Are manned fighter jets an obsolete technology?

[theprestige]

Last bitch:

The word "defense".
Defense is less offensive than offense.
These weapons we discuss...

Is this really about defense?
When is the last time the U.S. used a weapon for defense?

You're still here?

Alright then, how about you provide some evidence for the following claim?

We pretend to be inventing weapons that will make war obsolete.

Who's "we", kemosabe?

Meanwhile, I do believe there's some value to inventing weapons that make war undesirable to one's enemies, if not outright winnable for oneself. Would you disagree?

More to the point: Since you insist on posting in this thread, could you please explain how your posts are relevant to this thread?

 

[Skwinty]

Here is the replacement for the U-2 plane.

Awesome.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/business/global-hawk-is-poised-to-replace-u-2-spy-plane.html

 

[BStrong]

We pretend to be inventing weapons that will make war obsolete.Yet, we know it never will be.
Hopefully, you can feel my frustration in this. And I will let it go at that.

quarky - the last set of inventors that made any such claims were Gatling, Nobel and Maxim.

No modern manufacturer of weapons and weapons systems has made any such claim.

As to your other assertion about defensive use of U.S. weapons, I've used them for that purpose. I'm still here.

Another fact to consider - the development and use of smart/brilliant munitions that have lessened civilian deaths/injuries.

Those weapons were developed and largely perfected by the U.S.

 

[geni]

Let me run and tell my bosses that they have it all wrong according to some guy on the internet with no experience in the area.


.... I'm back....

Cool. Did you have time to ask their opinion on aircraft vs battleships?

Yes I'm well aware of the orthodox position.

In the long term you are of course largely correct, as I said in the post you are arguing with. We will be creating a lot of different drone systems that can perform specialized missions more cheaply, and, of course, as our technology progresses we will have more sophisticated general purpose weapons as well. But that is all a long time coming.

Thats quite an assumption. Sure in the current geopolitical climate it looks somewhat likely. Last air to air combat was the south ossetia war so there is little insentive for anyone to get involved in game changing invovation.

However that assumes the civilian work in the area can't be used in millitry applications (which in the case of CCDs and patturn recognition software with the potential to make the flying SAM site approach actualy viable is highly questionable).

For now we do face real air threats that require conventional forces. As for who wins that technology battle, who knows? DS Gates has been pushing the Air Force to focus on this technology more, for example. The Army is investing heavily in ground systems. Given our available budget I have little doubt that we would dominate should we slip behind and find out the hard way.

Ah the victorian royal navy approach. Of course even in peacetime the royal navy could go from concept to deployment in a bit under 3 years (HMS warrior).

But, for now, NO, jet fighters are not obsolete.

Obsolete is such a subjective term that that claim doesn't mean much. You could argue that cavalry isn't obsolete.

 

[Ziggurat]

Obsolete is such a subjective term that that claim doesn't mean much. You could argue that cavalry isn't obsolete.

I don't think that's subjective so much as context-dependent. Because if you try to field horse cavalry against a tank battalion (and I'm specifying horse because the term "cavalry" is used to describe some mechanized forces), I think the results would be... not subjective.

So are there contexts within which fighters are obsolete? A few, yes. Are there critical contexts within which fighters are not obsolete? Right now, absolutely.

 

[quarky]

You're still here?

Alright then, how about you provide some evidence for the following claim?


Who's "we", kemosabe?

Meanwhile, I do believe there's some value to inventing weapons that make war undesirable to one's enemies, if not outright winnable for oneself. Would you disagree?

More to the point: Since you insist on posting in this thread, could you please explain how your posts are relevant to this thread?

Apologies, part 2, for de-rail.
I started a thread in community to vent my hostile anti-war bias.

 

[INRM]

Let's just hope all this automated weapon technology doesn't turn on us...

 

[Skwinty]

For non-pilots, these controllers are in Nevada and are each
flying a drone thousands of miles away in the combat zone in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Their left hand is on the throttle controlling the drone's
engine. Note all the buttons which perform various tasks without removing the
hand from the throttle.

The right hand is flying the plane.

Welcome to the new world order. This is modern warfare.



http://s997.photobucket.com/albums/af92/skwinty/?action=view&current=zzdronepilots.mp4

 

[theprestige]

For non-pilots, these controllers are in Nevada and are each
flying a drone thousands of miles away in the combat zone in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Their left hand is on the throttle controlling the drone's
engine. Note all the buttons which perform various tasks without removing the
hand from the throttle.

The right hand is flying the plane.

Welcome to the new world order. This is modern warfare.



http://s997.photobucket.com/albums/af92/skwinty/?action=view&current=zzdronepilots.mp4

Seems like a waste to me. Why not let the plane fly the plane? Let the guy in Nevada handle route selection, waypoint designation, target approval, and overall mission guidance?

 

[Mikemcc]

For non-pilots, these controllers are in Nevada and are each
flying a drone thousands of miles away in the combat zone in Iraq and
Afghanistan.

Their left hand is on the throttle controlling the drone's
engine. Note all the buttons which perform various tasks without removing the
hand from the throttle.

The right hand is flying the plane.

Welcome to the new world order. This is modern warfare.



http://s997.photobucket.com/albums/af92/skwinty/?action=view&current=zzdronepilots.mp4

Those looked far more like control system simulators for possible next generation aircraft. The present systems are more robust and built into buildings or ISO containers - think more along the lines of a submarine contol centre, that gives the idea of the appearance of them.

