So, CDR Salamander is pointing out at the U.S. Naval Institute blog that the Pentagon’s new strategy is a potentially big win for the Navy, I’d add the Air Force, too.
Sal points out that the new strategy’s focus on Asia and developing a host of deep strike weapons capable of defeating modern defensive systems (known as anti-access/area denial systems, A2/AD), ISR, increased electronic/cyber warfare, partnership building, counter-terror and UAV ops are right up the sea service’s alley.
A2/AD, “Influence Squadrons,” Asian focus, rebuilding neglected readiness areas – these are all Navy areas. We need to embrace them and lean in to the President’s challenge. Less money is always less fun – but it can also bring rewards if you take advantage of the opportunities it can present.
Well, many of these are missions that the Air Force will have a key role in as well. The air service is working hand hard with the Navy to craft the air-sea battle concept aimed at fighting in the vast expanses of the western Pacific Ocean. The two are also working on developing the long discussed “family” of long range strike systems that will included the Air Force’s new bomber along with cruise missiles — and possibly ballistic missiles — and UAVs developed by both services, possibly jointly. As for drones, ISR and the Air Force, well, they’ve become pretty synonymous in the past few years.
Now, this movement toward Asia and cost-effective strategic weapons isn’t brand new. Heck, check out last year’s budget announcement and you’ll see a big focus on what the Pentagon considers its vital strategic weapons programs. Read the new strategy and last year’s budget for clues as to what programs will win and which will lose when the Pentagon reveals its new budget in a couple of weeks. Remember, in a time of tight spending, budgets will follow strategy.
{ 61 comments… read them below or add one }
I for one am not surprised that the AF and Navy are the big winners here. A simple look at a map of the Pacific makes plain why this is. Look for a new bomber platform, longer range UAV assets, and enhanced naval numbers. Long range strike weapons will come as a matter of corurse. Don't be surprised at additional funding for intelligence gathering space based systems.
ground forces really dont need a lot of work either… maybe start thinking about better anti-air gear
Need to develop a new heavy lift prompt global strike missile to supplement our strike forces.
Is that a veiled assertion that we need new nukes on new ICBMs, or did you forget a comma?
Prompt global strike has always been used to describe conventionally armed systems on "strategic weapon systems". As for the comma, huh?
As for the word "veiled" if you have ever read any of my posts (why would you) I often, quite obviously, call for new nukes on new delivery systems but to avoid confusion I use ICBM or SLBM as has been used for fifty plus years for nuclear systems.
Yeah, I know. But you wrote "heavy lift…," which could easily be slang for nuke, which you promote at all occasions. So hooray, we just coined a new euphemism! That was the comma. As for your posts, I've read them for years and disagree with probably 90% of them. But I'm aware of them, which is why I asked about the contextual meaning of "heavy lift." Kablooey!
Gah someone used this computer before me. Apologies. Fromage.
Folks….
As usual….
Hardware driven…..
Air Force Fast movers!
Things NEVER Change….
War. War never changes.
Hooray for a Fallout reference.
It seemed appropriate
Fallout or not, it's still very true….
…and the second cold war begins. Guess we shouldn’t have spent so much at wal-mart on Chinese rubber dog $&@%.
Its a good idea. Ships and new Fighters.bombers are needed now days. Crappy Army programs like GCV and ICC are a waste of money and need to die. Most attention should be for deterrence and counters of China and Russia.
Meaning I could actually see a B-3 before I die? That would be good.
I really hope it's built to look just like the picture I see on this article. That bomber looks beautiful and absolutely insidious. I love it!!!
Sorry bub. It's stealth. No-see-um.
I doubt it no program will start till the 2020s and then by the time a B-3 will be in service the B-52s will be in service past 2045 and B-2s might be retired due to budget cuts. I hope the new bomber wont look like the awful drawing on this page its another B-2 then. Hope for a new awesome design.
It would seem that there's a rash of comma-forgetting going on.
Wonder how big a balls-up that new strategic bomber will be, probably a massive one with half a billion doller cost per unit and a production run of 12.
Or we could decide on a set of requirements and planned production numbers, not change them, and actually do it right this time.
Because going from 132 to 21 aircraft does have something of an effect on unit cost you know…
F-35 range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km), endurance: 8 hours?
