Main Area and Open Discussion > Living Room
Knight to queen's bishop 3 - Snowden charged with espionage.
40hz:
you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.
-wraith808 (July 24, 2013, 09:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
Speed has its place in air combat. But most of the consensus on modern air warfare has pretty much relegated dogfighting to the dustbin of military history. As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters. Having the best "eyes," being the stealthiest, and having the longest striking range will outweigh raw speed every time. The original stealth fighter (the F117 Nighthawk) was only capable, by design, of subsonic flight. And it didn't much matter. [Note: According to official reports, in the thousands of combat operations conducted between 1984 and the Nighthawk's retirement in early 1992, there has only been one incident where of an F117 was shot down, and a (disputed) second incident where an F117 was seriously damaged by enemy fire.]
But where almost all US weapons systems excel is in their coordination and operational intelligence.
Forays today are no longer the exclusive domain of ace pilots acting on their own or with a small squadron of fighters. Todays operations are an extensively coordinated activity involving satellite and air reconnaissance, ground observers, support units, backup teams, "second strike" and related operations. And all of it is coordinated by global command and control communications which greatly reduces incidents stemming from the old "fog of war" problem.
It ain't your grandfather's - or even your Dad's battlefield any more.
The next step will be pulling the soldier off the battlefield as much as is humanly possible. (Far easier for politicians to convince their country to take military action if the nation can go to war without putting it's own boys and girls in harm's way.) This is whats driving the interest in combat robotics. The attack drones are the the first in what will eventually become whole new families of combat systems. And last I heard, walking and swimming remotely guided weapons will soon be joining the fray in a war near you if the research continues at its present pace.
T2 anyone? 8)
40hz:
Discuss as you will.
-TaoPhoenix (July 25, 2013, 06:34 PM)
--- End quote ---
Well...the Senate can "direct" all it wants. But they can't order Congress to do something. That's one reason why there are two houses in the US Legislature. It's true that the Appropriations Committee holds the purse strings and has some serious leverage because of that. But that still won't allow them to order the rest of the Legislature around without exposing themselves to some dangerous political downside. Because Congress has the House Ways & Means Committee. So touché.
Playing "dog in the manger" is a risky move. Because the general public would have no trouble calling it "blackmail plain and simple" if the Senate got too heavy about it.
wraith808:
you'd want the most advanced Russian aircraft in a dogfight.
-wraith808 (July 24, 2013, 09:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
Speed has its place in air combat. But most of the consensus on modern air warfare has pretty much relegated dogfighting to the dustbin of military history. As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters. Having the best "eyes," being the stealthiest, and having the longest striking range will outweigh raw speed every time. The original stealth fighter (the F117 Nighthawk) was only capable, by design, of subsonic flight. And it didn't much matter. [Note: According to official reports, in the thousands of combat operations conducted between 1984 and the Nighthawk's retirement in early 1992, there has only been one incident where of an F117 was shot down, and a (disputed) second incident where an F117 was seriously damaged by enemy fire.]
-40hz (July 25, 2013, 09:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
That was the point of the rest of the statement in context, i.e.
But that would do you no good, because the Russian aircraft wouldn't get close enough where that would make a difference. Engagement range for US aircraft far outstrips the same for Russian aircraft in general.
-wraith808 (July 24, 2013, 09:45 PM)
--- End quote ---
40hz:
@wraith - I know. My post wasn't being directed at you. The "as was noted" comment in my post was in reference to your earlier comment about speed:
As was noted, when it comes to modern long-range weaponry and satellite/ground coordinated tac-intel and support, being fastest no longer matters.
-40hz (July 25, 2013, 09:15 PM)
--- End quote ---
My post was intended as a follow-on to yours. I probably should have made that more explicit. Sorry. :)
40hz:
what the hell is a janes guide?! I was just about to eat dinner and unwind, too...
-superboyac (July 24, 2013, 09:35 PM)
--- End quote ---
It's THE defense magazine. http://www.janes.com/ Every 14 year-old boy needs a subscription. :P
-Renegade (July 24, 2013, 09:43 PM)
--- End quote ---
Yup. They're sometimes called the poor man's CIA. More on Jane's Info Group here.
Humorous note: in the movie Clear and Present Danger you see Dr. Ryan and his adversary both trying to identify the exotic weapon used to attack the drug lords in the previous scene. Ryan's adversary is using a computer, and some military intel database. Ryan (being an academic) is digging through a pile of books, with some Jane's Guide titles prominently visible in the stack he's consulting. IIRC, he did find what he was looking for in Jane's - as probably did Clancy when was working out the plot of his novel. (note: successfully identifying the actual weapon used was the key turning point in the story)
Funny how real life and fiction can blur at times. ;)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version