Sad day for the RAF

[Penguin]

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

[F22RaptorDude]

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.   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.

[Penguin]

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

[F22RaptorDude]

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.

[Penguin]

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

[F22RaptorDude]

and when something happens that starts a war with a country that has an air force? Tell me that!

[Penguin]

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

[CAP1]

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.   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.

[CAP1]

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.

[CAP1]

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

[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

[F22RaptorDude]

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.

[CAP1]

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.

[F22RaptorDude]

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!? 

[CAP1]

Are you saying the F22 can 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.