What is the fucking point of fighter planes?
>Missiles + drones to deliver ordinance.
>Satellites + drones to recon
>Helicopters for troop transport
Fighter planes....It's 2015 folks
>>28249560
What's the point of internet?
Come on it's 2015.
Missiles get launched by fighters, drones are slow and vulnerable and satellites aren't time-sensitive.
>Helicopters
>troop transport
Was there a point in here?
>>28249590
>drones are slow and vulnerable
for now.
>>28249560
>enemy AA/fighters can kill helicopters and drones over their own territory
>enemy missiles and fighters can kill helicopters and drones over your territory
>gee, it sure would be nice to have something that could kill enemy fighters and drones regardless of where they are....
That's why.
What's the point of cruisers and destroyers? PT boats carry more munitions as a percentage of weight than battleships. Missile boats like the Pegasus class are far faster and stealthier and cruisers or destroyers, too. And much cheaper to make. If you lose a destroyer or cruiser, you lose hundreds of men and hundreds of expensive missiles. If you lose a PT boat, you lose a dozen men and only a few weapons.
The majority of the military isn't about efficiency. It's about toys, parade, pride and ego.
Damn, torpedo boats are sexy af. Japan had a torpedo boat that was amazing too, but I love how over engineered this German schnellboot is- it has integrated torpedo tubes.
I like small, high efficiency multi role boats. Being able to carry torpedoes, depth charges, cannons, and possibly cruise missiles- amazing. If only there was some way to increase range, though.
Forgive me for the attempted threadjack- I feel the same logic in the OP post applies to many things.
>>28249669
Sometimes I think a good Starcraft player would be better in charge of our military than what we have now. They understand how to manage resources, balance military with economy, whether to make lots of cheap units or a few big expensive units. How to tailor your military build to counter your enemy.
All this is like a foreign language to the current military establishment. They just dump billions into boondoggle projects that have little to no practical value whatsoever.
>>28249723
that is a particularly good paint job
>>28249635
War happens to be now, not at a convenient time.
>>28249669
>>28249723
Are you serious? They have smaller sensors, worse weapons, shorter range, less seaworthiness, more vulnerability, etc.
>>28249723
>I feel the same logic in the OP post applies to many things.
The fact that you think OP is logical just means you're as much of a fucking retard as he is.
>>28249794
thats maybe because currently we are not engage in an endless struggle for survival, thats just rather they creating artificial needs to shove the military industrial complex. Humans make do, dude
>>28249669
>>28249723
>modern navy doesn't need radars
>modern navy doesn't need AA capability at all
>modern navy doesn't need to be able to launch ground or ship attack missiles
>modern navy doesn't need aviation
>modern navy doesn't need ASW
>modern navy doesn't need EW
>modern navy doesn't need any kind of range beyond coastal
>modern navy doesn't need SSBNs
>modern navy doesn't need SSNs or SSGNs
I know it's bait but I couldn't resist.
>>28249794
>thinks naval procurement could keep up with the pace of modern conventional combat in any area
>thinks you just shit units out of a handy factory right behind the front
>thinks all R&D and tech research/implementation works perfectly every time
>thinks because it doesn't we should never try anything new
You fight a war with what you have, not with what you can shit out three years down the road.
Goddamn the bait is coming fast and heavy tonight.
>>28249582
CURRENT YEAR
>>28249840
war will also be in the future.
>>28249865
What, like the Japanese during WWII?
Like the Chinese during WWII?
Like the Russians during early WWII?
Like the Germans toward the end of WWII?
WWII alone is littered with the corpses of millions of fighting men whose countries said, "eh, make do", instead of being ready, building the right platforms, having a good production plan and rushing to upgrade the systems that fell short.
TLDR: starcraft, fuck off. this is the real world. stop playing RTS and read a fucking book.
>>28249560
All conventional weapons are kind of pointless really, all you need is to build enough nukes to destroy the world.
>>28249890
>die a death of a thousand tiny incursions, polite little green men, and tiny clay grabs not large enough to end the world over
>never have any intel on your opponents, OOPSIE! just launched over misunderstanding!
>can't protect interests within your own sphere of influence, much less project
ok, kid
>>28249794
Wow I think that's the dumbest post I've read on /k/ years. I hope it's just bait for all the /v/tards infesting this board, and not just a sign of how retarded kids are becoming.
You require more vespene gas.
>>28249976
Shit. He requires a half dozen overlords to take him out behind the refinery and tentacle ear rape the stupid out of him. They're gonna need catering to get it done, too.
>>28249867
Isn't radar obsolete and the military woefully unprepared for modem combat against a technologically advanced opponent? As soon as you buy a computer it's not only obsolete, but decades behind what it could have been. Isn't the same true about navy ships?
>>28249889
i want you to take 5 minutes to read the post you replied, the post that post replied and your reply and try not to fell too retarded after.
>>28250100
>Isn't radar obsolete
You're stupid.
>>28250100
Being this moronic should be bannable around here
>>28250100
>radar obsolete
literally what are you smoking? it's still the primary long range sensor, and will be for quite some time.
>the military woefully unprepared for modem combat against a technologically advanced opponent?
Unless you're talking about aliens, the US military is almost over prepared for any of the world's most advanced militaries. In fact, it would be fine toe to toe with most combinations of three of them.
Here's a stat for you: the USN has more commissioned tonnage afloat than the next several navies combined (China is next with 1/3 the tonnage).
Here. Play with this list. It's well within ballpark accuracy. Then look at the quality of each platform listed and the gap grows even further.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_level_of_military_equipment
>As soon as you buy a computer it's not only obsolete, but decades behind what it could have been.
Which is why countries constantly upgrade systems. Most major US platforms receive minor software upgrades every two years, major every four and periodic major hardware upgrades.
