Strongest Army in the world?

[JacksBleedingEyes]

Is improving relations with Hitler a moral good?

If the Jews have a good relationship with Hitler, the bad things could have been avoided. The better your relationship are, the easier it should be to settle things diplomatically instead of through war.

Sure France had good relations with Germany, but well they were invaded anyway

What the hell are you talking about?
We are talking about a grudge that goes back for hundreds of years. To Napoleon the French Revolution, Bismarck, WWI. France had good relation with Germany my arse. Political relation in not the same as populace relation especially when some right wing nationalist wack takes control and becomes cancelor. Europe is not the States (a relatively new country with literaly 0 neighbors to worry about).

When Bismarck united the German states in 1870?? (I am bad with years) in the Franco Prussian War, Germany took over the Alsace and Lorraine region, rich in coal and other exportable items of the time.
The beef between Germany and France goes even further in time, due to the French Revolution and the fear of this in German monarchy.
But anyway, after Germany was defeated in world war I, France took this region back, as well as that because of this huge beef, imposed huge huge huge sanctions and payments to be made due for reconstructing France. Like 60 percent of all French Farmland was destroyed Millions of acres of Forests. The whole bloody war took place mostly in the French region. Germany was unaffected.

The reason why Germany lost was due to the fact, that firstly they had two bad harvests in a row, and because Germany imported 30% of its food, and was not able to trade anymore due to the fact that their fleet was crippled by Britain, was not able to import anything at all. This leads to the second reason which is bad morale, on the homefront and therefore bad morale on the war front. Regardless after the war huge payments were supposed to be payed by Germany to France every year. Germany managed to sustain these payments for 1.5 years. The right wing political elements had always held a grudge against the French because of this. Losing Allsace Loraine was not the only thing that the French however had dictated in the Treaty of Versailes which mind you the Germans had no say in. England, France and America (well not so much Woodrow) had decided to split up the German nation, and due to mainly French influence (because Loyd at the time wanted a stronger Germany to trade with) also lost a huge chunk to what later became Polant.

When the right wing element of Germany came to power, (mainly through a very well organized propaganda machine) the first thing they recouperated was Allsace Loraine. The French didnt do anything to stop them, Hitler had played his card very well, and as a result, in 1936 got the region back. Had France massed its army at the border, Germany would have had to retreat. Germany at the time was not allowed to have an army, except for a very small force. They still managed to train one in disguise however. Regardless, these are a few elements why Germany had beef with France and why France had beef with Germany and why they got invaded. Also keep in mind, Germany did not want to fight Britain or France, Germany was just after Russia. But after they entered Czechoslovachia it all became a totally different story. Germany defeated France in 6 weeks.

 

[Silent_One]

Sabastian-
I think your missing my point. I'm not questioning whom would win.
Deepak asserted that difficult terrain renders air support ineffective. You suggest that air power technology would negate difficult enviroments, and that the "Taleban had few places they could hide". As I have said I have read an article that indicates that is not so. From the article (I have the issue):

EARLY ON, the war went mostly the way Afghan model propo­nents assume. The new model took the Taliban by surprise, and their initial dispositions were poorly chosen for this kind ofwarfare.2 They typically deployed on exposed ridgelines with little effort at camouflage or concealment. Their entrenchments were haphazard, lacking overhead cover for infantry positions or proper emplace­ments for combat vehicles. As a result, their positions could often be identified from extraordinary distances. And once located, their poor entrenchment and exposed movements made them easy prey for precision weapons.

The initial results were a slaughter.

The Taliban were not the only ones surprised by these results. Some allied Afghans initially thought the lasers U.S. SOF used to designate bombing targets were
actually death rays, since they apparently caused defenses to vanish whenever
caught in their cross hairs. Both sides, however, learned fast.

Learned fast they did.

During Operation Anaconda in March 2002, an intensive prebattle reconnaissance effort focused every available surveillance and target­acquisition system on a tiny, 100 square kilometer battlefield. Yet fewer than half of all the al Qaeda positions ultimately identified on this battlefield were discovered prior to ground contact. In fact, most fire received by U. S. forces during Anaconda came from initially unseen, unanticipated defenders.

