The U.S. Navy has ordered another eight Virginia class SSNs

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

No. X-47B carries the same A2G payload of a VLO'd F-35. With more than double the radius. At approximately 1/4 of the purchase cost, and MUCH reduced operational upkeep costs (no burning jet fuel to train "the man in the loop" for basic flight competency, night flight competency, tactical competency etc.).

Acutally, the X-47B currently carries nothing. It rolled out a few weeks ago, so there is a long way to go before we see it in action. Aside from the radius, the performance of the X-47 is inferior to any manned fighter or strike aircraft. Once again, we see that you cannot achieve air superiority with a drone at this time. Also, yes, it is expensive to train a human to fly, but there is currently no real replacement for having a brain in the cockpit.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

For the record, the IJN lost most of their CVs to enemy aircraft action, not submarines. One of their biggest mistakes was the fact that they did not realize that the age of the battleship had ended. Japan would have been better served had they built more carriers, rather than the impressive yet tactically and strategically antiquated Yamoto and Musashi. I suppose that you could argue the same for the carriers of the modern USN but, again, drone technology is in it's infancy, much like early submarines.

To be fair, pretty much everyone failed to make the change. Japanese, British, and Americans - note the American South Dakota, Iowa, Montana and Alaska projects and the British KGV and planned ships. The Americans only look good because they have sheer industrial capacity, so when the writing went on the wall, everyone tried to make the turn, but America had the turning power to make a fast turn.

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

To be fair, pretty much everyone failed to make the change. Japanese, British, and Americans - note the American South Dakota, Iowa, Montana and Alaska projects and the British KGV and planned ships. The Americans only look good because they have sheer industrial capacity, so when the writing went on the wall, everyone tried to make the turn, but America had the turning power to make a fast turn.

This is also true. I would add that the USN had the 'advantage', if you could call it one, of not having a viable option outside of carrier operations for a good portion of the war. America was forced to adopt the carrier-based strategy, as they were, for a time, just about the only major combat platforms remaining.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Acutally, the X-47B currently carries nothing. It rolled out a few weeks ago, so there is a long way to go before we see it in action. Aside from the radius, the performance of the X-47 is inferior to any manned fighter or strike aircraft. Once again, we see that you cannot achieve air superiority with a drone at this time. Also, yes, it is expensive to train a human to fly, but there is currently no real replacement for having a brain in the cockpit.

I am not an advocate of a completely drone carrier wing. I believe a mixed wing would be ideal, drones should be kept as stupid cowbombers and leave the A2A to manned fighters. But drones are clearly superior for bomb trucking to fixed targets and loiter/CAS missions. And while we're on the subject of air superiority, how many potential enemies do we really need to worry about this. Bombing barbarians is 99% of the mission set, no white knight air battles there. F-35 being completed in its entirety as a $300 billion "spectrum domination" program is a bad joke unless you own LockMart stock.

And how many bombs has F-35C dropped? At the current pace of the program, an X-47B will trap on a carrier before an F-35 does. Not to mention the B model. And these F-35s will come ~$80 million a piece and haul the same A2G payload as the drone.

PD

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

I am not an advocate of a completely drone carrier wing. I believe a mixed wing would be ideal, drones should be kept as stupid cowbombers and leave the A2A to manned fighters. But drones are clearly superior for bomb trucking to fixed targets and loiter/CAS missions. And while we're on the subject of air superiority, how many potential enemies do we really need to worry about this. Bombing barbarians is 99% of the mission set, no white knight air battles there. F-35 being completed in its entirety as a $300 billion "spectrum domination" program is a bad joke unless you own LockMart stock.

And how many bombs has F-35C dropped? At the current pace of the program, an X-47B will trap on a carrier before an F-35 does. Not to mention the B model. And these F-35s will come ~$80 million a piece and haul the same A2G payload as the drone.

PD

Nor do I dispute that drones will be of value, or may someday completely replace manned combat aircraft. However, that day is a long way off, and the technology has a long way to go. Still, the United States will, one day, have to face off against a world power with a legitimate air force and naval air power. This is a certainty. Throwing the development of air-to-air combat under the bus is not particularly wise, even in the light that our current enemy consist of a collection of RPG-toting thugs.

Also, I am no F-35 fanboy. I think that the program will end up producing another white elephant, but only after wasting billions of taxpayer dollars first. I have never been taken with the idea of a Joint Strike Fighter. Giving the Navy what they want, the Air Force what they want, and the Marines what they want would, ultimately, prove cheaper in the long run, put more Americans to work, and most importantly, put the planes on the runways and decks a whole lot sooner.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Takeda Shingen

Nor do I dispute that drones will be of value, or may someday completely replace manned combat aircraft. However, that day is a long way off, and the technology has a long way to go. Still, the United States will, one day, have to face off against a world power with a legitimate air force and naval air power. This is a certainty. Throwing the development of air-to-air combat under the bus is not particularly wise, even in the light that our current enemy consist of a collection of RPG-toting thugs.

