And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.
And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?
What you do currently: try to convert non-evangelicals.
And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.
And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?
What you do currently: try to convert non-evangelicals.
here, I'll get you started
:whistle:You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips:whistle:
dlinfiniti on
AAAAA!!! PLAAAYGUUU!!!!
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.
And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?
What you do currently: try to convert non-evangelicals.
And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.
And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?
Depending on how inaccurate the specs on wikipedia are, a predator could take off from Qatar stay in the air over Kabul for ~9hrs (when not equipped with hellfires of course). That's really good. Given how few Predators we have, moving one to every FOB with an airfield isn't practical or even necessary. Hell, we've got enough allies around the world we probably don't ever have to launch them in theater. I'm sure they'll be on the front-lines all the time once the Army gets the Warrior though. As it stands we have smaller UAVs everywhere, but they're extremely noisy. UAVs aren't the only way to gather intel though.
UAV's would be perfect for CAS as long as the optics are adequate to identify friend from foe in every situation it was being used. Calling in CAS already takes a lot of training which is why only specially trained personnel can clear an aircraft to go hot. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to talk a pilot who's flying a UAV remotely onto the enemy. So much situational awareness must be lost when looking at a screen.
And that's why we're allies with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
And here I was thinking it was because of our shared ideals and love of cheap gas.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
I was thinking more of Afghanistan than Iraq, but either way, any long distance travel to a target takes away time on the target for surveillance or strikes. They can stay up there a good long while, but it's better to be close because you don't want the little lawn mower engine to go out when there's no one around to pull the cord.
And I agree - unmanned is best as a partial measure. What would we do in the Air Force if we had no real pilots to worship?
Depending on how inaccurate the specs on wikipedia are, a predator could take off from Qatar stay in the air over Kabul for ~9hrs (when not equipped with hellfires of course). That's really good. Given how few Predators we have, moving one to every FOB with an airfield isn't practical or even necessary. Hell, we've got enough allies around the world we probably don't ever have to launch them in theater. I'm sure they'll be on the front-lines all the time once the Army gets the Warrior though. As it stands we have smaller UAVs everywhere, but they're extremely noisy. UAVs aren't the only way to gather intel though.
UAV's would be perfect for CAS as long as the optics are adequate to identify friend from foe in every situation it was being used. Calling in CAS already takes a lot of training which is why only specially trained personnel can clear an aircraft to go hot. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to talk a pilot who's flying a UAV remotely onto the enemy. So much situational awareness must be lost when looking at a screen.
Even better, whenever we had to send a person into the air, we could just give the copilot or somebody else an partly automated controller and let the manned aircraft lead its own formation/convoy.
Hey if the F-22 actually was a working functional aircraft that we used I wouldn't be as upset.
That's really the thing. They're not flying in Iraq.
Red herring. It's an air superiority fighter. Iraq no longer has an airforce. There's no need for it to fly in Iraq.
Saddam chose to disassemble and bury his planes rather than fly against Coalition aircraft. The F-22 would've been completely useless at any stage of the war.
I think that's the whole point. We've been focusing on more and better air superiority fighters when what we really need are ground attack planes and mainline bombers. We're still using the ancient B-52, because its successors aren't nearly as good at doing what we actually need done: staying above a battlefield for a long time to deal with emergent threats, and carrying a fuckload of bombs.
Fun fact: The B-52 has been in service since 1955.
It's only scheduled to leave service in 2040.
That's not a typo. Twenty-fucking-forty.
A plane that entered the design phase in the mid 20th century, just after WW2 -- will only leave service by the middle of the 21st century. How insane is that?
That's pretty astounding. Still, does a heavy bomber really need to be any better? It seems like they're only flying through areas where there's no threat to them, anyway. So at that point, all they have to do is carry a fuckload of bombs. It's the bombs themselves that need to be high tech, and the avionics on the plane, not the airframe itself.
That's pretty astounding. Still, does a heavy bomber really need to be any better?