How could such surprise be possible in an era of persistent reconnais­sance drones, airborne radars, satellite surveillance, thermal imaging, and hypersensitive electronic eavesdropping equipment? The answer is that the earth's surface remains an extremely complex environment with an abundance of natural and manmade cover available for those militaries capable of exploiting it.

This does not mean that precision firepower is not extremely lethal, or that even well dug in al Qaeda defenders did not suffer heavy losses from precision engagements. But the evidence does indicate that a combination of cover and concealment can allow defenders, though battered, to survive modern firepower in sufficient numbers to mount serious resistance.

 

[zidane1strife]

Forests would no longer provide any cover due to the ubiquitous existence of triple-spectrum imaging on many US weapons (FLIR, thermal, and SAR).

For terrorist and weak nations that is... stronger nations can have special suits/clothing designed that basically make you look like a rodent, or tree in terms of heat signature radar, etc...)

PS

The future is GM... If the US embraces it... it shall remain above all nations... if it scorns it, and limits it as has happened with other controversial technologies in the past... it could stand to lose its technological edge in the future...

EDITED

 

[DemoCoder]

Yes, the future is in agro/bio/micro/nanotech manufacturing. Anyone going against it will lose. The silicon revolution was only the first step, and showed the power of mass manufacturing combined with minaturization. Now combine that with self-replication or assisted replication.

 

[Nagorak]

Silent_One, whom has the greater chance of success? A force of US ground and air in the mountains and accross on the other side on another mountain an equal force of Taliban terrorist?

Taliban were not terrorists. They were the military force that controlled Afghanistan. Maybe they weren't very nice people, but they were not terrorists anymore than the Iraqi army could be classified as terrorists.

The fact of the matter is the US remains in violation of the Geneva convention by illegally holding Afghani prisoners of war. In fact the US is really putting its foot in its mouth because it's not even treating Taliban soldiers as terrorists and bringing them to trial. Instead it's just arbitrarily treating them as if they have no rights whatsoever.

This is the same US, by the way, that went in to "liberate" Iraq. I'm sorry, but with this sort of obvious hypocrisy is it any surprise that the rest of the world doesn't trust the US?

In fact anyone who isn't naive totally naive would realise the US only cares about one thing: the US. And then it's really all to support the wealthy elite who own everything, you know the same ones who make money from your spending money and then don't spend any of their own. I wonder how many "patriots" have less than $2000 in their bank accounts? Anyway, this is off topic, so feel free to just ignore it and keep living in your dream world.

As to the Taliban getting slaughtered, please... Afghanistan is one of the least technologically advanced locations in the world. It's like mowing down a bunch of cave men armed with rocks and clubs with a tank....what a surprise! For what it's worth, Russia also had a stunning military success in Afghanistan. They took Kabul in something like 2 hours, but they still ended up finally leaving 10 years later. Incidentally, this is one area where the US army is really weak. We won the "war", but as soon as it turns out to be more trouble than its worth, we'll pack our bags and leave. Which is why it wouldn't be practical for US forces to try to take over the world militarily.

To be honest, it's no surprise that they had a theocratic government since they've obviously not advanced as far as other parts of the world yet. It remains to be seen whether they can be "dragged into the 20th century", and I actually rather doubt it, but we'll see.

 

[DemoCoder]

The Geneva conventions do not protect mercenaries, and the foreign al-qaeda arabs in the country certainly fall under the category of mercenaries. They do not wear uniforms, or differentiate themselves from the civilian population, and they are not indigenous guerilla fighters/partisans fighting a war of independence, but rather, a foreign group of mercenaries recruited to assist the Taliban in their civil war. By and large, they were not Afghani's, but Gulf Arabs.

The Geneva conventions are meant to "civilize" war by making some rules that limit the length of scope of war. Having to have a command structure, flag, uniforms, etc lessens collateral damage and makes it easier to "turn off" a conflict by allowing a side to surrender (you must surrender when your chain of command says its over). Mercenaries significantly complicate this by being forces who don't have an allegiance or are under the authority of the government ruling the land they are fighting for. They are essentially unlicensed bandits.

