It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is Robert Gates A Genius?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

As for the X-51 and Blackswift projects, the X-51 is a scientific and technological demonstrator which has still not been canceled because despite the ignorance in Washington, NASA and DARPA know the importance of investing in this kind of viable technological initiatives which are essential if America is to secure its future


Way to contradict yourself:


Finally it makes ZERO sense to have an SR-71 replacement in this day and age. Do you know what the SR-71 was used for ? Why do we even need to use such primitive methods these days when US satellites


You do realise the purpose of Blackswift/X-51 is a hypersonic spyplane?

Go and learn the meaning of consistency then try and make your straw-man arguements.


You do realize that they're two separate airframes right?

The X-51 is not intended to be an actual aircraft, and is an R&D program by NASA and AFRL. It's a waverider, to see if that will work. The Blackswift is going to be a hypersonic recon/strike UAV.

X-51:


n a letter dated 27 September 2005, the US Air Force (HQ USAF/XPPE) officially granted the US Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Propulsion Directorate’s scramjet flight test vehicle the designation X-51A. Since the introduction of the legendary X-1 in 1946, scientists have used the X-plane designations to identify experimental aircraft and rockets used to explore new aerospace technologies. The Propulsion Directorate was working with Pratt & Whitney (P&W)/Rocketdyne’s Space Propulsion Division and Boeing’s Transformational Space Systems Division to design the X-51A scramjet powered flight vehicle to explore the airbreathing system-level potential of scramjets.

The military-oriented endothermically fueled, scramjet engine flight demonstrator (EFSEFD) was initiated in early 2003. At that time the first test flight was planned for late 2006. If successful, 5-11 flights could be performed, with as many as four more following over a roughly 18-month period, and the rest, 18 months after that. These test flights differ significantly from those of NASA's X-43C. In the latter, a three-flowpath scramjet module featuring variable-geometry inlets will be flown, with the flowpaths mounted in a side-by-side configuration. In contrast, the test vehicles used to explore scramjet military uses will each be powered by a single scramjet sporting a fixed-geometry inlet.

www.globalsecurity.org...

X-51 is a TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR. It's not planned to go into production, and it's not in the black budget.

Blackswift:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There's a LOT of good information in that thread, not least of which is the possibility of the Blackswift being a hypersonic bomber. There's also a UAV insider saying that Blackswift just went black. I'm a lot more inclined to believe her than I am the newspaper or someone not involved with them in any way saying that it's canceled.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]




posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 12:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



X-51 is a TECHNOLOGY DEMONSTRATOR. It's not planned to go into production, and it's not in the black budget.


Always with the down-talking...

What do you think the Scramjet engine is being proposed for in the first, friggin' place, self-proclaimed Guru?

Hypersonic spyplanes and bombers. Like Blackswift.

Can we stop the asinine, back & forth discrediting of one another like we're scoring points here?


I'm a lot more inclined to believe her than I am the newspaper or someone not involved with them in any way saying that it's canceled.


When did I say it's cancelled?


[edit on 12/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:02 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


You talked about failed black projects, and included the X-51. How does a technology demonstrator that isn't in the black budget and hasn't even flown yet denote a failure? And yes I know exactly what it's for. It's for the new generation recon/bomber. It would give a 2 hour strike capability just about anywhere in the world. Tell me how that's a bad thing.

And where did I say I was talking about YOU when I said that about it being canceled? I simply said that I'd believe her over anyone else that doesn't have the knowledge she does.

You want people to stop talking down to others in this thread, go look in the mirror first.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:07 PM
link   
So when it comes to fighter jets, the U.S. still has massive superiority against any other nation. The only country that sort of comes close is India, and it is extremely unlikely that India will ever be siding with Russia or China against the U.S.. With the world's economic downturn, who knows what weapons the other countries will be producing. If they didn't feel the need to keep up with an arms race against the U.S., they might even scale back their military plans.

I think they should keep the F-22 program going, so we have the capability to continue to build them, but they should do something to reign in the costs.

As far as the development of technology goes, it seems that we got far more out of NASA and the lunar programs than we have gotten out of these defense contractors. The people of the U.S. pay for the development of the technology, and the corporations get to keep it.

