Brains

<Plenty snipped> Is there some reason you can't just work these cases up in the scenario editor to start with? (And bring the data back to the forums if there is something odd in your opinion, of course) Two things: 1. No scenario editor in the Demo. 2. I'm looking for opinons and explanations of what people are expecting these situations to produce - to see if my understading of their previous discussions of the matter is actually correct, or if something got lost in the soup. Just trying to bring it into focus a bit. Elsewhere (in the mounting number of speculative threads you've generated), you've said that you have access to a mysterious friend with a full copy and talked about doing some testing there. Coming to the table with some reviewable info (logs, save games, scenarios demonstrating a detection question, etc) and questions about them beats endless speculation and opinions for bringing things into focus. Kudos to Warhorse for the legwork and answer, BTW.

<Plenty snipped> Is there some reason you can't just work these cases up in the scenario editor to start with? (And bring the data back to the forums if there is something odd in your opinion, of course)

I sometimes wonder if some of the DoD took part in wargame exercise as OPFOR and hit their head on the way out, getting stuck in OPFOR mode... Operating behind enemy lines, they sabotage and disable as much as possible as time and exposure allows. IRST seems to be a no-contest winner in utility upgrades for your load carrying legacy fighters going forward....

Cost overruns and production delays in 10... 9... 8...

Finished The Punic Wars today and I have to say that I really enjoyed it. The wars are divided up first by war and then land/sea which made following the "plot" easy and natural. The author takes care to explain both what would have been mundane (weapons, army make up, etc) and the larger implications (strategic outlooks and their effects, etc). Some stand out tidbits were the Rome social structure with regard to going to war (minimum property requirements for joining the army, private citizens funding the war effort when the state couldn't afford more, etc) and the different approaches to war (strong negotiation / total war). Also interesting is exactly how ignorant we are of Carthage due to the outcome of the Punic Wars being its utter destruction. In the end, it boils down to two statements for me: "Carthage knew how to win a war." and "Rome didn't know how to lose a war." (Possible addition: "Hell hath no fury like a Roman scorned.") When these two statements are put into play and history sparked a bit, we get a procession of wars at the beginning of what would end up making Rome not only a huge empire but also sow the seeds for its collapse. The Punic Wars started with Carthage being a major power in the entire region and Rome being fairly small, concerned mostly with Italy. We all know how it turned out... Carthage entered the conflict behaving as most city states did in the region where war was a strong negotiation technique, a war ends when the outcome is obvious and a treaty is signed to establish the balance of relative powers demonstrated. When Hannibal rampaged through Italy and then threatened Rome directly, Carthage assumed the conflict was over. The Romans thought otherwise including one tradition saying the land that Hannibal camped out on being auctioned off inside Rome and going for a normal price... This is the level of confidence/determination/arrogance Rome repeatedly demonstrated. Likewise, when the Romans camped outside Carthage, Carthage thought meeting some demands would end the conflict with a nice peace treaty modifying the regional power balance. The results of meeting those demands have echoed down history... The Third Punic War's end, with Carthage completely destroyed, is the most common example, but not the first nor the last that Rome would achieve. The book also lays out the major battles along with the reasons and effects. You get to admire the skills of Hannibal at Cannae and Scipio Africanus skillfully kicking the Carthagians out of Spain. There are good reasons why these battles are studied even today as they demonstrate over and over again the value of intelligence/recon, speed, reserves, and pretty much every other basic concept of warfare. The Roman military's evolution is very interesting to watch and has made it onto my list of topics to find a good book on as I've seen/read more than once about how various conflicts changed the Roman way of fighting wars. (A prime example of this is the fact that Rome barely had a navy in the First Punic War but was punching above its weight (IMHO) by the Third Punic War and far outclassing the naval power Carthage.) Enough rambling, book recommended. Next Book is "Kennedy's Wars: Berlin, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam" by Lawrence Freedman. Time to see if my "Blame Kennedy" policy will hold up... =;>

I've decided that the DF-21 is mostly a distraction... The rule I learned at my daddy's knee was, "If you can see it, you can hit it. If you can hit it, you can kill it." So the DF-21 is mostly unimportant as, assuming the assets to detect and localize exist, the actual weapon used is immaterial. The real threat here is the existing and/or planned ability of the Chinese to detect and localize our assets in the region.