>>28250183
Sometimes cockslapping trolls and retards with reality is fun too. It can even lead to a decent discussion between other anons occasionally.
>>28249590
>drones are slow and vulnerable
>>28250265
>posts a drone that barely worked and never executed a successful recon mission
>which was initially designed to be launched from a platform 15 years out of service
>thinks it's not the exception that proves the rule
ok
>>28250265
>Zero successful missions, one fatality
>>28249560
I honestly, unironically agree (maybe not with such a heavy emphasis on drones though). It seems like all that dedicated fighters are even good for these days is for intercepting and escorting-away nosy Tupolevs.
>>28249590
>Missiles get launched by fighters
SMALL missiles get launched by fighters. LARGE missiles are launched from the surface.
>>28249794
...Damnit, I think you might actually be right.
>>28250287
Have another
>>28250436
>Have another
Wow. Way to post a drone which even Iran was able to down.
>>28250203
>>28250226
>>28250229
In general, I'm speaking from prior experiences this country has had. Almost ALWAYS, with few exceptions, when the American military is called into action against a significant threat they are unprepared. In the beginning of WW2 it wasn't uncommon for troops to train with wooden weapons. Significant threats don't attack when your at your strongest, they generally wait until you're at your weakest. Basic Art of War shit. You know other countries can go read that book, too.
And almost ALWAYS, as soon as a piece of equipment is built, it's already obsolete. It's true for civilians and probably true of the military. So I'd like a refund from YOUR stupidity.
>>28249867
Yea, you're right... the old pt boats weren't very seaworthy in rough conditions. They weren't built for it, though. The primary point of my post, was that smaller ships could do the same job for less. Corvette sized maximum. We already have bases everywhere on earth. Making smaller ships in greater numbers would just be taking advantage of it more efficiently.
I'm real enough to realize that's not going to happen anytime soon. Old world naval combat style is so engrained in our minds. Mine, included.
>>28250287
>>28250316
>Unreliable
>slow and vulnerable
Not the same thing. D-21 may not have been successful due to operational issues and poor reliability, but the fact of the matter is that it consistently passed clean through Chinese airspace (and even Soviet airspace, on one occasion) without even being detected, let alone intercepted. That's anything but "vulnerable."
>>28250478
So.
Much.
Stupid.
I have no idea where to start, so I'm not going to bother.
All hail the retarded architect of our new naval procurement strategy!
>>28250507
It had four recon missions in China. Total. Every single one of which was a failure. You were saying?
>>28250523
>You can't stop me from moving these goalposts!!!11
Fine. Whatever.
>>28250507
Oh boy, 60's Chinese airspace, what a test of airspace denial.
The same airspace a C-130 flew across undetected.
>>28250478
>And almost ALWAYS, as soon as a piece of equipment is built, it's already obsolete.
You can't fathom the amount of shit you're talking when you're referring to military hardware. Who do you think is building something newer the second something is launched? Who's done better than the Nimitz or the Ticonderoga?
>>28250512
When you're in a position of power, everything you do is stupid, you're always a traitor, and the guys at the bottom somehow know how to fix the entire world.
I'm just saying, putting our eggs in fewer baskets usually bites us in the butt.
>>28250540
The drone was dangerous, unsuccessful and expensive. What part of this is hard to understand. Also, you tried to suggest it transited Soviet airspace safely (it didn't) and that doing so in China in the mid 60's wasn't something a U-2 could do.
>>28250555
Don't bother. He's the kind of idiot that believes all US hardware is automatically obsolete at introduction, whereas everyone else has magically cutting edge gear which self-upgrades every 5 seconds to stay on the bleeding edge.
He has no concept that this is a universal issue requiring constant investment to stay on top of, and it's an area the US excels in comparatively.
Just when I thought battleshipfags and their autism couldn't get worse...
>>28249887
But the future isn't now.
>>28250555
That's not a fair thing to say, because nobody is bothering competing with us- basic Art of War tactics. And when they do, they use terrorism and guerrilla tactics that render all our big ships and fancy warplanes obsolete.
Not only obsolete, but a liability! When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
>>28250316
>one fatality
Snake made it out alive.
>>28250568
>I'm just saying, putting our eggs in fewer baskets usually bites us in the butt.
When? Name a time when this was historically true, as far as platform investment.
What you completely fail to understand is the relationship between efficiency and platform size, given a certain mission. Aviation, both fixed wing and rotary, have certain displacement ranges where they are most efficient at providing capability VS bang for the buck on the hull (for fixed wing, this is pretty large, but not much bigger than 110,000ktons). For things like actually decent fleet defense radar, you need at least 6-7ktons displacement. You think you can fit a full Aegis suite on that corvette you posted? Really?
As far as eggs in one basket, the fact of the matter is the USN has more ships than anyone else in just about every class, often by a few multiples, and often better qualitatively than the competitors. Explain to me how the eggs and basket analogy is even relevant.
>>28250591
>an area the U.S. excels in
....for now.
I'm just saying, nobody is gonna attack us when we are at are strongest. Patience is a very effective weapon.
>>28250633
How convenient that your point only makes sense in your own perfect scenario in your head, imagine that.
>>28250633
>When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.
I see now. He's just going to spout bullshit metaphors to try and sound profound, covering the reality of how ill researched and ignorant his opinions are. I'm out of here.
>>28250649
>I'm just saying, nobody is gonna attack us when we are at are strongest.
And here we have the grand prize for dumbest piece of logic on the internet:
>We should make ourselves really weak, guize! That way people might actually attack us in a predictable way!
Fucking potato farm-tier retarded.
>>28250568
>>28250478
There is a 100% chance you are the same retard who kept making "why don't we build submersible aircraft carriers" threads a while back.
>>28250639
>When? Name a time when this was historically true, as far as platform investment.
Name a time when it hasn't.
>You think you can fit a full Aegis suite on that corvette you posted? Really?
