US unmanned bomber proposal - Who do they want to kill this time?

[GePap]

The gap is not enourmous. Stuides were done in the mid-90's showing that if the European's spent about 50 billion more a year on the military they would catch up, as far as smart bombs and so forth goes.

Airframes are a good example: the US does not make better airframes than anyone else: were US planes are better is in electronics, but the Japanese are as far ahead as we are there, at least, if you look at commecrial programs (In armor our lead is not the great (an M1A2 is not significantly better than a Leopard 2), and if a state like Israel can have top notch military programs, like the Arrow missile, on 15 billion a year, then 100 billion a year would do the Japanese nicely.

I would characterize the biggest US leads in the folowing areas:

Force projection: none of the equipment needed to do so is very revolutionary, but it is expensive, like mopre air transport and ships.
Stealth: certainly the US has a nice tech lead here.
Smart weapons: anyone who spends the money on the relatively cheap kits can catch up.
Naval power: to build a good navy is damn expensive, certainly with repect to building whole carrier groups: big outlays ould be needed here.
Space: Biggest lead here.

You greatly underestimate engineers. As I said, if the Irsalei can have so much on so little, other like the japanese and Europeans certainly can do serious catching up in a decade, if they moved thier military budgets to 4-5% of GNP.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap
The gap is not enourmous. Stuides were done in the mid-90's showing that if the European's spent about 50 billion more a year on the military they would catch up, as far as smart bombs and so forth goes.

Airframes are a good example: the US does not make better airframes than anyone else: were US planes are better is in electronics, but the Japanese are as far ahead as we are there, at least, if you look at commecrial programs (In armor our lead is not the great (an M1A2 is not significantly better than a Leopard 2), and if a state like Israel can have top notch military programs, like the Arrow missile, on 15 billion a year, then 100 billion a year would do the Japanese nicely.

I would characterize the biggest US leads in the folowing areas:

Force projection: none of the equipment needed to do so is very revolutionary, but it is expensive, like mopre air transport and ships.
Stealth: certainly the US has a nice tech lead here.
Smart weapons: anyone who spends the money on the relatively cheap kits can catch up.
Naval power: to build a good navy is damn expensive, certainly with repect to building whole carrier groups: big outlays ould be needed here.
Space: Biggest lead here.

You greatly underestimate engineers. As I said, if the Irsalei can have so much on so little, other like the japanese and Europeans certainly can do serious catching up in a decade, if they moved thier military budgets to 4-5% of GNP.

they aren't doing so much though. look where the skills are, missile systems, tanks, airplanes. these are all individual programs for neighbor to neighbor combat.

and to say that the world makes better airframes when we make stealth airplanes is a lil bit weird in the logic.

to think of how long it would take for the world to have our naval sophistication, our stealth sophistication, and our expanding bomber sophistication. we have a ginormous lead.

a little bit of a tangent I wish I had that link to the guy who promised to make a cruise missile w/ a 100 mile range and 20kg payload for 10 grand, or was it 5 grand? that was badass.

[GePap]

Originally posted by yavoon
and to say that the world makes better airframes when we make stealth airplanes is a lil bit weird in the logic.

Stealth does not have much to do with airframes or engines. Sure, ycertaint shapes help reduce the radar signature, but the main thing is the materials you put on the plane, not the engines, nor the manueverability. An F-117 is utterly incapable of doing any air to air combat, and the flying wing notion of the B-2 is as old as WW2.

to think of how long it would take for the world to have our naval sophistication, our stealth sophistication, and our expanding bomber sophistication. we have a ginormous lead.

The biggets bit of our naval lead is the fact we have 122 carries and no one else does. Certainly building a new aircraft carrier fleet form scracth would be a huge outlay for any competitor, but the problem is more about building it than designing it or the systems in it. Beyond number, I think our biggest lead in the sea is underwater, with our newest attack subs and with our SLBM's. As I said, the Japanese already have AEGIS ships like our Burke Destroyers.

[yavoon]

Originally posted by GePap


Stealth does not have much to do with airframes or engines. Sure, ycertaint shapes help reduce the radar signature, but the main thing is the materials you put on the plane, not the engines, nor the manueverability. An F-117 is utterly incapable of doing any air to air combat, and the flying wing notion of the B-2 is as old as WW2.

to think of how long it would take for the world to have our naval sophistication, our stealth sophistication, and our expanding bomber sophistication. we have a ginormous lead.

The biggets bit of our naval lead is the fact we have 122 carries and no one else does. Certainly building a new aircraft carrier fleet form scracth would be a huge outlay for any competitor, but the problem is more about building it than designing it or the systems in it. Beyond number, I think our biggest lead in the sea is underwater, with our newest attack subs and with our SLBM's. As I said, the Japanese already have AEGIS ships like our Burke Destroyers.

stealth dictates the shape of ur airframe. so I don't see how u can say other ppl have better airframes when essentially we are designing stealth planes and they aren't.

