"the entire humanity is a system of systems, with lots of sub-systems" - that's what Systems theory, Systems thinking and Systems science are about. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
Before I ‘got out’ of corporate life I was a big advocate of systems thinking, not popular though as it was far easier to ‘sell’ a specific programme to ‘fix this and and this’ usually created by the previous programme. Much more money in that than trying to actually understand the interrelationship of multiple processes, find the actual problem and resolve it. Because that’s probably a lot less sexy (and profitable).
Not a day goes by where I don't experience a bug in Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. software. Sure, it's not always a bug. Often it's just a feature buried in the bug tracker which no committee can move forward. How am I to believe the software developed by Boeing is any better? It doesn't matter how much I, or anyone, complain to these software companies. The bugs don't go away. Why, again, would that be any different between the Air Force and Boeing?
Has anything with Google or Microsoft software improved in 15 years? Seriously.
It isn't about money, IMO. If ONLY that were the problem!!!! The problem is non-technical management. Managing (not fixing) problems is their job. It only changes to fixing when the body bags arrive. This is the history of all military tech in my head.
Then there's the "new tech" managers. Those who build new things instead of managing problems. Musk is exhibit A. He forced early decisions about Starship which will mean it never flies (IMO). Methane, Stainless Steel, 33 engines, erector set processes.
50% for F-35s. Starships that don't put anything into orbit. No flying cars! Israel pathetically bombing the same ant-hill with all the might the U.S. has to offer. Ukraine, where U.S. high tech goes to save the day and months later forgotten.
Why didn't those guys use secure software to talk about Yemen. This is what the media won't report. Because IT IS OLD AND IT SUCKS!
> Why didn't those guys use secure software to talk about Yemen.
Not supposed to use software. Supposed to use a SCIF.
The bureaucracy exists in order to ensure that lessons learned in the past will be heeded in future administrations.
Whatever individuals had the temerity to insist that meetings dealing with highly sensitive classified information be held in a SCIF were surely fired or sidelined.
The administration doesn’t heed the bureaucracy because they perceive the bureaucracy as constraining the will of the executive. They insist on relearning lessons which were learned long ago.
Had to look Tuvalu up. Are you researching a good place to watch the war between the U.S. and China? If so, think you've found it ;) I hope you give your readers a visit me discount!
It's not about software or specific security technologies. This is a circus for a Presidential Administration with clowns for officials starting with the Orange haired one. Stephen King's evil clown, "Pennywise," is a saint compared with #47, et. al. Gawd help us ... Gawd help us all.
Ukraine shows that the technological advantage might be overhyped. It makes no difference that your weapons are superior, if you do not have enough to push back another human wave...
Regarding the number 47: according to the Neapolitan smorfia (sort of a table which is used to map dreamt objects into numbers, which are then used to play Lotto) the number 47 is associated to the DEAD MAN / DEATH.
Note, Portugal hasn't ordered a single F-35 and the oft quoted minister might not been be in government after the upcoming Portuguese elections. Another silly media “controversy”.
As for the F-35 as a whole, the jet has maybe 1-2 possible customers left in the EU and 1-2 left in the world after that, at least for the next ~15 years.
Darabos that spineless and shameless politician without any self respect, who just did everything to make his dream come true to become Governor, only to be surpassed on the last few 'meters'.
One of the few cases, which makes me think, that sometimes some sort of justice still exists. 😁
I loved the Norman Polmar book on Cold war submarines, the final thought was that the Russian's could catch up as they had competing design bureaus with three plus 3rd gen designs...like Sierra, Mike Akula...VS the imp Los Angeles class...well after decades we see the same patterns... e.g. like the F35 we see overpriced programs - calling out that F35 is a Jack of all trades - but surprisingly Chinese Military is still running multiple 6 gen designs - I know that the development costs are extremely high but seeing that after the 4gen fighters (a dozen types and modifications at 4+) having only F35 remaining at 5th gen (F22 has limited number and also limited reliability) for the western block is like someone saying back in early 80s that F16 is all we need ;-) ...it is great until a near peer conflict - US programs are really getting to be monsters with so much cost & Time overruns - putting the West at a disadvantage...