Aegis is DECADES old, isn't it? It's bound to be obsolete. Even if they've been constantly updating them, a brand new system would likely be smaller, more efficient, and more powerful.
You guys know the navy uses ships that are decades old? Not everything we have is brand new.
>>28250639
Anon you need to come to terms with corvettes without even a CWIS punch way harder than cruisers and destroyers.
Swedes ahead of the game as always. When will the world follow?
>>28250697
not even that anon but...
>Name a time when it hasn't.
youre saying its always been that way, but you cant provide a single example? this is weak bait.
>Aegis is DECADES old, isn't it? It's bound to be obsolete. Even if they've been constantly updating them, a brand new system would likely be smaller, more efficient, and more powerful.
so you dont even know about SPY-6 then. that's cute.
yall arguing with a retard. stop feeding stupid.
>>28250697
>You guys know the navy uses ships that are decades old? Not everything we have is brand new.
And it's still more advanced then anything anybody else if putting out, what's your point?
>>28250697
Jesus Christ, where to even start with this.
You're completely unaware that weapons are upgraded all the time.
You're completely unaware that new systems are being designed all the time.
You're completely ignorant of the fact that AEGIS is still the best naval missile system in the world, with the newest competitors struggling to meet its capabilities.
Everything, EVERYTHING you're saying is bullshit that only makes sense to you because you know absolutely nothing. I'm fully expecting your next post to be the big reveal where you just "pretended to be retarded".
>>28250658
Isn't the same true for you? Isn't it true for everyone? Humans have egos.
>>28250674
>I see now. He's just going to spout bullshit metaphors to try and sound profound, covering the reality of how ill researched and ignorant his opinions are. I'm out of here.
How many trillions did we spend trying to find Osama? How many years did it take? It WAS horribly inefficient. Not only that, but we ended up creating MASSIVE anti American sentiment invading and bombing the fuck out of multiple counties.
We were obviously using the wrong tools for the job. Military=/=police.
>We should make ourselves really weak, guize! That way people might actually attack us in a predictable way!
I never said that. I said we should change our shipbuilding tactics to match the environment we have to operate in. A lot has changed in the last few decades.
>>28250757
>Isn't the same true for you? Isn't it true for everyone? Humans have egos.
No because there's the real world where the US Navy has destroyers, carriers and cruisers and is successful and the world inside your head where the US Navy has these, is unsuccessful and could do better with PT boats.
>>28250697
>Aegis is DECADES old, isn't it? It's bound to be obsolete. Even if they've been constantly updating them, a brand new system would likely be smaller, more efficient, and more powerful.
You realize Aegis is a COMBAT SYSTEM, right? If you are just shitposting please come out and say it already.
>>28250686
There's 100% chance it's way too easy for you to detect trolls and shitposters. There's also 100% chance you take it way too seriously. I usually shill dumb ideas I think are cool with complete disregard to the real world. And submersible carriers ARE COOL. Flying carriers are cooler.
Long live belka.
>>28250757
>How many trillions did we spend trying to find Osama?
Directly on finding Osama? Less than 20 billion.
>How many years did it take? It WAS horribly inefficient.
So, a manhunt for an international terrorist and fugitive with connections, support and shelter from groups in several different countries is the same thing as a conventional naval conflict. Good to know. Are you this stupid all the time, or is today just special?
>We were obviously using the wrong tools for the job. Military=/=police.
Explain how we get to Osama without the military. He was hiding in plain site in a sovereign country which could not be fucked to do anything about him, or even show interest in apprehending him.
>I said we should change our shipbuilding tactics to match the environment we have to operate in.
Implying we don't. Constantly. Implying the LCS isn't a thing, or MRAPs, for instance. Both direct responses to the changing nature of modern combat.
>A lot has changed in the last few decades.
The fact that you have no clue how the world's militaries have changed with the times only reveals how supremely ignorant you are in nearly all areas. It's time to stop posting.
>>28250779
>Only pretending to be retarded
And there we have it.
Why is it we can afford the F35 but can't afford the SCAR or 416?
>>28250779
Aaaaaand I'm done with this underage b& PRETENDING TO BE RETARDED GUIZE cunt.
But I am truly fucking weary of this cocksmoking retard ruining any halfway decent serious discussion on /k/.
>>28250591
>The drone was dangerous, unsuccessful and expensive.
None of that is "slow" or "vulnerable."
>What part of this is hard to understand.
Nowhere in this thread have I denied it.
>Also, you tried to suggest it transited Soviet airspace safely
Goddamnit, stop strawmanning. I said it wasn't detected or intercepted. It wasn't.
>and that doing so in China in the mid 60's wasn't something a U-2 could do.
U-2s were regularly detected and even shot down over China. And their failure to accomplish reconnaissance deep within China is largely what motivated development of the D-21.
>>28250542
>Oh boy, 60's Chinese airspace, what a test of airspace denial.
See above.
>The same airspace a C-130 flew across undetected.
NoE, yes. Not the same thing at all. I frankly doubt there is an air defense system in existence which could reliably detect a well-planned NoE intrusion.
>>28250779
>And submersible carriers ARE COOL
Ah, you are that retard. I see you're just at the point where you close yourself off and whine rather than learn.
>>28250815
Because the F-35 is a massive combat capability upgrade over legacy platforms, whereas the SCAR/HK416 just doesn't do all that much that the M4/M16A4 doesn't already, and replacing it would cost an assload for this slightly incremental upgrade.
>>28250815
F35 brings new capabilities to the table, Scar does not.
>>28250767
I'll be the first to admit I can't tell when I'm shitposting or not. I've been on the internet way too long and I'm very dissociated with reality.
