Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Runaway thread from the original topic but what the hell I'll take a swing.
Drones have a lot of potential with range (until recently, many drones were being flown over Afghanistan by operators located in Iraq - think about who's airspace you had to cross for that one) and yes you can hotseat swap operators.
Andrew, I think you are severely overestimating the size and capabilities of the platforms to serve outside of their current role. Most of the drones have engines not much bigger than pushing lawn mowers and they operate at very slow speeds compared to aircraft (80-100 knots) which is what allows them to loiter for so long on 3-4liters of fuel. The airframes themselves can carry 0-4 missiles because the recoil is viritually nonexistent but try mounting a .50cal or more likely a 20-30mm cannon and you begin to experience issues with not only recoil, but you have to carry more fuel to carry the weight of the weapons and ammo, or upgrade the engine adding more weight and thus requiring changes to the airframe. (This isn't a CoD Reaper where you get 20 shots over a 30 second period...limitations apply). I think that providing current intelligence on both stationary and moving targets with their limited strike capabilites is a perfect role for the drones. I'm sure experiments will ensue to push their roles to encompass more but I am all for leaving things such as CAS to actual aviators.
The slow speeds of the drones make them susceptable to ground fire as opposed to an F-16 coming in at 3-400mph and as an infantryman I would much rather have a controller talking to a pilot lining up gun runs in which instant feedback can be given and locations positively identified than relaying communications through the drone back to the operator. Now instead of talking directly to the platform about to put a lot of firepower very close I have to talk to the drone which then relays to the operators and back. Lag and more opportunities for comm breaks down would make me extremely nervous about unmanned CAS. True there have been instances of pilots becoming target fixated and burrowing their noses in the ground (MAJ Troy Gilbert, 2006) but the frequency in which that happens compared to the number of CAS missions flown put the odds in favor. Besides, I've personally helped recover more drones that have crashed due to engines seizures or lost signals than aircraft.
Just my .02 about drones vs pilots in a CAS role
Outdated aircraft info for some of the earlier arguments.
A-10 is the Army's CAS platform, most of the other aircraft discussed are members of the Air Force
I've seen F-16s more often than 18s but I've only seen CAS a few times. More often than not we had CCA from AH-64s (Apaches) or OH-58(Kiowas). Cobras are extremely outdated and predate the Apaches which are already on their 'D' models. We have been selling F-14s,15s,and even older 16s to allies such as Israel and Kuwait. Most of the C-130H that I jump out of are older than I am and are all held together with bubblegum, paperclips and rubber bands. If you think the F-35 is a waste of money do some reading on the Army's attempted Comanche program. Military planners are spending money on the F-35 because they are looking at aircraft that will be relevent in the next 20-30 years. They are doing the same think with armored transportation vehicles and tanks. You will probably see the M1A1 Abrams replacements talks coming out soon because despite it being one of the best, there are better tanks out there right now (I'm looking at you Leopard II).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/30 18:01:24
Andrew1975 wrote:The amount of graft in the defense industry is ridiculous. The F-35 is at I believe 3 trillion dollars and the plane is garbage, it has failed almost every test, the thing can't even land on a carrier!
Really? Then what's this F-35B doing?
I know this is not a true carrier but to say it can't land on one is a falsehood.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:A predator weighs more than a p-51 and they carried 6 50's without any issues.
A loaded Predator weighs like 1/5 of what a loaded Mustang weighs.
Plus the P-51 was designed to carry the 6 .50 cals in the wings. You'd have to do a major redesign of the predator's wings to do the same.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 18:41:04
Solve a man's problem with violence and help him for a day. Teach a man how to solve his problems with violence, help him for a lifetime - Belkar Bitterleaf
NightChild wrote:Runaway thread from the original topic but what the hell I'll take a swing.
Drones have a lot of potential with range (until recently, many drones were being flown over Afghanistan by operators located in Iraq - think about who's airspace you had to cross for that one) and yes you can hotseat swap operators.
No.