The only thing the US "violated" was that the determination of who and who is not a mercenary is to be decided by tribunal, not assertion. If someone is ruled a mercenary, it is perfectly legal to hold them without rights as an illegal combatant.


On the other hand, since the international courts are a farce (just look at the attempts in Belgium to bring Blair and Bush as war criminals), the US is right to be skeptical of placing its safety and security in international courts that are poised to make a mockery of justice.

 

[Deepak]

US army will face more challenges in near future as modern weapons' proliferation speeds up.....now you dont need aircraft carriers to counter US ACs.....buy Russian Supersonic Cruise missiles (like club)...US has nothing to counter those cruise missiles....

Similarly fighter planes like Su30 which are currently the best in the world (better than F-15C) are now employed with Indian/Chinese AFs with long range A-2-A missiles like A-12 Adder...

the only difference is the budget....

US spend $300 Billion which is an overkill really....ideally they can do everything in $100 Billion....whereas China spends around 20-30 and India only 15 billions...

 

[Legion]

you truly underestimate the US military. You honestly think we don't have something to counter such weapons? You are kidding yourself .

 

[DemoCoder]

US army will face more challenges in near future as modern weapons' proliferation speeds up.....now you dont need aircraft carriers to counter US ACs.....buy Russian Supersonic Cruise missiles (like club)...US has nothing to counter those cruise missiles....

Dreams Deepak, dreams. It is not enough to simply purchase a few pieces of good equipment from the Russians, you need the whole CCCC infrastructure which the Indians and Chinese do not have. What good is a Sunburn missile frigate if the Chinese/Indian navy don't have over-the-horizon radar, and no equivalent to AWACS, JSTARS, or AEGIS? I'll tell you: the minute you send a boat within range to try and target the carrier battle group, you get blown out of the water by a ASM, or attack sub.

When China bought a few Sunburn frigates from Russia, chinese flooded usenet military groups proudly proclaiming that they could blow the USN out of the water. If you read Janes, AVW&ST, or other military journals, you'll see that these missiles are pretty useless without tons of other supporting infrastructure which the Chinese (and presumably Indians) currently don't have. It's a fancy deterrent that might work if they got lucky and if a carrier drove into range without any protection and no preemptive cleansing operations.

If a CVN is heading toward waters in which it is known that the country has Klub/Sunburn/Yakhont, the very first action will be to take out their missile frigates, targeting radar, bombers (for Sunburn airlaunch) and ground based interceptors. Very few aircraft even need to be risked for this.

And to correct you, the US has something (building now) to counter the Sunburn and other supersonic cruise missiles, it's the naval theater wide missile defense system which uses the standard missile 3 + AEGIS upgrade. The Arrow and PAC-3 have already demonstrated the ability to shoot down ballistic supersonic missiles, it's the surface skimming ones that create difficulty, but they claim to have this problem solved.

Similarly fighter planes like Su30 which are currently the best in the world (better than F-15C) are now employed with Indian/Chinese AFs with long range A-2-A missiles like A-12 Adder...

Better in only a single scenario http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/comparison-f15-su30-1.html that requires a high degree of training to pull off and only if the F15C's radar hasn't been patched, that no wingmen are present with ECM, and no AWACS are in the area.



In the meantime, the F117-As, B-2s, hundreds of tomahawks, and later JSF's will have laid waste to your air bases and SAM sites and there's not much you could do to stop them. After that, the B52s, F15E, Hornets, et al, will have field day.

By the time other nations have enough SU30s to every worry the Pentagon, the US will have hundreds of JSFs, which can be launched VTOL from relatively cheap assault ships.

The Mig-25 was thought to be an uber plane at one time (the F15 was designed to counter it), but after Belenko defected, we found it was pretty shoddy. Part of the probem wth US analysis of Russian equipment, is that it is artificially boosted very high in capability in order to justify more expensive programs to "counter it". We saw this over and over again during the cold war, and after the iron curtain collapsed, we found out the truth: US had supremacy in almost every area, Russia was a paper tiger.

the only difference is the budget....