We would be far, far better off to put the money into infrastructure. Even if India were to gain a higher number of SU-30's, they still can't fly them across the pacific to attack us, they aren't long range attack vehicles.

In addition, it is time to start spreading those federal dollars around a little more evenly, or a lot more evenly.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:22 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



How does a technology demonstrator that isn't in the black budget and hasn't even flown yet denote a failure?


Because the US doesn't need Mach 7 spyplanes.

As I said before, the main problems with propositions like Blackswift:

UAVs and satellites are fast superseding that role.

UAVs can linger around a target and provide a live feed for a long time. Even if they're destroyed, all the data has already been relayed back to ground control.

Spy planes have to make one or two quick passes over the target before their either detected and need to evac out of there, or pass the point of no-return.

Compounding that, you loose the spy plane, you loose the photographic data on it's hard drive. Not to mention human lives and about several billion dollars in United States Government property.

The latest Keyhole variants have such high-resolution thermal and X-ray imaging capabilities they can even see through various degrees of solid cover.
A spyplane doesn't have the room to mount the necessary sensitive optics for this.

Not including of course the insanely ridiculous costs of maintaining and fuelling hybrid ramjet-turbine engines.

[edit on 12/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



So when it comes to fighter jets, the U.S. still has massive superiority against any other nation. The only country that sort of comes close is India, and it is extremely unlikely that India will ever be siding with Russia or China against the U.S.


India falls at about 3rd to 4th place in terms of foreign air powers the US could clash with.
Russia, China, (insert in here Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan) are well ahead of India's fleet.

The only thing the Indian airforce has going for it currently are the Su-30MKI deals with Russia (of which only 110 are in service), the Indian MRCA Competition for which Russia is the front runner with it's MiG-35, which they will be licenced to produce and it's Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft project coordinated with Russia.

The rest of it is a very aged and poorly-trained force. Their 39 Mirages and 56 MiG-29's are fast becoming obsolete.


Even if India were to gain a higher number of SU-30's, they still can't fly them across the pacific to attack us, they aren't long range attack vehicles.


Why all the focus on India?

They're overly pro-Western and their main concern is Pakistan. Not the US.

India's primary focus strategically is Islamic Fundamentalism, Tamil insurgency, Pakistani relations and Chinese interference.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 01:39 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


And Blackswift is also rumored to be a BOMBER. Again, tell me how it's BAD to have a hypersonic bomber with a 2 hour worldwide strike capability. As for satellites and UAVs, do you know what the biggest complaint was when the SR-71 was retired?

Satellites aren't flexible enough and they weren't getting the intel they needed without the SRs flying anymore.

Edit to add:

India had over 120 SU-30MKIs by April 2009, and are producing them in country. Russia would produce 90 of the 230, India the other 140.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]

[edit on 4/12/2009 by Zaphod58]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 03:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Zaphod58
 



And Blackswift is also rumored to be a BOMBER.


Rumours, Shroumers...

We won't know until 2020 most likely.


Again, tell me how it's BAD to have a hypersonic bomber with a 2 hour worldwide strike capability.


A hypersonic bomber dropping conventional munitions at Mach 7 at a height of 50,000ft?
Yeah, that's going to work.

To bomb precisely, they'd HAVE to slow down and reduce altitude and when they do that they forfeit virtually every advantage their fancy engines give them as defensive measures.

They turn into ordinary close-air supports. It's not like this thing is going to have any significant payload.
Scramjets have a very poor power-to-tonnage ratio and need to made significantly larger for their size to compensate for bigger aircraft.

Not to mention, Blackswift is almost certainly going to be stealthy, which again rules out the possibility of a significant payload capability.


Satellites aren't flexible enough and they weren't getting the intel they needed without the SRs flying anymore.


So you build more of them, for less money.

Satellites in LEO can orbit around the Earth in minutes, not hours. The newer KH-13 is going to have resolutions exceeding 0.10m and radar imaging technology to map surface topography in real time.

[edit on 12/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 04:05 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


The F-22 has already proven that you can release weapons supersonically. The SDB has been dropped at over Mach 1 from F-22s. Yes, it's not Mach 7, but that will come with time. They've already been dropping JDAMs and other guided munitions from 40,000 feet with other bombers.

