Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: mthrockmor on July 04, 2011, 08:56:13 PM
-
I suppose this is to be expected in todays environment. At some level an air force is to small and would have little ability to either project power or defend. Right now Libya is a massive strain for countries involved, or so I am reading. With no threat of a European war for decades to come the question is how much is needed. Strikes me the UK would do better with a couple CVs and the navalized F-35.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110702.aspx
Boo
-
I suppose this is to be expected in todays environment. At some level an air force is to small and would have little ability to either project power or defend. Right now Libya is a massive strain for countries involved, or so I am reading. With no threat of a European war for decades to come the question is how much is needed. Strikes me the UK would do better with a couple CVs and the navalized F-35.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110702.aspx
Boo
i believe they switched their order for the F-35B's for the C's, but they might have switched them for the A's.
-
Don't feel to bad, the US is not too far away from the same thing.
-
I suppose this is to be expected in todays environment. At some level an air force is to small and would have little ability to either project power or defend. Right now Libya is a massive strain for countries involved, or so I am reading. With no threat of a European war for decades to come the question is how much is needed. Strikes me the UK would do better with a couple CVs and the navalized F-35.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110702.aspx
Boo
you guys would do best to get the hell outta there....as would we.
-
edit: I'm just going to save Skuzzy the trouble and 'Rule #14' myself now.
-
This will likely draw all kinds of ire from this community, but we shouldn't be spending as much as we are. The amount we are spending on countries that don't even want us there is staggering, not to mention some of the free hand outs we give to countries like Pakistan.
(http://cdn1.globalissues.org/i/military/11/country-distribution-2010.png)
Delirium, i agree, but out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on why we are involved? I see how in no way it is going to benefit us being in Libya, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....
dont mean to hijack this to politics Skuzzy...
-
Delirium, i agree, but out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on why we are involved? I see how in no way it is going to benefit us being in Libya, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....
dont mean to hijack this to politics Skuzzy...
i think what you just said is what a lot are trying to say.....i generally don't say anything, because i don't want anyone to think i'm disrespecting the great men and women that are going there and doing their duty.....but i do not think our men and women should be ripped from their families and sent there though...........
sorry skuzzy.
-
How is posting a story about the RAF cutting pilots a violation of Rule #14?
Boo
-
How is posting a story about the RAF cutting pilots a violation of Rule #14?
Boo
It is political related.
-
It is political related.
It is news. And news in an area we all enjoy. Politics would be to comment on who is right or wrong. I think everyone is getting hypersensitive.
Boo
-
It is political related.
No. Delirium moderated himself to avoid the rule 14.
-
No. Delirium moderated himself to avoid the rule 14.
i sorta hijacked and asked a political question. long as it doesnt turn into a political battlefield, one question isnt the end of the world.
-
That's why politics are not in the forums, because 1 question becomes a
battlefront
:cheers: Oz
-
That's why politics are not in the forums, because 1 question becomes a
battlefront
:cheers: Oz
seems to me, that the biggest battlefront lately has been mustang vs camaro......a couple even seemed to be getting borderline violently pissed off in one of them....... :noid
-
Dang. I guess I will need to figure out how to delete this post when I get to the office. I don't mind getting band from the boards for a week but don't want to lead others astray. This is simply a link about the demise of the RAF. Without commenting on the who, what or why of it. Pretty boring if we can't even discuss this. Maybe we should do a work session in Robert Rules of Order and Decorum. There are some great minds in this community and I know I could learn much though its impossible with a gag order in place. Disappointing but there it is. My bad...
Boo
-
Dang. I guess I will need to figure out how to delete this post when I get to the office. I don't mind getting band from the boards for a week but don't want to lead others astray. This is simply a link about the demise of the RAF. Without commenting on the who, what or why of it. Pretty boring if we can't even discuss this. Maybe we should do a work session in Robert Rules of Order and Decorum. There are some great minds in this community and I know I could learn much though its impossible with a gag order in place. Disappointing but there it is. My bad...
Boo
well, here's the problem. it would be very easy to discuss why they're cutting something so important as the RAF......IF we didn't get locked down for politics. 'cause that is exactly why. suffice it to say, they've got plenty of programs they could cut that aren't nearly as necessary or important.....but people want their free stuff.
that's all i got the nerve to say here, as i don't want that vacation.
-
i think what you just said is what a lot are trying to say.....i generally don't say anything, because i don't want anyone to think i'm disrespecting the great men and women that are going there and doing their duty.....but i do not think our men and women should be ripped from their families and sent there though...........
sorry skuzzy.
I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!
-
I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!
thank you sir!! i appreciate that, and you are right. i know of one i lost respect for. her and her father went nuts trying to not let her get deployed during the first war. that pissed me off BIG time, as she's taking full advantage of having been in, but didn't do all of her duties that she'd signed up for.
