The Osprey has a reputation, for sure, but it's mid-pack. They called the F-104 the widow maker for a reason, for example. And the F-16 has a fairly high accident rate, too, slightly higher than the Osprey. Though I think the F-16's history is a bit more lopsided, they made some changes after early production airframes proved pretty accident prone.
It looks like a maintenance nightmare with those clutches to decouple the blades and the mechanisms to have them folded during cruising. Does it even improve substantially in anh metric over the V280 to put money into it?
The V280 is designed to be cheap (a very relative term here).
Reading between the lines, I suspect "fast, but also expensive" was a design option that popped up and was not chosen earlier in the V280 program and now Darpa wants to pay to see where it goes.
I've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35. It still does have a lot of issues, for sure, but it turns out if you divide an eye wateringly large number by another impressively large number, the result can be a lot better than I thought it would be.
It's lot more about operational costs and project deliverables than plain sticker shock, and it is turning out to be a capable platform.
> I've had to eat some humble pie and moderate my assessment of the F-35
Same for me. I was surprised to hear that it actually competes favorably on price. And aside from early griping that it couldn't beat an ancient F-16 in a dogfight, it seems pretty capable in that regard too. Saw a demo at the last airshow I went to and that plane was defying physics. I love the 16, always will, but I definitely don't think it would hang with an F-35.
In a real fight, the F-35 smokes the F-16 beyond visual range before the F-16 even knows there is a problem. The radar and electronic warfare capabilities are incredible.
Isn't modern tactics to not use onboard radar but to be driven in by airborne radar from AWACs? Or is it used once in the furball as the jig is up at that point?
Modern tactics are to use every radar around via datalink (AWACS, Ground Station, stealthy drones flying ahead). The onboard radar is last resort, but still very capable.
all these cost assessments are numbers on a spreadsheet. let's see what the numbers look like after 20 years on the line, with SrA mechanics and most flight hours by new Lt's and Captains.
if they over-estimate the engine rebuild time, or if it really takes 2 hours instead of 30 minutes to remove and replace an avionics box (as was forecast), the calculation can veer in the other direction quickly.
i predict the F35 will be the most expensive by flying hour of any (line) aircraft that has come before it.
The sticker price is competitive but the cost per flight hour and the availability factor is pretty horrifying. Factoring in the cost of flying and the availability makes the Grippen about half the cost.
I wonder if the flight hour cost of F 35 includes the maintenance it's undergoing when it's not available.
4th generation platforms like Grippen are not survivable in a modern air defense environment without complementary 5th generation platforms to establish air superiority. You can't avoid having a fleet of something like F-35 to gain control of the airspace.
There is an argument that all manned fighters are already obsolete thanks to the proliferation of cheap drones and that establishing air superiority is a very different task now.
Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.
4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. The losses of aircraft in Ukraine on both sides are horrifying. The only reasons the Ukrainians persist is because they have no choice. The Russians can sit outside of the Ukrainian engagement range and lob semi-smart bombs, or air to air missiles at any Ukrainian aircraft that show up on their radar.
The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.
"4th generation aircraft are not sustainable in modern combat without a wide array of assistance from EW etc. "
But isn't that true of the F35 as well?
On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine.
In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is).
But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.
> cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon.
The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?
That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base.
Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
Presuming that state of affairs will persist though is fraught.
It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.
WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
> It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.
That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough.
> WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
Define cheap and multiply by thousands. Ukrainian front line drones stopped being DJIs years ago.
They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models.
Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload.
There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).
As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure.
> "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together)
On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
The Gripen is a fantastic jet, but you're basically describing the difference between a fourth and fifth generation platform. When Saab and Embraer roll out their own fifth-generation jets, they will also have to contend with expensive RAM coating and complex internal hardpoints.
Putting aside the export market, it's a small miracle that the F-35 turned out as well as it did. Having a mostly-common fighter airframe shared between the Navy, Marines and Air Force was a pipe dream in the 90s. America is lucky the program didn't collapse entirely.
All military aircraft are maintenance nightmares. They're also extraordinarily loud and devour fuel. These are not intended to entire commercial service where they need to turn a profit for the operators.
