HouseofSuren posted:

If it starts using its weapons (opening bay) stealth is no longer a factor in the equation. Stealth ends once you open the bays, everyone knows this, including them.

mlmp08 posted:

How many of those 40 frames are airworthy? A lot of aircraft in the world are sitting around as parts donors that will never fly again.

HouseofSuren posted:

You know you're in a glass house right. How many Abrams do you think are functional.

HouseofSuren posted:

If it starts using its weapons (opening bay) stealth is no longer a factor in the equation. Stealth ends once you open the bays, everyone knows this, including them.

Ardennes posted:

Most are the Russians are already bringing them out, so probably at least some are. (Also, it is a il-76 with a radar array, the Russians can clearly produce il-76s.)

mlmp08 posted:

Most? So 21+?

E: Oh, I see you edited your post to 8.

Ardennes posted:

The U stays for the upgraded variant.

Owlbear Camus posted:

why has no one tackled this problem inventing* conformal external hardpoint bombs and missiles made of radar absorbent material that cost 520 million dollars each?

*getting a giant cost plus contract for the idea they drew on a napkin

mlmp08 posted:

Yeah, I understand that. So sounds like you're saying they had 8 A-50Us, lost two recently, and some unknown number of older ones might exist, but it doesn't really matter much.

Ardennes posted:

It doesn't matter when the Russians are taking them out of storage, upgrading them, and bringing them back into service to replace losses?

mlmp08 posted:

I'd count those chickens when they hatch. It doesn't terribly matter to guess how many legacy A-50s you think might or might not be airworthy or be useful as parts donors. These kinds of things tend to be very slow programs. I'm sure Russia will eventually deploy an operationally accepted A-100 and it seems likely that they'll try to replace losses from recent combat over time.

mlmp08 posted:

Yeah, the new anti-radiation missiles can still track the target when it turns its radar off and can strike moving targets. The probability of hit will never reach 1, but it goes a long way to be able to still precisely hit a target when it turns the radar off, especially on a very fast, and very long range missile. One of the challenges of testing AARGM-ER is that most US test ranges aren't big enough to handle its full range of flight. https://www.dote.osd.mil/Portals/97/pub/reports/FY2022/navy/2022aargm-er.pdf?ver=IxurX-EnMo2WFX6Ea_N0Lw%3D%3D

And (US-only for now) HIMARS upping their range to 150km and having precision strike munitions to 500-1,000km goes a long way toward the ground component assisting the air component with SEAD/DEAD.

HouseofSuren posted:

That plane has no stealth if the bombs are equipped outside the bays. Everything has to be inside, and as soon as the weapons bay opens every radar will know that object is an F-35 and not some random bird, even if it closes the bays back.

DancingShade posted:

If anti radiation missiles are so good why didn't they fire them at Chernobyl? Makes you think.

DancingShade posted:

Yep. Not enough people played the f-19 stealth fighter Sim game on MS-DOS.

Open weapons bay? Great now your signature is huge and you're hosed.

Video games is the only way to teach physics now I guess.

gradenko_2000 posted:

this isn't actually how it worked in the game. You had in the center console, with the plane's stealth signature being a bar that comes from the bottom-up, and various radar systems pinging you from the top-down

opening your weapons bays, leaving your landing gear deployed, climbing to a high altitude, etc, would increase the size of your stealth bar from the bottom, making it easier for pings coming from the top of display to intersect with it, representing detection

but you could, for example, fly really really low to minimize your signature, so that even with the weapons bays open, radars still won't detect you. this was especially useful for camera runs

alternatively, you could learn the radar return interval so that you time your open-weapons-bay > launch ordnance > close-weapons-bay cycle in-between sweeps

when carrying ordnance that had to have a minimum altitude before release, you pretty much had to toss-bomb: fly low on the ingress, climb just before the release point, open the bay doors, release, and then dive, and hope you did it quickly enough to avoid detection

but opening the bay did not immediately reveal yourself

mlmp08 posted:

The Klingons famously know this.

Kazzah posted:

THIS is why America doesn’t have healthcare???

mlmp08 posted:

Reference the bold, I'd argue the US ground forces are not banking on the latter at all. The army and marines, starting in 2015-ish, started up all kinds of programs to augment their own organic long-range fires and artillery capability precisely because of a lack of faith that the USAF could be their on call all the time. As soon as the army saw the kinds of numbers and sortie rates expected of the F-35s combined with seeing modernizaed anti-air weapons from major competitors, they decided they required their own ability to launch high capability munitions (like precision strike missile) in support of their own troops, plus a lot of GMLRS to take the place of missions that would be too dangerous to try with A-10s or F-16s.

Long range precision fires and upgraded air defense capability became two of the big six modernization efforts in 2017/18 or so for the army. That's telling.

GoLambo posted:

Not trying to be snarky here at all but a genuine question, where are all these Actual Supplements/Replacements For Air Power or whatever that the army and marines are fielding? Like, actually in production and in service, and in what numbers? Because like, as this thread has clearly demonstrated, saying you are going to Do A Thing does not remotely translate into Getting That Thing Done when it comes to the American MIC.

GoLambo posted:

Not trying to be snarky here at all but a genuine question, where are all these Actual Supplements/Replacements For Air Power or whatever that the army and marines are fielding? Like, actually in production and in service, and in what numbers? Because like, as this thread has clearly demonstrated, saying you are going to Do A Thing does not remotely translate into Getting That Thing Done when it comes to the American MIC.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

They spent all their money training mlmp in sophistry.

KomradeX posted:

And marketing courses for West Point

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

They spent all their money training mlmp in sophistry.