 

[Mikemcc]

Seems like a waste to me. Why not let the plane fly the plane? Let the guy in Nevada handle route selection, waypoint designation, target approval, and overall mission guidance?

Good for an aircraft that is flying a low-risk flight profile (like the present drone systems that fly relatively high and slow in a non-hostile environment) or is cheap enough to not care if it gets shot down. At present the systems are not useful in a high SAW (surface-to-air-weapon) or CAP (combat air patrol - i.e. fighter) threat environment. The positional (and threat) awareness of the operator doesn't come even remotely close to a man in the cockpit.

It may come in time, but we are a long way from it at the moment. Such considerations may be relevant in Afghanistan, but can't be relied on for a potential future conflict as the technology presently stands.

 

[Andrew Wiggin]

I hope not. I view the concept of armed unmanned vehicles controlled from a position of safety being used to kill people on a battlefield with the same repugnance I view mantraps, trapguns, poison and other such coward's weapons. At least a fighter pilot is putting his ass on the line.

 

[Yoron]

All modern weapons are created to kill, as safely as possible. Not unlike being in a butcher shop. There are very few real 'warriors', there are a lot of people with buttons though. Over weighty with rigid minds, believing in the right of what they're doing, both sides counted. And finding themselves 'superior' of thought and moral code.

When you see someone speak about humane weapons, and reducing 'collateral damage' they mostly are responding to two things, publicity, and further publicity. Killing civilians is not anything that has become less in a modern war, not as I know it at least. Although the control over what reporters are allowed to write is honed to a icy perfection those days, making it real hard to see behind the screen.

No country want their sons and daughters coming home in coffins, thats one reason for buttons. The other is the way we are, while one guy tries to find a way to peace, a thousand try to find new ways to 'win the war'. We work that way, our minds do, but now with even greater ability of destruction. We're pack animals following the group.

And yes, definitely there will be driver less aircrafts. They will be able to go where we can't and do stuff our bodies can't take. They will also become smaller, cheaper, and more agile. We're near the envelope when it comes to human driven aircrafts.

 

[Ziggurat]

Killing civilians is not anything that has become less in a modern war, not as I know it at least.

Then you really don't know much.

 

[Ziggurat]

I hope not. I view the concept of armed unmanned vehicles controlled from a position of safety being used to kill people on a battlefield with the same repugnance I view mantraps, trapguns, poison and other such coward's weapons. At least a fighter pilot is putting his ass on the line.

The problem with traps is that they're mindless: once placed, no decision-making goes into their killing. They don't distinguish between targets. But that's not the case with unmanned vehicles like the predator or the reaper: there's still a very deliberate decision-making process going on, often one with MORE layers of checks than a frontline infantryman.

But if you're going to kill your enemy, what on earth makes it morally preferable to risk your own life as well? That's illogical. Either you're justified in killing your enemy or you aren't. The risk you put yourself in does not and cannot change that. So your position is emotional nonsense. In fact, it's worse than nonsense: it actually elevates practices like suicide bombing above ordinary combat, if you take your own position seriously.

 

[BStrong]

I hope not. I view the concept of armed unmanned vehicles controlled from a position of safety being used to kill people on a battlefield with the same repugnance I view mantraps, trapguns, poison and other such coward's weapons. At least a fighter pilot is putting his ass on the line.

In a war, there is no such thing as a "cowards" weapon.

 

[INRM]

BStrong

He actually makes a good point. Unmanned weapons actually make war more likely, not less likely. After all, nobody has to put their asses on the line and has nothing to lose.

 

[bigred]

we need to worry about electronic countermeasures. Can an unmanned air superiority drone engage in combat without remote control? Because such a capability might be necessary if the enemy can interrupt communications signals. I think we're a long ways away from having that capability. A manned aircraft certainly can still fight without communications. So my guess is that we'll have a mix of manned and unmanned air superiority planes for some time.

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

PS did anyone else in a moment of great geekdom flash to that Star Trek (orig series) episode where the 2 planets are battling each other by "non-destructive means" where the "bombs" just tally up numbers and people willingly go into incineration chambers? Summed up by Kirk going "you've made war so neat and clean you've lost the incentive to stop it" or some such.

 

[Klimax]

Pretty much sums it up IMO.

PS did anyone else in a moment of great geekdom flash to that Star Trek (orig series) episode where the 2 planets are battling each other by "non-destructive means" where the "bombs" just tally up numbers and people willingly go into incineration chambers? Summed up by Kirk going "you've made war so neat and clean you've lost the incentive to stop it" or some such.

Well, there is no single supercomputer to destroy which controls one of the side of conflict.

 

[bigred]

The problem with traps is that they're mindless: once placed, no decision-making goes into their killing. They don't distinguish between targets. But that's not the case with unmanned vehicles like the predator or the reaper: there's still a very deliberate decision-making process going on, often one with MORE layers of checks than a frontline infantryman.

True enough.

But if you're going to kill your enemy, what on earth makes it morally preferable to risk your own life as well? That's illogical. Either you're justified in killing your enemy or you aren't. The risk you put yourself in does not and cannot change that. So your position is emotional nonsense. In fact, it's worse than nonsense: it actually elevates practices like suicide bombing above ordinary combat, if you take your own position seriously.

I quite disagree and think you missed the point. It's not about being moral but courageous. It's a lot easier (and far less brave) to try and kill someone when the risk to yourself is minimal. Doesn't mean killing them is "better" or "worse," but certainly more courageous. Much as I hate the suicide bombers, admit it, that takes ultimate guts and conviction. Killing from a safe distance with no threat to yourself takes comparitively little.