It's time once again for our regular Open Thread. Talk about whatever you want, so long as it isn't Culture War.
A reminder that I am currently taking signups for the 2026 meetup in Dayton, and they're filling up fast. The AirBnB is already full, and at some point soon, I'm going to have to cut things off to keep the size of the tour manageable.
Overhauls are Mine Warfare Part 1, INCW Part 4, Excitement in the Bab-el-Mandeb, and for 2024 US Military Aircraft Parts One, Two, Three and Four.
Comments
The general trend across aircraft development seems to be towards larger and more capable aircraft, which in turn require larger systems, etc. However, the A-4 Skyhawk seems like it was more an embodiment of the old Colin Chapman admonition to "simplify, then add lightness", with each simplification yielding an additional benefit in terms of smaller landing gear, no wing folding mechanism, and so on, while still maintaining credible overall performance (vs. going with a materially less capable aircraft like the "new" Skyraider)
Is that still a worthwhile path to go down (particularly with aircraft), or has the increased cost of platform development/NRE and the logistical complications of supporting multiple models pushed towards a much higher minimum threshold of performance?
If something is a mistake often you can get away with it if everyone else makes it as well (and even if you're just much more powerful than anyone else you fight).
Sensors do perform better when they are bigger but OTOH a smaller plane is going to have lower signatures (radar, IR and optical) assuming equivalent stealth technology so it is likely to cancel out and the computers are pretty light.
What you mostly lose if you go to smaller planes is warload, whether that matters will depend on whether you need to drop big bombs or lots of bombs. PGMs do reduce the amount of bombs that need to be dropped to destroy a target and modern militaries try to avoid blowing up what they aren't aiming at. Also somewhat offset by just having more, cheaper planes, if you have the pilots.
I have to kneel in front of the US shipbuilding, that will construct two 35 000 tons nuclear battleships within 2.5 years.
Is it like a real US navy project?
Can't wait to Bean's analysis of the Trump class 'battleship'.
The post will go up on Sunday. Obviously.
StupidBro:
You sure the Trump class isn't really a 35,000,000 ton 60 knot nuclear battlecarrier?
I'm assuming the "Trump" class is the response to my proposed French-Australian battleship design from some years back: https://laranzu.id.au/writing/jeanbart.html
(I doubt the official reason will make any more sense!)
@ Red Rover
The simplification thing only works if its a single, tightly defined role. In aircraft it does seem possible to get this through the wringer in light ground attack. The A-10 was in many ways this way.
In bombers it theoretically can be done and arguably the B-52 is that, but leading edge bombers demand a lot fancy capabilities.
Fighter aircraft always seem to end up multi-role. It should be easier to do with drones but that doesn't seem to be of interest to anyone in the CCA program.
@bean if we make the assumption that the Navy is able to produce a "Legend" class frigate, it is interesting that it is very close to your concept of a minimum viable warship. Basically has a gun, a helipad, and a limited amount of sensor/weapons payload.
Yes, it is, and I'm theoretically interested on that basis. The problem is that they're pitching it as a replacement for the Constellation, which it isn't. I should have more coming Sunday, including an example of the need for good radars.