I decided to start reading some nonfiction again and hit my library (literally my library... In the dining room) for one of the military history books I'd stocked up but never read... This episode is Adrian Goldsworthy's The Punic Wars. I've only just begun and I like his approach already. Very clear on his use of sources, how he weighted them, and a few critiques of historical analysis by various folks/factions in the past plus going into some detail of the background material like how each side (and neighbors) called up armies, trained them, etc. "Carthago delenda est"

Haven't had a chance to read the RFP itself but I did get to read a bunch of Congressfolk already weighing in... With pretty much predictable stances. Military procurement (at least large buys) are so screwed up...

So very interesting...

For those of us who's spanish language skills are sub par, try this... That site fed through Google's translation.

In general, the American boats have been better, and look to stay that way for a while yet. But that's a general rule only. If you put an American nuke up against a first-rate Russian diesel in shallow, noisy water, it's not nearly so clear-cut ... Shallow water full of nasty quiet diesels? This is what subsurface bursts are for... "Nuke 'em from orbit, it is the only way to be sure."

How can one turn down an epic recreation of a naval battle? Put me down as interested. Now to make a note to not read Sixth Battle yet... It is on the list.

Let's skip right to the chase... Describe the problem in simple direct terms. Skip the conclusions and guesswork, stick to what you observe and what you expected. Provide a save game and a series of steps to replicate the problem. Straightforward and relatively easy. No need to posit any "magic" until you've done the basics first. They are generally very responsive and more eager to help out than most of us have any right to expect so do us all a favor and don't abuse 'em.

I don't remember hearing anything about that but both the USN and Royal Navy have dabbled with Windows onboard warships, IIRC. No accounting for taste... But that indicts military procurement and a particular implementation rather than any particular state of technology.

I wrote a much longer reply but it mostly goes over similar points as before. Suffice to say, the trade off between capability and reliability is always there and is a human choice within the boundaries of the available technology. Modern technology has given us a much larger space to operate in and somebody can opt for a cheaper option with "just enough" reliability or go the gold plated route. In the end, we have a continuum from the NASA model where a large amount is invested in a robust solution to the consumer electronics end where price is king and it only needs to be "mostly" reliable. And we have plenty of examples from both ends. I'm betting that you aren't using a computer from yesteryear nor spent yesteryear's value equivalents.

I was speaking specifically about the reliability of commercially-available computer systems for industrial, business, and personal use. And I'm not disputing raw performance - although performance means squat if the system is down due to reliability issues - or even worse, if it is "working", but is merrily doing something that is totally bogus or even dangerous! In the not-so-distant past, it wasn't necessary to buy any high-priced or "hardened" computer in order to have ultra-reliable operations out of an "ordinary" computer system; but today, it is virtually impossible to buy a robust modern system - at any price. It's really surprizing that we don't have more "industrial accidents" or financial melt-downs than we do - considering the high level of reliance on computerized control systems throughout the manufacturing and business sectors. Of course, as the frequency of failures or accidents increases, the "tolerance threshold" goes up as well - so it now takes a more major incident to become "worthy" of notice, while all the "little" screw-ups and minor "accidents" are just seen as the norm - and as "acceptable trade-offs" for "higher performance". This sort of trade-off isn't a fact of life - but it can be (and sometimes is) a matter of life and death. Is human life now being sacrificed on the altar of high-tech and high-performance? Seems like it is... In the not-so-distant past, you spend a premium for a computer and didn't get much in the way of reliability. The common wisdom (before the price fall) was that $2000 would buy you a "good" computer for any given period. You can buy a "good" computer today for just about 20% of that today, get more reliability and more power. Of course, if you want to go out and buy a computer worth $2000 in 1990 dollars, you'd get one that would blow away the reliability of even military/space hardware of the "good ole days". Or you can buy a nice gaming rig. And that is where the money is going these days... Getting capabilities you couldn't get back then. If you want reliability, you can buy consumer hardware these days that detects memory errors caused by cosmic rays (Dude, you can buy a full gigabyte of ECC DDR2 RAM for $19.99!), has multiple CPUs for crosschecking results, redundant mass storage (with error checking on top of that and terabyte (yes, about 50 thousand times larger than my first drive) drives are running $75 on sale regularly), etc etc etc. But most people don't want it because their machines have all the reliability they want to buy... I'll not shadowbox with scary pronouncements about how dangerous this brave new world of computer control is... I'll let the steadily increasing life expectancies and steadily decreasing accident rates speak for themselves.

