3 ms·

The primary air support plane during the conflict in Afghanistan was the B-1B. This could easily operate above any drone swarm and just lob JDAMS. Strafing is n

by greedo 6y ago

The primary air support plane during the conflict in Afghanistan was the B-1B. This could easily operate above any drone swarm and just lob JDAMS. Strafing is not really that common a mission due to the risk already faced by A2A and SAMs.

nostrademons 6y ago
The risk goes away if you don't care if you lose the drone. Shoot down a manned CAS aircraft and you lose a $20M aircraft plus two priceless pilots. Shoot down a drone and you lose a $1000 drone. Now which of these mission profiles can destroy an infantry company more cost-effectively? The JDAM may blow up a vehicle plus any infantrymen around it at the cost of $20K. The drone can individually target each infantryman with a bullet from a range of ~50-100 ft, for perhaps 100 kills for a $1000 drone, and it can be tactically controlled by other infantrymen on the ground, with instantaneous communication, to respond exactly where it's needed and avoid friendly fire.
- greedo 6y ago
  I thought you were trying to counter the F-22? Moving the goal posts? If drones are going to be used for CAS, then they need a control channel or Skynet AI. Any control channel in use will depend on LOS, and will be jammed to oblivion in a real war.
  - nostrademons 6y ago
    This subthread started (before I got involved) with "If the F22 turns around and aborts mission that's mission accomplished for the drone operator." The goalposts have not moved at all. I think there's an impedance mismatch between some folks who assume "countering" an F-22 or B-1B means shooting it down, and others who assume "countering" it means making it cost-ineffective to achieve your strategic aims. For the latter folk, having your manned aircraft constantly plink away at your forces and shoot down your drones is still mission-accomplished as long as your drones are doing a lot more damage than your forces are receiving. The aircraft-carrier vs. battleship debate is again relevant. The two times that an aircraft carrier and a battleship got into a direct fight (HMS Glorious vs. Scharnorst, and USS Gambier Bay vs. IJN Yamato), the aircraft carrier got reamed, and sunk in short order. But this didn't matter, because aircraft carriers and battleships almost never got into direct fights. There was Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and Malaya before the belligerents realized that sinking battleships was pointless, and then there was Sibuyan Sea and Okinawa when there were no more targets left. In between were a long string of carrier vs. carrier battles where the battleships were used as AA escorts or moved to shore bombardment & convoy escort duties. Similarly, why bother countering a few smart bombs when your drone swarm terminates every enemy soldier on the battlefield within an hour and makes any attempt at interference suicidal for manned aircraft?
    - greedo 6y ago
      Again, how are you countering the F-22 (which can carry JDAMs) or the B1 with a swarm?

by greedo 6y ago

nostrademons 6y ago

The risk goes away if you don't care if you lose the drone. Shoot down a manned CAS aircraft and you lose a $20M aircraft plus two priceless pilots. Shoot down a drone and you lose a $1000 drone. Now which of these mission profiles can destroy an infantry company more cost-effectively? The JDAM may blow up a vehicle plus any infantrymen around it at the cost of $20K. The drone can individually target each infantryman with a bullet from a range of ~50-100 ft, for perhaps 100 kills for a $1000 drone, and it can be tactically controlled by other infantrymen on the ground, with instantaneous communication, to respond exactly where it's needed and avoid friendly fire.

greedo 6y ago
I thought you were trying to counter the F-22? Moving the goal posts? If drones are going to be used for CAS, then they need a control channel or Skynet AI. Any control channel in use will depend on LOS, and will be jammed to oblivion in a real war.
- nostrademons 6y ago
  This subthread started (before I got involved) with "If the F22 turns around and aborts mission that's mission accomplished for the drone operator." The goalposts have not moved at all. I think there's an impedance mismatch between some folks who assume "countering" an F-22 or B-1B means shooting it down, and others who assume "countering" it means making it cost-ineffective to achieve your strategic aims. For the latter folk, having your manned aircraft constantly plink away at your forces and shoot down your drones is still mission-accomplished as long as your drones are doing a lot more damage than your forces are receiving. The aircraft-carrier vs. battleship debate is again relevant. The two times that an aircraft carrier and a battleship got into a direct fight (HMS Glorious vs. Scharnorst, and USS Gambier Bay vs. IJN Yamato), the aircraft carrier got reamed, and sunk in short order. But this didn't matter, because aircraft carriers and battleships almost never got into direct fights. There was Pearl Harbor, Taranto, and Malaya before the belligerents realized that sinking battleships was pointless, and then there was Sibuyan Sea and Okinawa when there were no more targets left. In between were a long string of carrier vs. carrier battles where the battleships were used as AA escorts or moved to shore bombardment & convoy escort duties. Similarly, why bother countering a few smart bombs when your drone swarm terminates every enemy soldier on the battlefield within an hour and makes any attempt at interference suicidal for manned aircraft?
  - greedo 6y ago
    Again, how are you countering the F-22 (which can carry JDAMs) or the B1 with a swarm?