4 ms·

> Another topic not mentioned much is the whole concept of aggressor squadrons and Top Gun etc came from fighting similar tier adversaries in the 60s and, while

by ardy42 7y ago

> Another topic not mentioned much is the whole concept of aggressor squadrons and Top Gun etc came from fighting similar tier adversaries in the 60s and, while not losing, not winning at a high enough ratio > Well, generals always like to train to win the last war, not the next one, thats been true for a couple thousand years now. I disagree. Wasn't part of the problem in the 60s that the generals were training to win the next war, which they though would be fought at stand-off distances with guided missiles (i.e. suicide drones) carried by planes with little need to maneuver [1] [2]? It turned out they were wrong, and had to subsequently rethink their tactics and procurement requirements, which led to stuff like Top Gun and the F-14. > [Our] future adversary isn't going to send 8 Mig-21's against each of our F-14, they're going to launch 240 anti-personnel quadcopter drones toward the airfield per day to shut down operations... [more speculation about drone swarm warfare]... Betting that some new, hot technology will obsolete old techniques can be a bad bet that puts you in a bad situation. I don't think quadcopter drones are going to be anything near the game changer you think they'll be. For instance: if you're close enough to launch a swarm attack like you describe, you're several times closer than you need to be to launch an artillery bombardment: https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/16/new-army-artillery-doubles-attack-range-outguns-russian-equivalent.html https://www.military.com/daily-news/2018/06/16/new-army-arti... (quickest google result): > Existing 155mm artillery rounds, fired with precision from mobile and self-propelled howitzer platforms, have a maximum range of about 30 kilometers; the new ERCA weapon is designed to hit ranges greater than 70 kilometers, Army developers said. https://www.dronesglobe.com/guide/long-range-drones/#sec3 https://www.dronesglobe.com/guide/long-range-drones/#sec3 (another quicky google result). The longest-range drone listed is: > 2.DJI Mavic 2 Pro 4K [battery:] 30min [range:] 8km I wouldn't expect a cheap military quadcopter swarm-member to have much better performance than a civilian one. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_II#Flight_characteristics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_F-4_Phantom_... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_F6D_Missileer

lmm 7y ago
> Wasn't part of the problem in the 60s that the generals were training to win the next war, which they though would be fought at stand-off distances with guided missiles (i.e. suicide drones) carried by planes with little need to maneuver [1] [2]? It turned out they were wrong, and had to subsequently rethink their tactics and procurement requirements, which led to stuff like Top Gun and the F-14. Yes but not really. They were preparing to use the technology of the time to fight a total war against a peer adversary, a la WWII, and in that kind of war those tactics would have been effective. As it happened, Korea and Vietnam were a very different type of war: the RoE were such that BVR engagements were rarely permitted, and it became necessary to develop tactics that would work in a counter-insurgency situation where distinguishing hostile targets from civilians or friendlies was more important than winning the engagement. It so happened that WWII-style dog-fighting with cannons was one of those tactics, but that feels like more of a coincidence than a generally applicable observation.

by ardy42 7y ago

lmm 7y ago

> Wasn't part of the problem in the 60s that the generals were training to win the next war, which they though would be fought at stand-off distances with guided missiles (i.e. suicide drones) carried by planes with little need to maneuver [1] [2]? It turned out they were wrong, and had to subsequently rethink their tactics and procurement requirements, which led to stuff like Top Gun and the F-14. Yes but not really. They were preparing to use the technology of the time to fight a total war against a peer adversary, a la WWII, and in that kind of war those tactics would have been effective. As it happened, Korea and Vietnam were a very different type of war: the RoE were such that BVR engagements were rarely permitted, and it became necessary to develop tactics that would work in a counter-insurgency situation where distinguishing hostile targets from civilians or friendlies was more important than winning the engagement. It so happened that WWII-style dog-fighting with cannons was one of those tactics, but that feels like more of a coincidence than a generally applicable observation.