6 ms·

Your comment doesn't reply to his argument, which in your terms, is that we should optimize for cheaper builds that are more visible over more expensive builds

Your comment doesn't reply to his argument, which in your terms, is that we should optimize for cheaper builds that are more visible over more expensive builds than are less visible (or rather, adjust the blend of the two we produce) since the price-per-visibility-decrease is becoming very high (for a number of reasons given in the article), since this optimization gives us the most military power for a given amount of investment.

CapitalistCartr 12y ago
There is no indication we are actually doing this. The US Air Force is spending ever more per airframe. My point is that his reasoning is flawed as per my prior comment. Military equipment integrates technology and moves on, playing an eternal game of leapfrog with the opponents. Stealth isn't going anywhere.
- dingaling 12y ago
  > The US Air Force is spending ever more per airframe. Except at the lower-end, where Super Tucanos, AH-64s and A-10s dominate. That environment is a numbers game, not a platform-capability game. Notice how Comanche was cancelled in favour of continued Kiowa / Apache teams; stealth undermined by cost. The US Army saw the future ahead of most others and stealth wasn't it. > Stealth isn't going anywhere. For Tier 1 platforms I agree. For everything else, and everyone else outside the top 10 spenders, it's a nice-to-have afterthought.
  - pinaceae 12y ago
    the blackhawk used in the raid on bin laden had stealth capabilities. my guess is that stealth now includes keeping it out of public's knowledge, to minimize risk. with helos sound comes into play as well, as detection comes down to human ears if used in rescue or raid situations.
  - smacktoward 12y ago
    After their dismal performance in the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala), I dunno if I'd point to the Apache as an example of how stealth isn't necessary...
- jepper 12y ago
  The complexity of the weapon systems goes up, and so does the price. The F-35 design already accepted a decrease in stealth capability, over for example the F22, to reduce price. Networking, sensor integration and related tactics is another revolution in progress that the F-35 does have. It's hugely expensive to be the first one to develop this.
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  Are drones stealth? After all, they're now doing much of the day-to-day work that used to be done by piloted craft. From my very casual outsider view, it looks like manned platforms are indeed becoming more expensive, but unmanned platforms are much cheaper and taking over much of the work.
  - ethbro 12y ago
    From the article: "In addition, a new generation of low cost, reusable, and ultimately disposable UNMANNED [emphasis added] systems can help invert the cost imposition of A2/AD networks by overwhelming an enemy’s ability to engage at favorable cost exchanges." I'm curious as to whether you can conceivably build effective aerial platforms for cheaper than you can build missiles to knock them down, but I'd imagine you could do so with decoy drones. I believe the unmanned part is key for enabling this -- hopefully no one would have ever suggested fielding survivability-inferior but numerically-superior manned force as a viable strategic aim...
    - VLM 12y ago
      "hopefully no one would have ever suggested fielding survivability-inferior but numerically-superior manned force as a viable strategic aim..." Every wartime opponent of the USA for the last half century that we've lost to, has eventually won using that exact strategy. Its kind of expensive, but everyone who tries it, beats us eventually.
      - smacktoward 12y ago
        Not to mention that both we and the Russians used it to beat the Germans rather handily in World War 2. It was well known that the M4 Sherman tank was a less survivable fighting platform than the German Tiger or Panther, for instance, but the Tiger was so complex to build that American industry could turn out more than ten Shermans for each Tiger the Germans built. One on one a Sherman had no chance against a Tiger, but against five or seven or ten Shermans even the Tiger would eventually be overwhelmed.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  But stealth, at least in its current form, isn't something that can simply be integrated without making substantial concessions elsewhere in the design. You lose the ability to mount stores on hardpoints on the wing, for example. That reduces the variety of munitions the aircraft is able to carry, which in turn makes it less flexible and adaptable to new missions. Your argument that stealth is just the way things are now implies that stealth, as a feature, is more valuable than the features you have to give up to get it. The article is arguing the opposite -- that stealth is less and less valuable as radar technology improves to counter it, so maybe it's not worth giving up that other stuff to have it. You disagree, that's fine, but that in and of itself doesn't make their reasoning "flawed" and thus able to be ruled out with a wave of the hand and a jaunty "stealth isn't going anywhere."

