the closest potential problem would be Indonesia, and that's not a real issue.   China would not be going that far anyway.  So, a limited number of -35 with perhaps more super hornets could make sense for the next fifteen to twenty years.

So, apply that thought to the Canadians, and may be they could be thinking about a different air to air mix.   For example, given the larger territory, wouldn't it be better to have fighters with longer legs, extra tanker support (not necessarily rely on the US for that), and more maritime capabilities.  The likelihood of facing off against enemies with 5th generation fighters are low.  So, at least from that view, the -35 might not be the very best option.  

1 hour ago, GMK said:

With cost being a major driver, I can see Gripen NG getting a look in. Typhoon now has a higher unit price than the F-35A, reportedly. 

Ouch, how is that even possible?  Oh well, that report paints a sad picture for the RCAF.  But commonality will be a big theme here, that and the proximity of the support base.  Those might end up giving the US offerings more of an edge. 

I wonder how far Pretty Boy will go to try to push for a manufacturing base for aeronautics inside Canada.  This is what everyone else is trying to do.  Indians with their fighter program, the Chinese with their commercial programs, and on and on.

heh, well, pretty boy doesn't like the Super Hornets because of Boeing/Bombardier, and the RCAF doesn't like it because it's only a stop gap that doesn't really make up for the shortfall.  Guess the F-18 is just unloved.  I'm honestly surprised that none of the CF-18s were ever upgraded over time, even if they are old, it doesn't make them useless.  I'd suggest buying F-15s, but unfortunately that's just another Boeing product... old and Boeing.  Heh heh.

3 hours ago, Thom said:

Flight of the Old Dog!!

I'd watch that one, especially if they get a tricked out BUFF that can go supersonic, armed with 100 AMRAAMS and can shoot lasers from its rear turret.  The first mission would be an offensive fighter sweep. 

But if you're looking for an original crew, they might be all grandfathers by now, actually, that's the idea, do another Space Cowboys kind of a thing, except they crew a tricked out BUFF, going up against dozens of Mig-28s.  Heck, they can even use the same cast from Space Cowboys, it'll be perfect,  They'll need to cast a bad guy though... hmmmm, how about Dolph Lundgren (he is youngish, and can set up a believable generation vs generation type of deal where experience and good old American grit wins out in the end) as a Russian mercenary/advisor who is aiding the evil *insert your 3rd world authoritarian regime here* fighting against our heroes. 

Can't remember,  but basically Kodai was in charge of both ships, and the Andy wouldn't yield the right of way or some such silly thing.

Looking back, parts of the old story was really silly.  But oh well.  I think the big problem with Yamato 2202 is that people like me might be expecting too much of a mature story, rather than the smash em up cartoon for kids, to those kids, most of 2202 was probably total kick ass, massive number of ships slugging it out, with no rhythm or reason, or logic.  The utterly illogical arms race that the show engaged itself in was just a delight to both the young'uns and Bandai, who is looking to sell ever larger number of models.  The boring parts were probably all about Desslar and his sad, sad backstory.  No more talking, just blow crap up.  After all, what are you going to do with a doll of Desslar, that'll never sell.  Or  may be if it will, if only we transform Desslar into a girl, and slap string thongs on it.  

After all, who wouldn't want 20 variations of Andromeda with all the different trims and colors,.

44 minutes ago, David Hingtgen said:

I believe that was part of it---the Navy allowed ONE real missile launch to be done for the film.  So they had to make the most of it.  Nowadays a movie could have 50 unique missile launches in the furball to end all furballs, but they'd all be CGI.  While Top Gun did use some radio-control models, there's a TON of real F-14 footage, and a REAL missile launch.  We're unlikely to see anything like that again.  "Straight and level, or gentle turns"---that'll be the real Hornet.  Everything else---CG. 

Yep, if anyone considers what the Navy did for Top Gun to be low budget, they have another thing coming.  It would be interesting as heck if the Navy did it again for the next Top Gun movie, but then the current CinC might demand a portion of the proceeds.  Although it would be interesting as heck to see if the next Top Gun can get Tom Cruise and company on an actual carrier.  I'd imagine the captains and admirals in charge of the fleet might have been college school kids when the first Top Gun came out.

6 hours ago, ahiachris said:

Original Top Gun was a very low budget movie. You can see missiles launching at the same hard point again and again.

It depends I think on what you consider low budget.  The movie itself got access to two aircraft carriers as well as a ton of technical assistance.  All for free, in exchange for the rights by the Navy to edit, and turned out the Navy didn't edit a single thing.  So, you're right, it was low budget considering that they didn't have to pay for a few days of carrier ops while they filmed.  

You know the J-20 looks like a joke now, but Chinese can and will iterate on them over time.  For now, the role of China's military is simply different from that of the US.  It is basically asserting itself in its own backyard.  It still can't really match the US anywhere else, but fortunately, it doesn't really have to, it isn't the policeman of the world.  And although people might hate it, the world does need a cop.  

I would say the J-20 is probably going to be some type of limited production run, and there'll be a 5.5 generation fighter from China at some point that can match the F-22.  But the J-20 probably won't have that role, it was never designed to go head to head with the F-22.  It probably has a different mission altogether, but it is doubtful anyone will ever test the capability of that fighter.  

J-20 shows off its load...

https://www.scmp.com/news/china/military/article/2172993/china-reveals-j-20-stealth-fighters-missile-carrying-capability

Somehow, it looks a little familiar.  The only question is how many of these can be fielded, and whether they can replace the engines easily.

