DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on May 25, 2015, 07:23:18 PM
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM2SPy1Bsrw&feature=player_detailpage
-
8)
-
Jeez, what a load of propaganda!
We will have more and more wars and they will be worse and blah blah and jabber jabber.
The F22 Raptor, appropriately named for a dinosaur.
Drones are the answer, there is no reason to pay the bazillions these toys will cost.
-
Drones are not cheap.
They are onoy cheap in comparison to the fighters and bombers that they are competing with.
I note that the Air Force is training more Drone pilots than regular pilots.
Drones have to be viewed in terms of what they can and can't do.
They can turn inside a fighter, they don't have mothers and they can loiter without bladder relief on the job a long time.
On the other hand, they crash about 3 times as often as manned planes, they can be meconned or suborned, and they are perfectly terrible at checking their own six.
If we were using drones against a more modernized enemy, the drones would be very vulnerable to getting shot down by fighters.
I disagree with the documentary about the F-35 which seems bound to disappoint.
But the F-22 is a for real world beater.
They are also right about the F-15 surviving every dogfight it has ever been in, but that its equal is in the marketplace now.
-
Wow plane
Totally makes sense since a drone pilot has zero personal danger they can be more reckless. Did not think of that. Telling them not to wreck doesn't have the same sting than actually dying from a crash.
I'll bet they do alot more ramming
-
Where, exactly, is the USAF likely to have dogfights?
I seriously doubt that Al Qaeda or IS will ever take to the air. I am pretty sure that we have Iran outclassed.
This ad is just that: an ad to sell hideously expensive unnecessary crap to ignorant Congressmen that are far more concerned with getting a piece of the production in their districts than they are in defense.
If you add the cost of maintenance training pilots, prosthetic for those who have accidents, and payments to widows and children, theses damned things cost many times more than the original price tag.
The fact is that this country does not need three air forces, either.
-
Where, exactly, is the USAF likely to have dogfights?
China.
Eastern Europe
Venezuela.
-
The US does not have any business fighting in Ukraine, Venezuela or China. Whatever aircraft we already have is better than anything they have in the event that we elect some buffoon that mongers a war over anything as inconsequential as Crimea or the Spratleys. There is no reason why the US would need fighter jets to Venezuela.
-
Well then, we may need them right here.
-
What country would attack the US mainland with aircraft superior to what we already have?
The main reason they want to build these things is for the huge amount of money it will cost. Money for Boeing and their suppliers, money for the next political campaign.
-
What country would attack the US mainland with aircraft superior to what we already have?
The main reason they want to build these things is for the huge amount of money it will cost. Money for Boeing and their suppliers, money for the next political campaign.
This seems contradictory, am I understanding badly?
We are safe from attack because of our military superiority.
Therefore it is wasteful to maintain military superiority?
Better aircraft than the F-15 are being sold , several countries are making them.
-
BINGO!!
-
But the real question what is better.
For our advanced weapons it did not stop a bunch of failed student pilots from stealing planes.
Yes we need weapons advancement we need to have multiple options. Things that is not just bigger or better.
Notice no data on technology to highjack drones or tech to overcome known ied. I hear nothing on neutralizing landmines or bypassing them.
Why are we not focusing on the enemy. How about a emp weapon to scramble thier weapons. Yes we maybe immune but i never heard that they are.
So far we are not fighting countries with the most advance tech and are likely bought which makes them naturally not cutting edge we should have intel on this.
-
The 9-11 guys who hijacked planes had nothing to do with fighter jets.
I question that "other countries better planes".
We do not need billion dollar airplanes. We cannot afford billion dollar airplanes.
Luckily, neither can anyone else.
Fighter aircraft are obsolete. They could simply spiff up what they already have and save the money.
-
You know i got some real doubts about the quality of planes at that price range. Remeber these things normally go through a bidding process and that price a politician is involved so quality may not be the deciding factor sometimes. Also what happens to the planes made by the competition ? Second best can be a very small margin so still very deadly. This might be why other countries got better weapons
-
I don't think there is any competition among fighter aircraft manufacturers anymore. Boeing has bought out the last of their competitors.
-
That alone gives me doubt on quality
-
Drones have failure modes that manned aircraft don't.
For instance , loosing contact with a satellite does not doom a pilot he can just return to backup means of navigation.
But a drone that can't link to its very distant pilot is lost.
If the codes that verify the controller to the robot are stolen , the enemy can make the drone return and attack its own home base.
[][][][][]
This fail might have already happened, that a false GPS signal can overwhelm the true signal and make the drone home in on its illusion of a landing at home , but land in enemy territory instead.