I am not "underestimating the engineers." but when u talk about designing a carrier battle group. its simply an enormous undertaking. the US isn't going to hand you a blueprint of how to do it. its eminitely doable because u can make all the component parts and you know its been done before. but it will still take a ton of money TO DESIGN. then u get to spend a lot more building it and even more developing an infrastructure around it.

and when it comes down to it. our lead is all in the right place for the most part. sure the world has good airplanes. but what would the kill ratio be in the sky if u placed them against f-22's and awacs.

though russia has some very cool technologies. good innovation in russia. supercavitating torpedo's. the gas stealth. neways.

[Kramerman]

As I said, if the Irsalei can have so much on so little

GePap, we give the Israelis much military aid. This no doubt helps them out a lot when i comes to tehir defense capabilities. thus they dot have to spend as much on equipment and can put that into their R&D. Also, Israeli Intellegence is AWESOME... it is this (virtually) precognition ability of Mosad (sp?) that has made Israel so effective in all of its wars, not tech.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by GePap
You greatly underestimate engineers. As I said, if the Irsalei can have so much on so little, other like the japanese and Europeans certainly can do serious catching up in a decade, if they moved thier military budgets to 4-5% of GNP.

The Israeli military is mostly funded by the US though

EDIT: Kramerman beat me to it

[GePap]

Originally posted by Kramerman

GePap, we give the Israelis much military aid. This no doubt helps them out a lot when i comes to tehir defense capabilities. thus they dot have to spend as much on equipment and can put that into their R&D. Also, Israeli Intellegence is AWESOME... it is this (virtually) precognition ability of Mosad (sp?) that has made Israel so effective in all of its wars, not tech.

The US gives Israel about 3 billion a year in direct military aid. yes, this certainly is a fair proportion of their military budgetm but it is still only 3 bllion a year, and all of Israel's military budget about 13-15 billion a year. Plus nothing (but internal politics) is stopping other state from spending vast sums on R&D, nor the US for that matter. s for Israeli vcitories, it is training that was the biggest difference, but a qualitative edge certainly was crucial in many battles, and certaily exists today.

The US has such a better military than say the Europeans and Japanese becuase we would rather spend our money on the military and they on welfare programs. gain, if they really wanted, in a decade they could match the US in most areas, except at sea and in space, because both require huge initial spending programs that would take more than a decade to put together.

[Kuciwalker]

We also gave them most of our technology.

[DanS]

The US spends more than $50 billion per annum in military R&D. That's a lot of dough, by any measure. But it's not insurmountable for Europe over a 20-25 year timeframe. China and India are further away, but it's still nowhere near an insurmountable gap for them. Especially since these technologies are increasingly being based off of civilian tech.

[Kramerman]

gain, if they really wanted, in a decade they could match the US in most areas, except at sea and in space, because both require huge initial spending programs that would take more than a decade to put together.

indeed, i agree with this... but the tech gap when i was refering to it was the gap between the US and our enemies. Europe is not an enemy. Russia is..err... not really an enemy. China, is an enemy. North Korea is an Enemy. If they invested comparable amounts in military R&D, they would not catch up, at least not anytime soon. They would just, for the most part, keep the gap from getting bigger.

[alva]

The US has such a better military than say the Europeans and Japanese becuase we would rather spend our money on the military and they on welfare programs.

I hope we keep it this way. (except for the US to spend less of course.)

[DanS]

If they invested comparable amounts in military R&D, they would not catch up, at least not anytime soon. They would just, for the most part, keep the gap from getting bigger.

Not necessarily. Astute Chinese students of technology could figure out what works by the trailblazing research we have done. The first time through is the most expensive.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by DanS

Not necessarily. Astute Chinese students of technology could figure out what works by the trailblazing research we have done. The first time through is the most expensive.

not if we can keep our secrets, secret. but you are right... only in a perfect world...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Kramerman

GePap, we give the Israelis much military aid. This no doubt helps them out a lot when i comes to tehir defense capabilities. thus they dot have to spend as much on equipment and can put that into their R&D. Also, Israeli Intellegence is AWESOME... it is this (virtually) precognition ability of Mosad (sp?) that has made Israel so effective in all of its wars, not tech.

hi ,

and what do we give , ........

and be happy about it , with what you guys give we pay you guys back , double time , first in jobs , second with technology in certain fields , ......

when we buy an F-15 , we send some engineers over , redesign this , that , that little piece , etc , ...... the result , the us navy is now going to use those "I" standards and specs , ....... so in the end there is an F-15I , .....

sometimes we get spare pieces for free , but thats no exception , every end user of us military equipment gets this , ...... and certain jobs are secure thanks to these gifts , ...... it beads paying social welfare to the people who work on the machines , ......

have a nice day

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker


The Israeli military is mostly funded by the US though

EDIT: Kramerman beat me to it

hi ,

sjee , what about the arrow , what about the AGM 142 , and a whole bunch of other things that you guys use that we made , ..........

not to mention that we get to do the dirty laundry when certain things push to shove , ......

have a nice day