Heh, hogwash. The old stuff wasn't more reliable at the same point in their lifecycle... Examples: * Anything with vacuum tubes. * WW2 torpedoes * WW2 radars (and to a lesser extent even as far as the Vietnam era like the SPS-30) * Pershing (and plenty of other) tank transmissions * Early AIM-7 Sparrows * Early Tartar/Terrier/Talos * Any number of fighter radars over the years that wouldn't spin up * E-2 Hawkeye avionics (originally a rotary drum computer and general overheating problems) * Read the reports on reactivating the USS Iowa back in the 80s (25W lightbulbs in use 'cause 50W bulbs would blow fuses!) * Early Patriots And that is mostly fairly bad stuff and not just general expected breakdowns / high maintenance needs. Read the reports on the reactivated USS Iowa back in the 80s where they had to use 25W lightbulbs 'cause 50W bulbs would blow fuses! Try to tell me that was good old robust hardware... Early computers weren't even attempted put into military vehicles originally 'cause they sucked so bad that even in fixed installations with the engineers standing by, they failed regularly to perform when needed. Add to that the fairly primitive state of the art in programming and you get a recipe for a large amount of nothing. Your modern glitchy computer in pretty much anything accomplishes far more than the entire computing power of the DoD combined did back in the good ole days even assuming perfect function[/slight hyperbole]. Unreliable military hardware isn't anything new... And a reliabel lack of capability is not preferable over measured progress. I'm pretty sure I'd rather be sitting under the Aegis/Standard umbrella than even a later Terrier/Talos shield or riding in a computerized gas turbine M1 over a Pershing. (Does that mean we sometimes walk over the line in our advance? Sure. We also sometimes don't keep up with the pace...) If you are talking about plain jane commercial hardware, it is even less true. If you want to pay the same *adjusted* price for hardware and software, you can get better reliability and performance. But I don't see many people spending megabucks to buy a super-solid computer any more... And it doesn't necessarily make much sense to do so. Tradeoffs are a fact of life...

It always amazes me when people look back on the "good ole days" with anything other than relief that they are over... The average life of your random piece of machinery (with comparable performance and adjusted for cost) has gone up by leaps and bounds. That visually sighted 40mm Bofors might never have a computer or radar fail... But manually aimed visually sighted AA guns were barely acceptable in WW2, much less now. The real reason why much military hardware is based on ancient tech is because it takes decades for your average (recent) procurement program and the required docs (and associated cost) to make any change and roll it out is obscenely high.