On a subconscious level I feel like we should just build a fuckhuge space station and rely on orbital bombardment and troop drops, rendering navies obsolete anyways. Half the stuff I see in militaries looks like it's just polished up Nazi tech- who knows what tech we actually have they don't tell us about. Tons of people report UFO sightings FFS.
So.... basically, I see everything as role play. Because our top level tech is secret, that's all discussions like these can ever amount to. Believing anything else is denial.
So, I try to have fun with it. PT boats were fucking COOL and I was wondering what a modern one would look like and be capable of- then I saw this thread :)
>>28250853
>Revaluation of complete ignorance
Gee imagine that. You're worthless.
>>28250847
>F-35 is a massive combat capability upgrade over legacy platforms
hahahahahahaha
>>28249560
To blow up missiles, drones, satellites and helicopters.
>>28250871
>going from 4th gen fighters to 5th gen fighters isnt a massive upgrade
are you retarded or something
>>28250853
Just a reminder for everyone that you can report people for shitposting and using emoticons.
>>28250829
>U-2s were regularly detected and even shot down over China. And their failure to accomplish reconnaissance deep within China is largely what motivated development of the D-21.
No US U-2s were ever shot down over China. Over the entire U-2 operational history (16 years) by the ROC, 5 were shot down over China in 220 missions. Not exactly a good record on intercept, junior.
>None of that is "slow" or "vulnerable."
Nor is it "operational" or "working". Throwing out non-starting programs as if they're proof of success is retarded.
>Goddamnit, stop strawmanning. I said it wasn't detected or intercepted. It wasn't.
You said >>28250507
>passed clean through Chinese airspace (and even Soviet airspace, on one occasion)
when it was never in Soviet airspace. That is a direct lie. It aint strawmanning if youre potatoing hard core, fuckstick.
>>28250754
I'm aware of all that.
And what I said is true- they are being built all the time because they are obsolete by the time they are built. Of course AEGIS is still kickass, if we ever fight a legit military, they are using antiquated Soviet technology.
To me, what you're saying is "The sun will never set on the British Empire", "Rome will never fall", and "the Third Reich will last a thousand years."
I'm saying it's unrealistic to think we can maintain keeping up with the newest and most expensive military technology and capabilities like we do now forever- and that's my point.
Look at all the nation's that came before us, thinking nobody could take them on- thinking they were invincible- they were all wrong.
Which is why I'm saying, if an enemy wants to beat us, all they have to do is be patient.
>>28250853
>completely disassociated from reality
>constantly butting into informed, rational discussion
One clear symptom of clinical autism, folks. Report and sage for shitposting.
>>28250940
>To me, what you're saying is "The sun will never set on the British Empire", "Rome will never fall", and "the Third Reich will last a thousand years."
No one is saying that. You're saying we should stop upgrading platforms or building the best we can to face the current threat environment because "lawlz, already obsolete". That's the quickest way to sundown an empire. You are literally operating on faulty internal logic.
Kindly fuck off.
>>28250940
What the fuck are you doing? You can't admit to being a completely clueless shitposter then try to come back from there.
>>28250812
>>28250827
>>28250835
They are cool. Nothing says "power projection" like a flying fortress that orbits the globe a thousand times each month.
And I'm sticking to that.
I never admitted I was "lol just pretending to be retarded", I know /k/ doesn't like my ideas.
My only crime here is casting pearls before swine.
>>28250763
Irrelevant comparison. PT boats were INCREDIBLY successful and very efficient warfighters.
>>28250853
Someone cap this for the next time this retard pops up with a "brilliant" idea to ruin a perfectly good thread.
>>28249560
What's the point of drones?
>missiles + nothing to deliver ordinance
>>28250971
Please go easy on him. Its Friday night and he's already halfway through a bottle of windex.
>>28250982
>My only crime here is casting pearls before swine.
If by that you mean posting retarded ideas with only a passing acquaintance with fantasy, much less real life, sure. Pearls before swine.
>>28250621
when will then be now?
>>28250988
The thread was ruined before I got here, friendo.
>>28250982
>I never admitted I was "lol just pretending to be retarded"
You're admitting with every post you make. You're pathetic that you can't see that.
>>28251002
No. You know it's true. If America built a flying aircraft carrier that orbited the globe a few thousand times each month, then that would become the new standard that defines superpowers.
Instead of having carriers and nukes, it would be FLYING CARRIERS and nukes.
You know this to be true, humanity has a history of playing "keeping up with the Jones's".
>>28251011
I said I am dissociated from reality, and that I can't tell if I'm shitposting or not.
Maybe you're pathetic because you can't see that?
I never once said "lol I'm just pretending" I said "to me, YOU'RE ALL pretending".
And you are.
I'm no more guilty of anything else than you are. Especially shitposting.
>>28251028
You need to be banned.
>>28251002
>snickering2dwench.tiff
>>28251043
>I said I am dissociated from reality, and that I can't tell if I'm shitposting or not.
What an utterly pathetic excuse. Cowardly.
>>28251028
>If America built a flying aircraft carrier
completely hand waving the energy required to keep such a thing aloft:
>that orbited the globe a few thousand times each month
Just to orbit the earth one thousand times in one month would require a constant speed of 34,585 miles per hour. You really are completely disassociated with reality, aren't you?
>Instead of having carriers and nukes, it would be FLYING CARRIERS and nukes.
Which is impossible. Because physics. Jesus, you really need to leave your fucking basement.
It's time to stop playing ace combat and rejoin the real world.
>>28250921
>No US U-2s were ever shot down over China.
No US U-2s ever flew over China.
>Over the entire U-2 operational history (16 years) by the ROC, 5 were shot down over China in 220 missions. Not exactly a good record on intercept, junior.
A .02 losses per sortie is a pretty high attrition rate, even by the standards of the day. And they were detected far more frequently than they were actually shot down. The D-21 wasn't even detected on any of it's attempts.