Depends on the mission of the bomber. The B-52's primary mission for a very long time was as the air wing of SAC - it was meant to penetrate Soviet air defenses and drop a shitload of nukes. As air defenses improved, the B-52 didn't fit the profile particularly well anymore - it's fucking huge, slow, and better radar/longer-range SAMs meant it could be shot down often enough to be troubling. In response, the Air Force built the B-1b and B-2. Then the Cold War ended, and deep penetration for bombers with minimal air support wasn't really needed, so those programs got killed.
That's pretty astounding. Still, does a heavy bomber really need to be any better?
Depends on the mission of the bomber. The B-52's primary mission for a very long time was as the air wing of SAC - it was meant to penetrate Soviet air defenses and drop a shitload of nukes. As air defenses improved, the B-52 didn't fit the profile particularly well anymore - it's fucking huge, slow, and better radar/longer-range SAMs meant it could be shot down often enough to be troubling. In response, the Air Force built the B-1b and B-2. Then the Cold War ended, and deep penetration for bombers with minimal air support wasn't really needed, so those programs got killed.
The B-52 now fills a pretty interesting role, that of cruise missile delivery system. Essentially it increases the USA's ability to deliver cruise missiles to targets that would otherwise be out of range.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
0
Options
DynagripBreak me a million heartsHoustonRegistered User, ClubPAregular
edited July 2009
the b-52s that are flying have probably been completely rebuilt from the inside out by now. they've gone through so many upgrades.
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Well I'm sure they're not letting us have airstrips in their country for free. Regardless, the Predator can fly out of Qatar and almost make it to Beijing. That's enough range to keep the crew on the airstrip out of harms way. I still think it's a bad idea to switch to an all unmanned Air Force. We could probably cut back on some of the pilots, but completely unmanned is a bad idea.
Having started the chain of thought, I don't disagree with you, but I do think some of the millions being freed up from the F-22 might be better spent on improving drone capabilities... for all branches.
UAV's would be perfect for CAS as long as the optics are adequate to identify friend from foe in every situation it was being used. Calling in CAS already takes a lot of training which is why only specially trained personnel can clear an aircraft to go hot. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to talk a pilot who's flying a UAV remotely onto the enemy. So much situational awareness must be lost when looking at a screen.
If IFF wasn't so dicy and could be miniaturized and secured to the point where it wouldn't compromise operations and made cost-efficient in the process, it would help keep bombs off of friendlies, but you can't just go hot on anything that doesn't reply. Fragile things that use batteries suck when deployed.
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
When your go-to bomber is over 4 decades old, it's time to consider a new design that makes use of current technological advancements.
That having been said, the f-22 is a waste, sine I doubt that there are any nations out there who have the sort of advanced aero technology that would mandate it's use.
Gaddez on
0
Options
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
When your go-to bomber is over 4 decades old, it's time to consider a new design that makes use of current technological advancements.
That having been said, the f-22 is a waste, sine I doubt that there are any nations out there who have the sort of advanced aero technology that would mandate it's use.
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Except it doesn't work. The US didn't glass Afgahnistan. It didn't glass Iraq. It's now involved in a costly occupation of both, and finding out that that deterrence doesn't mean jack when you're fighting an insurgency within a population which the insurgents are more then happy to continue since the win condition is "kill some Americans".
Unless the US wants to be the bad guys and start outright nuking countries into oblivion if they're attacked, superior airpower is of extremely limited benefit beyond a point.
The US military has long had a doctrine of "Be able to win the first battle of the next war, not the last battle of the last war."
But with the military procurement system- and the F22 is an example of this- they've kind of forgotten that. The next war the US military fights will be a counter-insurgency. The wars the US military is currently fighting are counter-insurgencies.
The US military does not like fighting counter-insurgencies. It would rather be the military that could beat back a nation-state's military. But that's not the world they're in or the wars they're likely to be fighting.
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
Wait, you think the USAF is going to start trying to pay for something it'll actually use? Now that's just crazy talk. No, they'll try and spend $100B on a supersonic, low-payload stealth strike bomber to better deliver a nuke to Moscow.
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Except it doesn't work. The US didn't glass Afgahnistan. It didn't glass Iraq. It's now involved in a costly occupation of both, and finding out that that deterrence doesn't mean jack when you're fighting an insurgency within a population which the insurgents are more then happy to continue since the win condition is "kill some Americans".