Andrew, I think you are severely overestimating the size and capabilities of the platforms to serve outside of their current role. Most of the drones have engines not much bigger than pushing lawn mowers and they operate at very slow speeds compared to aircraft (80-100 knots) which is what allows them to loiter for so long on 3-4liters of fuel.
This applies to a very narrow field of Tactical UAVs that will never be even considered for CAS roles, the are strictly ISR platforms. I'm also assuming you mean 3-4 liters per hour not total load.
Outdated aircraft info for some of the earlier arguments.
A-10 is the Army's CAS platform, most of the other aircraft discussed are members of the Air Force
I've seen F-16s more often than 18s but I've only seen CAS a few times.
the A-10 is not and has never been an Army airplane.
You will probably see the M1A1 Abrams replacements talks coming out soon because despite it being one of the best, there are better tanks out there right now (I'm looking at you Leopard II).
The M1 and Leopard II share a common ancestry and are essentially two branches of the same tree, although along the way the now manage to have almost no parts commonality. The M1A3 promises to be a robust upgrade to the Abrams lineage in the way the still untested Leo II A7s were for the Leo II line. There seems to be no other proposals on the horizon for a total replacement MBT.
Zathras wrote:
Andrew1975 wrote:The amount of graft in the defense industry is ridiculous. The F-35 is at I believe 3 trillion dollars and the plane is garbage, it has failed almost every test, the thing can't even land on a carrier!
Really? Then what's this F-35B doing?
I know this is not a true carrier but to say it can't land on one is a falsehood.
I believe he meant a conventional landing by the C model. The Vertical landing or assisted short landing is being pitched as a fix to a problem a carrier borne airplane shouldn't have...landing on the bloody carrier it was supposed to be designed for.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 18:53:02
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
NightChild wrote:
Most of the C-130H that I jump out of are older than I am and are all held together with bubblegum, paperclips and rubber bands. If you think the F-35 is a waste of money do some reading on the Army's attempted Comanche program. Military planners are spending money on the F-35 because they are looking at aircraft that will be relevent in the next 20-30 years. They are doing the same think with armored transportation vehicles and tanks. You will probably see the M1A1 Abrams replacements talks coming out soon because despite it being one of the best, there are better tanks out there right now (I'm looking at you Leopard II).
Man, if only the A-12 hadn't been cancelled, we wouldn't need a Navy JSF C model (Or another multi-year of Super Hornets!) Darn!
It's almost like this kinda thing is more complicated then are making it out to be.
Veriamp wrote:I have emerged from my lurking to say one thing. When Mat taught the Necrons to feel, he taught me to love.
The B-52 did quite well in the CAS role with 5 crew.
This is a strategic bomber, it in no way is good at CAS. You could not have friendly soldiers within 500 yards of the enemy and no one is going to send a b-52 to strike a mechanical, by the time it gets there the mechanical is gone. Besides that the cost to have one loiter over a potential target area are astronomical.
Weight of p-51 7,635 lb
Weight of predator reaper 4,900 lb
Weight of global hawk 8,490 lb
If a p51 could use 6 50. cals then a reaper could theoretically use one with the proper research. It doesn't really have to because the guided munitions work just fine if not better than guns.
Really? Then what's this F-35B doing?
It's taking off and landing vertically, not a capability on most f-35s. If you look at the link I showed it can not land on a regular carrier in the conventional way as the tail hook required does not function.....at all. This was a requirement of the air frame as the naval carrier based f-35 were not meant to be vstol. The marine's want the vstol to replace harriers, for the other roles this equipment is not includes. So yes the marine f-35 can land on a carrier, however the rest on the navy's fleet can not, nor can the f-35's that the Europeans built brand new carriers for. Not to mention that the weight of the vstol equipment severely limits the mission roles that the other f-35 were made for.