...and, to make sure: back in the early 1980s, somebody in the USAF run a study calculating that in the case of a war with the WP, F-15s would score something like (from memory) 700:1.
A general in charge at the time reacted by requesting the person in question to shelve that study, because it would mean USAF-E (USAF in Europe) would need only 2 F-15s...
At that time - early 80s US had everything - relevant Intel from Russian engineer from Fazotron, áll force multipliers like largest AWACS fleet etc...I was small kid and could not access too much ín Hungary - like Soviet Military Power books ... although ín retrospective they were indeed hype / over estimated Soviet capabilites deliberately - now I think ín some respect underestimate the combo of Russian experience and Chinese capabilites - they have no global force projection but the closer the US Will engage the Chinese to the Chinese homeland then a protracted war Will be with Time more and more risky - same Way Ukraine with Russia - you do not bog down with Russians and certainly do not provide them time to adapt...
1. Are front line manned fighter aircraft going to be obsolete by 2030, replaced by cheaper drones that have capabilities that the human body can't withstand; and
2. Since no country that likes it's independence is going to be buying high end military kit from the US, won't that push the costs to US taxpayers for the F-47 much higher because there will be no offset from profits from foreign sales?
It's going to be much more expensive (for the US taxpayers) to R&D the F-47, than this was the case with the F-35. Even more so because back during the R&D of the F-35, the USA still had a semi-functional administration - including the General Accounting Office, which was checking the spending....
But then, that's precisely what such like Musk want to have: the taxpayers to pay, without any rights to ask for what and how much.
1) I don't think that the advanced militaries will stop having manned jet fighters in the next decade. Despite their limitations (g-limits etc), a pilot can have a better situational awareness than today's remotely controlled drones. Developing an AI system which can have combat awareness *and* be permitted to apply lethal force without a human in the loop would be an extremely risky move.
And remote control requires your jet fighter has a data connection to the human controller - if the signals are jammed, you have a BIG problem (while the manned fighter can still operate and fight in an environment without comms)
2) Most probable. Not that this will preclude the US administration to spend more money on this system. My suspicion is that it won't be a dogfighter like the F-22, though, but a quite different system, so these might coexist.
I'm not sure. I mean the AI could be a backup to the remote controlling. If it is over enemy territory and is jammed, the AI takes over. The main risks then that it will bomb civilians. I think the Chinese wouldnt mind that risk.
If you don't have a cockpit, you could build a much-much better plane... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that in the next 10-20 years everyone will have manned planes, but if I would be the in power I would push for umanned planes instead of 6th gen manned fighters
Because I've been a computer engineer, I have witnessed enough "AI winters" to have become a bit cynical about the reliability of such a system. As we were saying in the previous century, GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out) is a guaranteed result.
For a quite well written treatment of this topic, I refer to Daniel Suarez's "Kill decision", where he details a quite unscrupulous approach to battle drones. For the next years, I foresee every military using remote-controlled drones, and the "AI" taking over at the final approach to a target, after the human controller gives the attack command.
If you want to deny an area to everyone (area denial), an autonomous drone system is a way (you cannot be 100% sure about friendly fire incidents, never mind cases like Russians wearing blue armbands etc)
Also, removing a cockpit doesn't lead necessarily to a better aircraft. It surely will lead to a more pricier aircraft. You see, if you design your jet fighter to withstand 9-10 g of continuous acceleration, every part will need to be able to survive these forces and accelerations (structural parts, integrated circuits, sensors, valves, hydraulic systems, everything).