CapitalistCartr 12y ago

There is no indication we are actually doing this. The US Air Force is spending ever more per airframe. My point is that his reasoning is flawed as per my prior comment. Military equipment integrates technology and moves on, playing an eternal game of leapfrog with the opponents. Stealth isn't going anywhere.

dingaling 12y ago
> The US Air Force is spending ever more per airframe. Except at the lower-end, where Super Tucanos, AH-64s and A-10s dominate. That environment is a numbers game, not a platform-capability game. Notice how Comanche was cancelled in favour of continued Kiowa / Apache teams; stealth undermined by cost. The US Army saw the future ahead of most others and stealth wasn't it. > Stealth isn't going anywhere. For Tier 1 platforms I agree. For everything else, and everyone else outside the top 10 spenders, it's a nice-to-have afterthought.
- pinaceae 12y ago
  the blackhawk used in the raid on bin laden had stealth capabilities. my guess is that stealth now includes keeping it out of public's knowledge, to minimize risk. with helos sound comes into play as well, as detection comes down to human ears if used in rescue or raid situations.
- smacktoward 12y ago
  After their dismal performance in the Iraq War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_attack_on_Karbala), I dunno if I'd point to the Apache as an example of how stealth isn't necessary...
jepper 12y ago
The complexity of the weapon systems goes up, and so does the price. The F-35 design already accepted a decrease in stealth capability, over for example the F22, to reduce price. Networking, sensor integration and related tactics is another revolution in progress that the F-35 does have. It's hugely expensive to be the first one to develop this.
WillNotDownvote 12y ago
Are drones stealth? After all, they're now doing much of the day-to-day work that used to be done by piloted craft. From my very casual outsider view, it looks like manned platforms are indeed becoming more expensive, but unmanned platforms are much cheaper and taking over much of the work.
- ethbro 12y ago
  From the article: "In addition, a new generation of low cost, reusable, and ultimately disposable UNMANNED [emphasis added] systems can help invert the cost imposition of A2/AD networks by overwhelming an enemy’s ability to engage at favorable cost exchanges." I'm curious as to whether you can conceivably build effective aerial platforms for cheaper than you can build missiles to knock them down, but I'd imagine you could do so with decoy drones. I believe the unmanned part is key for enabling this -- hopefully no one would have ever suggested fielding survivability-inferior but numerically-superior manned force as a viable strategic aim...
  - VLM 12y ago
    "hopefully no one would have ever suggested fielding survivability-inferior but numerically-superior manned force as a viable strategic aim..." Every wartime opponent of the USA for the last half century that we've lost to, has eventually won using that exact strategy. Its kind of expensive, but everyone who tries it, beats us eventually.
    - smacktoward 12y ago
      Not to mention that both we and the Russians used it to beat the Germans rather handily in World War 2. It was well known that the M4 Sherman tank was a less survivable fighting platform than the German Tiger or Panther, for instance, but the Tiger was so complex to build that American industry could turn out more than ten Shermans for each Tiger the Germans built. One on one a Sherman had no chance against a Tiger, but against five or seven or ten Shermans even the Tiger would eventually be overwhelmed.
smacktoward 12y ago
But stealth, at least in its current form, isn't something that can simply be integrated without making substantial concessions elsewhere in the design. You lose the ability to mount stores on hardpoints on the wing, for example. That reduces the variety of munitions the aircraft is able to carry, which in turn makes it less flexible and adaptable to new missions. Your argument that stealth is just the way things are now implies that stealth, as a feature, is more valuable than the features you have to give up to get it. The article is arguing the opposite -- that stealth is less and less valuable as radar technology improves to counter it, so maybe it's not worth giving up that other stuff to have it. You disagree, that's fine, but that in and of itself doesn't make their reasoning "flawed" and thus able to be ruled out with a wave of the hand and a jaunty "stealth isn't going anywhere."