You don't NEED a huge payload, the kinetic energy from a bomb hitting at over Mach 7 is going to do a ton of damage even without a warhead.

As for satellites, it takes a satellite at a 250 mile orbit about 90 minutes to make one orbit. It costs more to launch one satellite than it would to built a hypersonic recon aircraft. And once you run a satellite out of fuel, it's pretty much dead. Satellites aren't nearly as flexible as manned aircraft are.

As for Blackswift being stealthy, how does that rule out a significant payload? The F-35 that Gates is so enamored of carries a pretty decent payload and is stealthy. The F-22 carries a pretty decent payload and is stealthy. The B-2 carries an insane payload and is stealthy.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 06:22 PM
link   
I think its great that we are reducing our military spending. I don't know if I'd call Robert Gates a genius, but he's certainly got his head screwed on tighter than old Rumsfeld did.

I think its great that we have such an advanced military, but we're really just wasting taxpayer money on all of these fairly useless projects. We have an enormously overfunded military, and unless we want to end up like Russia we need to curb that spending to a reasonable level and focus money on more important things like inadequate healthcare, skyrocketing unemployment and a crippled economy.

I see all of this argument over which project does what, and whether it is "failed" or not. As far as I'm concerned, if it wastes taxpayer money and doesn't improve the quality of life for the taxpayer, its a failure.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:14 PM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


JUst to show that there is no credible threat against U.S. air superiority. The only country with a large number of SU-30ties isN'T even an enemy. The only reason to keep the F-22 program alive is so that we can produce them if needed.



posted on Apr, 12 2009 @ 07:42 PM
link   
Let me get this straight because some of you here are making absolutely no sense.

Why would you want drastic cuts in military spending which helps keep America safe and the leader in technology?

Instead, you should be complaining about all the useless social spending and waste the government spends which does nothing but make people dependent on the government and supports the decline in society as a whole.

As to the post question.....A flea on my dog's butt is more of a genious than Robert Gates.
The F22 is the best plane in the world and we need more of them and not, by comparison, the mickey mouse plane called the F35. Gates is a dumb ass for cutting the F22 and all the other systems like the new destroyers.

[edit on 4/12/2009 by WhatTheory]



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
I'm not sure what your definition of "success" entails, but when it's regarding a military project, success would entail that project entering current service and mass production.

NONE. Not one of those projects has yet to enter current serivce.
6 of those were CANCELLED, before anything more than a prototype was built.

Again, you utterly fail to even recognize even the basic motivation of research. But this is to be expected considering your agenda has little to do with objectivity is merely another "America sucks" liberal rant.

Obviously, none of them have entered current service because they are ALL research projects to determine and develop future technologies. Mass production would be the very last step of an acquisitions program. Research is not carried out with Mass production as its foundation, that is common knowledge. If it were DARPA would be a state owned manufacturing unit not a research entity.
Projects can be "cancelled" even if they produce results and ALL the projects you stated have produced considerable results.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
How could they save lives if they were never deployed and used by men in Iraq or Afghanistan?

Again your myopic understanding of military doctrine makes you spew such absurd drivel.
Not all research projects are there to save "lives". DARPA is not the Red Cross. Most projects are there to give the US military new abilities and new weapons while some projects are used to help individual soldiers like the Future Force Warrior or the Land Warrior project.

Anybody who has even paid a cursory attention to the way the military works will realize that projects can be canceled when priorities change. Only a fool would mistake "failure" with "canceled" .


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Approved in an extremely limited adoption. From the proposed DD-21's 20 or so new destroyers and littoral combat ships to 3 destroyers, for $3.5 billion dollars per unit. A hair's breadth away from a brand-new Nimitz-Class carrier at $4.5 billion.

But you said that the project was "CANCELED" and a failure ?
Which is patently untrue and demonstrably misleading. It doesnt matter if they order 3 or 300 but an order indicates the money spent developing it has paid off greatly.

Also, the reason the DDX program was downscaled was not because it was a poor product but rather the NEED for it was not felt considering the changing threat environment to the US. But any reasonable person can see that this in no way qualifies as a "failure" or a "waste" as you have fallaciously accused it of being.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Now that's an excellent tradeoff. A puny destroyer, with 2, 155mm deck guns, 20 VLS Tomahawk modules and the provision to carry 2 Seahawk helicopters. With the added gimmick of "stealth".