-
thank you sir!! i appreciate that, and you are right. i know of one i lost respect for. her and her father went nuts trying to not let her get deployed during the first war. that pissed me off BIG time, as she's taking full advantage of having been in, but didn't do all of her duties that she'd signed up for.
It also defeats the purpose of joining the military.
-Penguin
-
I feel there are plenty of ways to disagree with the conflict while still supporting our troops, and honestly, I don't think it would ever cross anyone's mind here that you of all people would have anything but respect for the troops!
I don't know. Once you say a conflict is pointless, it tends to set off a chain that inevitably leads to upsetting some families or widows of soldiers who died in it.
-
I don't know. Once you say a conflict is pointless, it tends to set off a chain that inevitably leads to upsetting some families or widows of soldiers who died in it.
and that's what i try to avoid doing.
-
and that's what i try to avoid doing.
OTOH, once you go with the flow and say there is a point to it, it only encourages politicians to make more widows.
-
well, here's the problem. it would be very easy to discuss why they're cutting something so important as the RAF......IF we didn't get locked down for politics.
nothing to do with politics, its just basic housekeeping. if you dont have the cash, you got to cut your spending, simple as that. we have a massive budget deficit so we got to cut spending across the board, no argument on that. given the amount we need to cut, I'm happy that we are doing it in the right areas for the mostpart.
nimrods are a good example. I'm sad to see em go because its an interesting and unique aircraft (any other aircraft out there that cruise on 2 engines rather than 4?) however our biggest threat atm isnt russian subs so we dont need that capability. sentinels? I'm not so sure. harriers? again a unique and interesting aircraft, but the bang-for-buck just doesnt add up so theyre gone. multiple armoured divisions sitting in Germany doing nothing? cant see thousands of russian tanks rolling across europe anytime soon, cut em.
edit: hopefully the best thing to come out of this will be a complete shakeup of mil procurement. for way too long contracts have been awarded on the basis of completely made up costs, which always escalate to ridiculous levels and take 10yrs longer than expected. this is BS and no private sector company would tolerate it.
some day we might get to the stage where tenders come in for x capability at y cost, and within the agreed timescale x capability is actually provided at y cost.
-
nothing to do with politics, its just basic housekeeping. if you dont have the cash, you got to cut your spending, simple as that. we have a massive budget deficit so we got to cut spending across the board, no argument on that. given the amount we need to cut, I'm happy that we are doing it in the right areas for the mostpart.
nimrods are a good example. I'm sad to see em go because its an interesting and unique aircraft (any other aircraft out there that cruise on 2 engines rather than 4?) however our biggest threat atm isnt russian subs so we dont need that capability. sentinels? I'm not so sure. harriers? again a unique and interesting aircraft, but the bang-for-buck just doesnt add up so theyre gone. multiple armoured divisions sitting in Germany doing nothing? cant see thousands of russian tanks rolling across europe anytime soon, cut em.
it's not if you need that capability NOW.....if they're gone, and you need it in the near future, you're screwed.
there are plenty of social programs that could be cut, rather than cutting your defenses.
-
with unlimited funds you can prepare for most eventualities. with a limited budget you have to pick the capability you're most likely to need, and can afford.
like I said the cuts are across the board, literally eveything is being reviewed and slashed.
thing is, we could retain all of our current capability at 2/3 the cost if the procurement was sorted out. when the army pays £50 for a toilet seat that I can buy at my local store for £3, there is something seriously wrong.
-
Strikes me the UK would do better with a couple CVs and the navalized F-35.
http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110702.aspx
Boo
I hope the UK and the US and any other country involved is smart enough not to get stuck with the F-35 albatross.
-
I hope the UK and the US and any other country involved is smart enough not to get stuck with the F-35 albatross.
+ a WHOLE LLOT
-
what would you suggest as an alternative?
-
f-22
-
:rofl
but seriously what would you suggest?
-
FA-18 Super Hornet. It's a tried and tested design with no new infrastructure needed to sustain it. Face it, the U.S.S.R. no longer exists, and China loves our money. To continue to build our military in order to fight a non-existent "Opfor" (e.g., Soviet Russia or China) is a waste of time. Look at how war has changed, it is no longer fought on a massive scale, it is fought by small units. We didn't kill Osama Bin Laden with a tank shell, but rather the 5.56X45mm bullet of a Navy SEAL's rifle.
Also, the fundamental ideas of war have changed. Our enemy is not large or well equipped, but rather small, elusive and crafty. The need for submarines has passed, as has the need for tanks and manned air-combat fighters. The new opfor no longer has tanks, ships, large cities, or military aircraft of any kind.
-Penguin
-
i was actually gonna fall back on that, and the f-16. both of these while old, are pretty hard to top. i think the f16 is still considered one of the best fighters in the world.