If you want to design a brand new unmanned jet fighter able to fight at 15 g's, you would have to develop and certify everything from the ground up, to be able to survive at such punishing forces. The development costs would be prohibitive, and it would be cheaper to have a human pilot ride on the jet fighter and have the situational awareness and the ability to make decisions autonomously, even in a heavily jammed environment
That is true, but you don`t have to build it for 15g if it doesn`t offer any real advantage (I have no clue in which situations would be better a 15g capable plane than a 9g capable one)
What I had in mind as an advantage is stealth. I am no aeronautical engineer, so of course I don`t see the pig picture, but in the book "Skunk Works" the ex-director of Skunk Works writes a lot on the design challenges of the U2. One of the toughest challenge when decreasing the radar cross section of the plane was the cockpit. It has to fit there, so screws up the overall shape, plus you have to use see through materials which also increasing the cross section.
Also, as I suspect, the better situational awareness of a pilot matters the most in dogfight-like situations. Which is not expected to happen in the case of e.g. the F35, because the plan is to shoot down the enemy plane before it gets into the visible range.
I think you are speaking about the F-117, the U-2 project didn't have much about the radar stealth (and with these HUGE wings, no chance of not shining brightly on radar).
As I haven't read that particular book, I cannot comment on the cockpit story
I think by now we can safely conclude that anything that, at peacetime, is considered "too risky", unethical, prohibited by multiple conventions, feared by sci-fi authors, etc, etc, at wartime will be developed and used as soon as possible. Existential threats simply remove such considerations from the equation, unless there is any real deterrence (e.g. MAD for nukes).
So, it probably depends on whether these "advanced militaries" feel threatened enough to start developing proper combat AI before someone else (with enough resources and less moral principles) does. I suspect someone is developing it already (silently, of course).
1. No. A drone with the same size, performance, range and payload of a manned jet is going on cost almost as much. While having a computer brain that's not nearly as adaptive as a human one.
Maybe in a few decades.... MAYBE.
Besides, CCA is coming along and it'll give every F-47 2-4 little robot wingmen who'll serve as SAM/AAM bait or as extra strike platforms.
Plus, modern missiles pull 30-50gs. You MIGHT get a drone jet to pull 10-12gs but even modern manned ones can get to 9+GS. Still, you're not out turning a missile as you're bigger airframe can't pull as hard as a 127mm or 200mm rocket powered tube.
2. Doesn't matter, the F-47 wouldn't even be available to export before 2050 at the earliest. It'll probably never be cleared for export, at least in the version the USAF gets.
Russia has shown that bombers and attack aircraft matter for delivering massive ordinance, but Ukraine is showing UAVs will win - especially once AI is better than fighter pilots and can replicate itself effortlessly.
you are a great guy, it is grand what a vbig thing a little AI makes out of your knowledge: Corporate Influence and Misaligned Priorities The key issue lies not in what military forces require, but in what the CEOs of leading defense corporations believe politicians should spend taxpayer money on. The results? Often, instead of delivering as promised, projects end up being massively overpriced and riddled with flaws. A stark example of this is the F-35 program, which has faced significant delays, cost overruns, and persistent technical issues, despite the initial grand promises.
From Needs to Offers – An Inverted Relationship Traditionally, one would expect the armed forces to dictate their needs to the defense industry. Yet, in reality, it often works the other way around. Corporations propose advanced systems they believe they can develop, market them aggressively, and then pressure armed forces into purchasing these systems. The justification often used? Job creation. However, this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny when many of these corporations outsource production to other countries, prioritizing cost-cutting over local employment.
The Revolving Door: A Conflict of Interests Another troubling dynamic is the revolving door between military leadership and the defense industry. High-ranking officials in the armed forces frequently retire into lucrative positions within the very corporations or think tanks they collaborated with during their service. This creates a conflict of interest, as these officials may feel pressured to modify military requirements to align with industry capabilities, knowing it could influence their future career prospects. This cozy relationship between the military, corporations, and policymakers undermines transparency and accountability.