Maintenance is an issue for more than just profitability. More maintenance means fewer sorties in a given time period, heavier reliance on and utilization of supply chains, and fewer platforms that can be serviced by a given set of mechanics and facilities.
Just look at WW2: Germany had some fantastic equipment, but they couldn't field it because they didn't have the fuel, spare parts and the maintenance capabilities available. A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
For decades we have been able to afford complacency - we strike when we're ready against people who mostly can't strike back. We can afford to be wasteful because we have so much more than anyone we would go up against. No one is seriously threatening our ability to keep our military going. But militaries need to be prepared for peer conflicts where someone could give us a run for our money.
> A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.
Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english
The comparison in tech is apt, but the countervailing argument is that the discrepancy in economies doomed the Nazis in WW2. German was a little powerhouse considering the size of its population, but it only had half the GDP of the US, not to mention the other Allies. Combine this with a smaller population, and it really didn't matter what the Germans did in terms of equipment. They were destined to lose unless they struck gold with a wunderwaffe like the atomic bomb.
In today's world, the US outspends the next 10 countries combined. In normal times, it values the lives of its servicemen, and is willing to spend quite a bit to ensure dominance. So it will often have boutique gear that other countries could never afford.
That's not a countervailing argument, that is the argument. The side able to apply more industrial power defeated the side with more capable but less useful equipment.
The US outspends the next 10 countries combined in peace times. By comparison, Germany outspent the US on its military by a factor of 20 on the eve of WW2. Obviously once the war got going, the US' immense industrial capacity (along with the other Allies; the British Empire and the Soviet Union had the number 2 and 3 GDPs) was unstoppable.
We no longer live in the age where the US represents half of the world GDP and the bulk of that is manufacturing. China's has a larger economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has extensive manufacturing capacity, and a vast population. If push came to shove, we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them. In that hypothetical conflict we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
I was on a film shoot that was interrupted by a pair of F-18s going low and slow on burners that took forever for audio to give the all clear. The killer part was we were in a downtown park, and could not determine why in the world they would have been performing that maneuver there. There were more than windows shaking.
Comanche was cancelled, and even it was loud and gulped fuel. The "stealth" Blackhawk derivative used in the Bin Laden raid might be quieter, but it definitely gulped a ton of fuel. Fuel consumption is just an accepted issue with helicopter technology.
it also has stealth. This is a complete disaster. The only purpose of this stealth ship is to steal leaders and or go inside cave lairs and blow them up.
Cool, I guess this should be able to hover in much more "austere" environments than the F-35B STOVL and the Harrier Jet. Tiltrotor with folding rotor blades sounds very mechanically complex and challenging though.
Usually with these programs, they just commission an artist with some vague description, like they tell him to draw a futuristic VTOL aircraft, these pics have zero bearing on what gets delivered.
Sometimes they even take the piss with this, like in this video for a next-gen engine, where you can see their engine doesn't even fit in their fantasy aircraft:
Targeting a propeller for both raw lifting capacity as well as speed is quite difficult. I suspect they have different geometry as well.
If you spin a propeller fast enough the tips break the speed of sound, from what I recall that knackers the efficency. To generate lots of lift a bigger rotor is more efficient (hence why helicopters have long rotoblades that don't spin at high RPM)
The longer the blades the faster the tips, which means there is a tradeoff between thrust and speed of the air being yeeted out the back
Flying military aircraft is inherently dangerous. The US Army had 15 Class A mishaps in 2025, the USN 12, the USAF 14, and 6 for the USMC. The Apache (AH-64) led the Army, and this is a mature airframe, but shit happens.
If you look at the V-22 safety record in the context of the level of technical development, it is pretty good (e.g. compare to helicopters and aircraft from the 60s). The first production generation of a brand new type of vehicle is always going to be complicated, and virtually all of the V-22 mishaps come from the "new" components and procedures.
The fundamental tradeoff with tiltrotor platforms is that you trade significantly increased speed for significantly increased complexity. What that means is your battlefield survivability goes up when dealing with any opponent with meaningful air defenses, but at the cost of increasing your "resting" accident rate when most peacetime accidents are consequences of maintenance and/or procedural issues.