The slow speeds of the drones make them susceptable to ground fire as opposed to an F-16 coming
Again I am not advocating replacing f-16's with drones, not yet anyway. I am saying we should not get the super tucano as drones can do that work, better and more efficiently. Even our current helicopters could do that work better.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/01/30 19:41:37
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
NightChild wrote:
Most of the C-130H that I jump out of are older than I am and are all held together with bubblegum, paperclips and rubber bands. If you think the F-35 is a waste of money do some reading on the Army's attempted Comanche program. Military planners are spending money on the F-35 because they are looking at aircraft that will be relevent in the next 20-30 years. They are doing the same think with armored transportation vehicles and tanks. You will probably see the M1A1 Abrams replacements talks coming out soon because despite it being one of the best, there are better tanks out there right now (I'm looking at you Leopard II).
Man, if only the A-12 hadn't been cancelled, we wouldn't need a Navy JSF C model (Or another multi-year of Super Hornets!) Darn!
It's almost like this kinda thing is more complicated then are making it out to be.
Navy procurement, or lack thereof is an issue near and dear to my heart. Refusing to develop and purchase real purpose built replacements for aging airframes and retiring them with only the F-18 to take their place is a mistake of epic proportions, only to be repeated in the F-35. Lost are the dedicated all weather medium bomber, midair refueling of the A-6. Gone is the mach 2 interceptor and air-superiority fighter of the admittedly overly complicated F-14. The F-18 lacks the range and load of the A-6, the speed, range, and turning radius of the F-14. The only mostly worthy replacement was the E/A-18 for the E/A-6. The A-12 wasn't the right plane in the 80's but it started a negative trend of Naval Aviation procurement that has consistently degraded the combat capability of the USN air arm. Sacrificed at the altar of "parts commonality" has been the capability of a tiered offensive and defensive structure. If the F-35 doesn't pan out, which it won't but the US and it's funding partners will force it into service anyway, the only other real answer is to look backwards again.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 19:54:25
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Blasphemy!
Or instead of building new ones we refit the old ones, although supposedly the new Fords are more modular with much larger power budgets, which according to what I've heard is the real reason Enterprise will be retired, not enough electrical power to support another tech upgrade...and being 50+ years old. Which hasn't stopped Foch from continuing to serve but hey who's counting.
I'd rather see the US Carrier fleet reduced in number or moved to conventional power, The LHDs aren't that much smaller than the conventional super carriers and are in fact larger than say the De Gaulle, The Wasps or Americas could be redisgned with a angled deck and a little internal shuffling an voila, carriers much more on par with what the rest of the world is running. The Americas also cost 1/8 of what is cost to build a Ford. More man power intensive but if you have 1/8th the capabilities embarked on each one you can be in more places and group up to multiply combat effectiveness, while waiting for one of the say 6 supercarriers to arrive. Plus by building the LHDs and Conventional carriers on the same plans the shipbuilding industry remains more vitalized and hopefully costs come down.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
Drones can't do all the missions required of a carrier fleet. I've said that many times in the past. They are better at some roles than some aircraft. The idea to purchase, implement and train a whole new fleet of Super Tucanos is ridiculous when we have many other craft including drones than can do the specific role of the tucano much much better and cheaper. It reaks of graft, kickbacks and lack of thought as much as the f-35 does.
The f-35 sucks because it was an attempt to fill every conceivable role with one airframe. It's just not possible at this time and probably never will be to create one airframe and have it excel at any of its roles. Even if it was as good as it was supposed to be, it would still be a massive compromise on many missions. It has major fuel and weapons capacity issues because they just tried to cram too much stuff in it. The fact that it has thus far been pretty much a complete failure while being a incredible money pit only makes it worse.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 20:12:50
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
Well if we spent like the Brazilians...two. But thier epic win on carrier and air wing can't be duplicated in first rate equipment...it's still a laudable goal to be held up by all as a goal.
Avatar 720 wrote: You see, to Auston, everyone is a Death Star; there's only one way you can take it and that's through a small gap at the back.
Powder Burns wrote:what they need to make is a fullsize leatherman, like 14" long folded, with a bone saw, notches for bowstring, signaling flare, electrical hand crank generator, bolt cutters..