The Challenge of Defining Military Requirements The complexity of modern technology exacerbates the situation. High-tech advancements are so sophisticated that even military organizations often struggle to anticipate what they might need for future conflicts. This is particularly evident in Western nations, where most armed forces haven’t faced a peer adversary in nearly 80 years. Without real-world experience, military planners are left grappling with abstract theories, guided by advisors whose expertise often revolves around reiterating secondhand analyses rather than providing actionable insights.
Facing Future Threats: Blind Spots This lack of practical experience has led to significant blind spots in Western defense planning. If a major conflict were to arise against a formidable adversary like China or Russia, military organizations would likely find themselves unprepared, both in terms of strategy and capability. The uncertainty around future warfare needs provides fertile ground for the defense industry to step in with speculative, and often exaggerated, solutions that may or may not address the actual threats.
The Role of the Industry: Masters of Marketing Defense corporations might not have a clear understanding of future combat requirements, but they excel in marketing and lobbying. They skillfully navigate political systems, securing funding for projects by appealing to national pride, economic benefits, or the promise of cutting-edge technology. However, this emphasis on advertising and influence often overshadows the need for practical, effective solutions that genuinely enhance national security.
The Ethical and Economic Dilemmas The prioritization of corporate profits over genuine defense needs raises ethical concerns. Taxpayer money is funneled into programs that might not deliver the promised outcomes, while the broader economic justification of job creation is undermined by outsourcing practices. This misalignment of priorities highlights a deeper systemic issue: the defense industry’s goals do not always align with those of national security.
The Path Forward: A Call for Reform Addressing these challenges requires structural reforms that emphasize accountability and transparency. Policymakers must establish clearer boundaries between military organizations and the defense industry to ensure that decisions are based on strategic needs rather than corporate interests. Greater oversight is needed to prevent conflicts of interest and to hold corporations accountable for their promises. Additionally, investments in independent research and development could help military forces define their needs without relying so heavily on industry-driven solutions.
Conclusion The current state of affairs in the defense industry reflects a complex interplay of technological uncertainty, corporate influence, and political dynamics. Without significant changes, there is a risk that national security will remain secondary to economic incentives and personal career ambitions. By prioritizing transparency, innovation, and accountability, it is possible to create a more balanced system that truly serves the interests of national and global security.
"Right now, it doesn’t look like Ukraine might ever ‘get’ something of this kind from the USA"
Well, knowing Boing and the speed of such productions, the war needs to go on for another decade or two that this jet is becoming operational. Hence, you are not really leaning out of the window with that statement.
"the entire humanity is a system of systems, with lots of sub-systems" - that's what Systems theory, Systems thinking and Systems science are about. E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_thinking
Thx. Wasn't aware of the systems theory, nor of it being considered a sort of science.
I'd be remiss in not mentioning https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemantics
Quote:”How much is this true is hard to gauge“
Says it all.. these days. And not just wrt the F-47.
Thank you so very much, Tom.
Before I ‘got out’ of corporate life I was a big advocate of systems thinking, not popular though as it was far easier to ‘sell’ a specific programme to ‘fix this and and this’ usually created by the previous programme. Much more money in that than trying to actually understand the interrelationship of multiple processes, find the actual problem and resolve it. Because that’s probably a lot less sexy (and profitable).
Not a day goes by where I don't experience a bug in Microsoft, Google, Facebook, etc. software. Sure, it's not always a bug. Often it's just a feature buried in the bug tracker which no committee can move forward. How am I to believe the software developed by Boeing is any better? It doesn't matter how much I, or anyone, complain to these software companies. The bugs don't go away. Why, again, would that be any different between the Air Force and Boeing?
Has anything with Google or Microsoft software improved in 15 years? Seriously.
It isn't about money, IMO. If ONLY that were the problem!!!! The problem is non-technical management. Managing (not fixing) problems is their job. It only changes to fixing when the body bags arrive. This is the history of all military tech in my head.