Versus a floating armada of 85 aircraft.......

Again, utterly misinformed, naive and ignorant statements that can only come from somebody who is totally removed from any understanding of the military.

Firstly it is utterly ridiculous to compare a destroyer; an independent vessel that can level cities by itself to a Nimitz class super carrier; which can only work in a group with massive logistical and support requirements and often presenting a massive slow moving target.
Second, the cost of a Nimitz calls aircraft carrier is actually $6.2 Billion (USS HW Bush) in 2008 US dollars for the ship alone. The complement of aircraft and helicopters etc would cost a LOT more. Add to this to much higher costs of maintaining close to 4000 sailors and pilots for extended durations, it is clear that the cost differentials between a versatile destroyer and a carrier group is ridiculously disproportionate.
Thirdly, the 20 VLS "modules" can launch nearly 80 missiles including the Evolved Sea Sparrow, the Tomahawk block-4, the ASROC, the ALAM, apart from the 2 155mm Advanced Gun system that can fire approximately 1240 conventional rounds and 100 LRLAP rounds at ranges over 80 nmilies. In total two DDX destroyers have more firepower than an entire battalion of 155 howitzers.
Lastly, the AN/SPY-3 3d Radar and the various other systems reduce crew requirements and exponentially increase lethality

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Uh no, it won't.
The Commanche was a recon helicopter that could perform limited pin-point strikes. It had nowhere near the durability, survivability, range of armaments or tonnage of the Apache.

Utter slander.

Every single word above is WRONG.
The RAH-66 Comanche had an empty weight of 8700lbs (unloaded and unfueled) and a max takeoff weight off 17,000lbs. That is nearly 8300 lbs of load compared to 9600lbs (11400lbs unloaded and 21000lbs max take-off weight). The difference is 1000lbs, which comparatively is hardly anything considering that the Comanche was a prototype and the AH-64 is a fully fleshed out system.
Next, the top speed of the comanche is 175knots compared to 158knots on the Apache, for ranges of 262nmiles(internal fuel) vs 260 nmiles respectively. Which means the Comanche was faster and could move further even at its inception.
Next, taking armaments, the Comanche could carry 6 Helfires and 6 Stinger missiles internally or 24 Hydra 70s and with stub wings could additionally carry 8 Helfires or 16 Stingers or 54 Hydra 70s compared to the usual 8 Helfire and 40 Hydras that Apache's usually carry with them. This again proves that the Comanche was much better armed and could carry a much bigger payload even at inception.

Finally add to ALL these, the fact that the comanche was much more stealthy and quiet with the fact that it had much better navigation, could fly in poor and bad weather and was smaller in size multiplied the effectiveness of the Comanche many many fold. In short, the Comanche, was faster, lighter, stealthier, more potent and could fly farther than Apache and was still discontinued merely due to its cost.

Your assertion that was not as good as the Apache is utter slander and totally wrong. The Comanche was itself designed with a much different role in mind to begin with and even then compared to the Apache it was much more potent in almost every way. Even a child could see the massive leap forward the Comanche brought over the UH-64. Its technology can easily be applied to future rotatary wing aircraft as it has demonstrated technological advancements over the Apache that can be made of use with much more lethality in unmanned configurations.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It led to proving that 20mm airburst munitions are useless on the battlefield and have nowhere near the lethality of 40mm M203 grenades.

You mean like the Thermobaric weapons that were extensively used in Iraq to penetrate structures and kill hundreds of insurgents?? (XM1060) Or the M203 replacement they now developed called the M320 ??
Yes, what useless work indeed!

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It also showed no matter how many fancy range-finding computers you mount on a battle rifle, it doesn't make the ordinary soldier any more efficient.

Any gains seen in targeting abilities are outweighed by such a bulky (8.2 kilograms loaded), cumbersome and difficult to use weapon (setting range, windage and azimuth before firing every grenade on a real battlefield gets you killed).

Without even knowing anything about the OICW one could find the glaring flaws of logic in your statements above.
In the first paragraph you accuse them of putting range-finding computers on something you call a "battle" rifle and in the second you say the soldier has to "set" range, windage and azimuth ?? That doesnt make any sense. Why would he have to set anything if already has a "fancy range-finding computer" as you called it ?

