greedo

Brahmos isn't an A2A missile...

Not to argue with most of your points (which I agree with), but the F-35 is really meant to be more of a fighter-bomber than a true air-superiority fighter. It's not really in the same class as F-22/J-20/Su-30/F-15EX kinematically, and that's fine because counter-air really isn't its role.

Can't agree more with this recommendation. As a long time Apple user (Apple ][c back in 1984 started my journey), I thought I knew a lot about Apple. But how they actually made the iPhone work was just an amazing read.

The way Apple funded hardware purchases for their "OEM" manufacturers makes it hard to really say they were "capital-light."

DDG-X is dead.

Air dropping was never part of the requirement. It would have been a "nice to have" but not required.

There was no way we were going to be able to take a base model FREMM and use it in the USN without substantial modifications. The Navy screwed up in how they sold this to Congress, and things like wanting to use smaller shipyards for political and logistical reasons doomed it.

The idea that China would lose 10k fighters when we barely have enough AAMs and aircraft in comparison is silly. The days of F-22s clubbing baby seals is long past.

The US just blew through a large percentage of its PAC-3/PAC-2 inventory fighting Iran. Other than Patriot, the US doesn't really have much GBAD anymore. A few Avenger systems, some Stinger MANPADs, etc. It's either Patriot or THAAD; and hopefully they're not dumb enough to be using THAAD against drones.

I'm sure they burned through quite a few AMRAAM and Sidewinders doing intercepts as well. Patriot is much more expensive than $1M (try $4M), Stinger is around 250K depending on who the customer is ($750K if you're non-US). AMRAAM is over $1M, Sidewinders $500K.

Even APKWS is $40k, and Shaheed prices are around $30k? So even that low cost option is losing.

Yes, APKWS is a good solution, but it really wasn't used much for C-UAS before VAMPIRE was shipped to Ukraine.

Which has roots that can be traced to the V-1.

Hah. Ukraine has cut Russian petroleum production 40%...

$1.7 trillion over 70 years. So $24B/year.

Not necessarily worse, just different design philosophies. German design philosophies changed throughout the course of the war too.

And people don't really know much about the tanks the Germans were using in France and in Barbarossa. The Pz 2 was used extensively in Barbarossa and it was intended as a training tank! The Pz 3 was woefully underarmed compared to T-34 and god forbid come up against a KV1.

But at the end of the war, the Panther was one of the best tanks on the battlefield. Good crew ergonomics, a gun that was perfect, optics that allowed it to be used well. Comparing that to even a Firefly Sherman? Not a fair fight.

They actually did standardize pretty quickly. Panzer III and Panzer IV were the workhorses in Russia, paired up with the StuG (which used the Pz III chassis). I think that it's arguable that no production strategy could have led to German success. Had they tried to produce T-34 or Sherman type tanks (and the Panther was kind of intended to be that tank), they still would have been overwhelmed by the sheer number of tanks built buy the Allies. The Soviets at their peak year produced over 29K tanks, with the US contributing around 21K. The Germans maxed out at around 8k.

IMHO, the Soviets alone could have eventually defeated Germany, thought at much greater cost (as if over 20m casualties wasn't already incredible).

While Iran has faired better than I expected, it's a reach to say they've punished the US. The US losses are comically small. Of course wars aren't won solely based on battles...

You are aware that China is producing two fifth gen stealth fighters, and is flight testing two sixth gen platforms? And that Chinese AAMs are world class? Read up on how Pakistan crushed the Indian Air Force recently flying fourth gen Chinese fighters using their current AAMs.

The days of China manufacturing cheap junk is long past. These same arguments were made against Japan. Look at a BYD EV and it will have a fit and finish comparable to any US manufacturer. In aviation, they're catching up quickly to the US, and are arguably ahead of Europe and Russia.

I can't see the interceptor burn through being so low. Doctrine is 2-4 missiles per ballistic target. I've know the OSINT kids have a hard time with something like this since it's all classified and compared to Ukraine much harder to get visual confirmation, but I suspect Patriot use much higher. Hopefully the US has been using more of the PAC-2 than PAC-3 but they may have not been that discreet.