Unless the US wants to be the bad guys and start outright nuking countries into oblivion if they're attacked, superior airpower is of extremely limited benefit beyond a point.
Woah. This thread is mostly about how to allocate spending between air assets, not whether we have the right ratio of money spend on technology versus bodies. A very interesting and important topic, but it should probably be its own thread.
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Except it doesn't work. The US didn't glass Afgahnistan. It didn't glass Iraq. It's now involved in a costly occupation of both, and finding out that that deterrence doesn't mean jack when you're fighting an insurgency within a population which the insurgents are more then happy to continue since the win condition is "kill some Americans".
Unless the US wants to be the bad guys and start outright nuking countries into oblivion if they're attacked, superior airpower is of extremely limited benefit beyond a point.
Woah. This thread is mostly about how to allocate spending between air assets, not whether we have the right ratio of money spend on technology versus bodies. A very interesting and important topic, but it should probably be its own thread.
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
Let's not give the USAF any ideas here. Next thing we know, we'll have spent $100B on developing a new long range, high load bomber because the B-52 is "too old."
Wait, you think the USAF is going to start trying to pay for something it'll actually use? Now that's just crazy talk. No, they'll try and spend $100B on a supersonic, low-payload stealth strike bomber to better deliver a nuke to Moscow.
How much did the B-1 Lancer's development cost?
Not the exact same thing, of course, but it sort of fits the example.
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
[citation needed]
Considering it cost 65bn dollars for the F-22, I'm inclined to agree with him. You could probably develop something to replace the M-16 for less than that.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
[citation needed]
He sort of has a point, if the US bought say a bunch of HK416's, G36's etc for every single person in the US military it'd cost less than a single F22. Assault rifles aren't that expensive, it's not like they're firing laser guided bullets. Or are hyper advanced small and portable gauss/railguns.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Spare parts, training and refitting is going to cost a bit though. Not to mention the fucking shitfest Colt is going to spew into Congress. There is a company that has coasted on buy american for to long.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
[citation needed]
He sort of has a point, if the US bought say a bunch of HK416's, G36's etc for every single person in the US military it'd cost less than a single F22. Assault rifles aren't that expensive, it's not like they're firing laser guided bullets. Or are hyper advanced small and portable gauss/railguns.
Sounds like somebody should be applying for $$$$ from the military.
Darkchampion3d on
Our country is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit: by consolidation of power first, and then corruption, its necessary consequence --Thomas Jefferson
Spare parts, training and refitting is going to cost a bit though. Not to mention the fucking shitfest Colt is going to spew into Congress. There is a company that has coasted on buy american for to long.
Yeah, that's pretty much how they sunk the XM8. Our procurement system isn't about getting the best equipment for our money; it's about keeping all the major existing players happy.
Clarification: I'm not doubting Daedalus' point outright. I've simply never seen an all-in pricetag on replacing the M16/M4. If it exists, I'd love to know.
Clarification: I'm not doubting Daedalus' point outright. I've simply never seen an all-in pricetag on replacing the M16/M4. If it exists, I'd love to know.
Obviously it depends on what we replace them with. We've got about a trillion rounds of 5.56 around right now; if we go with a different caliber, the price tag jumps quite a bit. (But if we don't, how much improvement are we really getting?)
And certainly, if not one F-22, two of them would definitely do it and you'd have plenty to spare.
I don't know. Even if we stick with 5.56 NATO, which would preclude much improvement over the M16.
First, how many assault rifles would we need to buy? 1 million? (I seriously don't know)
Each of them will cost how much? Rifle + cleaning kit + maintenance kit + "Mil-Spec premium" is what? $1,000 each? (I don't know)
And that's before training, actual replacement cost, supply chain changes, lab testing, field testing, and disposing of the old guns. Again, this is blind speculation, but I'd be surprised if we came in under $5B.
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Except it doesn't work. The US didn't glass Afgahnistan. It didn't glass Iraq.