X-47B range: 2,100+ NM (3,889+ km), endurance: 48 hours?
good thing the Navy didn't pull out of the UCAS programs
the B-3 seems like another B-1/B-2/F-22/F-35 disaster waiting to happen: too late, over cost, limited capabilities, hangar queens, too few in numbers
Of course you're ignoring the fact that they're different classes of aircraft. Why not compare the F-35 to the old S-3 while you're at it?
so you're argumenting that two aircraft, with completely different designs and purposes can't replace each other
so you're saying the F-35 is similar to the A-10?
I actually don't want the F-35 to replace the A-10. The A-10 is in a class of it's own.
And no the X-47B couldn't replace the F-35C. No supersonic capability, radar guided AAMs, and all of that. UCAVs are still rather inflexible compared to manned fighters.
neither does the F-35 have to ability to fly very low and slow, take hits, carry a heavy load, be cheap to fly and operate…
but that is what LMT and the USAF are saying: even though they are completely different aircraft, the F-35 will be able to fulfil the A-10's roles
in the same way, the X-47B will be able to replace the F-35C
- supersonic: why is that necessary? the F-35 can't fly as fast or high as an F-22, yet it will fulfil many of the same roles for the Navy. plus the F-35 seems to have problems when flying supersonice, so it's not even sure it actually can do that consistently
- use radar guided AAMs: sure they can. AMRAAMs for example can be fired from pretty much any aircraft that can carry them, using target coordinates from any (external) source, like AWACS or IR sensors. the launch aircraft itself does not need to have an (active) radar to fire it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AIM-120_AMRAAM#Operational_features_summary)
- and how can you say the X-47B is inflexible, when such an aircraft has never been used operationally?
Once again with this crap. Heres another stat for ya.
F-35C payload 20,000lbs
X-47B payload 3,000lbs
Im betting those X-47's will cost 35 mil or so atleast. And not be worth a shit in air to air or have any real situational awareness, etc, etc, etc…………………………..
Now i can see a day in the near future when most aircraft like the F-18E/F Superhornet will lose that second man to a computer as processing power goes up. But a pure unmanned force…………no.
well, the AMRAAM ways about 335 pounds, so the X-47B with its big weapon bays such be able to carry 4 to 6 of them, making it an equal to the F-35 in air combat
the SDB is 285 pounds, so the it'll be able to carry plenty of those too, while the F-35 can't carry them in it's AMRAAM weapons bay. it can carry them externally, but then it loses on stealth, which is never a good idea with a $150+ million aircraft
you can argument for bigger weapons (which the X-47B can carry too), but modern warfare is more about loiter time and precision than sheer payload
as for air combat, we don't know how a UCAV will do, although its low cost, manouverability, expendability and excellent stealth will give it serious advantages. how do you fight aircraft you can't detect, that do not fear death, and that outnumber you with advanced long ranged weapons?
contrary to the F-35 who'll be outmanouvered by any real dogfighter, costs a huge amount of money, lacks all round VLO, and has a human pilot that needs to be kept alive
10 year ago the USAF was planning to use a limited number of Predator UAVs for basic ISR. today UAVs are its most important asset
when the F-35 goes the way of the F-22/B-2/B-1, with just a limited number of aircraft at best, UCAVs will be the answer
The JSF can carry 2000lb JDAMs in its weapons bay I'm sure it can carry SDB..
When we can make sensors with the reflexes and capability of the human eye and a computer smarter than a trained pilot, then we'll discuss replacing fighter planes with UCAVs….
actually the JSF has such sensors and computers: they detect, identify, track and target anything within visual range
the biggest problem is actually feeding this data to the pilot, whose reflexes and eye capacity are only human…
btw, French and English generals ignored suggestions to move the focus from infantry to tanks in the 1930's, probably because it was a "stupid and unproven" idea. the Germans listened, and even though their equipment was inferior in many ways, the way they used it made them superior
a fighter UCAV does not need to be able to dogfight. all it needs to know is where the enemy is, and its missiles will do the work. other than that its only job is to die
how can a handful of fighters with a limited number of missiles stop hundreds of UAVs, heading for their base/carrier/tanker/awacs? its physically impossible, and doesn't even take into account J-20's or T-50's using their stealth, speed and UAV diversion to deliver the real killing blow
Looks like the B1 had sex with the B2 to make the B3 in the picture. Similar nose and cockpit to the Lancer and wings of the B2
Yet it still looks amazingly good!!!