Yes, Russian Sunburn missiles (and even worse, the Yakhont) cost more than the cruiser that fires them!

US spend $300 Billion which is an overkill really....ideally they can do everything in $100 Billion....whereas China spends around 20-30 and India only 15 billions...

US spending is based on projecting power all over the world. India and China spending is directed at regional defense. While US spending is high, as a percentage of GDP, it's historically low, and much lower than the the ratios for India/China/NK/etc.

BTW, what if the US decides not to use a carrier, but to fly missions directly from the continental US (B-2s from Missouri). You gonna take out their base of operations? What about B-52s, B-2s, and strike aircraft flying from overseas land bases on your border? Those anti-ship sea-skimming missiles are pretty useless then.

 

[Deepak]

If a CVN is heading toward waters in which it is known that the country has Klub/Sunburn/Yakhont, the very first action will be to take out their missile frigates, targeting radar, bombers (for Sunburn airlaunch) and ground based interceptors. Very few aircraft even need to be risked for this.

And to correct you, the US has something (building now) to counter the Sunburn and other supersonic cruise missiles, it's the naval theater wide missile defense system which uses the standard missile 3 + AEGIS upgrade. The Arrow and PAC-3 have already demonstrated the ability to shoot down ballistic supersonic missiles, it's the surface skimming ones that create difficulty, but they claim to have this problem solved.

The fact is there is no anti Cruise Missile System tested/conceptual anywhere in the world....it is impossible to stop an incoming supersonic CM...becse

1) CM flies very close to the ground so RADARs cannot find them until it reaches very close to the target...it is too late by then....
2) A CM can take multiple routes...not like a BM which has a predetermined route....
3) A CM is smaller then a BM.....

actually first and second points make it a dangerous weapon....

and yes! AWACS are a necessity that why we are getting Phalcon from Isreal!....may be Arrow2 also...who knows!

btw as far as Cruise Missile Tech is concerned Russia is ahead of US...

 

[DemoCoder]

If a CVN is heading toward waters in which it is known that the country has Klub/Sunburn/Yakhont, the very first action will be to take out their missile frigates, targeting radar, bombers (for Sunburn airlaunch) and ground based interceptors. Very few aircraft even need to be risked for this.

And to correct you, the US has something (building now) to counter the Sunburn and other supersonic cruise missiles, it's the naval theater wide missile defense system which uses the standard missile 3 + AEGIS upgrade. The Arrow and PAC-3 have already demonstrated the ability to shoot down ballistic supersonic missiles, it's the surface skimming ones that create difficulty, but they claim to have this problem solved.

Let me correct you, Klub/Sunburn/Yakhont are not Ballistic Missiles, they are Supersonic Cruise Missiles, they are pretty much like Tomohawk CMs except the fact that Tomohawks are subsonic...and the fact is there is no anti Cruise Missile System tested/conceptual anywhere in the world....it is impossible to stop an incoming supersonic CM...becse

Try brushing up on your understanding of english. I never claimed that Sunburn and Yakhont were BALLISTIC missiles. I said that PAC-3 and ARROW have demonstrated the ability to shoot down ballistic missiles (which are SUPERSONIC). Understand? The US can shoot down incoming super-sonic missiles. I clearly pointed out that Sunburn/Yakhont are SEA-SKIMMING missiles which differentiates them from ballistic missiles since they fly UNDER RADAR.

The key difference between a skimming missile and a ballistic missile is not speed, it is the fact that you can't see it until it comes over the horizon (within 12 miles) in which case you have just a few seconds to react.

1) CM flies very close to the ground so RADARs cannot find them until it reaches very close to the target...it is too late by then....
2) A CM can take multiple routes...not like a BM which has a predetermined route....
3) A CM is smaller then a BM.....