As far as the direct military assets go? It sure as shit did. You never had to look up to wonder if the enemy was coming from above. The armored assets that made it through were sparse. The insurgency is some dudes with RPGs, converted light trucks, and light machine guns. There was more direct fire from irregular troops on foot than there were from tanks. There isn't a actual, full-strength armored division bearing down on you. Large depots were destroyed, so they're fighting you with whatever was hidden well or whatever was smuggled in. If you cannot see the difference between the two situations, I'm sorry. Sure, you'll have to do some fighting. But you aren't going to have to even invest in Vietnam-level engagements, because all that shit is already taken care of. City fighting sucks, dealing with pissed off zealots sucks... but marching behind a tank or being in a HMMWV that's taking artillery sucks worse.
You can't plan for every war to be like that, but in the last few long engagements... it was like that. Thank god.
But the F22 is an Air Force project, and an M16 replacement would be army. There's no way the Air Force would ever just transfer its funds to the army.
But the F22 is an Air Force project, and an M16 replacement would be army. There's no way the Air Force would ever just transfer its funds to the army.
We're talking purely hypothetical here. Merely attempting to put the cost of the F-22 program in perspective.
And certainly, if not one F-22, two of them would definitely do it and you'd have plenty to spare.
I don't know. Even if we stick with 5.56 NATO, which would preclude much improvement over the M16.
First, how many assault rifles would we need to buy? 1 million? (I seriously don't know)
Each of them will cost how much? Rifle + cleaning kit + maintenance kit + "Mil-Spec premium" is what? $1,000 each? (I don't know)
And that's before training, actual replacement cost, supply chain changes, lab testing, field testing, and disposing of the old guns. Again, this is blind speculation, but I'd be surprised if we came in under $5B.
To be fair, the UK for example bought 200,000 L85A2's at a price of £400 each ($650'ish) essentially they redesigned* the L85 from the ground up, the only similarity between the old gun and the new one was that they looked similar. Now that was for the guns, maintenance kit, 4x optical sight etc. That is for a much more modern frankly better gun than the M16. With the number of guns the US would buy they would surely be able to cost quite a bit less because economies of scale and they could probably also negotiate the price down a bit too.
* The L85 garnered such a bad reputation for unreliability that essentially H&K were called in to totally redesign it. I've heard nothing but good stories about the L85A2, it's technically a new gun in a way.
GrimReaper on
PSN | Steam
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
But the F22 is an Air Force project, and an M16 replacement would be army. There's no way the Air Force would ever just transfer its funds to the army.
We're talking purely hypothetical here. Merely attempting to put the cost of the F-22 program in perspective.
Fair enough. I think you could make a good case, anyway, that the army should be getting more money than the air force. Seems like the army is much more critical to the types of fighting we're doing these days than the air force is.
Plus a reputation for cowardice is bad, when you want deter people from attacking you.
The fact that we can glass your country without dirtying a single boot should be deterrence enough. Again, who would throw people into harm's way when they didn't have to? Sorry, I never once regretted that I didn't have to fight every single dude out there.
Except it doesn't work. The US didn't glass Afgahnistan. It didn't glass Iraq.
As far as the direct military assets go? It sure as shit did. You never had to look up to wonder if the enemy was coming from above. The armored assets that made it through were sparse. The insurgency is some dudes with RPGs, converted light trucks, and light machine guns. There was more direct fire from irregular troops on foot than there were from tanks. There isn't a actual, full-strength armored division bearing down on you. Large depots were destroyed, so they're fighting you with whatever was hidden well or whatever was smuggled in. If you cannot see the difference between the two situations, I'm sorry. Sure, you'll have to do some fighting. But you aren't going to have to even invest in Vietnam-level engagements, because all that shit is already taken care of. City fighting sucks, dealing with pissed off zealots sucks... but marching behind a tank or being in a HMMWV that's taking artillery sucks worse.
You can't plan for every war to be like that, but in the last few long engagements... it was like that. Thank god.
First of Glassing is a commonly accepted euphemism for nuke so get your vocabulary in order. Secondly, the Al-quada had jack shit for air assets. A ballon could have bombed their depots(or a predator). Thirdly, Its kinda hard to tell what is a weapons depot and whats a cave from 30k feet up. To find out you need boots on the ground anyways.
Hell, people holding up the Iraq invasion as some sort of victory for the US forces should have their heads examined. The Iraqi army quit the field before any real battles. Their best equipments was Soviet downgraded export models from the 70s. Without the spare parts/ammo to use them for 12 years. Plus several Iraqi generals and leaders had been recruited by the CIA before the conflict(including the deputy foreign minister).