-
:rofl
but seriously what would you suggest?
The sad thing is the F-16 and F18 Super are all that's out there, both old but still viable designs.
At least with those planes after you drop your bombs you can dogfight. After you drop the bombs from an F-35 it's just a dog with no fight.
I am afraid that so much has been invested in the F-35 that it will be forced down the services throats.
-
Except there is no need to dogfight, because there are no planes to! Manned aircraft are the way of the past, UAV's are the way of the future. Each one costs about a tenth of a manned fighter, so they can be deployed in hordes.
-Penguin
-
Except there is no need to dogfight, because there are no planes to! Manned aircraft are the way of the past, UAV's are the way of the future. Each one costs about a tenth of a manned fighter, so they can be deployed in hordes.
-Penguin
Unmanned for certain missions sure, but the past has shown that you can't predict the future. We shall see.
-
Except there is no need to dogfight, because there are no planes to! Manned aircraft are the way of the past, UAV's are the way of the future. Each one costs about a tenth of a manned fighter, so they can be deployed in hordes.
-Penguin
someone thought that about in the 60's, and the phantom minus guns was born. then they learned otherwise.
-
The sad thing is the F-16 and F18 Super are all that's out there, both old but still viable designs.
yeah its a shame that the US is the only country that makes mil aircraft, it would be nice to have more options.
-
someone thought that about in the 60's, and the phantom minus guns was born. then they learned otherwise.
Let me elaborate. There is no enemy airforce, therefore there is no need to further develop air-to-air capabilities.
-Penguin
-
Let me elaborate. There is no enemy airforce, therefore there is no need to further develop air-to-air capabilities.
-Penguin
there are plenty of enemy air forces.
do you think the north vietnamese were the only ones flying those migs? do you really think something like that could not easily happen today?
-
Let me elaborate. There is no enemy airforce, therefore there is no need to further develop air-to-air capabilities.
-Penguin
Yeah, right.
I won't waste the effort to actually show you how wrong you are but you're really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wrong.
-
F22 Raptor All the way :aok
Except there is no need to dogfight, because there are no planes to! Manned aircraft are the way of the past, UAV's are the way of the future. Each one costs about a tenth of a manned fighter, so they can be deployed in hordes.
-Penguin
This UAV crap is annoying, if your going to kill someone be there to do it and not 7,000 miles away sitting in a comfortable seat. I mean sure its cool with the looks and the boops and beeps but is it necessary when our air craft are almost invisible anyway, I think we should Concentrate on Jets like the F-22, F-35, F-16, and the F-18.
Don't get me wrong, un-manned warfare is good on saving lives but I think they should keep it to ground vehicles and such only.
Let me elaborate. There is no enemy airforce, therefore there is no need to further develop air-to-air capabilities.
-Penguin
What you need to think about is the future of war, if we go to war with Russia for say, they have an air force right? In future war other countries might have air capabilities. Countries who we might be friendly with for now.
-
yeah its a shame that the US is the only country that makes mil aircraft, it would be nice to have more options.
the problem with that, is that the us built are the best in the world. bar none. :aok
-
F22 Raptor All the way :aok
This UAV crap is annoying, if your going to kill someone be there to do it and not 7,000 miles away sitting in a comfortable seat. I mean sure its cool with the looks and the boops and beeps but is it necessary when our air craft are almost invisible anyway, I think we should Concentrate on Jets like the F-22, F-35, F-16, and the F-18.
Don't get me wrong, un-manned warfare is good on saving lives but I think they should keep it to ground vehicles and such only.
What you need to think about is the future of war, if we go to war with Russia for say, they have an air force right? In future war other countries might have air capabilities. Countries who we might be friendly with for now.
also remember those are controlled through uplinks. i don't give a dam how good the security is. it will be broken someday.
-
F22 Raptor All the way :aok
This UAV crap is annoying, if your going to kill someone be there to do it and not 7,000 miles away sitting in a comfortable seat. I mean sure its cool with the looks and the boops and beeps but is it necessary when our air craft are almost invisible anyway, I think we should Concentrate on Jets like the F-22, F-35, F-16, and the F-18.
Don't get me wrong, un-manned warfare is good on saving lives but I think they should keep it to ground vehicles and such only.
What you need to think about is the future of war, if we go to war with Russia for say, they have an air force right? In future war other countries might have air capabilities. Countries who we might be friendly with for now.
Why would killing someone from the seat of a fast moving jet fighter be any more effective than killing someone from a nice comfy office seat? It's like saying that using a bayonet is more effective than using a rifle. Your argument makes no sense at all. Why should unmanned vehicles be limited to ground warfare? They provide badly needed 24/7 real time eyes-in-the-sky to our troops.