Apparently, your ignorance has utterly confused you. The idea that every project will yield a practical application is utterly foolish and naive. Gaining new understanding and knowledge from a research endeavor is not failure as the OICW program has clearly demonstrated. Though, it couldnt deliver the weapon it promised it led to development of a whole series of new weapons and brought out many new technologies and systems that have been used in a plethora of systems today. Some of them have even made it to the battlefield and saved American lives.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Not to mention, the unit cost of $10,000 dollars per soldier.

What you dont seem to even comprehend is that $10,000 is peanuts compared to an American life!


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

In February, the programme was cancelled by the army despite the expenditure of USD2 billion over 10 years. A report from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has urged the army to "review its decision to terminate the Land Warrior programme" and has earmarked USD80 million to resurrect it.

It's end-goal was supposed to be realised sometime around 2032. It spent $2 billion in ten years, and almost none of that technology has transferred to current issue gear.
Oh it looked very promising didn't it?

If you actually knew what in God's name you were actually talking about you would know that what the Pentagon canceled was the Stryker Vehicle inter-operable system that was overweight and too costly. Most of the program and technologies have been rolled over into the Future Force Warrior project that is well into being implemented. In fact the BDU's are to be introduced in 2010 and the project is actively being funded and well supported in the Pentagon .

And yes, it IS very promising!



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:58 AM
link   
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira
 


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Way to contradict yourself:


Finally it makes ZERO sense to have an SR-71 replacement in this day and age. Do you know what the SR-71 was used for ? Why do we even need to use such primitive methods these days when US satellites


You do realise the purpose of Blackswift/X-51 is a hypersonic spyplane?

Go and learn the meaning of consistency then try and make your straw-man arguements.

Apparently, your ignorance is so pervasive, you cant seem to figure out how to get your head around it. Before you start spewing off names like Blackswift and X-51 atleast try to comprehend what they are and if you cant ask somebody else to help you understand so people like me can save their energy trying to educate the ignorant.

The X-51 is a technology demonstrator for SCRAM jet technologies and hypersonic flight. It has NOTHING to do with your fantasy hypersonic spyplane ala the SR-71. Please try to wrap your head around this simple fact. The main purpose of the X-51 is to validate technologies for the Prompt Global Strike initiative or which was called the Advanced Rapid Response Missile system. The technology from the X-51 was to also be used in the Blackswift program but it was canceled due to lack of funding.

The simple fact that it was planned to be tested from a B52 should have clued you into the fact that it was merely a technology demonstrator validating technologies rather than your own fantastical assumptions.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

The XM2001 Crusader project again, can hardly be dubbed as a "failure". The main contention with the program was the high cost per unit compared to existing weapons systems.

Sure it can, READ:
www.senate.gov...

First, the Crusader was much smaller than the Paladin and moved much faster at 40mph compared to the 35 mphs. Also, it required far fewer crew members to man and had a higher fire rate. It was definitely superior in every way but only marginally so compared to other competing systems like the PZH2000 etc. That along with the cost was why it was scrapped.

And Maybe your should READ:


Army Technology
. In August 2002, United Defense received the formal termination which ends all further work on the program. United Defense has been awarded a contract to use technologies developed for the Crusader program to produce a lighter and more deployable Objective Force Cannon or Non-Line-of-Sight (NLOS) cannon. "Objective Force" is the working title for the US Army's long-term future combat force. The NLOS cannon is planned to be fielded in 2009.


This only proves that despite being canceled it was no failure and developed several technological improvements over its predecessors and other foreign contemporaries.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
I'm still waiting to see any of these "promising technologies" actually realised after years in development and billions funnelled into them. Especially after they've been cancelled.

Maybe you're just a very patient, slow-paced individual and that's all well and good for you.

And maybe you are just an ignorant, naive, misinformed and utterly hopeless individual that can only submit feeble arguments in defense of his warped ideology, however that is not for me to say and I dont care to know.