The reason you didn't see armoured conflict? Because their comanders had either ordered them out of the way or told the US of their presence. The only defenders where local millitia most of the time. You don't get to brag about being a what a badass you are when the enemy general had sold out his own troops.
All the artillery shells that the Iraqis didn't use? IED material now. Being shelled is bad, being right next to a 5 shell IED worse.
Kipling217 on
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
Posts
What you do currently: try to convert non-evangelicals.
here, I'll get you started
:whistle:You never close your eyes anymore when I kiss your lips:whistle:
I wish this wasn't as funny as it is.
Depending on how inaccurate the specs on wikipedia are, a predator could take off from Qatar stay in the air over Kabul for ~9hrs (when not equipped with hellfires of course). That's really good. Given how few Predators we have, moving one to every FOB with an airfield isn't practical or even necessary. Hell, we've got enough allies around the world we probably don't ever have to launch them in theater. I'm sure they'll be on the front-lines all the time once the Army gets the Warrior though. As it stands we have smaller UAVs everywhere, but they're extremely noisy. UAVs aren't the only way to gather intel though.
UAV's would be perfect for CAS as long as the optics are adequate to identify friend from foe in every situation it was being used. Calling in CAS already takes a lot of training which is why only specially trained personnel can clear an aircraft to go hot. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to talk a pilot who's flying a UAV remotely onto the enemy. So much situational awareness must be lost when looking at a screen.
Even better, whenever we had to send a person into the air, we could just give the copilot or somebody else an partly automated controller and let the manned aircraft lead its own formation/convoy.
That's pretty astounding. Still, does a heavy bomber really need to be any better? It seems like they're only flying through areas where there's no threat to them, anyway. So at that point, all they have to do is carry a fuckload of bombs. It's the bombs themselves that need to be high tech, and the avionics on the plane, not the airframe itself.
Depends on the mission of the bomber. The B-52's primary mission for a very long time was as the air wing of SAC - it was meant to penetrate Soviet air defenses and drop a shitload of nukes. As air defenses improved, the B-52 didn't fit the profile particularly well anymore - it's fucking huge, slow, and better radar/longer-range SAMs meant it could be shot down often enough to be troubling. In response, the Air Force built the B-1b and B-2. Then the Cold War ended, and deep penetration for bombers with minimal air support wasn't really needed, so those programs got killed.
The B-52 now fills a pretty interesting role, that of cruise missile delivery system. Essentially it increases the USA's ability to deliver cruise missiles to targets that would otherwise be out of range.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Having started the chain of thought, I don't disagree with you, but I do think some of the millions being freed up from the F-22 might be better spent on improving drone capabilities... for all branches.
If IFF wasn't so dicy and could be miniaturized and secured to the point where it wouldn't compromise operations and made cost-efficient in the process, it would help keep bombs off of friendlies, but you can't just go hot on anything that doesn't reply. Fragile things that use batteries suck when deployed.
When your go-to bomber is over 4 decades old, it's time to consider a new design that makes use of current technological advancements.
That having been said, the f-22 is a waste, sine I doubt that there are any nations out there who have the sort of advanced aero technology that would mandate it's use.
*taking notes*
Nonononono - keep talking. I'm just, uh, listing groceries.
The B-52 fills it's designated role quite well. It has been upgraded throughout the years and does integrate many newer technologies now, including new avionics packages.
Unless the US wants to be the bad guys and start outright nuking countries into oblivion if they're attacked, superior airpower is of extremely limited benefit beyond a point.
shelling from destroyers and cruise missiles serve those kind of purpose much better.
But with the military procurement system- and the F22 is an example of this- they've kind of forgotten that. The next war the US military fights will be a counter-insurgency. The wars the US military is currently fighting are counter-insurgencies.
The US military does not like fighting counter-insurgencies. It would rather be the military that could beat back a nation-state's military. But that's not the world they're in or the wars they're likely to be fighting.
Wait, you think the USAF is going to start trying to pay for something it'll actually use? Now that's just crazy talk. No, they'll try and spend $100B on a supersonic, low-payload stealth strike bomber to better deliver a nuke to Moscow.