-
But we know this already meaning why can'twe have encrypted signals so they can't copy it and if it gets cut off it would follow a preprogrammed instructions like self destruct or have it into something. Judge from the losses by it's own pilots a self destruct doesn't seem unreasonable to ensure it would be used against us
-
The control signal is definitely encrypted , but hacks have happened.
Unfortunately although there are plenty of smart Americans, we haven't figured out yet how to prevent enemies from being smart too.
http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB126102247889095011
-
I thought this over and the answer may not be viable get those pimply face drone pilot in the field so thay be at close range. Supplimant it with line of sight stuff so you get less problems.
Also just saying they got smarter hackers don't cut it. They still need a working knowledge on stuff . How did that happen?
No doubt thier smart but were the one making things thier not. The problem is we're underestimating due do lack of data on the enemy. Thier proving the guy with the biggest stick is not akways winning
-
The simple solution would be to employ bigger weapons with les discrimination.
We criticized the Japanese a lot for what they did to Nanking, but a few years later we were doing worse to Tokyo.
The tougher answer would be to surge a strong multinational force which would overwhelm and defeat in detail.
The toughest answer of all is to ignore the whole set of problems until they grow enough worse to rate atomic solutions.
Using drones to kill one or two of their officers a week isn't useless, but it doesn't seem to be quite enough.
So in any scenario if we are attacking them , we need to harm them more and faster than they can recruit and heal .
Unless the strategy is flypaper, flypaper makes sense but seems a bit cold blooded for the likes of us.
In a flypaper strategy , we would be careful not to win until there was a goodly number of enemy gathered up , then ramp up the bombardment to eliminate them.
If the strategy is flypaper , I don't expect anyone to admit it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flypaper_theory_(strategy)
http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/battle_of_verdun.htm
The attack on Verdun (the Germans code-named it 'Judgment') came about because of a plan by the German Chief of General Staff, von Falkenhayn. He wanted to “bleed France white” by launching a massive German attack on a narrow stretch of land that had historic sentiment for the French – Verdun. The area around Verdun contained twenty major forts and forty smaller ones that had historically protected the eastern border of France and had been modernised in the early years of the Twentieth Century.
Falkenhayn believed that the French simply could not allow these forts to fall as the national humiliation would have been too much. By fighting to the last man, Falkenhayn believed that the French would lose so many men that the battle would change the course of the war.
-
The problem i see about that is the problem is not localized like previous wars. The fact they exist now is proof they are getting massive funding elsewhere. We may bomb that group to non-existance but remember they weren't even the original enemy. It's a gamble that we will scare people to behave. The global theatre is not the streets and it's abit harder to scare people. Its not like we can threaten other countries to deal with us afterwards.
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/air-force-wants-airplanes-with-laser-cannons-by-2022/ar-BBkhdtJ
According to the Air Force, the future of war in the sky is lasers. Lasers on new jet fighters are a future goal, but there’s lower-hanging fruit in the world of science fiction weapons that the Air Force hopes to reach first: why not mount the lasers on heavier and relatively more spacious gunships?
The AC-130 is a battlefield giant, a large transport adapted to instead carry inside its cavernous belly. Right now, AC-130s are armed with a range of guns, rockets, cannons, missiles, and bombs, and it’s used them to support troops on the ground from Vietnam to Afghanistan. The latest version of the AC-130 in the works is scheduled to have a heavy cannon, but there’s the possibility of adding in a laser weapon on the last few made, provided the laser is ready.
-
Here's something that might happen but it's not exactly improble. This enemy globally is so unpopular its possible china or russia will attack before we do and we end up picking up the pieces and to decise if thats a good or bad idea. Remember they will be gaining land out of the deal
-
The US may have killed more people in Tokyo than the Japanese did in Nanking, but there were significant differences.
Japan had the option of surrendering. Nanking had already surrendered, and those killed were POW's. Killing POW's and civilians in a conquered area violates the Geneva Accords.
The US did not torture or rape anyone in Tokyo, they just killed them. The Japanese in Tokyo both raped and tortured.
So it was not the same.
-
Dont really recall nanking was ever a deciding factor for any situation. The japanese did alot of stuff besides nanking and never apologies about any if them.
U.s. Pow may of been a factor, but other things got into play for the bomb
-
The Japanese were monstrous in their invasion of China. The point it that the US and the Japanese had different standards.
-
The japanese are the most hated people in asia and ironically the most in away respected. They left some serious scars. But thier product is of such quality many people would prefer it over thier local stuff.
Here in America we tried the buy American only but that backfired and encouraged lower quality locally made items
-
Dont really recall nanking was ever a deciding factor for any situation. The japanese did alot of stuff besides nanking and never apologies about any if them.
U.s. Pow may of been a factor, but other things got into play for the bomb
It was an infamous atrocity in the US.
Our embargo on war materiel for Japan was one of the things that got us fighting.