As for the technologies being rolled over, I have clearly shown how in each case technologies have been rolled over from canceled projects leading to new applications and further developments. The OICW is one very compelling example. The Crusader program another. Many new projects could be developed in the future that could use technologies from the Comanche, etc to incorporate them into other systems making them much more potent.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
But when you've got 2 wars slowly leeching the lifeblood of the military away and costing trillions per year, you need all the help you can get, right away.

Not sitting around waiting for DARPA or Skunkworks to come up with a miracle by 2020 or something.

The fact that you and many people like you wish and hope that the US military is somehow being spent and being crippled is pure fantasy. The two wars have only strengthened the US military and has made it more versatile than ever before and much more potent. Today our military has "thousands upon thousands" of vetran soldiers and commanders who have been battle tested in the harshest of conditions making them a potent asset to our military. Which other nation can boast of such numbers of combat vetrans ?
Next, the US military today is getting more recruits than ever, recruitment numbers are up all across the board with thousands interested in joining the ranks of the US military. Additionally, today the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan dont cost "trillions" as the US military's mission is winding down, I would say it would cost at the most half a trillion and that is a very liberal estimate.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Who do you think is going to be fighting your megalomaniac desires for you in the future?

It sure as hell won't be the detached, armchair-generals such as yourself nor will it be the upper crusts of the America.

It'll be the poor, tired and underprivileged as always.

Yes, the same old "the military is exploiting the poor" card! Your arguments are as typical as being from some old leftist handbook.
Every single person in the US military is a volunteer and it doesnt matter where you come from. The rich and the poor serve alike. Moreover, there are just as many ROTC recruits from the upper echelons of society as there are from the poor sections.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Or maybe it's because of 15 years of red-tape and failed programmes that have yet to produce a satisfactory successor?

Sheesh, it's never the military's fault is it? These guys are infallible.

How can it be the military's fault when they have sucessfully adopted the M-4 and various other support equipment over the years without any problems. But you seem to claim that they are unable or uninterested in adopting a basic infantry rifle. It doesnt make any sense.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 05:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
India falls at about 3rd to 4th place in terms of foreign air powers the US could clash with.
Russia, China, (insert in here Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Pakistan) are well ahead of India's fleet.

Utter nonsense! But I'm used to this by now!


In terms of Air force, after the RAF, the Russians and the Israelis, the Indians have a very professionally trained and competent air force. They train extensively despite their old equipment (which is heavily upgraded) . Also, they are highly motivated force consisting of a lot of combat veterans.

To compare them to Egypt, Saudi Arabia (
) and the failed state of Pakistan is an utter joke. I think the Indians could possibly take on all these nations together. I have personally seen the Saudi Airforce first hand and they for the most part lazy, unmotivated and poorly trained despite their fancy aircraft and them hanging out in US AFB's. The Chinese have a lot of planes but training wise, they have never been tested to make any comparison. Also, their airforce has never actually faced any active combat since the Korean war which was a generation ago. The Russians on the other hand are proven to be good pilots and they have some decent equipment making them more credible.


Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The only thing the Indian airforce has going for it currently are the Su-30MKI deals with Russia (of which only 110 are in service), the Indian MRCA Competition for which Russia is the front runner with it's MiG-35, which they will be licenced to produce and it's Fifth Generation Fighter Aircraft project coordinated with Russia.

Apparently, you are so naive to think that an airforce is worth the sum of its planes. In that case the RAF should have lost to the Luftwaffe during the Battle of Britain!
An airforce is the sum of its pilots. An airforce that trains regularly and can learn quickly is more likely to be very competent. As in the case with the Indians. Also, their lack of proper training aircraft requires their pilots to transition from a cessna directly to a Mig with no assistance. That sort of dangerous progression makes their training a sort of trial by fire and any incompetence would be leave them dead as it has to many of their pilots.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The rest of it is a very aged and poorly-trained force. Their 39 Mirages and 56 MiG-29's are fast becoming obsolete.

But what you are either ignorant of or you have failed to mention is that these aircraft are heavily upgraded with much more advance electronics, electronic jammers and flight computers. Not to forget their 200 odd Mig-21 Bisons that are also heavily upgraded and are potent if not reliable.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
India's primary focus strategically is Islamic Fundamentalism, Tamil insurgency, Pakistani relations and Chinese interference.