It goes the other way too; You fight the wars that actually happen not thew wars that your army would like to happen.
Woah. This thread is mostly about how to allocate spending between air assets, not whether we have the right ratio of money spend on technology versus bodies. A very interesting and important topic, but it should probably be its own thread.
No, it's a valid point. We don't spend a whole lot on tools for our ground troops. Hell, for the price of a single F-22 we could finally replace the M16 rifle, like we've been trying to do for decades. (Of course, money wasn't the biggest problem there).
[citation needed]
How much did the B-1 Lancer's development cost?
Not the exact same thing, of course, but it sort of fits the example.
Considering it cost 65bn dollars for the F-22, I'm inclined to agree with him. You could probably develop something to replace the M-16 for less than that.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m8-oicw.htm
Dev was $5 million, field-testing 7000 units was going to be another $26, and prices would have gone down from there.
Maybe "a single F-22" was an exaggeration, but it wouldn't have broken the cost of two of them.
He sort of has a point, if the US bought say a bunch of HK416's, G36's etc for every single person in the US military it'd cost less than a single F22. Assault rifles aren't that expensive, it's not like they're firing laser guided bullets. Or are hyper advanced small and portable gauss/railguns.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Sounds like somebody should be applying for $$$$ from the military.
Yeah, that's pretty much how they sunk the XM8. Our procurement system isn't about getting the best equipment for our money; it's about keeping all the major existing players happy.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
Obviously it depends on what we replace them with. We've got about a trillion rounds of 5.56 around right now; if we go with a different caliber, the price tag jumps quite a bit. (But if we don't, how much improvement are we really getting?)
I don't know. Even if we stick with 5.56 NATO, which would preclude much improvement over the M16.
First, how many assault rifles would we need to buy? 1 million? (I seriously don't know)
Each of them will cost how much? Rifle + cleaning kit + maintenance kit + "Mil-Spec premium" is what? $1,000 each? (I don't know)
And that's before training, actual replacement cost, supply chain changes, lab testing, field testing, and disposing of the old guns. Again, this is blind speculation, but I'd be surprised if we came in under $5B.
You can't plan for every war to be like that, but in the last few long engagements... it was like that. Thank god.
We're talking purely hypothetical here. Merely attempting to put the cost of the F-22 program in perspective.
I'M A TWITTER SHITTER
To be fair, the UK for example bought 200,000 L85A2's at a price of £400 each ($650'ish) essentially they redesigned* the L85 from the ground up, the only similarity between the old gun and the new one was that they looked similar. Now that was for the guns, maintenance kit, 4x optical sight etc. That is for a much more modern frankly better gun than the M16. With the number of guns the US would buy they would surely be able to cost quite a bit less because economies of scale and they could probably also negotiate the price down a bit too.
* The L85 garnered such a bad reputation for unreliability that essentially H&K were called in to totally redesign it. I've heard nothing but good stories about the L85A2, it's technically a new gun in a way.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Fair enough. I think you could make a good case, anyway, that the army should be getting more money than the air force. Seems like the army is much more critical to the types of fighting we're doing these days than the air force is.
First of Glassing is a commonly accepted euphemism for nuke so get your vocabulary in order. Secondly, the Al-quada had jack shit for air assets. A ballon could have bombed their depots(or a predator). Thirdly, Its kinda hard to tell what is a weapons depot and whats a cave from 30k feet up. To find out you need boots on the ground anyways.
Hell, people holding up the Iraq invasion as some sort of victory for the US forces should have their heads examined. The Iraqi army quit the field before any real battles. Their best equipments was Soviet downgraded export models from the 70s. Without the spare parts/ammo to use them for 12 years. Plus several Iraqi generals and leaders had been recruited by the CIA before the conflict(including the deputy foreign minister).
The reason you didn't see armoured conflict? Because their comanders had either ordered them out of the way or told the US of their presence. The only defenders where local millitia most of the time. You don't get to brag about being a what a badass you are when the enemy general had sold out his own troops.
All the artillery shells that the Iraqis didn't use? IED material now. Being shelled is bad, being right next to a 5 shell IED worse.