Then there's the "new tech" managers. Those who build new things instead of managing problems. Musk is exhibit A. He forced early decisions about Starship which will mean it never flies (IMO). Methane, Stainless Steel, 33 engines, erector set processes.
50% for F-35s. Starships that don't put anything into orbit. No flying cars! Israel pathetically bombing the same ant-hill with all the might the U.S. has to offer. Ukraine, where U.S. high tech goes to save the day and months later forgotten.
Why didn't those guys use secure software to talk about Yemen. This is what the media won't report. Because IT IS OLD AND IT SUCKS!
> Why didn't those guys use secure software to talk about Yemen.
Not supposed to use software. Supposed to use a SCIF.
The bureaucracy exists in order to ensure that lessons learned in the past will be heeded in future administrations.
Whatever individuals had the temerity to insist that meetings dealing with highly sensitive classified information be held in a SCIF were surely fired or sidelined.
The administration doesn’t heed the bureaucracy because they perceive the bureaucracy as constraining the will of the executive. They insist on relearning lessons which were learned long ago.
Agree, but those lessons won't be relearned until the U.S. is fighting a peer adversary. Until then, every day will be a new bottom ;)
May not be long before the US's peers are the likes of Tuvalu, what with the way Trump is dismembering our republic.
Had to look Tuvalu up. Are you researching a good place to watch the war between the U.S. and China? If so, think you've found it ;) I hope you give your readers a visit me discount!
It's not about software or specific security technologies. This is a circus for a Presidential Administration with clowns for officials starting with the Orange haired one. Stephen King's evil clown, "Pennywise," is a saint compared with #47, et. al. Gawd help us ... Gawd help us all.
Yes but fighting a peer is a 'do it or be done trial' and the consequences are heavy and deadly.
Yes, this would rally the US but hopefully it won't be necessary
In defense of Signal, I don’t think a software has been invented that is impervious to the antics of idiots.
Ukraine shows that the technological advantage might be overhyped. It makes no difference that your weapons are superior, if you do not have enough to push back another human wave...
"Quantity has its own quality", as comrade Stalin is rumored to have said...
It was Sun Tzu
Hi Tom!
Regarding the number 47: according to the Neapolitan smorfia (sort of a table which is used to map dreamt objects into numbers, which are then used to play Lotto) the number 47 is associated to the DEAD MAN / DEATH.
See here: https://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_smorfia
And here: https://www.superenalotto.net/en/la-smorfia
Fun fact 🫢
Greetings from Stefano, it's always instructive to read you!
Indeed it is 47 talking dead. But when we talk about Trump I understand 47 is the IQ, right?
Note, Portugal hasn't ordered a single F-35 and the oft quoted minister might not been be in government after the upcoming Portuguese elections. Another silly media “controversy”.
As for the F-35 as a whole, the jet has maybe 1-2 possible customers left in the EU and 1-2 left in the world after that, at least for the next ~15 years.
You mean, the story is similar to the (contemporary Austrian MOD) Darabos 'cancelling' the EF-2000 order?
...which then turned out he can't cancel, but can subvert so much, the jets became near-useless?
Just a small addition:
Darabos that spineless and shameless politician without any self respect, who just did everything to make his dream come true to become Governor, only to be surpassed on the last few 'meters'.
One of the few cases, which makes me think, that sometimes some sort of justice still exists. 😁
I loved the Norman Polmar book on Cold war submarines, the final thought was that the Russian's could catch up as they had competing design bureaus with three plus 3rd gen designs...like Sierra, Mike Akula...VS the imp Los Angeles class...well after decades we see the same patterns... e.g. like the F35 we see overpriced programs - calling out that F35 is a Jack of all trades - but surprisingly Chinese Military is still running multiple 6 gen designs - I know that the development costs are extremely high but seeing that after the 4gen fighters (a dozen types and modifications at 4+) having only F35 remaining at 5th gen (F22 has limited number and also limited reliability) for the western block is like someone saying back in early 80s that F16 is all we need ;-) ...it is great until a near peer conflict - US programs are really getting to be monsters with so much cost & Time overruns - putting the West at a disadvantage...