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
Drones can't do all the missions required of a carrier fleet. I've said that many times in the past. They are better at some roles than some aircraft. The idea to purchase, implement and train a whole new fleet of Super Tucanos is ridiculous when we have many other craft including drones than can do the specific role of the tucano much much better and cheaper. It reaks of graft, kickbacks and lack of thought as much as the f-35 does.
Besides shooting down other aircraft-what?
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
Drones can't do all the missions required of a carrier fleet. I've said that many times in the past. They are better at some roles than some aircraft. The idea to purchase, implement and train a whole new fleet of Super Tucanos is ridiculous when we have many other craft including drones than can do the specific role of the tucano much much better and cheaper. It reaks of graft, kickbacks and lack of thought as much as the f-35 does.
Besides shooting down other aircraft-what?
Well it depends on the situation. As far as just aircraft, there are plenty of missions that drones just can't do well yet, Fighter, Interceptor, Fleet defense just to name a few. Now the idea of replacing entire naval carrier fleets with drones is impossible, you are talking about removing a major naval concept, you are basically trying to replace the navy with drone aircraft. Not a good idea, not even possible. The carrier fleet is the most powerful expression of military might in existence. Even without aircraft a carrier fleet is a powerful force.
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
A Jpeg that equates the national budget of a country to a family household budget on facebook chain letter? Yeah, thats about the right forum for that trash.
Nationalized budgets are not houeshold budgets. They do nothing similar. They do not collect money in the same way, they do not pay money in the same way, they do not buy the same things, they do not use the same forms of currency or credit. They are different in every single conceivable way and the only reason to equate them is to make a sweeping and utterly uninformed generalization that can play well to brutally uninformed armchair economists on their Gateways.
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Air craft carriers are still very useful.......when you have capable aircraft that can take off and land from them. Those new carriers the Europeans built specifically for the f-35s ........not so much.
Vs. drones...how? Or I should state, for the cost of an aircraft carrier and its escorts, how many drones and support can be acquired?
Drones can't do all the missions required of a carrier fleet. I've said that many times in the past. They are better at some roles than some aircraft. The idea to purchase, implement and train a whole new fleet of Super Tucanos is ridiculous when we have many other craft including drones than can do the specific role of the tucano much much better and cheaper. It reaks of graft, kickbacks and lack of thought as much as the f-35 does.
Besides shooting down other aircraft-what?
Well it depends on the situation. As far as just aircraft, there are plenty of missions that drones just can't do well yet, Fighter, Interceptor, Fleet defense just to name a few. Now the idea of replacing entire naval carrier fleets with drones is impossible, you are talking about removing a major naval concept, you are basically trying to replace the navy with drone aircraft. Not a good idea, not even possible. The carrier fleet is the most powerful expression of military might in existence. Even without aircraft a carrier fleet is a powerful force.
The guys who built battleships had similar arguments.
On a cost basis, how many drones guided missiles can I get for a carrier group? Drones I don't have to worry about. I don't have to worry about the fleet getting sunk by SS missles launched from 3rd world banana dictatorships or more importantly, the Chinese.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
The thing is that the drone missiles (I assume you mean the tomahawk) are launched from carrier fleets. Tomahawks I believe can only hit fixed positions. There is now way to project global power with drones launched from the united states, not yet anyway. That is why you would need drone bases closer to the action and when no one will give you permission for a base.....well that's why you have carriers.
Some people say the day of the carrier is over, but I find it pretty hard to believe. Battleships were replaced by carriers because their ability to project power was better, more versatile and more cost efficient. You would have to find something that can project military power like a Carrier fleet. I just don't see an alternative yet.
You have to remember that just sending a carrier fleet is all that is needed sometimes to stabilize an area. The presence of the fleet alone is enough to bring people to the table. You just can't do that with a fleet of drones. They are just not as menacing unless you are filling the enemies sky's with them, but at that point you have invaded their airspace
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 20:52:12
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:
This is a strategic bomber, it in no way is good at CAS. You could not have friendly soldiers within 500 yards of the enemy and no one is going to send a b-52 to strike a mechanical, by the time it gets there the mechanical is gone.