#1 Please learn more about the weapons you are trying to evangelize. Klub/Sunburn/Yakhont are anti-ship missiles, so they do not fly "close to the ground". They fly close to the *water* They are not comparable to a Tomahawk. Tomahawk is a LAND ATTACK missile, with a range of 1100km. Club has a range of 200-300km. Russian supersonic cruise missiles do not attack aircraft, or ground targets.


#2 For your information, there are 5 variants of the Club, and 3 of the variants have a ballistic terminal trajectory (they are cruise missiles that do a "supersonic DIVE" at the end)

#3 Size doesn't matter. AEGIS has a resolution of .0005 square meter

#4 cruise missiles have higher IR signature

#5 AEGIS can take out cruise missiles. It was not designed to take out supersonic cruise missiles. The US navy is rectifying that by upgrading point defense of AEGIS with ESSM, RAM, and SM-3, and boosting ECM and radar scanning rate.

#6 What you going to do about those E-2 Hawkeyes that are flying 100+ miles in front of the carrier battle group just waiting for you to try and launch your expensive Russian supersonic cruise missiles that your country can barely afford? and how you going to stop a "shock and awe" of hundreds of tomahawks launched from 1000+km away that are untouchable by you, and your missiles can't even reach the carriers?

The Evolved Sea Sparrow Missile (ESSM) is the next generation of Sea Sparrow missiles, selected for the Arleigh Burke (DDG-51) Flight IIA Aegis destroyer self-defense system as well as for aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships, with a new launcher. ESSM is a kinematic upgrade to the improved RIM-7P missile; the existing rocket motor and control section are replaced with a larger-diameter rocket motor, a tail control section for increased responsiveness, and an integrated thrust vector control for vertical launch applications. ESSM will also have an upgraded warhead and a quick-start electronic upgrade. Enhanced ESSM kinematic performance and warhead lethality will leverage the robust RIM-7P guidance capability to provide increased operational effectiveness against high-speed maneuvering anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCMs) at greater intercept ranges. ESSM will be incorporated into the Aegis Weapon System for short- to medium-range missile defense. ESSM development is being pursued as an international cooperative initiative involving ten countries in the NATO Sea Sparrow Consortium.

The RAM program is designed to provide surface ships with an effective, low-cost, lightweight, self-defense system which will provide an improved capability to engage and defeat incoming antiship cruise missiles (ASCMs). RAM is a joint United States and German venture to design an effective, low cost, lightweight quick-reaction, self-defense system which will increase the survivability of otherwise undefended ships. It is a 5 inch missile that utilizes SIDEWINDER technology for the warhead and rocket motor, and the STINGER missile’s seeker. Cueing is provided by the ship’s ESM suite or radar. The MK-31 RAM Guided Missile Weapon System (GMWS) is defined as the MK-49 Guided Missile Launching System (GMLS) and the MK-44 Guided Missile Round Pack (GMRP).

The US has purchased super-sonic decoy Sunburns from Russia and is using them to conduct tests against AEGIS defenses.

 

[Deepak]

Try brushing up on your understanding of english. I never claimed that Sunburn and Yakhont were BALLISTIC missiles.

where did I say that??

 

[fbg1]

There is no stronger military force than the US. Period. You can argue it until you are blue in the face, but the US is the super power of militaries.

Second that. The US almost spends more on the military than the entire rest of the world combined. Big army means nothing, Iraq had the 4th largest Army in the world before Desert Storm, and look what good it did them then. China's army would be toast if we wanted it that way. The US military is so far ahead of every other military in the world (Britain and Israel excepted) in terms of training, technology, and moral it's crazy. It's like the US is showing up at knife fights armed with gattling guns. There's a reason the French call us a "Hyperpower". The only military force that can deter the US are WMD's. Anyone who doesn't believe the US is the strongest military is sadly deluded and misinformed.

Having said that, the US is not so powerful that it can do anything it wants. For instance, since WW2 it was policy to maintain the ability to fight wars on two fronts, namely Europe and Asia/Pacific. In the 90s that ability was reduced to fighting and winning one front, and holding ground on the other front. Rumsfeld is working on a major military transformation that no longer envisions huge army battles, but that instead emphasizes highly mobile specops-like forces + advanced technology. With that in mind, we can't just go all over the world fighting multiple fronts simultaneously, we have to pick and choose our battles. So if China, North Korea, all the Middle East, and France ganged up on us, we'd have trouble.