Once again, I DO NOT ADVOCATE the complete replacement of manned aircraft with drone.

We certainly will go against a modern power again. Which is exactly why we should pursue the drone. Because when we go up against that power, we will lose ships, aircraft, and men. War isn't some gallant game of mano y mano, mind against mind. War AT IT'S BEST is murdering the other guy with him not being able to touch you. Unmanned cow bombers do that. They are the biggest potential gain in conventional carrier striking power seen EVER. We can buy lots of them and afford to throw them away. All they have to be able to do is fly to point A, drop bombs, and return to land. We can build hordes of them much more cheaply than any manned strike fighter. There is NO reason to put manned assets up front on a Day 1/Raid 1 scenario. It offers ABSOLUTELY NO ADVANTAGE over unmanned. Man makes war best by building the better gun that fires the better bullet. It is about time we learned this and stopped playing 8th Air Force. The best gun is the kind you can fire without giving a damn if someone kills the platform utilizing it, because there is no man in it to be killed.

Imagine waves of these things attacking our future enemy. The enemy fighters have to hunt a large number of fully VLO'd drones that are coming to bomb their homeland, all the while avoiding getting sniped at by the manned fighters behind the drones lobbing AIM-120D/FMRAAM at them.

We haven't "thrown air to air under the bus" (at least not yet). We currently have to most capable air to air machine ever built, and it will remain superior for the foreseeable future.

PD

[JALU3]

Although I understand why everyone has hesitations regarding the F-35 program, and ALL the aircraft it is ment to replace being placed in Tuscon, thus shortening the already shortenned reach of the CVW, I caution against the use of drones. Presently they seem like a good idea because they are used against an enemy with little to no EW capability. And of course, as stated be others in this thread, it is not a matter of if a conflict with a regular military force, but a matter of when. Therefore, seeing how much forces have become dependent on these new forms of communication, potential adversaries have poored resources into countering our forces ability to use these new forms of communication, forms of communication which are vital to remotely controlled craft, whether ground, air, sea, or under the sea. One can of course pre-program a mission profile and allow it to go silent, however, there are risks with that. As missions are often very time sensetive, and geopolitical realities are very fluid, a pre-programmed drone, would be unable to be recalled, if it was set not to receive any communications. Furthermore, if it were possible to overide our control of those automated, or remotely operated, drones than they can surely be used against us.
Therefore, I caution against an all drone force.
I admit they do have an important roll to fill, and can decrease casualties in a conflict, however, there are realities that need to be seriously considered before our defense forces/militarys become dependent on them, least we be put in a position where we no longer have the capability to adequatly defend ourselves with non-automated or drone platforms.

One of the greatests problems of the CVW has been the decreased area of operation capability. AF provided Air Refueling capability has been taken for granted, as has been friendly air fields which to divert to. This is not always the case. Furthermore, by decreasing the radius which the CVW can strike from, it endangers the entire CVBG by bringing it closer to the target/threat.

But back to the Virginias. Although they have increased in cost, compared to other programs they have been built on budget, and without the problems that other newer programs have had. I wonder, if like the USS Jimmy Carter (what an awful name ), if they can add a "plug" to the vessel to increase its VLS capacity, thus increasing its first day strike capability, without seriously effecting its ASuW/ASW capability.

Furthermore, the USN no longer has an Air Superiority Fighter, since the F-14Ds have been decommissioned and chopped up in the desert. -cries at the thought- Instead the F/A-18E/Fs have taken up the roll, however I don't know them to be adequate to create an air superiority setting against a strongly willed opponent with Air to Air Capability of a nation-state of means.

[geetrue]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Furthermore, the USN no longer has an Air Superiority Fighter, since the F-14Ds have been decommissioned and chopped up in the desert. -cries at the thought- Instead the F/A-18E/Fs have taken up the roll, however I don't know them to.

All old things pass away ... the F-5 Tiger was my favorite jet ... probably still in service overseas in someones Airforce. Iran I bet

[GOZO]

Enigma wrote.

Not to be ignored, is the simple fact that the repetitive diving/surfacing of a submarine causes stress to her hull. Much like the cycles of an airliner. Simply put, after a while, no amount of equipment retrofit can fix an aging sub. She is retired to avoid a hull breach at depth. Not replacing these submarines means the U.S fleet would deplete of active subs rapidly. Not a notion I prefer.

Thats it. How much you still love the old 688, they are in fact old, like it or not. Old design, old propulsion systems, old maintenace principles, old logistics thinking and most of all old hulls. They will be consuming enourmous amounts of money for less usability. Time to retire with honor. <salute>

The decsision to replace them with new technology (not at least the logistics bit) in the shape of the "Virginia" cl sounds logical to me.

/OB

Old 688-buff.

[JALU3]

Well, why don't they revamp, and modernize, those old designs? Or create newer designs that don't reduce capability. If I remember wasn't there a A-6G program proposed, and several F-14 variants proposed? I mean the Super Hornet isn't bad, but she also has a lot to be wanted.