In other news.  Is Boeing secretly saying that it has an override for human pilots?  I jest obviously, but this seems a bit much, for pilots  not to know about the way the plane can function.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/airline-industry-rushes-to-understand-nuances-in-737-453602/

12 hours ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=ba100893931fb47264d09521173f7435&tab=core&_cview=0

DARPA has issued an RFP for a countermeasure to hypersonic vehicles.

 

Somewhere, someone is immediately thinking about a laser.  A big powerful laser.  Pew pew, die die....

55 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

As a Canadian, I would much rather the RCAF get brand new F-35's over clapped out 2nd hand Hornets and Super Hornets nearing the end of their airframe lives.

Trudeau buying those Hornets wasn't due to any kind of tactical consideration, but simply a stop-gap measure because our CF-18's are quite literally falling out of the skies and it wouldn't look very good for the Liberal party to have a pilot die due to long time governmental negligence. Once Lockheed gets economy of scale going, the F-35's will be quite affordable to buy, and will provide a longer service life than simply buying more Hornets from allies that no longer want theirs. It would also be a boon for our aerospace industry, considering we are still part of the JSF program, and there are multiple Canadian companies supplying the program.

Oh well, I'm sure Lockheed will be happy if that happens.  But there is still a good chance for pretty boy to go in with either the Typhoon or the Gripen.  Those are not bad planes, and although they're 4th or 4.5th generation, it's not as if they are any worse off than F-18s.  After all, did the Canadian government decide it was a good idea to rebid the contract?  

I have to admit, I don't know much about the Canadian aerospace industry other than Bombardier, wonder what other companies do a lot of work up there.

2 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

The problem with choosing anything other than the F-35 is that, Canada would face the possibility of losing the workshare on the F-35 production. That and losing half a billion Canadian dollars they already pumped into the program and get nothing in return.

That said, if Canada picks the Gripen, I would love it as it would bring something different to the airshows (when they come down south).

You know, that half a billion is what people would call sunk cost.  It also depends on how much the lifetime cost of the Gripen would be vs the F-35.  In reality, the Canadians were always going to be better off with F-18s, and they acknowledged it essentially by buying second hand hornets.  If you think about them and their role as junior partners essentially, they are better off with the F-18s, more guns, more missiles, let the Americans go all fancy with stealth and clear the air before sending in the Canadian bomb trucks.

What the pretty boy really ought to do is to buy the super hornets that they have, just to show Boeing that Canada will never do business with Boeing military arm directly again.  It would be hilarious.

1 hour ago, TehPW said:

They used the Cosmo DNA modules as weapons...?

 

yeah, and the bigger question is why bother?  All those WMGs, and all they were against were fodder.  Guess I'll look forward to the subbed versions.

1 hour ago, Shadow said:

To me, the J-20 bares a much stronger resemblance to a Mig-31 with its stretched airframe. Showing it to be much more of an interceptor I think compared to an air superiority fighter. The J-20 is an AWACS-killer from my impression of it.

Hopefully we'll see the YF-23 design live on in Northrop's 6th generation fighter.

Also, it's a little off the course of the F-35 but found this to be a neat analysis of the fiction MiG-31 Firefox.

Ah man, this brings back memories.  

I remember when that movie came out.  Then I heard about the real Mig-31, I thought, wow, that would be so cool.  Sure, they called it Foxhound, but real life Mig-31.  Imagine my disappointment when the darn thing turned out to be a souped up Mig-25.  Mikoyan & Gurevich so disappointed me,  in my mind, it was like they were promising this:

and then gave this instead:

The disappointment was so palpable that not even the Mig-29 could make up for it.

Thank God for Sukohi, they renewed my faith in beautiful fighter design with the Su-27.  You know, the funny thing about Firefox is that at least they got one concept right, stealth fighters needed internal weapons bays.  If I remember right, in the movie, the Mig-31 had internal missile bays, angled surfaces, not sure about RAM, but I remember it had a huge heat signature, at least it gave a good idea of stealth even if the engine takes looked like huge reflectors for radars.

It's funny, the fighter manufacturers of the 70s/80s have all been folded into other companies, Grumann (F-14) into NGC, McDonnel Douglas (F-15, F-18) into Boeing, General Dynamics (F-16) into Lockheed Martin.  

Hopefully they'll do a good job with the next iteration.  

57 minutes ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/french-firm-dassault-pulls-out-of-fighter-jet-competition-sources

Canada requires any replacement fighter jet to be Five Eyes certified, which means the Rafale is now off the table.

That leaves the F-35, Super Hornet, and Typhoon as potential replacement aircraft. What a complete mess of a procurement process, sadly not something new to Canada.

Is that a joke?  It has to be Five Eyes certified?  I didn't think the intelligence agencies would be out certifying warplanes.  I' m sure if it means selling planes, the PRC would happy to get its planes Five Eyes certified...  ha ha.  

3 hours ago, Vifam7 said:

That's simply not true.

https://theaviationist.com/2016/03/01/heres-what-ive-learned-so-far-dogfighting-in-the-f-35-a-jsf-pilot-first-hand-account/

https://www.heritage.org/defense/report/operational-assessment-the-f-35a-argues-full-program-procurement-and-concurrent?aliId=1895829143#_ftn10

 

Sorry, I need to be more careful with my phrasing.  When I say kinetic, I am talking about its payload capabilities in various configurations.  Not direct performance when it comes to dogfighting or delivery of munitions, which will likely be great given its stealth characteristics.

Some interesting videos on Vimeo for the next chapter.

Lots of action, curious to see all of this pans out even if it was  a bit disjointed.

And I noticed, there are no fighter on fighter action in these sequences, both sides have them, but both sides are using them as attack aircraft only.  How interesting.

1 hour ago, AN/ALQ128 said:

I doubt the Taiwanese will ever get the F-35 in any near future time frame.

 

Do you want to bet on that with our current CinC?