>proof of success
Success is not what I'm trying to prove. I'm just contesting the assertion that drones are fundamentally vulnerable.
>when it was never in Soviet airspace.
...Yes, it was. One of the four examples suffered a navigational malfunction and flew through Soviet airspace, still undetected, and crashed inside Soviet territory.
>EVERYTHING YOU LIKE IS USELESS OR IMPOSSIBLE
/k/ in a nutshell
>>28251006
In the future.
>>28251087
>The D-21 wasn't even detected on any of it's attempts.
>...Yes, it was. One of the four examples suffered a navigational malfunction and flew through Soviet airspace, still undetected, and crashed inside Soviet territory.
Hilarious how you just keep asserting the same thing without any kind of dates, actual numbers or sources to back it.
YES IT IS!
UH HU!
>>28251090
Excuse us for having an understanding of the real world, instead of viewing everything through a fucking arcade game depiction of combat like Ace Combat and masturbating over it constantly. I swear to fuck, you people are worse than BB fags in modern destroyer threads.
>>28251122
Dude, I'm not even talking about that. Every thread someone's bitching about how X is useless and/or impossible even if it's actually got a pretty good actual combat record. Shit gets old.
>>28251159
I'm pretty sure this is antman. Got that same crazy mole man/no connection to society feeling.
>>28251076
I didn't do the math, I was generalizing.
Anything is possible, fuck physics. We are always learning what we used to think was wrong.
I've never played Ace Combat.
B-But muh super armored close-in battleships!!1!
>>28251198
>Anything is possible, fuck physics.
You heard it here first, folks. 35,000mph flying aircraft carriers are a thing because "fuck physics".
How does someone get this delusional?
>>28251122
The battleships were awesome, and they still are the most powerful artillery platforms we have to my knowledge.
>>28251111
Oh for fuck's sake
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_D-21#Operational_history
http://www.spyflight.co.uk/d21.htm
Fuck /k/ topics. This fred is now a psyche thread. It is truly interesting how someone gets this fucked in the head. Oh, internet. You never fail to amaze.
>>28250720
>SPY-6
>In 2013, the Navy cut almost $10 billion from the cost of the program by adopting a smaller less capable system that will be challenged by "future threats"
>adopting a smaller less capable system that will be challenged by "future threats"
>challenged by "future threats"
Thanks Obama
>>28251223
holy kek. not that anon, but that thing had four spectacular failures as an operational history. what are you even arguing?
>>28251208
>How does someone get this delusional?
https://www.autismspeaks.org
>>28251233
>In 2013, the Navy cut almost $10 billion from the cost of the program by adopting a smaller less capable system that will be challenged by "future threats"
Yeah, now read into the actual downgraded capabilities:
>The radar can simultaneously handle over 30 times the targets than existing AN/SPY-1D(V), to counter large and complex raids.
It's pretty fucking rad as is.
>>28251252
Fair nuff.
>>28251246
I'm not him, but rockets and space travel had a lot of enormous failures, too. The beginning was literally like Kerbal Space Program, except people actually died.
The space program became a massive success, though.
>>28251252
>liking what I don't like
>thinking differently than I do
>he must be mentally ill
You do realize billions of people believe that death is a lie and that we basically live in the matrix, right?
>>28251267
>>28251233
By the way, the current SPY-1D can track 800 simultaneous targets. So the SPY-6 can simultaneously track over 24,000 targets. It can literally defeat chaff clouds by individually tracking/redacting each piece of chaff if they write the right software for it.
>>28251246
>what are you even arguing?
Against the sweeping generalization that "drones are slow and vulnerable." That's literally all I'm trying to say. I know they have reliability issues and I know the D-21 project was an operational failure. But it does pretty effectively demonstrate that drones can, potentially, be fast and difficult to stop (or even detect).
>>28251269
Sure did. But the D-21 never became a success. It was a total operational dead end, yet anon is using it as positive proof of drone success. Even today, the closest thing is the X-37, which has nothing like the same deployment structure or mission.
>>28251284
That doesn't make you any less autistic friend.
Get help.
>>28251111
Merely to play devil's advocate;
>"As a postscript to the programme, in 1986 as the Soviet Union was beginning to implode, a CIA operative showed to Ben Rich, who was by then leading the Skunk Works, a present that had been sent to him by a Soviet KGB agent. The gift was identified as a panel from the engine mount of the first D-21 mission that vanished into China in Sep 1969. The wreckage had been found by a shepherd in Siberia and was eventually acquired by the KGB, after no doubt being carefully examined by various Soviet engineers."
>http://www.spyflight.co.uk/d21.htm
Wikipedia, of course, has a similar quote but its source is a link to a .jp2 file which I can neither get to open or convert into another file type. Though even with a 'source' it's an entirely unsubstantiatedl claim.
A more reliable sounding source lists these numbers for D-21 operational flights with no mention of the soviets
>D-21B #517 Launched from B-52H on 9 Nov 1969...1st operational mission, camera not recovered.
>D-21B #523 Launched from B-52H on 16 Dec 1970....flew 2,448 nm, 2nd operational mission, camera not recovered
>D-21B #526 Launched from B-52H on 4 March 1971....flew 2,935 nm, 3rd operational mission, camera not recovered
>D-21B #527 Launched from B-52H on 20 March 1971....flew 2,935 nm, 4th and last operational mission, camera not recovered. D-21 Program closed down. Wreckage recovered and put on display at China Aviation Museum.
>http://www.wvi.com/~sr71webmaster/d21~1.htm
>>28251291
>drones are slow and vulnerable
But they are, far more so than manned aircraft. Look at what happened to the newest, best surveillance drone, the RQ-170: fucking Iran managed to hack and down it.
>>28251267
>It's pretty fucking rad as is.
I know but I just think its lame to dumb down a major and vital system for an that should be top of the line for an anti-air destroyer.
