Another reason why I don't like UAVs for anything other than recon.
As fighters they have a lot of potential- no need to worry about pilot safety and survivability, so that's a LOT of weight they no longer have to carry. You could manoeuvre them a lot faster since there's no worry about pilots blacking out… And did I not mention the cost
of a pilot? Losing a fully trained pilot is a bigger blow than losing a jet… and losing a $100 mil f-22 is a lot worse than losing a $10 mil remotely operated fighter.
ozoneoceanOh ho ho hahahahahahaha hah hahahahahhahaha ha. Hahahha oooohohohohoho sigh *wipes tear away from eye*
Valid concerns but hardly major ones or they'd never have been fielded.
You're a riot and a half, no wonder you're the favored admin at DD.
No need to be facetious. I'm fully aware problems exist with the use and operation of drone craft, as it does with any weapons tech. As it has always
done. But they're hardly at the level when they can be so easily defeated that they would be practically useless in the field, are they? This is what Bravo was implying.
I beg to differ: the T-50 is a 5th generation Russian fighter that is currently undergoing final trials before 2015 deployment similar to the f-35 and at the least a match for the canceled f-22.
The Eurofighter Typhoon is now 7 years old but makes a minor contender since its used by so many countries now.
China has been keeping their new superiority fighter under tight wraps and should see deployment by 2018. (and no, not the JF-17)
Thing about military might and technology is most of the people with the best toys are all on diplomatic terms right now. Conventional war is never far off or far fetched though.
Out of all those jets, the only true F-22 rival is the PAK. Don't know about the hidden Chinese one obviously. The point is though that the F-22 especially was designed with a cold war competition level state of mind; to overreach and be the “very best” no matter what
But costs matter a lot
now. The USA's top spot is not guaranteed and cannot be maintained through force of arms and forcing an arms race like it was during the cold war. The world isn't divided that way anymore. Economic strength is what really matters, not arms investment at all costs. So while BIG
project arms programs will still exist, they're going to have to limp along for a while.
Actually there have been a lot of advancements in laser tech over the last couple years. (I'm a bit of an enthusiast)
I've been following that too, but you have to wonder- just how much of that is fluff released to the press in order to get a bump in the share price, or extra investment for the company?
It reminds me of the tactics of the drug companies: releasing info about “promising studies” about drugs that will cure cancer or AIDS (always in a few years), and it never happens for some reason. This stuff is big, BIG
, big business with government clients that offer unlimited funds, if only they get the investment and can win political and public support behind their projects.
back on topic. the near future is guys in trucks with awesome guns that fit in the back.
Militia or military? It doesn't matter, that's not the future or the past, merely a current constant. A truck with a gun on it is pretty bog standard fare.
Interestingly though, we know that man portable weapons that can easily eliminate vehicles are getting smaller and better to use. If any
troop can neutralise a light vehicle from long rage, that would severely
limit their application.
Though really neither of those options would be needed as they are more than capable of of fighting and winning a conventional war with just about anybody, even the USA
I'm not sure. China doesn't have that great a history of winning wars and they have very little real experience of them. They're untried.
They might be very capable… but could they actually do
If I were to guess
, I would imagine that China would probably make a lot of the same mistakes that Imperial Russia used to with her numbers. I would guess
that China would lose in a major world conflict, if it was opposed by Europe and North America (because of superior tactical and strategic experience), and the cost would be monstrous for all sides.
…Perhaps NATO and allied countries haven't showed great tactical efficiency in Iraq or Afghanistan, but large scale conflicts are quite different.