...and, to make sure: back in the early 1980s, somebody in the USAF run a study calculating that in the case of a war with the WP, F-15s would score something like (from memory) 700:1.
A general in charge at the time reacted by requesting the person in question to shelve that study, because it would mean USAF-E (USAF in Europe) would need only 2 F-15s...
At that time - early 80s US had everything - relevant Intel from Russian engineer from Fazotron, áll force multipliers like largest AWACS fleet etc...I was small kid and could not access too much ín Hungary - like Soviet Military Power books ... although ín retrospective they were indeed hype / over estimated Soviet capabilites deliberately - now I think ín some respect underestimate the combo of Russian experience and Chinese capabilites - they have no global force projection but the closer the US Will engage the Chinese to the Chinese homeland then a protracted war Will be with Time more and more risky - same Way Ukraine with Russia - you do not bog down with Russians and certainly do not provide them time to adapt...
I have two questions:
1. Are front line manned fighter aircraft going to be obsolete by 2030, replaced by cheaper drones that have capabilities that the human body can't withstand; and
2. Since no country that likes it's independence is going to be buying high end military kit from the US, won't that push the costs to US taxpayers for the F-47 much higher because there will be no offset from profits from foreign sales?
Essentially,
1.) Yes, and
2.) yes, of course.
It's going to be much more expensive (for the US taxpayers) to R&D the F-47, than this was the case with the F-35. Even more so because back during the R&D of the F-35, the USA still had a semi-functional administration - including the General Accounting Office, which was checking the spending....
But then, that's precisely what such like Musk want to have: the taxpayers to pay, without any rights to ask for what and how much.
1) I don't think that the advanced militaries will stop having manned jet fighters in the next decade. Despite their limitations (g-limits etc), a pilot can have a better situational awareness than today's remotely controlled drones. Developing an AI system which can have combat awareness *and* be permitted to apply lethal force without a human in the loop would be an extremely risky move.
And remote control requires your jet fighter has a data connection to the human controller - if the signals are jammed, you have a BIG problem (while the manned fighter can still operate and fight in an environment without comms)
2) Most probable. Not that this will preclude the US administration to spend more money on this system. My suspicion is that it won't be a dogfighter like the F-22, though, but a quite different system, so these might coexist.
I'm not sure. I mean the AI could be a backup to the remote controlling. If it is over enemy territory and is jammed, the AI takes over. The main risks then that it will bomb civilians. I think the Chinese wouldnt mind that risk.
If you don't have a cockpit, you could build a much-much better plane... Don't get me wrong, I'm sure that in the next 10-20 years everyone will have manned planes, but if I would be the in power I would push for umanned planes instead of 6th gen manned fighters
Because I've been a computer engineer, I have witnessed enough "AI winters" to have become a bit cynical about the reliability of such a system. As we were saying in the previous century, GIGO (Garbage-In, Garbage-Out) is a guaranteed result.
For a quite well written treatment of this topic, I refer to Daniel Suarez's "Kill decision", where he details a quite unscrupulous approach to battle drones. For the next years, I foresee every military using remote-controlled drones, and the "AI" taking over at the final approach to a target, after the human controller gives the attack command.
If you want to deny an area to everyone (area denial), an autonomous drone system is a way (you cannot be 100% sure about friendly fire incidents, never mind cases like Russians wearing blue armbands etc)
Yep
Also, removing a cockpit doesn't lead necessarily to a better aircraft. It surely will lead to a more pricier aircraft. You see, if you design your jet fighter to withstand 9-10 g of continuous acceleration, every part will need to be able to survive these forces and accelerations (structural parts, integrated circuits, sensors, valves, hydraulic systems, everything).