Did anyone ever see the beginning part ot the computer game homefront? It is starting to look quite realistic now.
Yup, ironically Kim Jong Il is dead too…just like in the game. Crazy.
Just building up for a new cold war that will never turn hot. Then when we are in a COIN battle in mexico in 10 years, we will be scrambling to replace the skill sets and gear necessary to fight a mountain and jungle based insurgency. While multi billion dollar platforms cruise the seas and skies looking for targets and defending us from threats our enemies have no desire to provide.
Or we can spend all our time preparing for COIN ops, then get caught with our pants down when our enemies turn out to be conventional militaries…..
Macro view of our risk if caught unprepared for COIN ops against an insurgent enemy = low
Macro view of our risk if caught unprepared for conventional war against a near-peer enemy = high
well put :-)
I guess the terrorists never really panned out as enemies; after all, there haven't been any attacks against the US mainland for over 10 years. Oh well, at least we got to spend 2 trillion dollars and institute mass surveillance of the populace. But now that people are seriously questioning the whole fiasco, it's time to go get another enemy, hopefully one with more staying power.
Flip a coin. Heads it's Russia, Tails it's China.
Russians not very likely, China it is certain, all one has to do is to listen to what they are saying and see what they are doing, it's obvious to everyone not wearing the rose-colored made in China sun glasses.
But, China isn't just interested in the gaining control of the Pacific, they are also eying Russia's vast natural resources, water, land, minerals, oil, gold, just sitting there ready to be taken (Russia won't be able to stop them).
Russia isn't in NATO: so the US wouldn't be obligated to defend them. We won't hit them, so they could certainly use European forces as their strategic reserve, in a reverse of how Eastern forces were strategic reserves for Europe.
A reading of Inside the Soviet Army suggests that at its heyday they recycled old Soviet tanks for use as border turrets, but with the demise of the USSR it's likely border troops have taken funding cuts, and since border troops don't do the military parade propaganda thing, they're unlikely to be well funded. I guess they can serve adequately as meatshields until reinforcements arrive. Wonder if they will use chemical weapons…
The Kardashians?
Flight of the Old Dog and subsequent novels.
Maybe some of the legacy platforms can be updated-I may be old fashioned,but looks to me like something could have been done with the A-6.
Kevin
This new strategy is critical to the future of the U.S. and the whole world. China is getting way too aggressive. Today, it only seem like China is being aggressive in the western Pacific region which is still far from the U.S. homeland but in 20 or 30 years once they are completely developed and have strong connected bases and influences in the Pacific they might go global. Oops I didn't mean might I meant definitely. Even a world accredited or recognized Superpower like the United States have never dare to solely claim a vast water region like all of the Pacific Ocean even though the U.S. definitely has the ability. China, not exactly a world Superpower yet dare to solely claim all of the South China Sea even if that sea is being bordered and used by a bunch of countries. In year 2009 or 2010 when a US Navy Survey ship entered the South China Sea (the international water part of the sea) China accused the US of invading China territory. What is this? This is obviously telling us that China is not just bs-ing about their claim of all of South China Sea, they are doing it for real and they mean it. And at this point in time they already have the guts to try and deny the U.S. from access to an international water what will happen in 20 years? Terrorists can pose small threats here and there but if we tightly increase our homeland security they cant do much. China is definitely getting way too aggressive and if we don't pay a closer look the future will be dark. Overall, China deserve to be taught a lesson so that they can calm down.
I am concerned about underinvestment in human fighters. Sure, we need tech for near-peer conflict. But troops are not just for assymetric warfare. In fact, skills such as COIN and SPEC OPS are very useful for large conflicts, especially if we are supporting insurgencies in the enemy's territiory. Also, what is our back up if the enemy disables sections of the forces, such as with EMP or hacks into our comm-links, or we have a critical fuel shortage that limits abilities to operate with all our fancy kit? Finally, using troops instead of heavy strategic weapons allows us to scale our response to the threat, instead of having an all or nothing response.