Well, we're in a war right now. In fact, we are in two wars. Why would developing technology that is completely extranneous to those wars help us to win them? This also makes no sense at all. We need UAV's and better methods of taking out enemy leaders, not the latest cluster-bomb.Yeah, right.
I won't waste the effort to actually show you how wrong you are but you're really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really really wrong.
Quite the wall of text you've got there. :lol However, just saying that I'm wrong over and over again doesn't make me right or wrong, it's just annoying.
also remember those are controlled through uplinks. i don't give a dam how good the security is. it will be broken someday.
Also remember that manned aircraft have human pilots with limits to endurance. I don't give a darn how motivated you are, you're not going to be able to fly twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Remember, there is no free lunch, there is always a tradeoff.
-Penguin
-
Or everyone can look into the past. In the late 1930's all the ally mil stuff was relatively crap compared to axis toys. A lot of the people back then wanted to build and stockpile obsolete designs. Instead country's waited for the right time. Yes, I said the right time.
-
It's not the right time to develop a large fleet of interceptors, that's for sure. China loves trading with us, and Russia is just doing what Russia does (making good vodka and trying to make something of itself, both noble pursuits in my regard). Europe is becoming almost one big country, and South America and Africa just don't have the time.
On the other hand, we are slugging it out with bands of elusive freedom fighters, insurgents, terrorists, or what have you. The point is, we need lots of information on them, and to be able to deliver 'surgical strikes' without harming the surrounding populace.
-Penguin
-
also remember those are controlled through uplinks. i don't give a dam how good the security is. it will be broken someday.
Someone will hack the system.
Why would killing someone from the seat of a fast moving jet fighter be any more effective than killing someone from a nice comfy office seat? It's like saying that using a bayonet is more effective than using a rifle. Your argument makes no sense at all. Why should unmanned vehicles be limited to ground warfare? They provide badly needed 24/7 real time eyes-in-the-sky to our troops.
Well, we're in a war right now. In fact, we are in two wars. Why would developing technology that is completely extranneous to those wars help us to win them? This also makes no sense at all. We need UAV's and better methods of taking out enemy leaders, not the latest cluster-bomb.
Quite the wall of text you've got there. :lol However, just saying that I'm wrong over and over again doesn't make me right or wrong, it's just annoying.
Also remember that manned aircraft have human pilots with limits to endurance. I don't give a darn how motivated you are, you're not going to be able to fly twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Remember, there is no free lunch, there is always a tradeoff.
-Penguin
Jet commands work in shifts for one, and ground vehicles are more useful than uav's because they have direct control form a close distance.
-
Yes, but jets are expensive to produce and maintain, while UAV's can be produced cheaply and run very long missions without the need to share.
-Penguin
-
If it ain't broke don't fix it, we are fine how we are with manned jets. They are worth the money because they are almost impossible to shoot down. Drones being slower are more vulnerable.
-
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that Haddib and Ackbar have the cash to buy a weapons system capable of shooting down a drone? These things fly higher and faster than one might think. Also, drones are far cheaper to replace than manned aircraft.
Furthermore, the system is broken. Troops on the ground don't have adequate information and aerial support in an urban environment. An F-16 may be capable of blowing up four or five T-95's, but the collateral damage from using those kinds of weapons is unacceptable.
Think of it this way. We are out hunting varmints, (insurgents). An F-16 is like an Accuracy International AWM chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. It has a great deal of excess power, and is also extremely heavy and slow to operate. Using drones would be like giving you and nine of your friends Ruger 10-22's. They are light, quick, accurate, and have the right amount of power to get the job done.
-Penguin
-
and when something happens that starts a war with a country that has an air force? Tell me that!
-
Who would want to go to war with us? Even if they won, we'd launch our nukes and then it would be curtains for everyone. We're solving a problem that doesn't exist, and not solving one that does. In fact, the way we're going about technology in this war is the very definition of insanity, we're trying the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Cold War tactics just don't work when fighting small, elusive groups hidden among innocent bystanders.
-Penguin
-
Why would killing someone from the seat of a fast moving jet fighter be any more effective than killing someone from a nice comfy office seat? It's like saying that using a bayonet is more effective than using a rifle. Your argument makes no sense at all. Why should unmanned vehicles be limited to ground warfare? They provide badly needed 24/7 real time eyes-in-the-sky to our troops.
Well, we're in a war right now. In fact, we are in two wars. Why would developing technology that is completely extranneous to those wars help us to win them? This also makes no sense at all. We need UAV's and better methods of taking out enemy leaders, not the latest cluster-bomb.
Quite the wall of text you've got there. :lol However, just saying that I'm wrong over and over again doesn't make me right or wrong, it's just annoying.
Also remember that manned aircraft have human pilots with limits to endurance. I don't give a darn how motivated you are, you're not going to be able to fly twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. Remember, there is no free lunch, there is always a tradeoff.