Tamil insurgency ? That would be Sri Lanka that has the Tamil insurgence.
The Tamil people essentially Indians. Even their Defense minister is a Tamil.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:00 PM
link   
reply to post by IAF101
 


So tiresome...


Obviously, none of them have entered current service because they are ALL research projects to determine and develop future technologies.


No they were part of programmes to replace current issue military technology.

Not research projects for god's sakes.


If it were DARPA would be a state owned manufacturing unit not a research entity.


DARPA didn't develop half those projects. The US Army did, again to replace current issue hardware.


You mean like the Thermobaric weapons that were extensively used in Iraq to penetrate structures and kill hundreds of insurgents??


Quick munitions lecture:

Airbust munition = Explodes while airborne.
Thermobaric = Fuel-air mixture designed to create an immense fireball and resulting pressure wave.

Thus ends the lecture. The 20mm Airburst munition developed for the OICW was not thermobaric.

Again the limitations of your knowledge are exposed.


Or the M203 replacement they now developed called the M320 ?? Yes, what useless work indeed!


Which is a 40mm impact-fuse grenade system. Not a 20mm airburst munition. AGAIN proving that the 20mm idea has been well and truly shelved.

Time to give that dead horse a rest. You've beaten it to a pulp.


In the first paragraph you accuse them of putting range-finding computers on something you call a "battle" rifle and in the second you say the soldier has to "set" range, windage and azimuth ?? That doesnt make any sense. Why would he have to set anything if already has a "fancy range-finding computer" as you called it ?


A range finger detects the distance to a target ONLY.

Not windage, not correct azimuth for launch and sometimes it is necessary even when using a range finder to guesstimate, as it's preferred to explode a grenade a few metres overhead of a target to shower soldiers that are behind cover (which was the original purpose of the 20mm airburst).

Hence my original point stands. Again, the limitations of your knowledge are exposed.


The idea that every project will yield a practical application is utterly foolish and naive.


Except that was the stated aim of the OICW programme:

The Objective Individual Combat Weapon or OICW was the next-generation service rifle competition that was under development as part of the United States Army OICW program; the program was eventually discontinued without bringing the weapon out of the prototype phase.

www.globalsecurity.org...


Though, it couldnt deliver the weapon it promised it


That was a nice shot to your foot. Congratulations.


What you dont seem to even comprehend is that $10,000 is peanuts compared to an American life!


That's cute. You think the military actually cares about human life.

As if your naivety couldn't become anymore blatant.

Try comparing that to the cost of an M-4 or M-16, which even with the SOPMOD kit, comes down to less than a few hundred dollars per soldier.

Which is the primary concern at hand for the DOD.


The X-51 is a technology demonstrator for SCRAM jet technologies and hypersonic flight.


Yes and what are these ramjets being proposed for?


"The Falcon Blackswift flight demonstration vehicle will be powered by a combination turbine engine and ramjet, an all-in-one power plant. The turbine engine accelerates the vehicle to around Mach 3 before the ramjet takes over and boosts the vehicle up to Mach 6."

www.arnold.af.mil...

Hypersonic spy planes and bombers. The two programmes are intrinsically linked, as Blackswift cannot function without the success of the X-51 demonstrator to prove Ramjet engines are viable.


The simple fact that it was planned to be tested from a B52 should have clued you into the fact that it was merely a technology demonstrator validating technologies rather than your own fantastical assumptions.


It's a proof of concept initiative to show the USAF, who has been highly sceptical of ramjet-powered aircraft, that it's feasible and practical.


The two wars have only strengthened the US military and has made it more versatile than ever before and much more potent.


My god. The only thing Iraq & Afghanistan have strengthened is the notion that the US is incapable of fighting asymmetric warfare and all the fancy gizmos and high-tech research projects in the world cannot substitute for a bulky, disorganised and less-than-mobile military force.

How about 6,500 or so dead so far? How has that strengthened the military? How about the tens of thousands wounded?
Have their incapacitated states and permanent disabilities now strengthened their resolve to fight? Why don't you go and ask them, I'm sure they'll give you a very warm response.


Today our military has "thousands upon thousands" of vetran soldiers and commanders


Sure they do, who will never want to complete another tour of duty once is Iraq & Afghanistan is over and done with.
Such is the mindset of people who never experience combat, however.