We may not always be able to field and sustain large number of soldiers in combat. No, we will have the logistics capability, but we may not have the willing volunteers needed. After the Vietnam War, the media has insured that we will never be able to take large numbers of casualties; the media will sabotage the war long before then.
I'm not disagreeing with you per se; I think we need both, and fast……
Considering the average American is no longer as fit as the average American of 1938 or 1968, the new army would be…interesting. I'm not concerned about their fighting spirit though. Troops would need to spend longer in physical conditioning to get fit, moreso than was the norm waybackwhen. Maybe it isn't as important today, since we aren't expected to do 26 mile forced marches in a day every day a la Stonewall Jackson?
I wouldn't necessarily rule out the possibility of that happening, look at what happened at the Chosin Resevour during the Korean War, the Marines there pretty much marched out on their feet with only a relatively few working vehicles. You also have to take into consideration how much more weight the average grunt has to hump these days as well, a grunt's body armor alone probably nearly equals, if not exceeds, what the average Civil War grunt carried fully loaded.
In reality we do not need such a large amount of troops, there is always a large amount of well trained reserves that we can pull if there's a huge conflict. Why bring all the young men and women into the military when they can be working to build the economy which is critical for our security. Imagine 1.5 million soldiers meaning 1.5 million less workers. In general the world has been pretty peaceful for the past couple of decades with only small military conflicts here and there. It doesnt require the US to go all out with million of troops. Lets look at the most recent one, Libya, the airforce and our allies were pretty successful there with no ground troops present. It also shows 1 thing, if the US limited its military intervention other allies will have to jump in with greater responsibility. So why do we need to go all out all the time and take all of the cost burden? Like Japan wth is Japan doing with total military personnel of 250,000 when there neighbor China has 2 million? It doesnt matter how technological japan's military is, if 1 million chinese troops invade their island japan is still done deal. Cmon USA make our allies take more responsibilities.
I agree that the economy would grow more if more soldiers were working in business. But the same argument applies to equipment. An F-22 is not a "productive asset" in the economy. If anything, soldiers are better investments because they can be more quickly turned into skilled workers, but you can't repurpose an F-22 into a crop duster.
If you were to read the New York Times article last month regarding the returning troops from Iraq, you would see that it is not "quickly" or easy for returning troops when they get home. The battlefront and military lifestyle that they have lived with for years are completely different with the ordinary life that they will encounter when they return home. Especially, when they are being interviewed for jobs their only listed experience is operating weapons, is that really competence in an ordinary job? And who say an F22 is not a productive asset? In order to successfully research and develope an F22 it requires thousands of engineers to work. So imagine if there is no such program what will happen to these engineers? jobless, but since there is such a program they get a job, and they are able to do research and advance our country technology, its a win-win thing beside losing some tax money on the program.
I agree that its not easy, especially since there are important differences between the jobs. I believe the military needs to spend more time and money on finding ways to integrate people, especially those who served in war, into society. At the same time, there is a lot that you do get from the military: teamwork, discipline, getting to work on time, that are very valuable.
In the end, a human can be retrained, and can use their military experience in the real world. Even if it takes a few years. No such luck for highly specialized equipment.
The pretext of 'taking on China' with high-tech, capital intensive (read taxpayer funded) projects is… asinine to the say the least.
If the Israelis don't sell the tech outright to China before hand (a la PAC3s in Finland) or your GWOT 'Allies' don't hand the tech over to China (a la crashed stealth copter in Pakistan) or your enemies don't capture the tech for show&tell with China (a la Iranian RQ) then the legions of Chinese hackers and agents in the US, will simply just steal the tech directly from US contractors or .mil databases (a la F-22).
As such, the B3, Global Strike, et al. platforms, will be countered, copied and neutralized before they even leave the production line.
The windshield proves this is a multi100billion $ waste, unless you're on the receiving end.
You're an idiot. Wait until your unmanned bomber loses satellite connection and glides to a landing somewhere where you don't want it to be.
….and it's carrying four 20kT next-gen tactical nukes.
Regards & all,
Thomas L. Nielsen
Luxembourg
Who’s “we”? The military gets its hardware, corporations profit, and the sheeple foot the bill.