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by JALU3

Well, why don't they revamp, and modernize, those old designs? Or create newer designs that don't reduce capability. If I remember wasn't there a A-6G program proposed, and several F-14 variants proposed? I mean the Super Hornet isn't bad, but she also has a lot to be wanted.

The SH is also relatively cheap and can employ nearly every weapon in the USN fighter arsenal and has the advantage of a two seat crew. And she can pass gas. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the Cold War ended in the early '90s. Coulda, woulda, shoulda. We are stuck with the Super Hornet until the "next step". And it really isn't that bad for what we're paying for it.

It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind.

PD

[JALU3]

Originally Posted by PeriscopeDepth

It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind.

PD

True enough, there is Communist China, Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela. Oh wait, the old adversaries are the ones who are building the systems that could counter our own . . . so "WWIII in Europe" is not what they are being designed against, but those foreign produced systems built to counter our own. -looks at Russian designs-

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by JALU3

True enough, there is Communist China, Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela. Oh wait, the old adversaries are the ones who are building the systems that could counter our own . . . so "WWIII in Europe" is not what they are being designed against, but those foreign produced systems built to counter our own. -looks at Russian designs-

Look at the specs. Particularly radius. They are designed with European battlefield transit ranges in mind, ~600nm. How close do you honestly believe we can get our carriers to any Chinese target in 2020? What will the sortie rate of these things be? There will not be more than two squadrons on a USN carrier deck. How many can we afford to lose in this scenario, because we will lose men and equipment to China in 2020.

Look at what bombing barbarians in Central Asia required. ~1300-1800nm transit PLUS CAS loiter time.

Don't even bother to explain to me how 1,763 ~80 million dollar VLO attack jets are needed for "Islamofascist Terrorist, Pirates, a resurgent Russia, Venezuela." Using a banana republic with a few dozen retooled Flankers, RPG toting barbarians, and PKM toting fishermen to justify these things is absolutely silly. And the RuAF had a tough enough time dealing with Georgian SAMs that were RUSSIAN built. Not to mention: how many new jets have they received in the past 10 years?

Why not just tank more and let the F-35 win the day? Because your tanker IS the Superhornet, the REAL force multiplier in the equation. And if the Superhornet can get close enough to tank and live, what's the point of 1,763 manned ~$80 mil VLO bomb trucks? Supers will be needed to fly support for its "superior VLO replacement" on Day 1/Raid 1 ANYWAYS because big motor missiles simply won't fit in the weapons bay. And modern wars are started with shooting volleys of big motor missiles. And "we'll just hang it on the wing after day 2" is absolutely ridiculous. Because it completely defeats the rhetoric that we NEED an overpriced F-16 anyways.

VLO wins the day! No, VLO and supercruise win the day. Because you are stealthly, not invisible to air defences ~2020. And you don't have the thrust to "Run away!" OR the amount of ordinance to make the other guy think twice about running you down.
http://blog.wired.com/defense/2009/0...-joint-st.html

What's another $300+ billion between friends?
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...f.3b6036a.html

PD

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

And the RuAF had a tough enough time dealing with Georgian SAMs that were RUSSIAN built.

I must say I never really understood this anti-Russian criticism for the Georgian war. If the Falklands, Lebanon 1982 and Gulf War showed us anything, it is that since around 1980 (+/- 5 years or so), antiair missiles have improved to the point where correctly employed, they are actually worth making (compare that with 60s-70s weapons from the AIM-9H to the SA-6, even in their prime). If this is true of the West, this is true for Russian weapons as well. So how does their 1980s missiles actually being effective become a denigration for the RuAF?

[PeriscopeDepth]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

I must say I never really understood this anti-Russian criticism for the Georgian war. If the Falklands, Lebanon 1982 and Gulf War showed us anything, it is that since around 1980 (+/- 5 years or so), antiair missiles have improved to the point where correctly employed, they are actually worth making (compare that with 60s-70s weapons from the AIM-9H to the SA-6, even in their prime). If this is true of the West, this is true for Russian weapons as well. So how does their 1980s missiles actually being effective become a denigration for the RuAF?

I'm sorry, I worded this poorly. Russian SAMs are probably the best weapons the Russians make, far more capable than their fighters for anti air IMO. What I was saying was, they should have known better. They themselves built the system. As close as it was to their border they should have known where these things were approximately through ELINT, sat recon, and perhaps even HUMINT. They made the system. If not capable of knowing how to outright defeat it, they should have known EXACTLY how to avoid it.

The RuAF did OK with CAS in Georgia, but if they were ever to come up against a modern air force I have my doubts about them. Keep in mind the vast majority of their Air Force is the same stuff they were using in the 1980's. Ours is too (and earlier), but has seen A LOT of upgrading. The majority of Russian equipment hasn't. And the performance of their radar guided AAMs (as recently as mid 1990s) has been absolutely terrible, even compared to Vietnam era Sparrows.

PD