Next, the US military today is getting more recruits than ever, recruitment numbers are up all across the board with thousands interested in joining the ranks of the US military.



The recruiting shortfalls for the Army Reserve and National Guard - which have been called to active duty at a pace unseen since World War II and now make up more than 40 percent of American forces in Iraq - are as bad as or worse than those for the active Army.

If the shortfalls continue, the government could be forced eventually to consider abandoning the nation's 32-year experiment with the all-volunteer military, which came into being as the United States withdrew from an unpopular war in Vietnam and ended an unpopular draft.

The shortfall in recruits also is making it harder for the Army to raise its total strength from 480,000 to 510,000 soldiers so it can man the new modular brigades that are at the heart of the plans for a lighter, more flexible force.

www.commondreams.org...

Oh yeah definitely. A public, whom 70% of disagrees with the Iraq war is just dying to get blown up by an IED. I can see the logic in your argument there.


Tamil insurgency ? That would be Sri Lanka that has the Tamil insurgence.


Like you have a damn clue. You do realise the Tamils originate from India? And have their own, self-designated state, Tamil Nadu, in Southern India:
en.wikipedia.org...


Since the 1969 election victory of DMK under C. N. Annadurai, Tamil nationalism has been a permanent feature of the government of Tamil Nadu.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 01:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by USamf
Yes by all means gut the military and cancel all future programs. NOT. We do that and before you know it we will have to be playing catch up with China and Russia. I will gladly pay for my country to be the most advanced in the world. In case you didn't know, no one has been able to handle those teenagers, not the Soviets in the 80's and not us now.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by USamf]


Do you actually pay any tax ? From the sound of your posts you aren't old enough to. The OP is right there is such a colossal waste in the defense budget that it's criminal. BTW alot of these overruns are graft.
So you would gladly have your taxes lining the pockets of these defense contractors who grossly mismanage defense contracts ? Sounds prety silly to me.
America could do far better investing in education, that is the real front where America is losing its power. This country is churning out a generation of morons - just go to any college.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 03:55 PM
link   
Claims that the war in Iraq and Afghanistan have gone badly is pure nonsense, dreamed up by those who realize that establishing a representative government in Iraq is a huge blow to the terrorism movement. U.S. soldiers, and the military has succeed in these campaigns enormously.

With this in mind, and the reality that very one want to join the army right, more money being spent on weapons development should be spent on soldiers, raising pay and benefits, and paying for college after completion of tours of duty. We would be far better off investing in our service members than these hugely costly weapons systems.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:04 PM
link   
reply to post by poet1b
 



With this in mind, and the reality that very one want to join the army right, more money being spent on weapons development should be spent on soldiers, raising pay and benefits, and paying for college after completion of tours of duty. We would be far better off investing in our service members than these hugely costly weapons systems.


Precisely the point I'm trying to drive here.

We need to stop focusing on the "near-future" and Cold War-era battles which will never take place.

Focus on proven, reliable technologies that can be adapted to boots on the ground within years not decades, to help combat asymmetrical means of warfare.

Mach 7 spyplanes, scramjets, exoskeletons, chemical lasers, rail guns, and all that other dreamy nonsense should be completely put aside for a comprehensive, individual soldier modernization programme.

A new standard issue battle rifle, newer, more effective body armour, far more effective troop transports and better satellite and UAV coverage are good places to start.



posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 04:51 PM
link   
There is something to consider, for those who are saying that we will be "less safe" if we cut down on military spending. For the staggering amounts we put into the Military Industrial Complex, why isn't our equipment proportionally better? Since we spend as much as our three nearest competitors combined on 'defense', why are they developing aircraft that will force us to upgrade? Why are we STILL issuing the M-16? Why do we have so much holdover from the cold war when we are spending 711,000,000,000 USD PER YEAR on our military?

So for all this money, what are we getting out of it? We should be leaps and bounds ahead of every other nation on earth, but other nations have better small arms, are developing better aircraft, and soon enough will ( Or may already ) have superior armor. All of this, with literal fractions of the US military budget. So, to me, this shows the military industrial complex is either intentionally or through incompetence spending this money inefficiently. So, naturally, we stop giving them so damn much of our money to burn.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join