Because Sikorski can't make them work. Sure, they can take off and fly fast in a straight line, but they haven't been able to demonstrate sufficient maneuverability due to vibration problems in the rotor head. They are also very tall, prohibitively so for existing shipboard hangar, which would otherwise seem to be their advantage over tiltrotor platforms.
These days my vote would go to a quad. Impeller fore, impeller aft and one in each wing. Behind doors, obviously, like the bays for retractable landing gear - this is a solved problem.
They don't have to be efficient, because how much hovering time would you really need? Battery could even exist only in mission specific pods (internal perhaps, when it's a cargo carrier), trade-off as needed.
Thats the point, the more efficient the less supply line you need, which means more autonomy.
I cant find the source but in Afghanistan a large proportion of the Allied casualties were from protecting supply lines.
The thing about quad copters is that they work at small scale because the rotor have almost no inertia. When you scale that up to 2m, then inertia is a bitch. That means you need tilting blades to make up for that lack of control.
BUT
You also need something to be powerful enough to alter the speed of the rotors to get yaw.
Plus you then also need to get them all to rotate so that you can get the efficiency of normal flight.
The reason why the osprey exists is because it has longer range than a helicopter (~1200 miles vs 400) its also faster.
Isn't this need already met by the Bell V280 that the army already selected for it's Blackhawk replacement? What is the big innovation they are going for here?
+50% top speed over the V280. Bell offered it as an alternative to the V280 in the early stage of the contract, but it was judged too experimental (and probably too expensive). Apparently DARPA is funding further development of the concept.
I think I'd rather have them working on airplane tech rather than writing airplane tech press releases. With this approach, it's not just a tactical thing; it's relieving the burden of wordsmithing from technical people.
The technical people were never wordsmithing, they just didn't hire a technical writer. Instead of freeing up someone to do more design work, it freed someone to interview for a new job. I hope they get it.
> The technical people were never wordsmithing, they just didn't hire a technical writer. Instead of freeing up someone to do more design work, it freed someone to interview for a new job. I hope they get it.
Do technical writers work on press releases? This sounds more like a job for the public relations/corporate communications department.
I have always talked/written like this. now that LLMs do it in a similar enough way, my own writing gets called AI slop. I just wish my rotator cuffs knew I was a robot.
It's probably good signal at least, if not a bit of a harsh thing to say that I don't mean in a bad way, that your writing was bland or mediocre since LLMs are basically regression to the mean.
This administration doesn't really prioritize anything that has to do with intelligence, so advanced research was obviously going to fall by the wayside.
> Jetoptera is developing VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft that use a "Fluidic Propulsion System" (FPS) instead of traditional rotors or propellers, acting like "bladeless fans on steroids". These systems use compressed air and the Coanda effect to generate high-speed thrust, promising quieter, more efficient, and faster flight (up to Mach 0.8) for aerial mobility.
Running exclusively off jet power would require an extremely (impossibly?) strong compressor stage coupled a powerful APU to generate lift. It's definitely not light enough to take off without tiltrotors.
The concept is the compressed air sent through slits in a thruster, creating negative pressure that draws in surrounding air, resulting in increased thrust, there’s a concept already of this, check the above reply.
The swedish gripen can do mach2 (2300km/h) and does not need a traditional runway (500 meters of something "flat enough" will do). I assume its way cheaper than something like this.
I wonder is Iran would have gone different if we had captured the Ayatollah instead of killing him. A stealth drop ship like this would have allowed that to happen. The reason why regimes are more likely to negotiate when you capture their leaders is because you might release them. (not a good day for the usurper.)
I don't think whatever is negotiated with Iran's current regime would actually be honored by them. They may commit something to get their leader back, but won't be keeping the promises.
Their self stated goal is destruction of Israel and US. They could have chosen peace and not have funded proxies across the middle east. Their choice of aggression by whatever means they have at their disposal just shows what their long term strategy would be.
They have shown the intend. They just didn't have the capacity to follow through. Once they gain the capacity, they could go extreme lengths. Just see how they attacked their neighbors who were not party to the war.
A very good response to the parent comment and summary of the current situation.