Take a peek at last year's budget for missile production. It's amazingly small, and the production capacity is limited as well. RTX makes both Patriot and SM2/3 missiles, and production is so low that the Navy is going to be using the Patriot in its VLS launchers.

Lockheed makes THAAD, around 100/year. That's nothing. A veritable drop in the bucket.

PAC-3 production MIGHT hit 650 this year, with a goal of 2000 per annum by 2033!!!

SM-6 is about 300/year, and they're hoping to get to 500/year by roughly the same timeframe.

SM-3 is even lower at maybe 75/year. The USN has just never prioritized filling their weapons magazines.

It's hard to know what missiles were expended in the current Iran War, but you can figure out how many were purchased over the years since it's public info. Then subtract what's been used for training, fighting the Houthis in Yemen etc.

Before the war started, total purchases of all PAC-3 were approximately 2500. Some of these were used in training, some donated to Ukraine, and some were part of FMS.

Approximately 500 SM-3 missiles have been delivered. Approximately 1100 SM-6 missiles have been delivered.The majority of both the SM-3 and SM-6 are used by the USN, though some allies have made small purchases of both.

Unclassified estimates have Iran launching over 3000 ballistic missiles and 4500 drones. US policy for BMs is two missiles each. Not all of these would have been engaged by the US (Israeli systems such as Arrow etc would be tasked with missiles targeting Israel, though Israel also has Patriot through FMS). But it's easy to see where 3000 to 4000 interceptor missiles could have been consumed.

Now add in what the USN burned through in the Red Sea when the Houthis started targeting shipping and it's easy to be concerned about magazine depth.

And this is just interceptors. It doesn't count Tomahawks, JAASM, etc.

If the carrier is aware of the overflight (and I assume the USN isn't run by complete idiots), it can adjust course after the overflight. And at 30 knots, can be 100s of miles away from its initial location when the satellite returns.

Now satellite constellations make it harder, since their numbers limit this strategy. But currently, none of the know systems utilize SAR like the LEO satellites, so they wouldn't function well in bad weather. They'd have to rely on optics which can be severely degraded.

First Sea Lord Admiral Wilson famously called submarines "underhanded, unfair, and damned un-English." Yet this didn't prevent the RN from purchasing submarines from the US in 1901, far earlier than most other industrial nations.

F-35s have done pretty well in both Israeli and US hands against the Russian supplied SAM systems.

And if these vaunted Russian IADs can't stop Ukrainian drones with a RCS the size of a barn, they stand little chance against a stealth fighter.

They're still flying SU-27 frequently, and those weren't replaced by donations.

Such nonsense. The EU may be supplying Ukraine with some munitions etc, but if NATO was actively involved, the war would have been over in a year; either conventionally or via nuclear weapons.

The F-35C has greater range than the F/A-18 Super Hornet, the F-16, and the F-22. It's only exceeded by the F-35A and the F-15EX. And "no fighter/interceptor split"? What does that even mean? The USAF hasn't had a true interceptor since the F-106 was retired.

The F-35 achieved exactly what was written on the tin. To be a stealthy replacement for the F-16, A-7, and AV-8B.

The fact that the USN doesn't have a long-legged air superiority fighter has nothing to do with the F-35, and the USAF never considered China as a concern when the ATF requirements were issued (that became the F-22).

F-35 can fly more than once...

Take a gander at how much SpaceX has benefited from government contracts. And for Anduril, well the phrase "all hat, no cattle" is pretty appropriate. In all my years I've never seen so much hype for a company that really hasn't produced much.

The Booker was a perfect fit for the Army reqs, and filled a genuine need. But it didn't have a sponsor that was willing to pay for it. The Armor Branch didn't like it, and the Infantry Branch, which is the real user couldn't muster enough support in the DoD.

The Connie is a good ship and the two under contract will be fine vessels when they're commissioned. Frigates are no longer "cheap" ships, and the sticker shock was higher than expected despite the obvious changes that were going to be made to the FREMM design. But it's cancellation has more to do with dysfunction at the top of the Navy (and DoD) then the program of record.

Also, you're overestimating the flight hour costs of the F-35. Even the B model doesn't hit $50k. The other variants are closer to $35k/hour (adjusted for inflation) than $50K.

Deleting email to free up space has to be the most ridiculous justification for burning up the environment.

Wow! What state is this in?