GoLambo posted:

Not trying to be snarky here at all but a genuine question, where are all these Actual Supplements/Replacements For Air Power or whatever that the army and marines are fielding?

www.defensenews.com - Fri, 08 Mar 2024 posted:

LONDON — A powerful U.K. parliamentary committee has reported what it says is the “largest affordability gap” since 2012 between the Defence Ministry’s budget and equipment requirements.

The Public Accounts Committee’s review, released March 8, comes two days after the government opted not to allocate extra funding for the military in its 2024 budget.

The deficit for the 10-year equipment plan, which the ministry published late last year and begins in 2023, will amount to £16.9 billion (U.S. $21.5 billion), the committee found. However, that could grow by a further £12 billion if the individual armed services each took the same approach to stating their equipment requirement costs, the committee noted.

The committee reviews the 10-year defense equipment plan annually as part of its role in overseeing how the government spends taxpayers’ money. The committee has consistently cast doubt on the affordability of the ministry’s equipment plans, but the latest report is especially critical.

The 10-year plan, based on financial data from March 31, 2023, saw the ministry allocate an equipment budget of £288.6 billion over the following decade to 2033 — a £46.3 billion rise on the figures presented from 2022.

“However, forecast costs have increased by £65.7 to £305.5 billion, resulting in a £16.9 billion deficit between the MoD’s capability requirements and the available budget,” the committee reported.
###### RELATED

That deficit could grow to £29 billion were the separate armed services to be consistent in the method they use to price their equipment requirements, the committee noted. For example, the inquiry found the Royal Navy includes the costs of all capabilities the government expects the service to deliver, whereas the Army only includes those capabilities it can afford.

Committee figures show this can have a significant impact on forecast costs. For instance, the Royal Navy’s decision to change its previous policy of only including costs it can afford, to predicted costs for capabilities the ministry expects it to deliver, resulted in a deficit of £15.3 billion in the latest plan, compared with a surplus of £700 million in the 2023 equipment plan.
## The primary problem

The main cause of the cost increases reported by the committee is the ministry’s decision to fully fund Britain’s defense nuclear enterprise, according to the report.

The ministry has agreed to a minimum 10-year budget with the Treasury at a price tag of £109.8 billion for nuclear activities over the period.

The principal cost for the nuclear program is the construction of four Dreadnought-class nuclear missile submarines made by BAE Systems. They are to enter service in the coming decade. However, a new warhead program and other nuclear-related initiatives together dwarf spending on individual conventional weapons procurement.

Maintaining the nuclear deterrent is one of the ministry’s top defense priorities. If addition funds are needed for the nuclear program, accounts for conventional equipment will be further squeezed, the report noted.

Costs at the Defence Nuclear Organisation, which is responsible for the U.K.’s nuclear deterrent — have increased by £38.2 billion since the government released last year’s plan, the committee said.
## ‘Unpleasant, short-term decisions’

Inflation and the foreign exchange rate have also taken their toll on Britain’s budget. The ministry estimates inflation will add almost £11 billion to its costs over the 10-year period.

Despite the ailing condition of the Defence Ministry’s finances, the report said, the department has put off making major decisions about canceling programs it cannot afford.

“Instead, it has optimistically assumed that the plan would be affordable if the government fulfilled its long-term aspiration to spend 2.5% of GDP [gross domestic product] on defense each year, despite there being no guarantee on whether this will happen,” the report noted.

Everything that does not fall under the nuclear budget will experience severe pressure, said Malcolm Chalmers, the deputy director general at the Royal United Services Institute think tank in London.

“The government is going to have to make some unpleasant, short-term decisions between different conventional equipment capabilities at a time when the Ukraine war is shining the spotlight on neglected capabilities in which our armed forces clearly need to invest more,” he said.

“After the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, many European countries are increasing their defense budgets rapidly, including Germany, the Scandinavian countries, the exposed eastern countries and quite a number of others as well. The U.K. government seems to have decided, given the wider fiscal squeeze and the priority being given to tax cuts, that there will be no more money for defense in this budget.” he added.

Indeed, the Defence Ministry is becoming “increasingly reliant” on allies to protect British interests, the committee said, “which carries the risk that such support might not always be available.”

Last year, the ministry told the National Audit Office, the government’s financial watchdog, that it was not planning to cancel programs in the short term, as that would limit the choices available to decision-makers at the next governmentwide spending review‚ which is likely this year.

Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt has been under pressure to increase funds to rebuild Britain’s depleted military amid Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine. He has reiterated the Conservative government’s ambition to increase overall defense spending from the current level of 2.1% of GDP to 2.5% during his March 6 budget speech‚ but has not provided a concrete timeline, only saying it would happen when economic conditions allow it so.

The Labour Party has pledged to reform defense, but not unveiled specific spending commitments.

A general election is expected by the end of the year, with the Labour Party currently ahead in the polls.

Andrew Chuter is the United Kingdom correspondent for Defense News.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

mlmp08 posted:

The army’s cannon replacement plan is less clear.

Ted Wassanasong posted:

ship belt buckles are a thing, and are specifically allowed in uniform, that’s a power ranger color pattern, but probably just slapped on the normal style.

Lostconfused posted:

Perfect, send that to games-workshop and tell them to make a plastic model of that, it's time to retire the poo poo from 2003.

Lostconfused posted:

Perfect, send that to games-workshop and tell them to make a plastic model of that, it's time to retire the poo poo from 2003.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

Lostconfused posted:

I guess large flat surfaces are hard, but at least this part won't be visible on a finished model.

Lostconfused posted:

The difference of seven years between sprues

Lostconfused posted:

like I said



and yes it does look much better without the ridiculous shield on the front.