Stealth technologies questioned

#1
Military technology: Trucks, not limos | The Economist

This could be controversial.

However, there are some points such as the longevity of older more spacious platforms that are easier to be reconfigured. In the cash strapped future Brit Mil, surely food for thought, especially perhaps when thinking of assymetric warfare, littoral combat etc, would be the question of whether we need to gold plate everything and whether quantity has a quality all of it's own.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#3
Military technology: Trucks, not limos | The Economist

This could be controversial.

However, there are some points such as the longevity of older more spacious platforms that are easier to be reconfigured. In the cash strapped future Brit Mil, surely food for thought, especially perhaps when thinking of assymetric warfare, littoral combat etc, would be the question of whether we need to gold plate everything and whether quantity has a quality all of it's own.
There is always, in a long term procurement (it's different for UOR's), a tendancy to go for slight gold plate, on the basis that this equipment needs to last 20, 30 or 40 years and needs to be adaptable for future, possible threats. The US have the luxury of being able to buy specific to task equipment that the UK MOD can't. Admiral Greenert may be right - the USN may be able to get away with a much less capable platform to carry their strike capability because they can put a load of other assets in the area to provide fighter cover and defence suppression. We can't. We need the best available platform, whatever it is, because it may need to operate and survive on its own resources.
 
#4
There was another article on defencetalk.com about the fact that only US nationals are allowed to work on them... which puts a rather large financial spanner in the works for basing them in Singapore.

In replies to the original article on the Economist one poster points out what happens when the Comms systems are taken down. Chinese sat killer anyone?

Also today, Hammond spoke of wanting to equip Brit Mil with the very best... even if it meant getting rid of a Battalion or 21 to do so...

Can a grown up explain things to me please coz I is getting confused.
 

Bouillabaisse

LE
Book Reviewer
#5
We regularly fly people out to British ships for repairs and maintainance when our local office could do it cheaper and just as effectively with local engineers.
 
#7
I don't think the Admiral is saying anything new, just cautioning about putting all the eggs in one basket.
As examples
6 Anti Air warfare destroyers is getting pretty close to putting all our eggs in one basket?

How many F35 X will be able to field in one go from how many carriers?

How many Astutes?

How many actual infantry and supporting arms?
 
#10
I saw some Bedford 4T driving in BFG yesterday, wondered if they were being brought back into service
 
#11
Quote "This could be controversial."

Only if you are a defence contractor thats been milking the Dept of Defense or MoD for several decades.
 
#13
The Navy's much-awaited Littoral Combat Ship (LCS) will fall below any expectations of standing up to a shootout with China if things get out of hand in the Asia Pacific region.
The LCS is just a cat's paw to draw Chinese warships into shallow water, where they have form for running aground.
Think sneaky not stealthy.

B

Who writes these releases anyway?
 
#14
Quote "This could be controversial."

Only if you are a defence contractor thats been milking the Dept of Defense or MoD for several decades.
You gonna feel sorry for the tossers though?

For me the controversy will come down to
Deploying people on ops and knowing that they may get topped - it happens, but is controversial;
Deploying a significant amount of people on ops and knowing they will be topped BUT being able to dominate the ground...
... because we have chosen life over expensive equipment
Not being able to deploy people on ops because systems have become so expensive we are no longer in the game...

Which of the above three puts us more at risk?
 
#18
You gonna feel sorry for the tossers though?

For me the controversy will come down to
Deploying people on ops and knowing that they may get topped - it happens, but is controversial;
Deploying a significant amount of people on ops and knowing they will be topped BUT being able to dominate the ground...
... because we have chosen life over expensive equipment
Not being able to deploy people on ops because systems have become so expensive we are no longer in the game...

Which of the above three puts us more at risk?
The whole point of the very expensive and high end systems is they keep 'us' in the game.

3 USAF B-2 bombers were able to operate with impunity over Libya and demolish 45 hardened and defended targets in a single mission.

Go work out the strike packages you'd need to put together with conventional, as in non stealthy airframes, to pull off the same mission.
 
#19
The whole point of the very expensive and high end systems is they keep 'us' in the game.

3 USAF B-2 bombers were able to operate with impunity over Libya and demolish 45 hardened and defended targets in a single mission.

Go work out the strike packages you'd need to put together with conventional, as in non stealthy airframes, to pull off the same mission.
What if it's raining though?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top