It could be a tactical ballistic missile (MLRS/HIMARS launched) payload because the slide's 100k-200k target can't include the launch missile (ATACMS missile 800k each, cruise missiles too expensive as well). Not necessarily just a kinetic one since ISR is mentioned. Surveillance platform that's sometimes a bomb, under an unclear amount of human control? Quite a terrifying idea.
At least one similar looking drone delivery project from the 2000s with an ICBM was terminated because it couldn't be guaranteed that it wouldn't look like a nuclear launch.
You can forget the ground observer. Stealth is the reason why it can fly high all the time to avoid visual/audio detection. Non-stealth planes like F-15E are forced into High-Low-Low-High altitude flight profile. where low level ingress and egress will e.g. drastically reduce range. F-15E going around threats both ingress and egress uses about 30% of its fuel to do so. F-22 would use around 6% in comparison. So basically stealth means that you can waste less fuel on threat avoidance.
A-10 has been known to be a MANPADS magnet since the Desert Storm. If you have air superiority, you can keep them, use UCAVs or buy new Super Tucanos. But in contested environment they are useless. Multiroles or bombers with precision weapons are better suited for CAS. Cannons are legacy, which is why you haven't seen a uav concept matching your description. In the future targeting platform and the one doing the shooting might not even be the same.
"Part of the reason the A-10 has enjoyed the amount of success and notoriety it has is because there has been unopposed use of the airspace over Afghanistan, Iraq, and now Syria. It is not a contested environment. It is not a degraded environment. It’s not an operationally-limited environment–save for bad weather and some really big, nasty mountains in Afghanistan. All of that means our air assets have an ability to fly and operate unmolested in those AORs.
All of our wars since Vietnam (after, but arguably during) have benefitted from largely uncontested airspace. That's been the case for over 40 years, and through many conflicts.
Why should we expect otherwise? The only conflict the U.S. might be engaged where that wouldn't be the case is an an all-out war with Russia or China, either on their territory or, like in Korea, an awkward proxy war where we're unable or unwilling to control airspace. (Hopefully we don't ever repeat the mistake of Vietnam, where we refused to control either the ground or airspace in North Vietnam for flimsy political reasons.)
It seems pretty dumb to spend hundreds of billions of dollars on such a theoretical conflict, especially given that so far the nuclear powers have managed to avoid such direct conflict.
In every last one of our conflicts with substantial American ground troops in the past half century, we've always controlled the airspace in short order. If it's ever the case where we won't be able to control the airspace, we'd have bigger problems than bike shedding this sort of technology. Any difference between the F-35 and the cheaper alternative (Super Hornet, A-10, etc) would be negligible.
I just don't understand wasting the money. I understand the principle is to plan for the next war, not the previous war. But after a half dozen previous wars with identical circumstances, and several similar on the horizon, at some point not taking _reality_ into account seems grossly short-sighted.
Yes, MANPADS may be getting better, but there are more effective and cheaper solutions to maintaining effective control of the airspace (excepting the above exception) than the F-35 or similar platforms.
Contested environments do not make the A-10 useless. In a "real" war, you expect to lose lots of people. Right now we are fussy, but think back to the world wars. People were dying left and right, and we accepted it as the cost of winning. Literally millions of people died.
The A-10 also happens to fly just fine with large chunks missing.
In a lot of ways no as well. Take for example F-35B. That would've never happened on its own. Too few customers for a separate development project. Whereas now combined with amphibious assault ships it will be a quantum leap for USMC capabilities. Otherwise they'd have to retire Harrier for just V-22, AH-1Z and CH-53K.
It already costs less than its contemporaries Rafale and Typhoon. Remotely operated planes are not cheaper. Take for example MQ-4C Triton, which can only be used for intelligence and recon. That costs around 190 million apiece. Quite the sticker shock when you can get almost two F-35As for the same cost. Basically even if you could get similar capabilities (there are no air to air UCAVs atm), it will cost at least as much for quite some time.
According to pilots flying it, it's equal to clean F-16 within visual range.