>>28251286
>So the SPY-6 can simultaneously track over 24,000 targets. It can literally defeat chaff clouds by individually tracking/redacting each piece of chaff if they write the right software for it.
Ya it's still impressive.
>>28251321
Here we go.
>>28250779
>Flying carriers
>Belka
You're even a terrible shitposter.
>>28251334
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2011-12/video-iran-puts-its-captured-rq-170-drone-display
>>28251346
>strangereal
Bitch, please
>>28251286
>It can literally defeat chaff clouds by individually tracking/redacting each piece of chaff if they write the right software for it.
Well... no....
http://www.radartutorial.eu/01.basics/Range%20Resolution.en.html
There are other ways of defeating chaff, though. SPY-6 is an air-search radar, and doppler radar is pretty good at filtering out static/slow-moving returns like chaff and ground clutter when looking for faster contacts like an aircraft.
>>28251311
It does mean your perceptions of what mental illness is are most likely false.
FFS a hundred years ago doctors convinced everyone lobotomies are good for you! And it took decades and thousands of operations for us to learn that cutting up people's brains actually makes them worse!
You put too much faith in what modern science and medicine tells you.
>>28251353
>popsci
I would say you're trying too hard if you hadn't already expressed your a legitimate shitposter.
>>28251389
>me being autistic doesn't actually mean I'm autistic, modern medicine is probably wrong
I'm pretty sure this is a sign of autism austismo bro.
>>28251389
>IM TOTALLY NOT CRAZY GUIZE
>I JUST CAN'T DISTINGUISH BETWEEN REALITY AND FANTASY IN QUESTIONS OF BASIC PHYSICAL REALITY
You know what definitions of delusion HAVEN'T changed in a couple hundred years?
>>28251402
Holy balls. Fine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93U.S._RQ-170_incident
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/08/world/middleeast/drone-crash-in-iran-reveals-secret-us-surveillance-bid.html
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/12/12/world/meast/iran-us-drone/index.html
>We even asked for the damn thing back. Publicly.
http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Middle-East/2011/1215/Exclusive-Iran-hijacked-US-drone-says-Iranian-engineer
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18563_162-57339834/u.s-official-iran-does-have-our-drone/
>>28251284
There's no point in arguing over someone on /k/ calling you autistic. Damn near nobody here knows what autism actually is or even cares. It's just the current insult of choice or a lot of faggots.
>>28251321
>>28251353
>2 out of 4 D-21s malfunctioned and crashed on their own, none were shot down
>Other drones crash all the time of their own accord
>One Reaper even had to be shot down by an American F-15 after it went rogue and was aimlessly wandered towards foreign airspace
>Still believing that the stealthy RQ-170 was detected and hacked by Iran (fucking IRAN) rather than accepting it just spazzed out and crash on it's own, as usual
Logic.
>>28251439
>>Still believing that the stealthy RQ-170 was detected and hacked by Iran (fucking IRAN)
There's nothing unreasonable about that. They have electronic warfare capabilities. They have radar installations.
>>28251439
Then how did the Iranians get the damn thing with the airframe at least apparently completely intact? Self destruct on the rest of the drones would have gibbed significant parts of the airframe, followed by the ground doing the rest.
>>28251426
You dumb nigger, pointing to one incident and then concluding "lol all drones are slow and vulnerable" is retarded. I wasn't saying that incident didn't occur.
Hell, what really happened that day is still up in the air. From Iranian uber hackers to GPS fuckery down to a plaine malfunction.
>>28251470
>implying drones don't go down from malfunction or enemy action at a far, far higher rate than manned aircraft
Anon. Just stop.
>>28251408
I wonder how many disorders you have, then? Every sexual preference has been labeled mental illness, even heterosexuality. Every kind of thinking and perception has been thought of as a disorder, too. Modern medicine and psychology literally says "there are no healthy people, everyone is sick".
>>28251411
You know, the line between fantasy and reality is blurry. The eye of Sauron is on the dollar bill, FFS.
>>28251438
I'm pretty much just here to argue about stupid shit. That's what this site is for, right? To me, it's just a time waster for me to distract myself as I wait for death. Thinking my posts would achieve anything good for anyone is pure vanity.
>>28251470
>one incident
>over 400 large drone losses since 2001
wut?
>>28251480
>You know, the line between fantasy and reality is blurry. The eye of Sauron is on the dollar bill, FFS.
Are you actually unable to tell the difference between "inspired by", "based on" and "both part of a larger cultural zietgiest"?
You really are fucked, man.
>>28251480
>Modern medicine and psychology literally says "there are no healthy people, everyone is sick"
This is a lie you're using to justify your idiocy.
>>28251480
>I'm pretty much just here to argue about stupid shit. That's what this site is for, right? To me, it's just a time waster for me to distract myself as I wait for death. Thinking my posts would achieve anything good for anyone is pure vanity.
Then you're a worthless peace of shit obstructing people who are actually helpful/knowledgeable. Basement dwelling fucktard.
>>28251480
>I wonder how many disorders you have, then?
Dunno, but at least autism isn't one of them.
That's more then you can say captain austismo.
>>28251452
>Then how did the Iranians get the damn thing with the airframe at least apparently completely intact?
How the fuck did this F-106 belly-land land otherwise-undamaged after the pilot ejected?
Shit happens. And keep in mind drones are designed to fly under autopilot nearly 100% of the time (ESPECIALLY if satcom is lost), so even if it suffered a navigational/communication malfunction there's a good chance the autopilot would still be keeping the airplane in fairly stable flight until fuel exhaustion.
>Muh self-destruct
No. Just, no.
>>28251494
It's a harsh truth. Doctors have no perfect humans to be a baseline for them to draw comparisons on about the rest of humanity, and they are confused.
