SUBSIM: The Web's #1 resource for all submarine & naval simulations since 1997 |
01-03-09, 07:25 AM | #31 | |
Navy Seal
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,643
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
01-03-09, 08:20 AM | #32 | |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,140
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
01-03-09, 12:15 PM | #33 | |
Navy Seal
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,643
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
01-03-09, 03:36 PM | #34 | ||
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
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 |
||
01-03-09, 04:12 PM | #35 | |
Navy Seal
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 8,643
Downloads: 19
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
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. |
|
01-03-09, 09:33 PM | #36 | |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
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 |
|
01-04-09, 05:12 AM | #37 |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 11SMS 98896 10565
Posts: 756
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
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.
__________________
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One |
01-07-09, 01:44 AM | #38 | |
Cold War Boomer
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Walla Walla
Posts: 2,837
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
__________________
|
|
01-07-09, 08:56 AM | #39 | |
Commander
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Linkoping, Sweden
Posts: 478
Downloads: 176
Uploads: 0
|
Enigma wrote.
Quote:
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.
__________________
SHIV:TMo 2.5, RSRD, SCAF OLC, Ralle's modpack SHIV: WDAD, Med Campaign SHIII: GWX3 GOLD, OLCII Gold, ACM-reloaded interface mod, SHIIIcmndr 3.2, Full Realism/DiD SHIII: LSH3 2015 Cold Waters with all bells and whistles Finally SHV but still unmodded and still a noob.... |
|
01-08-09, 12:23 AM | #40 |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 11SMS 98896 10565
Posts: 756
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
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 Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One |
01-08-09, 02:25 AM | #41 | |
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
It is about time we stopped spec'ing platforms with WWIII in Europe on our mind. PD |
|
01-09-09, 01:46 AM | #42 | |
Grey Wolf
Join Date: May 2007
Location: 11SMS 98896 10565
Posts: 756
Downloads: 0
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
__________________
"The Federation needs men like you, doctor. Men of conscience. Men of principle. Men who can sleep at night... You're also the reason Section Thirty-one exists -- someone has to protect men like you from a universe that doesn't share your sense of right and wrong." -Sloan, Section Thirty-One |
|
01-09-09, 02:53 AM | #43 | ||
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
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 |
||
01-09-09, 05:14 AM | #44 | |
Ace of the Deep
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 1,140
Downloads: 5
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
|
|
01-09-09, 09:59 AM | #45 | ||
Sea Lord
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,894
Downloads: 6
Uploads: 0
|
Quote:
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 |
||
|
|