AIUI the Iranian attack on Arab countries is strategic, increasing energy costs pressures the US to stop military action. However the US and allies were prepared with set aside oil reserves, increasing supplies from other sources, and reducing Iran's ability to interfere with shipping.
Major warfare always has tragic effects, but against regimes actively pursuing destruction of other nations, return of fire is a rational response.
The Osprey killed a lot of Marines over the past decades. It took a while to work out the issues. Hopefully we will remember what the Osprey taught us.
Different engines for different phases of flight? It has been tried many times and never really works. Such craft can be made to fly, but never well. The answer has to come from using one set to power all phases.
Id be interested in seeing a turboprop that can transition to a turbofan/jet once the prop is folded away. The f-35 was a step in this direction.
I wonder what the motivation behind this is. Tactically, why ever show your latest weapon? What is the strategic purpose of this? It's like if I message my opponent in SC2 and tell them exactly what I'm going to tech to. That's ... insane right? Why would anyone do that?
This isn't a new weapon, this is a test platform for various ideas, none of which are new or secret. Also, there are not many groundbreaking advancements left in military aviation. Most are just fairly incremental engineering or manufacturing improvements. (Military space technology might be a different story, though.)
The only other nation with the potential to develop a high-tech military plane that could rival US technology would be China. But if we ever got into a war with China, they wouldn't need superior technology to win. They could win via superior manufacturing capacity and the sheer number of people they can draft into service at a moment's notice.
>They could win via superior manufacturing capacity and the sheer number of people they can draft into service at a moment's notice.
Even with their manufacturing capacity they don't have remotely enough boats to get a nontrivial fraction of those people to the US mainland, and the majority of those people can't swim, so they wouldn't help in taking the US mainland, a requirement to "win" a serious war. Their entire armed forces is also almost completely lacking in combat experience, and in their last skirmish (against some unarmed Indian soldiers in the mountains) 30+ soldiers Chinese tragically drowned, due to the aforementioned lack of swimming ability.
How China frames victory and how the US frames victory needn't agree, and likely wouldn't. That being said, framing victory as only counting if there is a wholesale land invasion seems odd, as I suspect neither side would want to actually do that... so who 'wins'?
I don't know why you're being downvoted because clearly modern warfare is as much (or more) about the economic warfare aspect as the military one.
There are some rather bizarre examples such as Gaza attacking Israel, despite getting something like 50% of their electricity and 10% of their fresh water from Israel!
Attacking the supplier of critical civilian and industrial inputs would seem like a mistake nobody in their right mind would make, but... there you go.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future conflict with China over Taiwan would be primarily economic.
They threaten to stop shipping, we threaten to cut off the Internet and their banking, etc...
Similarly, the most knowledgeable experts are predicting that China's strategy with Taiwan will be to simply blockade the island and wait for them to capitulate.
Last but not least, this is also Iran's current strategy. By halting shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, they're waging war on the global economy much more effectively than bombing a few small military air strips in the region.
It's not a tactical choice- it's strategic deterrence, and it's not insane at all!
The US has always had a policy of messaging programs, with a lean toward classifying some percentage of the specific capabilities.
There's a reason that F-35 program was publicized by the US government as the program was under development. It makes the US air force even scarier, which discourages adversaries from thinking about conventional warfare with America.
That said- you won't see any detailed pics of the inside of an F35 cockpit, or a detailed look at the heads up display in the fancy helmet. That's top secret, because those making those details public don't offer enough additional deterrence to justify the risk to the program.
Yes, but even if the US didn't release the specifications of the F35, other countries around the world would rapidly figure out most of the capabilities anyway from photos, videos, and casual observation. (In other words, they'd know soon enough WHAT it can do but not necessarily HOW it does it.)
I think they just show what it can be seen, like any country with advance military developments.
They won't show you everything.
Have you ever heard about those sound/sonic (or something similar) weapons the US used in Maduro's kidnap operation? Venezuelan soldiers said (pero some publications on the internet) that they never saw anything alike, leaving them completely disoriented and helpless?
Soldiers now can even see thermal figures through walls or solid materiales, and the same time, bacome invisibles.
Two articles that cover this in depth are: 1. Revised Fold-Away Rotor Aircraft Concepts Emerge From Special Operations X-Plane Program. December 2024: https://www.twz.com/air/revised-fold-away-rotor-aircraft-con...