In a conventional conflict, the B-52 can perform strategic attack, close-air support, air interdiction, offensive counter-air and maritime operations. During Desert Storm, B-52s delivered 40 percent of all the weapons dropped by coalition forces.
The B-52 is also much faster than the helicopters that nominally performed in the CAS role through the 90s and continue to do so today. Again, speed isn't everything.
Also, from Wikipedia, but still:
During Operation Enduring Freedom, the lack of fighter aircraft forced military planners to rely heavily on US bombers, particularly the B-1B Lancer and B52H Stratofortress, to fill the CAS role. Bomber CAS, relying mainly on GPS guided weapons, has evolved into a devastating tactical employment methodology and has changed US doctrinal thinking regarding CAS in general.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Dogma, you can in no way compare the CAS abilities of a B-52 to that of the Tucano. It's not the same mission at all. Yes b-52 dropped a gak ton of ordinance, but you are not going to call it in to take out a technical or two. You are just being ridiculous. Even if you were stupid enough to do that it is far from the most efficient way to do it which is why we were talking about budgets right? Do you have any idea what it would cost to have a b-52 take out a toyota tundra with a 50 cal on it?
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2012/01/30 20:58:53
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Andrew1975 wrote:The thing is that the drone missiles (I assume you mean the tomahawk) are launched from carrier fleets. There is now way to project global power with drones launched from the united states, not yet anyway.
Some people say the day of the carrier is over, but I find it pretty hard to believe. Battleships were replaced by carriers because their ability to project power was better, more versatile and more cost efficient. You would have to find something that can project military power like a Carrier fleet. I just don't see an alternative yet.
You have to remember that just sending a carrier fleet is all that is needed sometimes to stabilize an area. The presence of the fleet alone is enough to bring people to the table. You just can't do that with a fleet of drones. They are just not as menacing unless you are filling the enemies sky's with them, but at that point you have invaded their airspace.
They can also be launched from subs, destroyers, cruisers, and likely those funky new ships if ever developed. One can argue the era of the giant supercarrier is over, or will be over when the first one is sunk. I'm not neceessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, just that we need to reasess the cost/benefit in light of cost, new technologies, and potential loss of life.
Regardless I still believe assault helicopters are still efficacious for a slew of military and non military missions.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Frazzled wrote:
They can also be launched from subs, destroyers, cruisers, and likely those funky new ships if ever developed.
Planes too.
Frazzled wrote:
One can argue the era of the giant supercarrier is over, or will be over when the first one is sunk. I'm not neceessarily agreeing or disagreeing with that statement, just that we need to reasess the cost/benefit in light of cost, new technologies, and potential loss of life.
Cruise missiles are nice, but there is an intrinsic advantage to being able to park an airfield wherever you want.
I suspect we would do away with a number of bases before doing away with carriers, primarily for political reasons.
Life does not cease to be funny when people die any more than it ceases to be serious when people laugh.
Runaway thread from the original topic but what the hell I'll take a swing.
Drones have a lot of potential with range (until recently, many drones were being flown over Afghanistan by operators located in Iraq - think about who's airspace you had to cross for that one) and yes you can hotseat swap operators.
No.
Yes. True story.
I will correct 2 of my statments though. Avg speed is 70-90mph rather than knots and my reference to 3-4liters were in regards to smaller drones such as the Scan Eagle and Shadows. I believe the predators have somwhere between 80-100 gallons
During Operation Enduring Freedom, the lack of fighter aircraft forced military planners to rely heavily on US bombers, particularly the B-1B Lancer and B52H Stratofortress, to fill the CAS role. Bomber CAS, relying mainly on GPS guided weapons, has evolved into a devastating tactical employment methodology and has changed US doctrinal thinking regarding CAS in general.
I have not seen B52s but I have seen the B1 pull CAS. I have a picture of one fullfilling that very role floating around on my external harddrive that I will see if i can dig up and post.