F-35 program is also invaluable in utility. Nine countries became partners. Eventually most Nato-members and even some affiliates will adopt it. That's standardization of capability across the board on an unprecedented level.
In Finland I went through several hundred rounds. Wasn't even regular infantry. Served the shortest term possible in the signals corps.
Training is scheduled into three parts. 8 weeks, after which you are assigned into leadership track or your rank and file specialization. Then 5 weeks of personal specialization training and 7 weeks of squad training. Adding to 6 months. There are some more difficult rank and file assignments, lasting 12 months. Rank and file medics stay for 9 months.
NCO training after that initial 8 weeks is in two parts, 7 and 9 weeks. Those sent to reserve officer training swap the latter 9 for 14 at the reserve officer school. NCOs lead after that for 28 weeks and reserve officers 23.
Finnish conscription is very limited in its selectiveness. 25k conscripts serve yearly, which is roughly 70-77 % of male cohort. The numbers add up quickly: there's a massive trained reserve of 900k which eclipses most of European armies combined. Their usefulness is obviously somewhat debatable. Still all of them had 6-12 months of military training at some point. 230k have actual war time allocation and up to date kit. There's a similar 12 months of civil service or serve jail time "options" like in Norway. In 2009 2,5k picked civil service, 25 went to jail and 20 took a very niche option, which is to serve unarmed.
Answer to question "in your opinion, if Finland is attacked, should Finns take up arms in any situation, even if the end result seems uncertain?" has been very high for the whole of 2000s: 71–81% say yes. So the willingness is high, owning to mostly to geographical realities. The same thing which has ensured that there's never been serious intent on getting rid of conscription.
The big picture is darker. US Navy had future operating concept based on three types of new ships:
* CGX: ASW/ASuW/AD workhorse
* DDGX: land attack platform
* LCS: cheap platform for everything else
CGX got canned for being near $10B estimated. DDGX got canned according to CNO Roughhead because it's inadequate for the future and too expensive.
Only LCS survived. It has two different classes (Independence from Austal USA and Freedom from Lockheed Martin) with very similar problems, mostly with engines. Their whole operating concept was just retconned. Now they have very lightly armed ships that cost almost as much as Arleigh Burke class destroyers.
Combined with 10 B/each Gerald R. Ford class carrier program it looks like USN is having massive problems with all of its surface vessel programs.
Exactly. All the surface vessels are too expensive, perhaps because the roles and missions aren't really viable anymore. Submarines continue to make sense, but making large surface warships that can survive attack in a modern conflict and perform the missions they are supposed to seems very difficult.
Between westeners at worst no more than curiosities, but they are a good platform to start business in the East, where previous contacts and trust building is more important.
Indeed. Once you go past certain amount of followed you end up inventing some rules for new ones. Like not too many tweets per day, especially if there's more RTs than OC.
Twitter is like a garden with weeds. Constant need of pruning. Facebook just hides most that you don't commit to every now and then. Twitter has also a bit too much automation and anonymity. But some of the parody accounts are gems.
This twitter thread has most of the relevant new info that was added after the first article: https://twitter.com/TheDEWLine/status/1270068190224232450
OSD budget entries: https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... (feb 2020) & https://comptroller.defense.gov/Portals/45/Documents/defbudg... (first public appearance feb 2018)
It could be a tactical ballistic missile (MLRS/HIMARS launched) payload because the slide's 100k-200k target can't include the launch missile (ATACMS missile 800k each, cruise missiles too expensive as well). Not necessarily just a kinetic one since ISR is mentioned. Surveillance platform that's sometimes a bomb, under an unclear amount of human control? Quite a terrifying idea.
At least one similar looking drone delivery project from the 2000s with an ICBM was terminated because it couldn't be guaranteed that it wouldn't look like a nuclear launch.
This article from May 28 is also worth a glance. "SWARMS OF MASS DESTRUCTION: THE CASE FOR DECLARING ARMED AND FULLY AUTONOMOUS DRONE SWARMS AS WMD" https://mwi.usma.edu/swarms-mass-destruction-case-declaring-...