SDQDI Posted December 29, 2014 Share Posted December 29, 2014 I predict that within 10 years there will be hardly any manned front line fighters among the top level air forces around the world. Many of the successes against Al Queda & IS over the past 3 or 4 years have been made by US drones with pilots based in the Pentagon. While I agree UAVs will be used more I think there will always be a place for manned combat aircraft. In the war on terror against 'relatively' low tech enemies the UAVs are basically perfect BUT put them up against a high tech enemy who has the potential to be able to remove satellites or other nessesary comm links or even hack them and if you are 100% reliant on UAVs you could find yourself with your pants down or in the case of hacking you could find your big stick being used against you. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 ...if you are 100% reliant on UAVs you could find yourself with your pants down or in the case of hacking you could find your big stick being used against you. Iran "hijacked" one of USA's hi-tech drones and landed it safely on their soil a couple of years back. I believe the crash rate for drones is pretty high; much better than losing pilots though. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Howard Hughes Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Got excited, I thought we were talking about one of these... Dissapointed now! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 The problem with drones is the latency between command and that action occurring on the plane, and the feedback from optical systems etc......the 1 second plus round trip time is likely to put the drones at a severe disadvantage to real pilots on the scene unless they build autonomous systems into the drone and allow remote pilots to merely guide and provide overall concepts rather than individual actions...... That will always be the case until we solve the faster than light limitation. Same issue as trying to remote desktop a PC on the otherside of the world,,,the delay between moving the mouse and seeing the mouse move is quite disconcerting Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 Andy, the internet, fibre networks and low orbit satellites has moved everyone that much closer together now. The beauty of a drone is the fantastic ability to loiter and you can program missions as a one way event. The yanks I met at Reno where proud of the fact they could fly directly from Nevada to Afghanistan and straight into battle if needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 FT As I understand it no one has yet demonstrated faster than light technology. If you, via a piloting desk tell a drone on the other side of the world to roll then its a fact of physics that the roll wont start until the instruction arrives at the aircraft... Add in encryptors and radio links and delays as the instructions transit from one media (eg fibre) to another (eg wireless) etc and 30mS becomes wishful thinking..... You are correct in saying that when you program a series of events to occur then that latency is really of no real impact....but when things don't go according to plan requiring application of real time control...or some damn interceptor shows up then those latency issues become real and debilitating .... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 the air force still lives in the daydream of ww2 dogfights, look at the Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan war's for an example of how little air supremacy really matters in a guerrilla war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 All of those examples in terms of Red/Blue airforces are vastly asymmetrical, I mean what airforce did the Taliban bring to the table? Indeed when the US Airforce is involved its very likely that the forces will be asymmetrical, if $ were no limiting factor then we too would aim for the same...quantity has quality all of its own........ The same however cannot be said should Aus find itself in need of its airforce. If the fight does become Asymmetrical then it will be because others got involved not because of something we did within our own structure...we choose USA skills and technology for a very good reason..... BTW why did Iraq, as you say, become guerilla warfare....why its because within days of starting the iraqi airforce ceased to exist.... which of course caused their mechanized army to cease to exist.... Why did they cease to exist...because the USA airforces dominated to the point that as you say air superiority ceased to matter once the yanks owned it outright.... Just because effect happens quickly don't mistake it for cause.... In Iraq Mk 1 most people aren't aware that the majority of the Iraqi tanks were not killed outright by specialized tank killing aircraft of on ground army guys....rather they were killed on mass by the yank F111 loaded ea with 24 laser guided pavetack 500lb HE bombs....the F111 flew high and lobbed down a single 500lb bomb on any and every tank they could find....impact either on the tank or right next to it...Game over..... that's air superiority Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 can we ignore that the US/UN had been dismantling the Iraq air defenses from 1991 to 2003, at a cost of about $15B Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 30, 2014 Share Posted December 30, 2014 it would be a huge blow to the JSF's prestige if Canada walks away from it's commitment http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/topstories/Canadian-Report-Opens-Debate-Competition-to-Replace-Fighter-Jet-Fleet_83847.html#.VKL8vUAFSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 You wont get me singing its praise......it was asked to do so many different things in the design phase that in the end I'm not sure it will do any of them at a level above mediocre.... Stealth however is not optional....don't have stealth then some clown in damn near a C172 (a stealthy one at that! ) with modern missile systems can take you out of play... Its the reality that aircraft of last generations had to last 20+ years of useful life, but advances in missiles and EW and associated self protection suites cant possibly be expected to last 20+ years, in fact a serious defence force should be looking to swap that gear out each decade if not sooner (and given that much these days is based on commercial off the shelf computing systems are not really supportable beyond 5 years without enormous cost impacts)....Australia's F111's were a capable bit of kit, but seriously hampered by that reality. At the time of the fitted gears inception rear quadrant attacks were all you really needed to worry about...now every soldier potentially has an all aspect man portable missile on his shoulder and one that wouldn't be phased in the least by the self protection suite fitted and very happy to engage low and fast ..... Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 it seems to me we are spending a lot of money fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 There is a lot of international politics when it comes to weapon system procurement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nong Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Production offsets are a con to help lock customers in. They say the JSF survives because manufacture is spread over more than forty US states and so the local congressman will always back "local employment". Who cares if the product is useless? The really sad thing is that we were given the answer in 1935 when Essington Lewis came to realise that we would be attacked sooner or later, and that we needed to manufacture our own defence equipment. As a result, CAC was set up. I guess most of you know the history. CAC was plagued by lack of government support by way of timely and sufficient orders. To keep a show like CAC going, there would, at times, be additional drain on the public purse. Against this, we could be exporting defence material for a tidy profit. The spin-off benefits from the technological base would be fabulous. The primary aim of supporting continental and near region defence would be achieved. As a nation state, Australia will never mature until it stops clinging to the coat tails of imagined allies. At this stage, we are merely a "client state". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Production offsets are a con to help lock customers in.They say the JSF survives because manufacture is spread over more than forty US states and so the local congressman will always back "local employment". Who cares if the product is useless? The really sad thing is that we were given the answer in 1935 when Essington Lewis came to realise that we would be attacked sooner or later, and that we needed to manufacture our own defence equipment. As a result, CAC was set up. I guess most of you know the history. CAC was plagued by lack of government support by way of timely and sufficient orders. To keep a show like CAC going, there would, at times, be additional drain on the public purse. Against this, we could be exporting defence material for a tidy profit. The spin-off benefits from the technological base would be fabulous. The primary aim of supporting continental and near region defence would be achieved. As a nation state, Australia will never mature until it stops clinging to the coat tails of imagined allies. At this stage, we are merely a "client state". Looking at the way the collins class sub turned out being built here, I wouldn't be so sure that I would automatically go for a locally built product. This country is too small (in population) to built a major weapons system. Assemble yes, but design and build, no imo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Looking at the way the collins class sub turned out being built here, I wouldn't be so sure that I would automatically go for a locally built product. This country is too small (in population) to built a major weapons system.Assemble yes, but design and build, no imo. Every new industry has teething problems, but what our defence contractors need is long term commitment by governments, as well as better management. Waste and mismanagement is not confined to governments. We've heard the excuse "this country us too small" far too often. An excuse for poor leadership, lack of vision and laziness. Australia has three times the population of Israel or Sweden. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted December 31, 2014 Share Posted December 31, 2014 Every new industry has teething problems, but what our defence contractors need is long term commitment by governments, as well as better management. Waste and mismanagement is not confined to governments.We've heard the excuse "this country us too small" far too often. An excuse for poor leadership, lack of vision and laziness. Australia has three times the population of Israel or Sweden. Not even the USA goes it alone when designing the latest state of the art aircraft eg - JSF. They risk share over multiple partners and in the JSF case , countries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Looking at the way the collins class sub turned out being built here It's a union run site, they hate the Australian defence force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 It's a union run site, they hate the Australian defence force. I wouldn't get them to build a bath tub. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 So Collins class...well known that it was a noisy dog at the beginning, but is the same still the case today with that class? I seem to recall that in rimpac exercises the Aus Navy has on a reasonably regular basis made a mess of USA antisub mechanisms designed to keep carriers safe.....I believe we might well have punched above our weight in those exercises to the consternation of the yanks.... Heres a non Australia site discussion about Collins class subs and their capability...interesting reading. http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/australian-sub-proves-formidable-assault-rimpac-2207/ Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 After extensive modifications and cost it turned out all right I think. But it would have been cheaper to buy off the shelf. Like what is currently being considered to replaced the Collins class sub. Biggest hurdle here is the government wont buy a nuclear powered sub. Too many greeny tree hugger wankers around. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gnarly Gnu Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 Yes they are stuck in the biplane era. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nong Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 We are just so small. Boo-hoo. We are just helpless little babies. Twenty million odd people just isn't enough to try anything too technical or substantial. This mantra is just plain wrong, as proven by countries with smaller populations that are running successful programs. It is a given that there will be technical cock-ups and set-backs. This comes with the territory and is not a reason to throw in the towel. Truly long term commitment to "crash through" is required from the population and government. Oh, dear. How do we achieve that? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 ... it would have been cheaper to buy off the shelf…. …and abandon any hope of this nation building anything? ...Biggest hurdle here is the government wont buy a nuclear powered sub. Too many greeny tree hugger wankers around. Buying in nuclear technology would be enormously expensive, leave us beholden to others for the technology and leave our children with a toxic legacy. http://www.themoscowtimes.com/business/article/sunken-soviet-submarines-threaten-nuclear-catastrophe-in-russias-arctic/511150.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 the Chinese can sell us the state of the art American stealth fighters for a fraction of what the Americans can. I'm just saying we need to shop around http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/mar/13/f-35-secrets-now-showing-chinas-stealth-fighter/?page=all Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now