If you want to design a brand new unmanned jet fighter able to fight at 15 g's, you would have to develop and certify everything from the ground up, to be able to survive at such punishing forces. The development costs would be prohibitive, and it would be cheaper to have a human pilot ride on the jet fighter and have the situational awareness and the ability to make decisions autonomously, even in a heavily jammed environment
That is true, but you don`t have to build it for 15g if it doesn`t offer any real advantage (I have no clue in which situations would be better a 15g capable plane than a 9g capable one)
What I had in mind as an advantage is stealth. I am no aeronautical engineer, so of course I don`t see the pig picture, but in the book "Skunk Works" the ex-director of Skunk Works writes a lot on the design challenges of the U2. One of the toughest challenge when decreasing the radar cross section of the plane was the cockpit. It has to fit there, so screws up the overall shape, plus you have to use see through materials which also increasing the cross section.
Also, as I suspect, the better situational awareness of a pilot matters the most in dogfight-like situations. Which is not expected to happen in the case of e.g. the F35, because the plan is to shoot down the enemy plane before it gets into the visible range.
I think you are speaking about the F-117, the U-2 project didn't have much about the radar stealth (and with these HUGE wings, no chance of not shining brightly on radar).
As I haven't read that particular book, I cannot comment on the cockpit story
There are glass treatments that actually act as RAM or even just distributed camera arrays that mimic a canopy.
Plus modern AAMs can pull 30+ GS and modern SAM are probably pulling 20+ GS all day.
I think by now we can safely conclude that anything that, at peacetime, is considered "too risky", unethical, prohibited by multiple conventions, feared by sci-fi authors, etc, etc, at wartime will be developed and used as soon as possible. Existential threats simply remove such considerations from the equation, unless there is any real deterrence (e.g. MAD for nukes).
So, it probably depends on whether these "advanced militaries" feel threatened enough to start developing proper combat AI before someone else (with enough resources and less moral principles) does. I suspect someone is developing it already (silently, of course).
Absolutely. It is 100% that China is working on it right now. Russia as well, altough they probably lack the know-how to succeed.
Dogfighting is a 20th century relic. The F-47 might not even have a canon, as the J-20 doesn't.
Bullets are so much cheaper than advanced missiles, these might still have a place (eg anti-drone missions, like the F-16s in Ukraine these days)
1. No. A drone with the same size, performance, range and payload of a manned jet is going on cost almost as much. While having a computer brain that's not nearly as adaptive as a human one.
Maybe in a few decades.... MAYBE.
Besides, CCA is coming along and it'll give every F-47 2-4 little robot wingmen who'll serve as SAM/AAM bait or as extra strike platforms.
Plus, modern missiles pull 30-50gs. You MIGHT get a drone jet to pull 10-12gs but even modern manned ones can get to 9+GS. Still, you're not out turning a missile as you're bigger airframe can't pull as hard as a 127mm or 200mm rocket powered tube.
2. Doesn't matter, the F-47 wouldn't even be available to export before 2050 at the earliest. It'll probably never be cleared for export, at least in the version the USAF gets.
The last three paragraphs are the story!
Russia has shown that bombers and attack aircraft matter for delivering massive ordinance, but Ukraine is showing UAVs will win - especially once AI is better than fighter pilots and can replicate itself effortlessly.
I doubt that the AI software will be permitted to make a kill decision without a human in the loop - and that requires functioning data communication.
It has already happened, and every rule goes out the window during war.
The only interesting question in AI is whether we would wish a world where AI always obeys or one where AI can for its own opinions.
Much harder question than it appears
Great info!