The thing is that the drone missiles (I assume you mean the tomahawk) are launched from carrier fleets
Wrong. Drones fire Hellfire missiles with max range of 8-10km. Tomahawks are ICBMs fired from a variety of ships. Perhaps some of our Navy brethern can elaborate the types.
They can also be launched from subs, destroyers, cruisers, and likely those funky new ships if ever developed
You know where you find all those ships......in a carrier fleet. Now you could take the carrier out of the fleet and try to replace it with drones, but then drones will not be able to provide the kind of fleet protection that aircraft do, leaving the fleet vulnerable. And again the drones are just not as good at most missions as piloted craft at this point. Even then you would need drone carriers.
Wrong. Drones fire Hellfire missiles with max range of 8-10km. Tomahawks are ICBMs fired from a variety of ships. Perhaps some of our Navy brethern can elaborate the types.
He said drone missiles, not drone fired missiles. I assumed he meant tomahawks as those are basically drone missles. I've already stated that drones fire hellfire missiles MR. Smarty pants. Try to keep up would you?
And again you are gonna launch a b-1 every time you need CAS? Over kill much, maybe they can give Dogma's b-52 pilots a high five after their mission to blow up a couple of explorers. No wonder our budget is so out of whack. Why not just nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
As my argument it that drones are better than the tucano try to keep those roles in mind.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2012/01/30 21:17:36
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
Lol I see the conversation pulling away from the curb as I search my bag for contributions. Stop posting so dang fast
As I said earlier, most of the air support recieved day to day is via rotary wing aircraft anyway because its easier for ground commanders to talk to the pilots and vice versa. There are a LOT of restrictions regarding who is allowed to call for CAS Type 1-3 and a lot of precordination. Most of your CAS via fixed wing are going to SPECOPs or highly contested areas or preplanned missions company size or higher with a JFO or JTAC attached for that specific mission.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 21:16:36
They can also be launched from subs, destroyers, cruisers, and likely those funky new ships if ever developed
You know where you find all those ships......in a carrier fleet. Now you could take the carrier out of the fleet and try to replace it with drones, but then drones will not be able to provide the kind of fleet protection that aircraft do, leaving the fleet vulnerable. And again the drones are just not as good at most missions as piloted craft at this point. Even then you would need drone carriers.
Wrong. Drones fire Hellfire missiles with max range of 8-10km. Tomahawks are ICBMs fired from a variety of ships. Perhaps some of our Navy brethern can elaborate the types.
He said drone missiles, not drone fired missiles. I assumed he meant tomahawks as those are basically drone missles. I've already stated that drones fire hellfire missiles MR. Smarty pants. Try to keep up would you?
And again you are gonna launch a b-1 every time you need CAS? Over kill much, maybe they can give Dogma's b-52 pilots a high five after their mission to blow up a couple of explorers. No wonder our budget is so out of whack. Why not just nuke the place from orbit, it's the only way to be sure.
You don't need a carrier group for that however. Indeed, you can rack up a bunch of subs to perform the function along with waves of...AIR FORCE ( ) drones coming in.
Again I am not saying its a definite, just that there needs to be a fundamental review of the Navy's role, and what it needs to do it with, given what we can afford.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2012/01/30 21:18:08
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
You don't need a carrier group for that however. Indeed, you can rack up a bunch of subs to perform the function along with waves of...AIR FORCE ( ) drones coming in.
So what is protecting the subs? The whole idea of the carrier fleet is a show of force. A bunch of subs under water does not project the same kind of fear that a carrier group does. And then subs are pretty vulnerable without protection. Subs are currently protected by the interdiction abilities of naval aircraft, drones can not do air interdiction yet. So basically you are stuck with a bunch of subs that have to hide deep underwater where their presence is not felt, which is the whole point of having a carrier fleet parked just far enough to be in international waters. It's scary.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2012/01/30 21:29:16
"I don't have principles, and I consider any comment otherwise to be both threatening and insulting" - Dogma
"No, sorry, synonymous does not mean same".-Dogma
"If I say "I will hug you" I am threatening you" -Dogma
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
) drones coming in. 