7 ms·

I've posted about this a couple times here in the past (though misspelled Tucano), and saw exactly what you are talking about in Iraq.[1] This article and the

I've posted about this a couple times here in the past (though misspelled Tucano), and saw exactly what you are talking about in Iraq.[1] This article and the F-35 make me sad. It's the last of the samurai. For close air support in a low threat environment the Super Tucano and other aircraft are much better at the task and cheaper. For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia), expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks are much better assuming somehow the war doesn't go nuclear and we don't lose in space and cyber first. The F-35 is too expensive and epitomizes the trajectory of the battle ship, where more and more money is put into defense of the platform, and it eventually succumbs to cheaper threats. I think the Future of War delves into this concept well.[2] The F-35 is probably more boondoggle then defense. 1. https://hn.algolia.com/?query=super%20tacano&sort=byPopularity&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=comment https://hn.algolia.com/?query=super%20tacano&sort=byPopulari... 2. https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/470769.The_Future_of_War https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/470769.The_Future_of_War

banku_brougham 8y ago
Good stuff, the US is seriously on some Maginot Line crap. I sadly realize there will indeed be another great war, innovation in manned flight will not play a role in the outcome, and what we now denigrate may become in hindsight the pinacle of technological civilization.
- UweSchmidt 8y ago
  It's going to be cyber war and no one is prepared. Here is an example how it may look like: https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-will-look-like.html https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-w...
  - cabalamat 8y ago
    > cyber war What proportion of chips used in American computers come from the far east?
A2017U1 8y ago
> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia) In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations? We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.
- _Codemonkeyism 8y ago
  India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.
  - kakwa_ 8y ago
    And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt". Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.
- avar 8y ago
  The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?
  - kyboren 8y ago
    Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1]. The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems. [1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...
imtringued 8y ago
>expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks The 70s called and want their cruise missiles back. The type of weapon you're describing already exist and are widely used. They are commonly launched by missile destroyers, submarines or large bomber aircraft behind the front lines. You still need a manned fighter at the front lines to find targets to shoot at.
- JohnBooty 8y ago
  > manned fighter at the front lines Why a manned fighter? Why not remotely-human-piloted drones?
- poof131 8y ago
  “Find targets to shoot at.” The man is hardly involved at all. It’s a battle of sensors. It’s a battle over the electromagnetic spectrum and the man in the loop in the aircraft isn’t the critical part. Unless, you lose the battle of the EM spectrum and can’t communicate with a drone. Then a man in the loop could be critical but you’ve probably already lost at that point and would be better off with the “cruise missiles” you deride using ground mapping to find the way to the area and AI for specific target selection. I’m talking more about what aircraft are these days in BVR air-to-air: missile trucks, carrying AAMRAM, which is the real weapon. I’ve flown against F-22s, seen their weaknesses, and wouldn’t base our defense strategy on planes that have become too expensive compared to missiles.
- rbanffy 8y ago
  Sure, but one pilot assigning targets to dozens of drones that are just outside the enemy controlled area waiting for instructions can go a long way towards making the pilot extremely effective. That pilot can also be replaced by, say, 200 kilograms of extra sensors and communication equipment and two or three people in a container in the nearest airbase.

banku_brougham 8y ago

Good stuff, the US is seriously on some Maginot Line crap. I sadly realize there will indeed be another great war, innovation in manned flight will not play a role in the outcome, and what we now denigrate may become in hindsight the pinacle of technological civilization.

UweSchmidt 8y ago
It's going to be cyber war and no one is prepared. Here is an example how it may look like: https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-will-look-like.html https://scholars-stage.blogspot.com/2018/07/what-cyber-war-w...
- cabalamat 8y ago
  > cyber war What proportion of chips used in American computers come from the far east?

A2017U1 8y ago

> For a high threat environment (i.e. China or Russia) In what fantasy world does anyone actually posit it not devolving quickly into nuclear war with these nations? We've had MAD for half a century and yet today so many people seem to spruik this idea that conventional direct warfare is possible between nuclear armed states. It's simply not going to happen.

_Codemonkeyism 8y ago
India and Pakistan have been there I think - and lately came close again, though both sides recognized the thin line.
- kakwa_ 8y ago
  And also, both sides don't exactly follow MAD: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credible_minimum_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimal_deterrence Basically, it's not "I can glass your whole country" but more "I can nuke a few of your main cities, you will survive but it will hurt". Mostly, only the USA and Russia can follow MAD, the other nuclear powers with a few hundreds warheads, follow Minimal Deterrence.
avar 8y ago
The exact same sorts of scenario as occurred in the Korean War & Vietnam. I.e. a proxy-war using non-nuclear assets between the great powers. Where do you think the North Vietnamese were getting MIGs from?
- kyboren 8y ago
  Not only were China, USSR, and North Korea supplying MiGs, they were training pilots, providing logistical support, manning AAA batteries, and in the case of the North Korea, flying combat missions [1]. The point isn't necessarily to be able to wage a conventional war against Russia or China. Other countries, like Iran or Syria, potentially have access to the same weapons systems. [1]: "Spartans in Darkness: American SIGINT and the Indochina War, 1945-1975", pp. 261-263. https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/declassified-documents/cryptologic-histories/spartans_in_darkness.pdf https://www.nsa.gov/Portals/70/documents/news-features/decla...

imtringued 8y ago

>expendable, stealthy drones acting as missile trucks The 70s called and want their cruise missiles back. The type of weapon you're describing already exist and are widely used. They are commonly launched by missile destroyers, submarines or large bomber aircraft behind the front lines. You still need a manned fighter at the front lines to find targets to shoot at.

JohnBooty 8y ago
> manned fighter at the front lines Why a manned fighter? Why not remotely-human-piloted drones?
poof131 8y ago
“Find targets to shoot at.” The man is hardly involved at all. It’s a battle of sensors. It’s a battle over the electromagnetic spectrum and the man in the loop in the aircraft isn’t the critical part. Unless, you lose the battle of the EM spectrum and can’t communicate with a drone. Then a man in the loop could be critical but you’ve probably already lost at that point and would be better off with the “cruise missiles” you deride using ground mapping to find the way to the area and AI for specific target selection. I’m talking more about what aircraft are these days in BVR air-to-air: missile trucks, carrying AAMRAM, which is the real weapon. I’ve flown against F-22s, seen their weaknesses, and wouldn’t base our defense strategy on planes that have become too expensive compared to missiles.
rbanffy 8y ago
Sure, but one pilot assigning targets to dozens of drones that are just outside the enemy controlled area waiting for instructions can go a long way towards making the pilot extremely effective. That pilot can also be replaced by, say, 200 kilograms of extra sensors and communication equipment and two or three people in a container in the nearest airbase.