2. Bell’s Plan To Finally Realize A Rotorcraft That Flies Like A Jet But Hovers Like A Helicopter. September 2021: https://www.twz.com/41997/bells-plan-to-finally-realize-a-ro...
The second article covers decades of prior wind tunnel testing on the folding rotor concept.
Oof, I wish I had a job like that.
sunk investment. The success - it made into production in meaningful numbers - of V-22 means that design will be beaten to death.
Even though Bell X-22 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFdV5CVXGGw) was much better as prop VTOL than V-22, and for jet VTOL Ryan XV-5 Vertifan (look how great it is flying https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HwvkjFIYWR8 ) was much better than F-35 has been and X-76 will be.
And giving pilotless future of combat air, a tail sitter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tail-sitter will work great in pilotless version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accidents_and_incidents_involv...
Any time there are planetaries or splines attached to jet engines, it's a really weak spot. This holds for ordinary turboprops too.
The Osprey is amazing, can’t wait to see what the X-76 can do.
Reading between the lines, I suspect "fast, but also expensive" was a design option that popped up and was not chosen earlier in the V280 program and now Darpa wants to pay to see where it goes.
It's lot more about operational costs and project deliverables than plain sticker shock, and it is turning out to be a capable platform.
Same for me. I was surprised to hear that it actually competes favorably on price. And aside from early griping that it couldn't beat an ancient F-16 in a dogfight, it seems pretty capable in that regard too. Saw a demo at the last airshow I went to and that plane was defying physics. I love the 16, always will, but I definitely don't think it would hang with an F-35.
I wonder if the flight hour cost of F 35 includes the maintenance it's undergoing when it's not available.
Wildly dependent on your definition of "modern", which mostly depends on your potential adversary. The Russia/Ukraine, and the new war in the Gulf have shown numerous ways in which 4th generation jets, and more importantly cheaper missiles and even more cheap drones can perform supression of enemy air defences and/or air support. Unless you're fighting the US or China, 4th gen jets are plenty. And even against US and US defended locations, cheap drones and missiles have been able to influct some pretty serious damage to critical infrastructure (like extremely expensive and rare radar systems). An adversary not crippled by extreme sanctions and corruption for decades might have been able to achieve even more, even with the total lack of airpower.
The real reason stealth is needed is as a counter to GBAD. Modern anti-aircraft missiles are incredible lethal.
But isn't that true of the F35 as well?
On it's own, I doubt it would survive much longer on the eastern front in Ukraine.
In Iran the F-35 also did not fly around freely while the ground radars were active. They had to be taken out first. For that stealth was probably useful (and in general it is).
But it is not making them invisible - and cheap sensors and AI is likely to counter it soon. Because sensors and analysis will get better over time and sensors also better and cheaper. But the stealth will remain largely the same. It cannot really be upgraded for existing jets.
The burning question is what decision would AI make in Pearl Harbor. Would it have said flock of birds? Would it be keying in on flocks of birds instead?
> have no choice
That's my point. Any battlefield today is "modern", but militaries operate with what they have. From Russia to the Houthis passing via the Houthis, we've seen insane amounts of damage done on "a modern battlefield" with anything from Cold War era equipment to cheap drones assembled by a terrorist group living in the mountains with no industrial base.
Yes, if the US wants to fight China, and vice versa, it needs 5th gen jets. Everyone else doesn't need them. They're nice to have to make your job easier (like Israel vs Iran), but don't guarantee you anything (like Israel vs Iran).
It's quite likely that in about 5 years most military installations will have a mix of weapons to intercept those systems - and depending on a number of factors you could easily end up back at low performance drones being so reliably intercepted as to be a waste of munitions to deploy.
WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
That's unlikely. Anti-drone defences will only improve, yes, but autonomous drone swarms numbering in the thousands to tens of thousands are doable today, and few weapons systems can handle the rate of launch/fire required to combat that. Especially if there are follow-up waves mixing drones and heavy missiles against which your anti-drone defences wouldn't be enough.
> WW1 after all was based on exactly this thinking: surely the volume of an army would overcome the machine gun.
