How many Carriers are enough?

[wlawr005]

I have no dog in the fight of UAVs vs. manned strike aircraft. But I'll still run my mouth about stuff that's utter speculation at best.

Fixed it for you buddy, you never fail to make me laugh...that's for certain.

 

[LFCFan]

I have no dog in the fight of UAVs vs. manned strike aircraft. But I'll simply point out that:

A) the types of targets/theaters where UAVs are being used don't involve enemies with IADS. They're meant to be a cheap strike solution in low-intensity conflicts, not the wave of the future against a potential war with Russia/China

We used them in Allied Force, Southern Watch, and the initial invasion of Iraq. All IADS there. And why are we building stealthy looking (at least in appearance) UAVs if we aren't worried about RF weapons shooting at them?

B) if Putin sells a capable IADS system to someone, it can potentially be used against Russian MIGs one day

They have sold SA-10s and SA-20s to quite a few countries.

C) that UAVs are about 5x cheaper than F/A-18 super hornets and 10x cheaper than F-35Cs without even factoring in upkeep/operations costs and that the loss of a UAV doesn't result in the loss of a person able to 'fly' it. That is a very substantial cost difference between the two platforms.

This is true. I'll be interested to see how much more money we have to sink into them before they are landing on carriers well enough to start replacing existing platforms.

In short, I don't think that they're going to go away, even if enemies learn how to shoot a few down.

Or jam our communications with them, or worse, take control of them.

 

[Renegade One]

Lieutenants talking strategy is about as useful as Ensigns talking tactics. I have nether the experience, education, nor the scope to see all the factors that drive a decision such as this. Thus, my well thought out response would be about as useful as my glib response.
Pickle

I dunno…I'd be interested in your response, even if it's glib and not all that well thought out. I'm thinking about LT John Bulkeley, LT James Flatley, LTJGs "Butch" O'Hare, John Kennedy and others I can't call to mind right now.

 

[Recovering LSO]

A) the types of targets/theaters where UAVs are being used don't involve enemies with IADS. They're meant to be a cheap strike solution in low-intensity conflicts, not the wave of the future against a potential war with Russia/China

You should do some more reading/research.

 

[Mumbles]

I have no dog in the fight of UAVs vs. manned strike aircraft. But I'll simply point out that:

A) the types of targets/theaters where UAVs are being used don't involve enemies with IADS. They're meant to be a cheap strike solution in low-intensity conflicts, not the wave of the future against a potential war with Russia/China

B) if Putin sells a capable IADS system to someone, it can potentially be used against Russian MIGs one day

C) that UAVs are about 5x cheaper than F/A-18 super hornets and 10x cheaper than F-35Cs without even factoring in upkeep/operations costs and that the loss of a UAV doesn't result in the loss of a person able to 'fly' it. That is a very substantial cost difference between the two platforms.

In short, I don't think that they're going to go away, even if enemies learn how to shoot a few down.

Really? So why does the X-47 look the way it does? You may be thinking about your SSN's switchblade launched out of a tube....
I think this is supremely cool, though:

 

[jmcquate]

Really? So why does the X-47 look the way it does? You may be thinking about your SSN's switchblade launched out of a tube....
I think this is supremely cool, though:

Cool concept. The first thing that came to mind was re-fueling the thing. Don't think a boomer would want to surface to unrep.

 

[Renegade One]

Really? So why does the X-47 look the way it does?

Psst…it's called "marketing".
UAVs don't need to be hugely survivable…that's why they can and should be fucking hugely AFFORDABLE. But if they "look WAY cool"…the government will probably be more interested.

The very definition of unmanned systems...back before the earth's crust cooled…used to be "for the dirty, dull and dangerous missions…and we can afford to lose them…by the metric ton".

If and when that metric changes…absurdly to the point when UASs need "manned aircraft" to escort/do EA/do whatever to support them within any enemy threat envelope…then we've really turned a corner.

"In 200 feet, make a left from Rationality onto Absurdity. Your destination will be ahead on the left…".

 

[Mumbles]

"If and when that metric changes…absurdly to the point when UASs need "manned aircraft" to escort/do EA/do whatever to support them within any enemy threat envelope…then we've really turned a corner."

Uh, they won't.
do you really think that X-47 is designed just to "look cool" to the HASC? I'm sure that's why the AF is retiring the U-2, because Global Hawk just looks cooler. I suspect that there will soon if not already be all manner of UCLASS doing EA/ES/EP, SEAD.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Psst…it's called "marketing".
UAVs don't need to be hugely survivable…that's why they can and should be fucking hugely AFFORDABLE. But if they "look WAY cool"…the government will probably be more interested.

The very definition of unmanned systems...back before the earth's crust cooled…used to be "for the dirty, dull and dangerous missions…and we can afford to lose them…by the metric ton".

If and when that metric changes…absurdly to the point when UASs need "manned aircraft" to escort/do EA/do whatever to support them within any enemy threat envelope…then we've really turned a corner.

"In 200 feet, make a left from Rationality onto Absurdity. Your destination will be ahead on the left…".

The first part about "looking cool" is too ridiculous to even respond to.

Also, what does an X-47 cost?

Also, we already have manned aircraft escorting drones.

 

[robav8r]

Also, we already have manned aircraft escorting drones.

Among other things . . .

 

[Renegade One]

The first part about "looking cool" is too ridiculous to even respond to.

Also, what does an X-47 cost?

Also, we already have manned aircraft escorting drones.

Among other things . . .

Okay…thanks to both of you.

As to "looks don't matter": Here's the competing/losing design for the JSF:

I have no idea what an X-47 might cost…nothing other than a tech-demonstrator has been built yet. Do you have some insight?

For both of you, I guess: What are your personal thoughts about placing yourselves potentially in harm's way to ensure the success of an unmanned system? It's a serious question, I think. If your job is simply to escort them throughout the National Airspace or something similar…yeah…I get it, and flight time is flight time.

I admit to the fact that the explosion of UASs post-dates my active service, so I'm behind the learning curve that many of you are enjoying.

 

[Treetop Flyer]

Do you have an argument that the Boeing proposal was a better aircraft, or are you just posting stuff despite having no idea what you're talking about, yet again?

 

[jmcquate]

Ya, it looked like a "special needs" A-7.............and the pesky problems that it couldn't hover and the technology didn't work to manufacture the single piece wing.

 

[Mumbles]

this guy is an absolute blathering fucking moron and really did contribute to the ruination of this site. Believe it.

 

[Spekkio]

We used them in Allied Force, Southern Watch, and the initial invasion of Iraq. All IADS there. And why are we building stealthy looking (at least in appearance) UAVs if we aren't worried about RF weapons shooting at them? ...

They have sold SA-10s and SA-20s to quite a few countries.

Yea, that was retarted. Dunno why I wrote that. I redact that.

Or jam our communications with them, or worse, take control of them.

Are you saying UAVs are good because they were successful against enemy air defense or bad because they have a potential vulnerability? All weapons platforms have potential vulnerabilities, the key is to stay ahead of the game in capabilities or find a new niche if possible.

This is true. I'll be interested to see how much more money we have to sink into them before they are landing on carriers well enough to start replacing existing platforms.

Again, I don't think anyone intelligent envisions UAVs as a replacement to manned aircraft (and I sure wasn't saying that they were), but a complement to them in America's arsenal.

You should do some more reading/research.

I was referring to their extensive use to kill non-state actors in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and Libya the past several years.