-Penguin
one pilot can't....but with an air force, you can keep 24/7 air cover should the need arise. well....WE can.......uk can't.
-
Yes, but jets are expensive to produce and maintain, while UAV's can be produced cheaply and run very long missions without the need to share.
-Penguin
uav's can, and WILL be hacked. c'mon dood. you have to realize that.
-
Are you serious? Do you honestly believe that Haddib and Ackbar have the cash to buy a weapons system capable of shooting down a drone? These things fly higher and faster than one might think. Also, drones are far cheaper to replace than manned aircraft.he does.
Furthermore, the system is broken. Troops on the ground don't have adequate information and aerial support in an urban environment. An F-16 may be capable of blowing up four or five T-95's, but the collateral damage from using those kinds of weapons is unacceptable.they don't use f16's to support troops on the ground. they have blackhawks and warthogs for that. and there' pretty much nothing that'll take down a warthog. both them and blackhawks can strike with surgical precision.
Think of it this way. We are out hunting varmints, (insurgents). An F-16 is like an Accuracy International AWM chambered in .338 Lapua Magnum. It has a great deal of excess power, and is also extremely heavy and slow to operate. Using drones would be like giving you and nine of your friends Ruger 10-22's. They are light, quick, accurate, and have the right amount of power to get the job done.blackhawks, and warthogs.
-Penguin
-
An A-10? The idea is to kill the crazed man shooting his gun into the street, not to destroy every house on the street. Half of the war we're fighting there is keeping a good rapport with the locals so that they won't feel afraid to tell us where the enemy is. In a sense, it's like the Bronx down there, only much, much more violent and hot.
Can a blackhawk go on a weeklong sorite and provide a realtime video uplink to commanders in the field? I don't think so. A UAV, on the other hand, can. Can a blackhawk have four pilots fly it over the course of its sortie while not putting even one of them remotely near danger? Again, no.
Your point about the hacking of UAV networks only creates a Red Queen's paradox. The same applies to any balance of offense and defense.
-Penguin
-
An A-10? The idea is to kill the crazed man shooting his gun into the street, not to destroy every house on the street. Half of the war we're fighting there is keeping a good rapport with the locals so that they won't feel afraid to tell us where the enemy is. In a sense, it's like the Bronx down there, only much, much more violent and hot.
Can a blackhawk go on a weeklong sorite and provide a realtime video uplink to commanders in the field? I don't think so. A UAV, on the other hand, can. Can a blackhawk have four pilots fly it over the course of its sortie while not putting even one of them remotely near danger? Again, no.
Your point about the hacking of UAV networks only creates a Red Queen's paradox. The same applies to any balance of offense and defense.
-Penguin
A-10's have a very accurate 30 mm cannon which can be used in place of bombs for individual killing, black hawks can also land troops.
-
An A-10? The idea is to kill the crazed man shooting his gun into the street, not to destroy every house on the street. Half of the war we're fighting there is keeping a good rapport with the locals so that they won't feel afraid to tell us where the enemy is. In a sense, it's like the Bronx down there, only much, much more violent and hot.
Can a blackhawk go on a weeklong sorite and provide a realtime video uplink to commanders in the field? I don't think so. A UAV, on the other hand, can. Can a blackhawk have four pilots fly it over the course of its sortie while not putting even one of them remotely near danger? Again, no.
Your point about the hacking of UAV networks only creates a Red Queen's paradox. The same applies to any balance of offense and defense.
-Penguin
we have choppers perfectly capable of this. and why in the world are you stuck on a single aircraft doing a weeklong sortie? i don't know what a "red queen's paradox is.
imagine if the uav's got hacked though.........how useless they'd be....in fact, how harmful they could become. that could also go for the f22, and the f35. can you imagine cruising along at 1.5mach, and suddenly, your aircraft just shuts down, and falls out of the sky? i know it's far fetched....but it can happen.....
an a10 can be kind of surgical........not like the choppers we have, but it can do pretty well.
-
we have choppers perfectly capable of this. and why in the world are you stuck on a single aircraft doing a weeklong sortie? i don't know what a "red queen's paradox is.
imagine if the uav's got hacked though.........how useless they'd be....in fact, how harmful they could become. that could also go for the f22, and the f35. can you imagine cruising along at 1.5mach, and suddenly, your aircraft just shuts down, and falls out of the sky? i know it's far fetched....but it can happen.....
an a10 can be kind of surgical........not like the choppers we have, but it can do pretty well.
Are you saying the F22 can be hacked!? :O
-
Are you saying the F22 can be hacked!? :O
if i recall from reading, aren't they networked together, also through the satallite system? if so, they can.....and eventually will be hacked.
-
if i recall from reading, aren't they networked together, also through the satallite system? if so, they can.....and eventually will be hacked.
