5 ms·

Ask the populace of Ukraine what modern warfare looks like, because the US and its allies haven't been fighting any modern wars for a while. Russia and China h

by cmdkeen 11y ago

Ask the populace of Ukraine what modern warfare looks like, because the US and its allies haven't been fighting any modern wars for a while. Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war" against even a close peer adversary. Drones have a part to play in modern warfare - and some of the smaller man portable versions are going to be revolutionary. But the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft.

7952 11y ago
> the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft. Yes, the US relies on expensive technology in either drones or manned aircraft. What they are loosing is the ability to have pilots get close to the enemy and actually utilise their eyes.
- cptskippy 11y ago
  I guess a question I have is does the lack of pilot eyes on the target present a problem? It seems like the move is away from pilots having eyes on target because it puts them at greater risk. The primary weapon of most CAS aircraft, with the AC-130 being a notable exception, are guided missiles. One of the notable upgrades to the Apache Longbow was the Hellfire II launch system that introduced fire and forget capability so that the Apache, or ground forces, didn't need to paint the target until the missile hit. Has the effectiveness of CAS aircraft gone down with the introduction of these types of systems?
  - Recurecur 11y ago
    Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. Current laser designators compute the map coordinates of target locations. These are then uploaded to the aircraft, and then to the weapons. Shortly thereafter the weapons land within a couple of meters of the designated spot. The "eyes on the target" are the eyes of the ground troops, who have the greatest interest in eliminating said target. The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft), and drop munitions as needed. This eliminates the need for titanium bathtubs and the like.
    - cptskippy 11y ago
      > Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. The cannon on the Apache is secondary, the Hellfire II system is the primary weapon of the Apache Longbow. > As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. I would say that any fire and forget system is preferred, which includes smart bombs but also the Hellfire II system utilized by Apache Longbows and drones. > The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft) I'm not disagreeing with you but the Hellfire II system is fire-and-forget, has an 8km range, and is utilized heavily on drone platforms operating at high altitudes.
cptskippy 11y ago
> Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war" against even a close peer adversary. The Su-25 is actually deploy as part of Russian Army regiments for that exact purpose. If you're not familiar with the Su-25, it is the Russian analog to the A-10 Warthog. Both aircraft fulfill the Close Air Support (CAS) role for ground troops and are designed to loiter in enemy airspace for hours. The Su-25 was used in Chechnya, Georgia, Northern Iraq, and Syria to provide CAS to group troops. CAS is inherently dangerous to pilots as is evident by the fact that both the Su-25 and the A-10 have titanium bathtubs that the pilots sit in to protect them. The United States has been successful in using Drones in the CAS role in order to save lives. The cost of a drone is mostly irrelevant until it exceeds that of a conventional aircraft in the same role. As long as there is at least a cost and performance parity, the drone will win out because it doesn't put a pilot in danger. So I'm not really sure what you're saying but it seems wrong.
- cmdkeen 11y ago
  The Russians don't rely as much combat air support - they do not care about the cluster munition bans at all making the US seem positively humanitarian. They'll remove entire map grid squares with artillery. The Russian army has always been an artillery force that happens to also have lots of tanks, planes and infantry. Combine that with the disparity in willingness to take casualties and you can see why perhaps the West isn't that interested in risking a conflict with Russia or China over regional aggression. The really interesting part will come if Putin decides to test NATO over a small Baltic member state...
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    That doesn't at all explain why you think the US strategy of CAS is inferior to the Russian approach.
    - yeukhon 11y ago
      In fairness, manned aricarft is superior if the pilot is capable of attacking and defending at the same time. But mannfed aircarft is expensive because a good pilot takes many years to train and many hours to fly, and many hours of real combat to gain real experience. But modern days you don't really have wars soldiers and pilots are trained through simulation (but virtual and real life). unmanned drones are expensive because the technology to develop a good one takes forever. R&D is expensive (naturally, and commercially). So both sides have pros and cons. Except, to be real fair, if you can mass produce unmanned military drones at an affordable cost, unmanned drones are the superiors.
simantel 11y ago
When Reaper drones cost $15M and an F-35 costs $200M, it sure seems like cranking out drones would be a reasonable tactic.
- DougWebb 11y ago
  That was the "Sherman Tank" strategy in WWII, if I'm not mistaken. Shermans cost a lot less than Tigers, and one-on-one they were no match. But because of the cost difference the US was able to build so many more of them that they were an overwhelming horde, despite the heavy losses among the crews. With modern drones, we're not losing crews anymore, just hardware. So we could build enough of them to be overwhelming against any opposing force. (Except, perhaps, an even larger swarm of enemy drones.)