 

[DemoCoder]

France would bog us down by surrendering early and forcing us to feed and care for their captured POW army.

 

[fbg1]

Similarly fighter planes like Su30 which are currently the best in the world (better than F-15C)

Not better than the US's newest, F-22 Raptor.

 

[fbg1]

And to correct you, the US has something (building now) to counter the Sunburn and other supersonic cruise missiles, it's the naval theater wide missile defense system which uses the standard missile 3 + AEGIS upgrade.

And don't forget the Army's Tactical High Energy Laser, although it may take a little longer to complete than the anti-missile missiles.

 

[Deepak]

Similarly fighter planes like Su30 which are currently the best in the world (better than F-15C)

Not better than the US's newest, F-22 Raptor.

Hey I said currently.....F-22 is still in development...

 

[DemoCoder]

Hey I said currently.....F-22 is still in development...

No, the F-22 is not in development, it is in low-rate initial production. It is an expensive plane tho, likely not worth the expense. That's the mistake the people who wax on about Russian superplanes make, that speed is everything. The US Air Force has always gone up against supposedly "superior" planes and the kill ratio has always been in our favor, because of superior force integration.

Even an Su37 might have an edge on an F-22, but it's irrelevent if the Su37 is flown by poorly trained pilots with no AWACS support and without support forces (Russian planes have been traditionally designed for non-team use, little need of bases, operate off short runways with no maintainence crew) What US planes might lack on agility/speed specs, that more then make up for in training, organization, combined intelligence, integration with the rest of the force structure. When you fly against an F15, you are usually flying against several F15s, AWACS, NRO SIGINT satellites, Global Hawks, AEGIS, etc.

The US concept of "weapons system" includes not just the vehicle itself, but the entire support structure.

I'd say that the JSF (at $30m a pop) is a much better deal, and that thousands of these suckers will cake walk over countries that try to buy expensive highend Migs and Su's.

Moreover, there are always the future UCAV programs. If you move the pilot from the cockpit to a computer terminal, the plane can sustain much higher Gs, undertake more difficult missions, and will be cheaper to boot, and not risk the pilot's life.

 

[Deepak]

Hey I said currently.....F-22 is still in development...

No, the F-22 is not in development, it is in low-rate initial production.

Ok! But Su30 is in Service in Indian/Chinese AFs.....

Even an Su37 might have an edge on an F-22, but it's irrelevent if the Su37 is flown by poorly trained pilots with no AWACS support and without support forces (Russian planes have been traditionally designed for non-team use, little need of bases, operate off short runways with no maintainence crew) What US planes might lack on agility/speed specs, that more then make up for in training, organization, combined intelligence, integration with the rest of the force structure. When you fly against an F15, you are usually flying against several F15s, AWACS, NRO SIGINT satellites, Global Hawks, AEGIS, etc.

Thats true! The real difference lies in the force multipliers like AWACS/tankers etc otherwise Russian planes are more than a match for US counterparts....thats whys China did try to get Phalcon from Israel, now they may try Russian AWACS A-50 Mainstay....thats why we are getting Phalcons after US approval....

I'd say that the JSF (at $30m a pop) is a much better deal, and that thousands of these suckers will cake walk over countries that try to buy expensive highend Migs and Su's.

You are sure JSF wll be @ $30m....btw Migs/Su are cheaper then US fighters otherwise everyone would have had F-16s instead of Mig-29s...

Moreover, there are always the future UCAV programs. If you move the pilot from the cockpit to a computer terminal, the plane can sustain much higher Gs, undertake more difficult missions, and will be cheaper to boot, and not risk the pilot's life.

I dont think UCAVs can replace human element....not atleast for next 50 yrs....

I think the bottomline is, yes! America is a hyperpower but that is a almost invinsible but with the tech advancement we can make sure that if we cant win then we dont lose also....[/quote]

 

[DemoCoder]

I dont think UCAVs can replace human element....not atleast for next 50 yrs....

