Path: news.nzbot.com!not-for-mail
From: Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com>
Newsgroups: alt.binaries.pictures.aviation
Subject: Re: Russia's Next Fighter Might Have a New Way to Shoot Down F-22s and F-35s
Date: 11 Aug 2018 10:49:49 -0700
Organization: NewsGuy.com
Lines: 72
Message-ID: <pkn7jt01sc5@drn.newsguy.com>
References: <pkn1p301ihb@drn.newsguy.com> <XnsA93B7D28A1EFnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131>
NNTP-Posting-Host: p4122c6c9a3ddea7c40d7a2d0ae7804074bdd8f5f2f947d5e.newsdawg.com
User-Agent: Direct Read News 5.60
X-Received-Bytes: 3693
X-Received-Body-CRC: 4184767961
Xref: news.nzbot.com alt.binaries.pictures.aviation:8309
In article <XnsA93B7D28A1EFnoemailattnet@216.166.97.131>, Mitchell Holman
says...
>
>Miloch <Miloch_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:pkn1p301ihb@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> more at
>> https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/russias-next-fighter-might-have-
>> new-way-shoot-down-f-22s-and-f-35s-28497
>>
>> The Russians are not the first to start developing photonic radars. An
>> Italian funded project called PHOtonic-based full DIgital Radar
>> (PHODIR) developed the first fully photonics-based coherent radar
>> system in 2014. A photonic radar replaces the traditional electronic
>> circuits of conventional radars with lasers, optical filters and
>> photodiodes to generate very precise, high-quality radio frequency
>> objects like conventional systems, the laser allows it to pulse highly
>> tuned frequencies in a broad emission band from the tens of megahertz
>> Electric press statement.
>>
>> generation unmanned aircraft could be equipped with what is described
>
>
>
> I am utterly naive in these things, but what is
>point of developing more and better fighters? Ever
>since Vietnam they have been little more than missle
>delivery platforms. Even the 1981 faceoff between
>Gaddafi's Su 22's vs Reagan's F-14s over the Gulf of
>Sidra was just airframes lobbing missles at each other.
>
> All the classic use of fighters - bomber escort,
>attacking bombers, control of airspace, ground attack,
>recon - has either become irrelevant or replaced by
>satellites and drones. Beyond the needs of a defense
>industry trying to make itself relevant is there likely
>to be any "winner" in this competition?
>
>
...members of Congress are the "winners"
The military makes the case for maintaining superiority 10 -15 years in advance
which means asking for development money for unproven technology.
Members of Congress go along because it means spending defense dollars in their
state/district. What Eisenhower warned of...the military/industrial
complex...is now the military/industrial/CONGRESSIONAL complex....it's all about
money and getting part of defense dollars spent in their state/district!!
....trying to get a failed weapons system cancelled because it doesn't work or
isn't needed is more difficult than you think...Senators/reps in those
states/districts affected will fight tooth/nail to keep the weapons being
built...that they don't work is beside the point.
It's called "pork-barrel" legislation
Congress funds problematic weapons the Pentagon does not want
https://www.publicintegrity.org/2016/07/05/19869/congress-funds-problematic-weapons-pentagon-does-not-want
Congress Pushes for Weapons Pentagon Didn't Want
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2012/08/20/congress-pushes-for-weapons-pentagon-didnt-want.html
*
|
|