"and there are about 2.85 million explanations”
I don’t know about the 2.85 million figure, but I suspect there are many more excuses than F-35’s in circulation.
you are a great guy, it is grand what a vbig thing a little AI makes out of your knowledge: Corporate Influence and Misaligned Priorities The key issue lies not in what military forces require, but in what the CEOs of leading defense corporations believe politicians should spend taxpayer money on. The results? Often, instead of delivering as promised, projects end up being massively overpriced and riddled with flaws. A stark example of this is the F-35 program, which has faced significant delays, cost overruns, and persistent technical issues, despite the initial grand promises.
From Needs to Offers – An Inverted Relationship Traditionally, one would expect the armed forces to dictate their needs to the defense industry. Yet, in reality, it often works the other way around. Corporations propose advanced systems they believe they can develop, market them aggressively, and then pressure armed forces into purchasing these systems. The justification often used? Job creation. However, this argument doesn’t hold up under scrutiny when many of these corporations outsource production to other countries, prioritizing cost-cutting over local employment.
The Revolving Door: A Conflict of Interests Another troubling dynamic is the revolving door between military leadership and the defense industry. High-ranking officials in the armed forces frequently retire into lucrative positions within the very corporations or think tanks they collaborated with during their service. This creates a conflict of interest, as these officials may feel pressured to modify military requirements to align with industry capabilities, knowing it could influence their future career prospects. This cozy relationship between the military, corporations, and policymakers undermines transparency and accountability.
The Challenge of Defining Military Requirements The complexity of modern technology exacerbates the situation. High-tech advancements are so sophisticated that even military organizations often struggle to anticipate what they might need for future conflicts. This is particularly evident in Western nations, where most armed forces haven’t faced a peer adversary in nearly 80 years. Without real-world experience, military planners are left grappling with abstract theories, guided by advisors whose expertise often revolves around reiterating secondhand analyses rather than providing actionable insights.
Facing Future Threats: Blind Spots This lack of practical experience has led to significant blind spots in Western defense planning. If a major conflict were to arise against a formidable adversary like China or Russia, military organizations would likely find themselves unprepared, both in terms of strategy and capability. The uncertainty around future warfare needs provides fertile ground for the defense industry to step in with speculative, and often exaggerated, solutions that may or may not address the actual threats.
The Role of the Industry: Masters of Marketing Defense corporations might not have a clear understanding of future combat requirements, but they excel in marketing and lobbying. They skillfully navigate political systems, securing funding for projects by appealing to national pride, economic benefits, or the promise of cutting-edge technology. However, this emphasis on advertising and influence often overshadows the need for practical, effective solutions that genuinely enhance national security.
The Ethical and Economic Dilemmas The prioritization of corporate profits over genuine defense needs raises ethical concerns. Taxpayer money is funneled into programs that might not deliver the promised outcomes, while the broader economic justification of job creation is undermined by outsourcing practices. This misalignment of priorities highlights a deeper systemic issue: the defense industry’s goals do not always align with those of national security.
The Path Forward: A Call for Reform Addressing these challenges requires structural reforms that emphasize accountability and transparency. Policymakers must establish clearer boundaries between military organizations and the defense industry to ensure that decisions are based on strategic needs rather than corporate interests. Greater oversight is needed to prevent conflicts of interest and to hold corporations accountable for their promises. Additionally, investments in independent research and development could help military forces define their needs without relying so heavily on industry-driven solutions.
Conclusion The current state of affairs in the defense industry reflects a complex interplay of technological uncertainty, corporate influence, and political dynamics. Without significant changes, there is a risk that national security will remain secondary to economic incentives and personal career ambitions. By prioritizing transparency, innovation, and accountability, it is possible to create a more balanced system that truly serves the interests of national and global security.
"...and then amaze everybody with its next TV-show…"
Aboslutely best line ever.
"Right now, it doesn’t look like Ukraine might ever ‘get’ something of this kind from the USA"
Well, knowing Boing and the speed of such productions, the war needs to go on for another decade or two that this jet is becoming operational. Hence, you are not really leaning out of the window with that statement.
Sure. 'But', 'must warn' readers that 'even if', this is irrelevant for the ongoing war.