But building a cheap kamikaze drone costs much less than building a human.
They're now much closer to $3000 USD+ at the low end for an ISR vehicle. $8000+ for the more capable FPV kamikazes is the estimate for Russian models.
Which is comparable to a 155mm artillery shell. But with a lot less payload.
There's already literally millions of drones being produced and used per year in that conflict - and they've made a big impact, but the stability of the frontline also reveals that the impact of "swarms" is hardly overpowering (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together).
As Iran shows, you don't need overpowering. You need to hit the enemy where it hurts them, like strategic infrastructure.
> "swarms" ... (the obsession with them is also weird - if you had thousands of assets in the air, the last thing you'd do is put them all close together)
On the contrary, a swarm allows you to overwhelm the enemy air defences, which allows you to hit targets, including those same air defences, without having to disable them first. Cf. Iran destroying a THAAD radar.
Putting aside the export market, it's a small miracle that the F-35 turned out as well as it did. Having a mostly-common fighter airframe shared between the Navy, Marines and Air Force was a pipe dream in the 90s. America is lucky the program didn't collapse entirely.
Just look at WW2: Germany had some fantastic equipment, but they couldn't field it because they didn't have the fuel, spare parts and the maintenance capabilities available. A tiger could kill 10 Shermans, but the Americans could always bring up an 11th Sherman.
For decades we have been able to afford complacency - we strike when we're ready against people who mostly can't strike back. We can afford to be wasteful because we have so much more than anyone we would go up against. No one is seriously threatening our ability to keep our military going. But militaries need to be prepared for peer conflicts where someone could give us a run for our money.
Supply is one part, being able to repair is another. The tiger was a massive pain in the dick to fix. It had a weak gearbox that took _hours_ to get to.
Plus most of the parts were bespoke, which means lots more tooling needed to service everything. The other thing is that germany wasn't actually that mechanised compared to the french, or english
Which is exactly the topic under discussion.
In today's world, the US outspends the next 10 countries combined. In normal times, it values the lives of its servicemen, and is willing to spend quite a bit to ensure dominance. So it will often have boutique gear that other countries could never afford.
The US outspends the next 10 countries combined in peace times. By comparison, Germany outspent the US on its military by a factor of 20 on the eve of WW2. Obviously once the war got going, the US' immense industrial capacity (along with the other Allies; the British Empire and the Soviet Union had the number 2 and 3 GDPs) was unstoppable.
We no longer live in the age where the US represents half of the world GDP and the bulk of that is manufacturing. China's has a larger economy in terms of Purchasing Power Parity, it has extensive manufacturing capacity, and a vast population. If push came to shove, we wouldn't be able to simply outspend them. In that hypothetical conflict we are the germany with a bunch of questionably useful wunderwaffe.
Steal helicopters have entered the chat.
Sometimes they even take the piss with this, like in this video for a next-gen engine, where you can see their engine doesn't even fit in their fantasy aircraft:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vCHun6rxQm0
Targeting a propeller for both raw lifting capacity as well as speed is quite difficult. I suspect they have different geometry as well.
If you spin a propeller fast enough the tips break the speed of sound, from what I recall that knackers the efficency. To generate lots of lift a bigger rotor is more efficient (hence why helicopters have long rotoblades that don't spin at high RPM)
The longer the blades the faster the tips, which means there is a tradeoff between thrust and speed of the air being yeeted out the back
The fundamental tradeoff with tiltrotor platforms is that you trade significantly increased speed for significantly increased complexity. What that means is your battlefield survivability goes up when dealing with any opponent with meaningful air defenses, but at the cost of increasing your "resting" accident rate when most peacetime accidents are consequences of maintenance and/or procedural issues.
Or I guess you mean /stellar?
They don't have to be efficient, because how much hovering time would you really need? Battery could even exist only in mission specific pods (internal perhaps, when it's a cargo carrier), trade-off as needed.
Thats the point, the more efficient the less supply line you need, which means more autonomy.
I cant find the source but in Afghanistan a large proportion of the Allied casualties were from protecting supply lines.
The thing about quad copters is that they work at small scale because the rotor have almost no inertia. When you scale that up to 2m, then inertia is a bitch. That means you need tilting blades to make up for that lack of control.