>>28251502
I am not. The 9mm cartridge is a hundred years old and considered modern. It should be in a museum and caseless ammo should have been perfected by now. However, the real world doesn't conform to your beliefs any more than it does mine. Destroyer platforms are well over a hundred years old, but considered modern. I'm entitled to my own opinions as much as you are yours.
Latency my friend, Latency
>>28251547
Autonomy my friend, autonomy.
>>28251523
You're saying drones drones don't include sensitive data and hardware destructing capability and backups on capture, shootdown or loss? Really?
>>28251528
>It's a harsh truth. Doctors have no perfect humans to be a baseline for them to draw comparisons on about the rest of humanity, and they are confused.
>I have no clue how actual medical testing works the post
Wew lad, you might want tot slow down with all this bait. Somebody might actually think you're serious.
>>28251564
Yes, really. That's what I'm saying.
>>28251528
>Destroyer platforms are well over a hundred years old, but considered modern.
Because modern destroyers resemble WWI destroyers in any practical or aesthetic way, right? Hell, not even the mission is similar save for ASW.
>I'm entitled to my own opinions as much as you are yours.
It's not opinion when it is objective fact or reality.
>>28251564
>hardware destructing capability
You need to watch the same amount of movies that you do now
But you need to realize they're not real life. The only US aircraft that's ever had a self-destruct is the Space Shuttle.
>>28251560
>he thinks you can just "install a dogfighting subroutine" in a drone
>he thinks you can just "install evasive maneuvers against SAMs and AAMs subroutine" in a drone
Writing such an all-encompassing code is near impossible
>>28251585
>The only US aircraft that's ever had a self-destruct is the Space Shuttle.
Holy fucking kek.
>But you need to realize they're not real life.
Considering the priority the US takes in sanitizing and destroying downed helicopters and other aircraft, I have a hard time believing there are no measures in place to protect sensitive hardware and software. But provide a source, and I guess I'll learn something. I can't find a definitive answer one way or another online.
>>28251600
>Holy fucking kek.
Prove me wrong.
>>28251600
>I have a hard time believing
Good thing we base our knowledge on sources and evidence rather than faith then isn't it.
>>28251612
>Prove me wrong.
Prove yourself right.
>>28251570
It's not bait, it's reality. If humans discover time travel is possible, what do you think they would do? We already obsessively reconstruct older lifestyles, look at the paleo diet. We dump tons of money and energy into digging up old cities to learn about our past. We would likely use the first humans as a baseline to compare humans today with, and anything that doesn't fit is suddenly seen as illness. That would completely stop any evolution humanity would have otherwise undergone.
>>28251577
If WW1 destroyers had missiles, radar, and electronic suites, yes. They would be virtually identical. The mission of destroyers has not changed at all throughout the century. The only thing that's changed is now there are planes and missiles for it to defend against, and planes and missiles for it to carry.
>>28251478
Who said that? Take a break for a moment and stopp thinking in extremes.
>>28251485
>Using numbers from everything between borderline civilian grade RC planes to ScanEagles
>Conclude all drones suck including Reapers etc because a ScanEagle occasionally misses the net
>Implying they all employ the same level of encryption
>Implying they all preform the same mission
Brilliant you fucking brain dead retard. Next you'll tell me AESA sucks because Doppler weather radars have cant pick up stealth aircraft.
>>28251625
First, you're the one who is saying they have self-destruct with zero evidence. Second, how the fuck do you expect someone to show you that something DOESN'T EXIST?
I guess you've found out you can't back up your point and so are pulling this fallacy bullshit.
>>28251528
>Destroyer platforms are well over a hundred years old, but considered modern
>Implying destroyers didn't evolve in any way whatsoever to fit different standards
Are Age of Sail frigates and modern guided missile frigates also the same to you?
>>28251612
I thought you were joking about the Challenger and Columbia.
Now it isn't funny. Way to kill the joke.
>>28251591
>he thinks you can just "install a dogfighting subroutine" in a drone
Umm, yes. How the fuck do you think SAMs and AAMs work? Missiles are effectively just drones that don't come back, I really don't see why people view drones as some revolutionary technology.
Plus, nowhere did OP even mention dogfighting. Frankly dogfighting is hardly even relevant these days. The overwhelming majority of targets (even ones capable of flight) are on the ground.
>he thinks you can just "install evasive maneuvers against SAMs and AAMs subroutine" in a drone
Many AShMs already have such measures programmed in.
>>28251618
>evidence
>sources
But you aren't providing any and as I said I can't find a definitive answer.
It's not like the US totally doesn't care about losing sensitive/classified equipment and data. We go to a lot of effort historically and across many platforms to prevent that sort of thing. Logic dictates there must be a mechanism.
>>28251636
>The mission of destroyers has not changed at all throughout the century.
So you're saying the destroyers are still primarily torpedo attack platforms against larger combatants primarily meant to screen the BBs from and engage smaller surface combatants while providing an ASW screen? Interesting. Because aside from the ASW part (which is mostly a function of their aviation facilities with some hull mounted sensors and ASROCs), nothing is the same.
>>28251668
Hasn't it occurred to you that we could build completely different ship styles that would be more efficient and faster compared to designs that are 50 years old?
Age of sail frigates performed the same tasks modem frigates do, in a nutshell- why else would we call them frigates?
It's irrelevant to my original intentions- my posts were about how we could have ships that do the same job, but are MUCH smaller, stealthier, and more easily mass produced and replaceable.
>>28251591
Time to stop typing grandpa.
>>28251642
>>Using numbers from everything between borderline civilian grade RC planes to ScanEagles
Here ya go. Several hundred just from 2007, all class II or III (big boys), all with press releases or .mil sources to confirm. If only one out of ten of these is legitimate (i'd say at least 85% are), they're still lost at well over three times the rate of manned aircraft.
http://dronewars.net/drone-crash-database/
Your entire argument is invalid.