by cmdkeen 11y ago

7952 11y ago

> the ones capable of playing in the big leagues where you'd quite like them to come back are just as expensive as manned aircraft. Yes, the US relies on expensive technology in either drones or manned aircraft. What they are loosing is the ability to have pilots get close to the enemy and actually utilise their eyes.

cptskippy 11y ago
I guess a question I have is does the lack of pilot eyes on the target present a problem? It seems like the move is away from pilots having eyes on target because it puts them at greater risk. The primary weapon of most CAS aircraft, with the AC-130 being a notable exception, are guided missiles. One of the notable upgrades to the Apache Longbow was the Hellfire II launch system that introduced fire and forget capability so that the Apache, or ground forces, didn't need to paint the target until the missile hit. Has the effectiveness of CAS aircraft gone down with the introduction of these types of systems?
- Recurecur 11y ago
  Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. Current laser designators compute the map coordinates of target locations. These are then uploaded to the aircraft, and then to the weapons. Shortly thereafter the weapons land within a couple of meters of the designated spot. The "eyes on the target" are the eyes of the ground troops, who have the greatest interest in eliminating said target. The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft), and drop munitions as needed. This eliminates the need for titanium bathtubs and the like.
  - cptskippy 11y ago
    > Actually the Apache has a reasonably effective 30mm cannon that works well in many CAS situations. The cannon on the Apache is secondary, the Hellfire II system is the primary weapon of the Apache Longbow. > As far as guided weapons go, the GPS guided bombs are the preferred CAS solution. I would say that any fire and forget system is preferred, which includes smart bombs but also the Hellfire II system utilized by Apache Longbows and drones. > The use of GPS guided bombs means that CAS aircraft can loiter at fairly high altitudes (> 5000 ft) I'm not disagreeing with you but the Hellfire II system is fire-and-forget, has an 8km range, and is utilized heavily on drone platforms operating at high altitudes.

cptskippy 11y ago

> Russia and China haven't stood still over the past 15 years while we've been otherwise engaged. What we've done with drones has been excellent, but you're not going to be loitering for hours over enemy airspace in a "modern war" against even a close peer adversary. The Su-25 is actually deploy as part of Russian Army regiments for that exact purpose. If you're not familiar with the Su-25, it is the Russian analog to the A-10 Warthog. Both aircraft fulfill the Close Air Support (CAS) role for ground troops and are designed to loiter in enemy airspace for hours. The Su-25 was used in Chechnya, Georgia, Northern Iraq, and Syria to provide CAS to group troops. CAS is inherently dangerous to pilots as is evident by the fact that both the Su-25 and the A-10 have titanium bathtubs that the pilots sit in to protect them. The United States has been successful in using Drones in the CAS role in order to save lives. The cost of a drone is mostly irrelevant until it exceeds that of a conventional aircraft in the same role. As long as there is at least a cost and performance parity, the drone will win out because it doesn't put a pilot in danger. So I'm not really sure what you're saying but it seems wrong.

cmdkeen 11y ago
The Russians don't rely as much combat air support - they do not care about the cluster munition bans at all making the US seem positively humanitarian. They'll remove entire map grid squares with artillery. The Russian army has always been an artillery force that happens to also have lots of tanks, planes and infantry. Combine that with the disparity in willingness to take casualties and you can see why perhaps the West isn't that interested in risking a conflict with Russia or China over regional aggression. The really interesting part will come if Putin decides to test NATO over a small Baltic member state...
- cptskippy 11y ago
  That doesn't at all explain why you think the US strategy of CAS is inferior to the Russian approach.
  - yeukhon 11y ago
    In fairness, manned aricarft is superior if the pilot is capable of attacking and defending at the same time. But mannfed aircarft is expensive because a good pilot takes many years to train and many hours to fly, and many hours of real combat to gain real experience. But modern days you don't really have wars soldiers and pilots are trained through simulation (but virtual and real life). unmanned drones are expensive because the technology to develop a good one takes forever. R&D is expensive (naturally, and commercially). So both sides have pros and cons. Except, to be real fair, if you can mass produce unmanned military drones at an affordable cost, unmanned drones are the superiors.

simantel 11y ago

When Reaper drones cost $15M and an F-35 costs $200M, it sure seems like cranking out drones would be a reasonable tactic.

DougWebb 11y ago
That was the "Sherman Tank" strategy in WWII, if I'm not mistaken. Shermans cost a lot less than Tigers, and one-on-one they were no match. But because of the cost difference the US was able to build so many more of them that they were an overwhelming horde, despite the heavy losses among the crews. With modern drones, we're not losing crews anymore, just hardware. So we could build enough of them to be overwhelming against any opposing force. (Except, perhaps, an even larger swarm of enemy drones.)