I don't recall them being linked in a way that could over ride the controls, and if they did I think the pilot could turn off the comupter and land it manually, I recall the F18 can land if the computers fail using only elevator and throttle. I can't recall facts off the top of my mind, Its been forever since I read those articles.
-
we have choppers perfectly capable of this. and why in the world are you stuck on a single aircraft doing a weeklong sortie? i don't know what a "red queen's paradox is.
imagine if the uav's got hacked though.........how useless they'd be....in fact, how harmful they could become. that could also go for the f22, and the f35. can you imagine cruising along at 1.5mach, and suddenly, your aircraft just shuts down, and falls out of the sky? i know it's far fetched....but it can happen.....
an a10 can be kind of surgical........not like the choppers we have, but it can do pretty well.
A red queen's paradox is a situation like this:
Bob has a 9mm gun, and wants to shoot Alice
Alice therefore develops a bullet proof vest that can defeat the 9mm round
Bob adopts that vest, and develops a .45 caliber pistol
Alice repeats her action, and adopts the .45 caliber pistol
This repeats ad infinitum, and no advantage is gained.
How am I 'stuck' on the long sortie capability, I've also mentioned its precision and ability to use multiple pilots who can operate according to the book and their own ideas without fear of death. Remember, you wouldn't just have one, you'd have dozens! The sky would be black with them, and battlefield intelligence would reach an all-time high.
You bring up an interesting point, F22. Since almost all military aircraft rely on fly-by-wire technologies, if the system were hacked, the results would be even more deadly than a UAV network failing.
-Penguin
-
But I know those air craft have to have the ability to fly manually if they had too, you should never rely to much on a computer
-
from knowing some pilots....one of whom was killed 2 years ago...........they do not fear death. not when they are piloting the absolute best aircraft on the planet.
and the one that got killed 2 years ago, didn't die in action. some drunk bastage threw a gto at him.
-
But I know those air craft have to have the ability to fly manually if they had too, you should never rely to much on a computer
it's not the "fly by wire" that's worrysome. it's the being networked together that is. if information travels in and out of a computer, it can be hacked. if that computer can be hacked, it can control whatever it is that is desired by the hacker.
the f/a18's and f16's aren't networked.
-
This makes me think, R/C ground vehicles are better because they rely on a ever so changing frequency from a controller making them harder to take over, where as with UAV's it seems like it would be easier. With more control you could have a safer environment, to fight in on the ground, and have manned planes still in the air.
Again i'm thinking deeply about this, what happens if the enemy can capture a robot, and reprogram it to attack us, or make duplicates?
it's not the "fly by wire" that's worrysome. it's the being networked together that is. if information travels in and out of a computer, it can be hacked. if that computer can be hacked, it can control whatever it is that is desired by the hacker.
the f/a18's and f16's aren't networked.
That makes sense, also I heard like I said that the F-18 can fly without a computer using elevator and throttle only. Problem with the F-22 and F-35 is they are impossible to fly without help from a computer keeping it stable. Its like I can't win :(
-
UAV's are not networked, their information goes straight back to the control center. Why would fly-by-wire not worry you if you worry that computers may be hacked? It doesn't have to take control of the fighter, only do something that is very costly, such as firing off every weapon in the plane.
Pilots do not fear death, eh? Unless one is mentally unstable, (in which case one would be denied military service), then one will fear death. Indoctrination can reduce that fear, but it can never be eliminated completely. Also, there is far less stress when one isn't being subjected to G-loads and the other stresses of manned flight.
Finally, having multiple pilots availible greatly reduces pilot fatigue, as one can work scheduled hours (for the most part), instead of the highly demanding schedule that manned aircraft pilots face.This makes me think, R/C ground vehicles are better because they rely on a ever so changing frequency from a controller making them harder to take over, where as with UAV's it seems like it would be easier. With more control you could have a safer environment, to fight in on the ground, and have manned planes still in the air.
Again i'm thinking deeply about this, what happens if the enemy can capture a robot, and reprogram it to attack us, or make duplicates?
That makes sense, also I heard like I said that the F-18 can fly without a computer using elevator and throttle only. Problem with the F-22 and F-35 is they are impossible to fly without help from a computer keeping it stable. Its like I can't win :(
I'd rethink that statement, the anti-virus software that protects UAV's isn't just the kind you get and BestBuy. UAV's also create a safe environment, by raining death from above on demand.
-Penguin
-
UAV's are not networked, their information goes straight back to the control center. Why would fly-by-wire not worry you if you worry that computers may be hacked? It doesn't have to take control of the fighter, only do something that is very costly, such as firing off every weapon in the plane.
