I will start a new topic to discuss anti access area denial problems and hybrid warfare if you guys want since it's slightly off topic here.
Not disagreeing, but if that's what you are proposing as a fix, as more and more countries have surface to sea missiles, then you are going to need to change Marine Corps doctrine.
I would enjoy that discussion.I will start a new topic to discuss anti access area denial problems and hybrid warfare if you guys want since it's slightly off topic here.
Watch: F-35 Air Force Pilot Compares the Lightning II vs F-16, F-22 and A-10 | Fighter Sweep
From someone who flies the new platform...
I liked this. it does not appear to be a formal interview, but more of a Q&A from foreign pilots who were interested in the aircraft. (looks like he just got done flying)
Knowing no more than what the video showed, my perception is that the pilot likes flying the F-35 and considers it a very important tool in our air inventory. He also discusses the reality of needing a multi-purpose jet, as having mission specific jets is just not going to happen based on cost.
He referenced the A-10, and tried to dispel the myth that only the Warthog can give effective CAS. The comments did not seem to come from a place of envy or jealousy, but more from a true belief.
A good find.
Just a few years ago, dog fighting with guns was supposedly going to be making a comeback. The reason cited was aircraft counter measures and stealth technology would render them near impervious to guided weapons. I wonder where that argument stands today.I think air superiority will not be a realistic goal in the future because of the proliferation of near-peer aircraft and advanced anti-air weapons. Instead you may achieve "air control" similar to sea control for a particular area for a defined and finite period of time until you destroy your enemy's Air Force.
Just a few years ago, dog fighting with guns was supposedly going to be making a comeback. The reason cited was aircraft counter measures and stealth technology would render them near impervious to guided weapons. I wonder where that argument stands today.
Until they get jammed and crash requiring manned aircraft to do the job.It seems inevitable that unmanned platforms will someday dominate the battlefield airspace...lower cost etc and as the technology evolves expanded applications.
The US and its UAVs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
Until they get jammed and crash requiring manned aircraft to do the job.
Right...for now. But 15-20 years down the road?
I mean the Wright Brothers flew less than the length of two football fields in 1903. Sixteen years later a Curtiss NC4 goes Transatlantic. Some biplanes were still being flown operationally by Western militaries in 1939-40. A few years later the Germans are flying jets. My point being that in aviation a lot happens technologically within a short span of time.
So as the designs improve and evolve, I see UAVs eventually taking over more missions that are presently handled by manned ACs. I can even see them doing limited CAS, perhaps controlled by the units in contact. I also think eventually UAV designs will even incorporate big frame platforms for cargo capabilities.
Global Hawk unit cost is 220k...I see that going up.It seems inevitable that unmanned platforms will someday dominate the battlefield airspace...lower cost etc and as the technology evolves expanded applications.
The US and its UAVs: A Cost-Benefit Analysis
$220 million, or $220,000,000.Global Hawk unit cost is 220k...I see that going up.
$220 million, or $220,000,000.
Wow, misread that...that's not worth it in my opinion.