BUT
You also need something to be powerful enough to alter the speed of the rotors to get yaw.
Plus you then also need to get them all to rotate so that you can get the efficiency of normal flight.
The reason why the osprey exists is because it has longer range than a helicopter (~1200 miles vs 400) its also faster.
Do technical writers work on press releases? This sounds more like a job for the public relations/corporate communications department.
https://newatlas.com/aircraft/jetoptera-bladeless-hsvtol/
> Jetoptera is developing VTOL (Vertical Take-Off and Landing) aircraft that use a "Fluidic Propulsion System" (FPS) instead of traditional rotors or propellers, acting like "bladeless fans on steroids". These systems use compressed air and the Coanda effect to generate high-speed thrust, promising quieter, more efficient, and faster flight (up to Mach 0.8) for aerial mobility.
They are still very deeply limited by compressor technology, regardless of whether they use combustion or electric propulsion.
Their self stated goal is destruction of Israel and US. They could have chosen peace and not have funded proxies across the middle east. Their choice of aggression by whatever means they have at their disposal just shows what their long term strategy would be.
They have shown the intend. They just didn't have the capacity to follow through. Once they gain the capacity, they could go extreme lengths. Just see how they attacked their neighbors who were not party to the war.
AIUI the Iranian attack on Arab countries is strategic, increasing energy costs pressures the US to stop military action. However the US and allies were prepared with set aside oil reserves, increasing supplies from other sources, and reducing Iran's ability to interfere with shipping.
Major warfare always has tragic effects, but against regimes actively pursuing destruction of other nations, return of fire is a rational response.
Yeah, I saw that Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. episode too.
Sadly, we might need some more intensive vibranium research before it becomes reality.
https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
Id be interested in seeing a turboprop that can transition to a turbofan/jet once the prop is folded away. The f-35 was a step in this direction.
https://www.twz.com/38435/this-is-all-the-survival-gear-that...
The only other nation with the potential to develop a high-tech military plane that could rival US technology would be China. But if we ever got into a war with China, they wouldn't need superior technology to win. They could win via superior manufacturing capacity and the sheer number of people they can draft into service at a moment's notice.
Even with their manufacturing capacity they don't have remotely enough boats to get a nontrivial fraction of those people to the US mainland, and the majority of those people can't swim, so they wouldn't help in taking the US mainland, a requirement to "win" a serious war. Their entire armed forces is also almost completely lacking in combat experience, and in their last skirmish (against some unarmed Indian soldiers in the mountains) 30+ soldiers Chinese tragically drowned, due to the aforementioned lack of swimming ability.
There are some rather bizarre examples such as Gaza attacking Israel, despite getting something like 50% of their electricity and 10% of their fresh water from Israel!
Attacking the supplier of critical civilian and industrial inputs would seem like a mistake nobody in their right mind would make, but... there you go.
I wouldn't be surprised if a future conflict with China over Taiwan would be primarily economic.
They threaten to stop shipping, we threaten to cut off the Internet and their banking, etc...
Similarly, the most knowledgeable experts are predicting that China's strategy with Taiwan will be to simply blockade the island and wait for them to capitulate.
Last but not least, this is also Iran's current strategy. By halting shipping through the Straight of Hormuz, they're waging war on the global economy much more effectively than bombing a few small military air strips in the region.
The US has always had a policy of messaging programs, with a lean toward classifying some percentage of the specific capabilities.
There's a reason that F-35 program was publicized by the US government as the program was under development. It makes the US air force even scarier, which discourages adversaries from thinking about conventional warfare with America.
That said- you won't see any detailed pics of the inside of an F35 cockpit, or a detailed look at the heads up display in the fancy helmet. That's top secret, because those making those details public don't offer enough additional deterrence to justify the risk to the program.
They won't show you everything.
Have you ever heard about those sound/sonic (or something similar) weapons the US used in Maduro's kidnap operation? Venezuelan soldiers said (pero some publications on the internet) that they never saw anything alike, leaving them completely disoriented and helpless?
Soldiers now can even see thermal figures through walls or solid materiales, and the same time, bacome invisibles.
It's more than sci-fi.