Pilots do not fear death, eh? Unless one is mentally unstable, (in which case one would be denied military service), then one will fear death. Indoctrination can reduce that fear, but it can never be eliminated completely. Also, there is far less stress when one isn't being subjected to G-loads and the other stresses of manned flight.
Finally, having multiple pilots availible greatly reduces pilot fatigue, as one can work scheduled hours (for the most part), instead of the highly demanding schedule that manned aircraft pilots face.
I'd rethink that statement, the anti-virus software that protects UAV's isn't just the kind you get and BestBuy. UAV's also create a safe environment, by raining death from above on demand.
-Penguin
Hackers will find a way, they get tougher and tougher to keep out every year.
-
Hackers are like mice, if one can build a better mouse trap, then you world will beat a path to one's door.
-Penguin
-
Hackers are like mice, if one can build a better mouse trap, then you world will beat a path to one's door.
-Penguin
Eventually the mice will learn how to get the cheese without killing themselves though.
-
UAV's are not networked, their information goes straight back to the control center. Why would fly-by-wire not worry you if you worry that computers may be hacked? It doesn't have to take control of the fighter, only do something that is very costly, such as firing off every weapon in the plane.
Pilots do not fear death, eh? Unless one is mentally unstable, (in which case one would be denied military service), then one will fear death. Indoctrination can reduce that fear, but it can never be eliminated completely. Also, there is far less stress when one isn't being subjected to G-loads and the other stresses of manned flight.
Finally, having multiple pilots availible greatly reduces pilot fatigue, as one can work scheduled hours (for the most part), instead of the highly demanding schedule that manned aircraft pilots face.
I'd rethink that statement, the anti-virus software that protects UAV's isn't just the kind you get and BestBuy. UAV's also create a safe environment, by raining death from above on demand.
-Penguin
perhaps i should rephrase........everyone fears death. i do not think our pilots climb into their aircraft, fearing death from the actions they are about to go perform.
fly by wire such as the f16 ot the f/a18 do not communicate with another computer anywhere. the raptor(i think) and the jsf(i think) communicate with each other through networks, sending information to and from satellites. this information can be hacked. control could possibly be effected through these systems.
uav's may not be networked to each other, but they are networked to the base station where they're being flown from. same thing....signal to the satellite, then to the uav.....so, yes, it could also be taken over.
and forget anti virus. there are thousands of people whose sole job is to try to hack our systems. most of those are people from countries that hate us.
-
perhaps i should rephrase........everyone fears death. i do not think our pilots climb into their aircraft, fearing death from the actions they are about to go perform.
fly by wire such as the f16 ot the f/a18 do not communicate with another computer anywhere. the raptor(i think) and the jsf(i think) communicate with each other through networks, sending information to and from satellites. this information can be hacked. control could possibly be effected through these systems.
uav's may not be networked to each other, but they are networked to the base station where they're being flown from. same thing....signal to the satellite, then to the uav.....so, yes, it could also be taken over.
and forget anti virus. there are thousands of people whose sole job is to try to hack our systems. most of those are people from countries that hate us.
If you are so confident that our UAV system will be hacked, why hasn't it been?
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
-Penguin
-
well...that's simple to answer. they haven't figured it out. yet.
-
well...that's simple to answer. they haven't figured it out. yet.
But they are trying I'm sure right?
-
But they are trying I'm sure right?
of course. china employs thousands whose sole job is to try to get into critical us systems. you don't think this would include uplinks such as these? can you imagine how valuable it would be to them, should they come up with a system to take control of even a single drone for even just an hour or two? do you think there'd be any organizations willing to pay handsomely for such a capability?
-
How on earth are you so certain of these claims? :huh
-Penguin
-
i know people in lockheed martin, boeing, and L3 communications that get to deal with that crap on a daily basis.
-
Alright, that makes a bit more sense. Would you mind providing me a link to where I can find out more about this topic? Cyberwarfare, it seems almost surreal.
-Penguin
-
There was a post on CBSnews on you tube about cyber attacks starting to concentrate on small businesses and homes now, the internet is going to crap and its all being done by a bunch of low lifes behind computers. Or rather there's been quite a few posts about it. If I recall a majority of the attacks are coming from the middle east.
-
i was actually gonna fall back on that, and the f-16. both of these while old, are pretty hard to top. i think the f16 is still considered one of the best fighters in the world.
*cough* Super Hornet *cough*
Hell, I don't think the F-18G has been in active service for a whole year yet.
That being said, I think the Air Force should of gone with funding and updating/replacing thier F-16s too.
-
The sad thing is the F-16 and F18 Super are all that's out there, both old but still viable designs.
At least with those planes after you drop your bombs you can dogfight. After you drop the bombs from an F-35 it's just a dog with no fight.
I am afraid that so much has been invested in the F-35 that it will be forced down the services throats.