No one is replacing the "human element", the pilot is just "telecommutting" to work ala predator. I envision UCAVs as simply reusable cruise missiles. The human being is just a seeker element that can't be fooled as easily by countermeasures. Give me a mini-UCAV that I can build for say, the cost of a Tomahawk missile, such that I can launch swarms of these things, with multiple UCAVs controllable by a single pilot station, and your airforce will be toast. Most could fly directly after their target, but once they are in range, the human pilot remotely can setup targets for them and correct any targeting errors.

Classic air-to-air fights between fighters are a thing of the past, even before the UCAV. With AWACS, once you are spotted 300km away, simply launch a smart standard-off weapon (UCAV) or a long range missile. Let the UCAV cruise towards the target. Once it "engages", a human teleoperated pilot can take over with targeting. More and more of US engagement occurs before you can see the enemy face to face.

You can talk about human aerial acrobatics all you want, but the fact of the matter is, pilots don't "dogfight" missiles. If the countermeasures fail, and they are in the wrong position, they are usually dead.

Take a jet fighter, remove the cockpit, replace with computers and remote video, downsize more, boost speed and maneuverability, and you essentially have a remotely piloted reusable general purpose missile/bomb that can supercruise far cheaper and faster and is very stealthy. You think you can dogfight against a Mach 2 tiny, hard to see, pilotless drone?


There is no "dogfighting" this UCAV. Once it is launched against you, you won't see it until it is too late, and by that time, it has already launched its payload. If you destroy it, you have destroye a relatively cheap weapon, and the most expensive hard-to-replace component, the highly trained pilot, simply switches to pilot the next one.

Even if UCAVs suffered a 1:2 kill ratio (which I don't believe) because of the effect of pilots not experiencing the G forces first hand, it would be acceptable, since the planes would be much cheaper and you are not risking the pilot's lives. Moreover, think of the demoralizing effect on the enemy airforce, whose pilots know that if they score a "kill", they didn't kill anything but a remote controlled robot, that they can't extract any blood or loss on the Americans who are killing them.


These planes could also, like Tomahawks, be used for deep strike / suicide missions into enemy territory. Precision human controlled bombers with insignificant radar cross sections, and with zero risk to pilot.

Just look at the predator. It costs $4 million (price of 8 tomahawk missiles). The US could build 1 thousand predators for $4 billion which is a tiny fraction of the military budget. Even if more predators get shot down than would "human piloted spy craft", it's worth it. The loss in capable is made up for the fact that you can build many times more planes, and the most valuable asset -- the pilot -- is not destroyed during the process.

Now consider a UCAV that can be built for $1million. Let's say it can carry 2 JDAMs or Hellfire missiles. The US could build a thousand of these for $1 billion. Your enemy has built 40 Su30s for the same cost. 1000 stealty nigh-invisible supercruising UCAVs vs 40 Su30s?


I just don't see the battle of britain happening anymore. I see more cruise missiles, more strategic bombing, and more standoff weapons as the trend. Fights will be decided from 300km away, and will end when someone realizes too late that a weapon is locked onto them and there is no escape.

Just look at the EU's BVRAAM. This thing will be fired from hundreds of kilometers away, with multi-spectrum seekers, cruise via ramjet, until it reaches endgame, that then will kick in rockets for the finish up. If your ECM/ECCM don't work, goodbye. Better not to be seen in the first place and have one of these fired at you.


The only reason we're still bombing with F15E, F18s, etc is because gravity bombs cost $30,000 and cruise missiles cost $300,000. If a cruise missile morphs into a bomber, which can drop precision gravity bombs, or launch standoff weapons and return to base to be reused, why send a $50 million aircraft with pilot to drop a $20,000 bomb?

Perhaps the best example is fleet defense. An AEGIS cruiser can easily destroy dozens of invading aircraft with SM-2 at a 160km limit. Yes, there are also interceptors guarding the fleet, but an Arleigh Burke can take care of itself, and the enemy pilot never gets to dogfight anyone.