Article

I'm currently under the weather and under the influence of drugs... Which makes hypothetical platforms all the more fun... I'll admit to expecting to pick up some extra lift from the increased size of the fuselage (looking at the F-14 where up to 40% of the lift was created by the fuselage, similar numbers under some conditions for the F-16). As for manuever, this UAV is based on a UAV that isn't of the dogfighting sort. It can pull some probably impressive manuevers but I wouldn't expect it to be seeking out furballs. The range I gave was a nice round number and probably actually underestimates the range. A 20hr endurance with a cruise speed of 400kts for the unmodded version gives 8000nm. The switch from the prop to the turbine gives a good bit more speed and much higher cruise speeds. A large body would impose a bigger drag penalty but would also add to the fuel load substantially where the fuselage already carries approximately half the fuel load. (My reference to wikipedia's 400+ kts and 20+ hrs was supposed to evoke the similar phrasing when talking about the speeds/ranges of things like the Seawolf class and Nimitz carriers where the numbers are low and obviously not correct.) Now, as to the mission it is good for (and we'll stick the original payload since the increase was controversial and didn't bring much to the table other than a HWT)... The onboard sensors are the Lynx SAR and a recce version of the F-35 EOTS as well as having plans for a wide area surveil AESA recon pod for the bay. The MP-RTIP project plans radar sets that are scalable from the Global Hawk to the (now dead) E-10 so you can probably put a mini-AWACs set in the Avenger as well (the Global Hawk has more engine power, but a smaller payload). So we have at least minor surface search covered with just the onboard sensors and potentially much more with the sensor payload (not as a replacement for an E-3 / P-8 but you can never have enough ISR assets). With a 3000lb payload, you get a couple of Harpoons, JDAMs, etc so we have a light persistent strike role there. Certainly not CAS, but given a "stealthed up" LO UAV plus standoff weapons and a reasonably high cruise speed, you don't have something restricted to milk runs. An ASW role seems easily added given the removal of the ASW mission from the S-3B removed about 834lbs from the S-3B (including 40 or so sonobuoys)... Round that up to an even 1000lbs and add two LWTs like the Mk46 for a payload of 2000lbs. (With the extra 1k lbs used to make up whatever handwaving didn't work or an extra couple of LWTs.) Pred Bs are already being fitted with 45 KVA generators for jamming purposes so you can add jamming to the list. The question of the comms is going to be a fleet wide question... My only response can be that the problem will be solved or UAVs won't be flown. Though, if the problem isn't solved, an awful lot of related tech is going out the window as well (plenty of new datalinks, satcoms, etc). For now, assume a modicum of comms capability plus some semi-intelligent programming. It doesn't take much to fly to point A, acquire a target, and launch your payload or running when you are locked up by hostile radar. (We have cruise missiles that do as much now, at least on the acquiring a target portion.) For the stealth portion, burst satcoms are pretty stealthy and pointed away from most detection methods. The F-22 and F-35 projects are much stealthier concepts and use active links too. Real time continuous control (and the required larger datastreams) aren't necessary for the majority of missions. As for the idea that it is helpless when discovered, it can do pretty much what any non-fighter can do... Run and pray. The amount of effect that situation awareness will play in a non-short range engagement, I have to question. At longer ranges, the UAV will be monitoring its sensors as well as, if not better than, a human. When a fighter gets in close, the game is pretty much over and the Avenger is left with a military throttle and evasive manuevers of questionable utility. (I'm guessing on that though. For all I know, it is one heck of a sturdy craft capable of turning humans into paste via g-force.) This thing certainly won't be engaging in air to air combat, at least at close ranges. Nobody expects an E-2, P-3, S-3 or an SH-60 to do so either. I did read some blog posts positing the carriage of AIM-120s so maybe some silent shooter BVR roles might not be out of line though.

Take one General Atomics Avenger (aka Predator C), a stealthy jet UCAV with internal bay, tailhook, onboard SAR, and a version of the ETOS from the F-35 (this is existing kit, if still developmental). Stretch the wingspan and length to similar that of the S-3 (another 2.5ft or so wingspan, another 10ft length). The length increase will add enough space to stretch the internal bay from ~15ft to 20+ft. A proposed folding wing variant has already been discussed by GA and, in both GA's comment and this thought experiment, the extra wingspan will be used to counter the space required for the folding mechanism for no change in endurance. For the sake of argument, handwave the probable engine output increase and various other tweaks given that we've increased the size. The only additional "requirement" is a payload increase of ~1000lbs which is about a 33% increase. Yes, it is a significant increase but the length has increased by 25% as well. This allows a larger engine, more fuel, etc as well as increased wing area in the portion of the wing near the fuselage due to the shape of the wing. We assume any additional range is converted into payload capacity. We now have a low observable carrier capable UCAV with the ability to carry something even as heavy as a heavy weight torpedo like the Mk48 or a nice load (6-8?) of guided 500lb class weapons (or LWTs, harpoons, etc) over a range of ~7000nm (conservative estimate of 350kts @20hrs, wikipedia et al says max 400+kts and 20+hrs) at a cost estimated to be $8-20M (which is apparently arrived at by multiplying the cost of the Global Hawk by 20% or the Pred B by 3). (Also assume that the DoD & Congress finally get a clue and begin investing in the comms infrastructure like they should have already been doing...) Points for discussion: Does this sound doable? What tradeoffs might make sense? (In other words, is 7000 nm of range (or loiter time) worth the cost or can it be traded away for speed or payload?) Does this change the game of a carrier group?