The F-18E/F is old? :headscratch: :confused: :huh
-
The F-18E/F is old? :headscratch: :confused: :huh
Not that I know about certain models but I think he's talking about how many more new jets have been made vs how long the F-18E/F has been in service, or something like that. How long has it been in service though?
-
Not that I know about certain models but I think he's talking about how many more new jets have been made vs how long the F-18E/F has been in service, or something like that. How long has it been in service though?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F/A-18_Hornet
-
1970's good grief lol well if it ain't broke don't fix it right?
-
1970's good grief lol well if it ain't broke don't fix it right?
from the 70's and still pretty much the best in the world. especially combined with the fact that we have the best trained pilots, and maintenance crews in the world.
-
from the 70's and still pretty much the best in the world. especially combined with the fact that we have the best trained pilots, and maintenance crews in the world.
Makes me proud to be an american knowing this :salute
-
it's not the "fly by wire" that's worrysome. it's the being networked together that is. if information travels in and out of a computer, it can be hacked. if that computer can be hacked, it can control whatever it is that is desired by the hacker.
the f/a18's and f16's aren't networked.
Just because information is being shared does not mean the control systems are linked.
-
Here ya goes folks, it's linked from the article CAP posted a link to. Do not think we are doing anyhting short of currently equiping and training our Navy with the best available. And while I wait to see how the F-35 will fit into its role when it reaches active duty, I'm also more eagerly awaiting an entirely new phase/generation soon dawning upon naval aviation: unmanned naval carrier-launched and recovered drones and aircraft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F/A-18E/F_Super_Hornet
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EA-18G_Growler
I believe the navy has just about all but phased out the first and second generation hornets for the newer third generation, the marines I'm not quite sure on what their rotation schedule looks like but it's more complicated and I think they're holding onto more second-gen hornets until they get phased out by the F-35 because they're also phasing out the harrier currently.
And I'm really proud they got the EA-18G into service as they really needed a modern update to the navy's airborne electronic warfare and countermeasures arsenal, and it is the most state of the art electronic warfare piece of equiment flying, and we got it!
Thanks for actually bringing this up guys, there's been some developments I didn't know about that are reported in the wiki articles! They're ordering MORE super hornets for the Navy, a LOT more growlers (four whole additional squadrons!) and the growler has seen it's first combat action!:
The first Growler operational deployment was announced on 17 February 2011.[37]
The Navy's submission for the 2011 defense budget put forth by the Obama Administration calls for the addition of four EA-18G Growler squadrons to be added to the fleet.[38] On 14 May 2010, Boeing and the US Department of Defense reached an agreement for a multi-year contract for an additional 66 F/A-18E/Fs and 58 EA-18Gs over the next four years. This will raise the total to 114 EA-18Gs on order.[39]
The EA-18G was first used in combat during Operation Odyssey Dawn by supporting efforts to enforce a UN no-fly-zone over Libya.[40] The five EA-18Gs of VAQ-132 were redeployed from Iraq to Italy to support Libya operations.[
-
And just because I like littering the world with good p0rn:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9b/FA-18_Super_Hornets_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_31_fly_patrol%2C_Afghanistan%2C_December_15%2C_2008.jpg/800px-FA-18_Super_Hornets_of_Strike_Fighter_Squadron_31_fly_patrol%2C_Afghanistan%2C_December_15%2C_2008.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1b/EA-18G_Growler_VX-9_from_below_2008.jpg/800px-EA-18G_Growler_VX-9_from_below_2008.jpg)
-
You guys across the pond, just think how sexy those things would look in RAF colors, cruising down the channel, and being piloted by a bunch of limeys!? :D
-
You guys across the pond, just think how sexy those things would look in RAF colors, cruising down the channel, and being piloted by a bunch of limeys!? :D
:O Thats a awesome thought! :rock Love it!
-
You guys across the pond, just think how sexy those things would look in RAF colors, cruising down the channel, and being piloted by a bunch of limeys!? :D
certainly makes more sense than CAP's cost-cutting suggestion of the F-22 :D
theres a pretty good chance that navalised Typhoons will be available before the F-35 given how long they're taking, I can see us using a mix of both eventually.
-
certainly makes more sense than CAP's cost-cutting suggestion of the F-22 :D
theres a pretty good chance that navalised Typhoons will be available before the F-35 given how long they're taking, I can see us using a mix of both eventually.
dood.......i think that we'd all be better off using phantoms than the jsf.......... :noid
-
dood.......i think that we'd all be better off using phantoms than the jsf.......... :noid
I second that opinion as long as we can keep the F-22's :lol
-
mmkay
-
Delirium, i agree, but out of curiosity, what are your thoughts on why we are involved? I see how in no way it is going to benefit us being in Libya, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....
dont mean to hijack this to politics Skuzzy...
We benefit the people of the country of Afghanistan..we kill taliban....just sayin'