Oh there is plenty of subtle manipulation (for example, the title "public option") too... But that is more for the purposes of accomplishing something as opposed to merely driving viewer ratings. Over the top brings viewers, subtle gets changes. I mean, check out TV wrestling... Hospitals can not turn away patients who cannot pay in life threatening circumstances. This is why a common argument for the gov't makeover (toned down from takeover since that is seen as pejorative) is the fact that money can be saved by providing preventive care. There are also numerous programs to get free or reduced drugs, etc. Certainly not a position anybody wants to be in, but seldom as bad as the sides in the argument make it. Consider them the equivalent of the "they made him wait 50 years and then amputated his leg to treat his appendicitis" attacks on the various gov't schemes elsewhere.

I wouldn't say that the entire furor is about the status quo being ideal for a given demographic (even though that does play in and, of course, "if it bleeds, it leads"). Few people will say that health care isn't important (and that is backed up by poll after poll). This is just like mom, apple pie, goodness, and light and pretty much every other "good cause". When you ask about it in the abstract and without the costs/consequences/responsibilities/etc mentioned, everybody is for it. When you start talking about the brass tacks of who will do it, how they will do it, and who pays (money/time/effort) for what... That is when you get into disagreements and it doesn't require any given side to be dumb or evil for the disagreement to be strong. The democrats have been selling their plan as the only way to fix the current problem. The republicans are screaming about the potential that their pet causes (eg abortion) and the weakest getting thrown under the bus. The death panel thing stems from language in the bill that specifies that end of life counseling is mandated. The wording worried some folks and (IIRC) attempts to change the wording were defeated more than once (note that some of the people wanting changes had already voted for or written laws pro-counseling so it wasn't fear of the concept that people should talk to their doctors about death). As for the death panel name, it was a cute sound bite (remember that chosing the language of a public discussion is pretty key to influencing people, hence the pro-choice / pro-life monikers, etc) but the concern for that kind of issue shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. Health insurance, private or public, is about managing resources for the most effective use. Somebody somewhere does make judgements (what drugs/procedures are covered, when and how long scheduling takes, etc) in patient health care which is pretty much life and death by definition. Many people in the US, pretty stereotypically distrustful of their gov't, are concerned when the gov't steps into that role directly. After all, (in theory) you can get another insurer and their "death panel", but they frown upon you getting another gov't. (This is not to say that people don't want the health care industry regulated...) The "You Lie!" part is somewhat similar. Obama says in his speech that illegal aliens won't be eligible and the plan as written says that they aren't supposed to. The republican concern is that there is no test/enforcement. So the laws says they aren't but there is no legal framework to force a check and amendments to that effect were apparently defeated. The outburst was rude and disrespectful but not really shocking as the decorum has been heading down hill for years (plenty of examples during the last presidency, they aren't hard to find in Clinton's, etc. Heck, one of the few bipartisan things Congress has done... The democrats are better rabble rousers though. And they throw better parties.) I don't really subscribe to either parties' line at the moment (my position is closer to the "yes, something needs to be done and, no, there is no need for undue haste as the system is big, important, and far too costly to knee jerk") and am mostly disgusted at the way this stuff plays out via the congresscritters (watching them in interviews, townhalls, cspan, that kind of thing... Laws and sausage.). In general, I tend to give more weight to the side that proposes to do less or nothing as the burden of proof is generally on the person making the claim. Moving to a public option health care setup is a very big step and requires a large amount of convincing. You lose points for scare tactics (health care companies make great boogiemen as does the faceless gov't bureaucat) and calls for haste. So far, the US loses... (As for the Clinton thing, I've always been of the opinion that it got as much traction as it did because he dragged it out and made it a soap opera. If he'd come out and just said, "Yep, I had a little intern on the side. You want to ask about the terrorists in Sudan or my personal Friday afternoon tryst?", he'd have lost some voters (which he did anyways) and made the whole thing look pretty silly. Instead we got a soap opera (only a reality tv show makes those things look good...) and attempts to parse word definitions which always plays really well for sound bites... )

Er... Hang a bunch of drag off the wing and then hand wave supercruise? Bah! B-2 variant (I suppose I could accept an FB-22 variant as well), high speed rotary launcher, and an a whole passel of AMRAAMs.

You never run fast *away* from the target... If you are running fast, you'll need an escort to Hades anyways, might as well bring a couple with you. (Standard caveat applies, never never means never, but merely almost never.)