>>28251689
>But you aren't providing any and as I said I can't find a definitive answer.
I can't find you a source saying they aren't powered by Jim Henson's The Dark Crystal, I guess the answer to that "isn't definitive" either huh?
They don't have self-destruct systems, no matter what bullshit narrative you try to make fit. No air force is flying a vehicle with a sensor-triggered suicide explosive.
>>28251700
Replace BBs with CVNs, and replace their cannons with cruise missiles. Haven't you seen what a retrofitted Gearing class looked like?
They are an antiquated design that's inherently weak. Because they are inherently weak, they should be built smaller and more stealthily.
>>28251689
>I said I can't find a definitive answer.
What you're saying here is you can't find a source saying that something that doesn't exist doesn't exist so your bollocks must be right.
Which is a massive logical fallacy.
>>28251725
But this is an often asked, legitimate questions. There are plenty of news reports and op eds asking the same question. Stop trying to pretend this is a total left field possibility.
>>28251718
I've got a question- can CIWS fire straight up?
If it can't, that's a blind spot. Cruise missiles could just come in from the top.
>>28251731
>They are an antiquated design that's inherently weak. Because they are inherently weak, they should be built smaller and more stealthily.
HEY GUIZE! TOTALLY IGNORE THAT MODERN DESTROYERS ARE TWO AND A HALF TIMES THE SIZE OF EVEN WWII COUNTERPARTS, AND MORE COMBAT CAPABLE THAN WWII BATTLESHIPS!
I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP YELLING UNREALISTIC, IGNORANT SHIT!
>>28251656
Are you drunk? I, >>28251625, said for the tard, who "thinks" the space shuttle has a self-destruct system, to prove their bullshit.
>>28251682
Missiles subroutines are different. Dogfights subroutines would have to include evading AAMs, tracking the enemy and attacking the enemy and many more intricate ones.
And AShMs subroutines are too basic to work.
Rarely will one single AShM evade all Air defenses of a ship.You usually need to saturate Ship defenses with AShMs for a few of them to get through
>>28251748
They have to be bigger to have room for missiles, hangars, more electronics, etc.
That's irrelevant though, their mission is largely the same. That's why they are still classified destroyers.
>>28251724
I don't see how that invalidates my argument. The majority of them were not the "big boys", and when they did fail (even the small ones) it was mostly mechanical failure.
Still not seeing how all drones are slow and vulnerable so no one should use them.
>>28251735
>But this is an often asked, legitimate questions
The reason this is so frustrating for me is because I work with a plethora of UAV's and I have some idiot like you telling me they MUST have self-destruct systems, even though there's zero evidence for it.
So what do I give a fuck if there's pointless conjecture about it?
>>28251774
Everything you just said >>28251718 does and more. Time to stop posting grandpa.
>>28251749
http://www.popularmechanics.com/space/a3232/4262479/
Goodness, five seconds on Google could have saved you this humiliation.
>>28251806
Hurr durr my AShM can dogfight
>>28251818
Nope. But it can...
>Autonomously plot a course with no further input if need be
>Identify enemy ships evade and or minimize effectiveness of countermeasures
>Target ships specific vulnerable points
>Coordinate with other LRASMs in the air to preform a simultaneous strike from multiple angles
>Able to go radio silence in terminal phase to minimize chance of detection
Time to stop posting grandpa.
>>28251807
>Using the SBR to destroy the shuttle
That's the same as saying that every fighter jet and bomber can self-destruct if you detonate its missile/bomb payload without releasing them. Hell why don't you just fire some SM-2 missiles at the shuttle and call that the self-destruct system.
But in other words you admit there is no self-destruct system INSIDE the shuttle, it being inside the shuttle makes it a SELF-destruct system.
>>28251864
>But in other words you admit there is no self-destruct system INSIDE the shuttle, it being inside the shuttle makes it a SELF-destruct system.
Good lord what a weak goalpost shift.
>>28251877
I find your lack of understanding of the English language disturbing.
>>28251864
>Literally an explosive charge to destroy the Space Shuttle
>Literally a man who's job it is to hit the arming switch and detonate it
>NO IT DOESN'T COUNT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT IN THE PART OF THE SPACE SHUTTLE I WANT THEM TO BE IN
>>28251863
And drones will have to do much more than that in a dogfight.
Climbing,Turning,Accelerating.
And LRASM effectiveness isn't a 100% pK,
And it can't do any of those as of now
It is supposed to do all of those.
How much success will it have in evading all those counter measures,remains to be seen.
Either in real combat situations,or tests conducted by U.S.
>>28251800
Obligatory dad works at nintendo
>>28251918
The difference is you're the one saying Mew is under the truck.
>>28251924
Meme game strong
You went too deep into the meta
>>28251924
Not really. I'm the one making a logical argument for why it should be this way. The US does not leave classified materials in vulnerable positions when it can be helped.
Your entire argument thus far has been "Nu-uh", without any sort of proof. Even if there's not an explosive destruct on certain components you're retarded if you believe there's no protection whatsoever on some of the more classified airframes the US operates as recon vehicles over indian country.
>>28251903
Fine be a tumblrerina and change the definition of words to fit your narrative, I don't care, I wasn't even the guy you began arguing with in the first place.
>>28251943
>Your entire argument thus far has been "Nu-uh", without any sort of proof.
My argument is that you have no proof. It's pretty solid. Again you asking for proof is childish because you know full well you can't provide proof for something that doesn't exist.
>>28251914
>Climbing,Turning,Accelerating.
They also do that.
>100% pK
And a manned fighter is?
>And it can't do any of those as of now. It is supposed to do all of those.
It already has, tests in 2013 were very satisfactory.
I really don't know where you're trying to go from here grandpa. Every single one of your posts reeks of fighter mafia glum post-retirement depression.
>>28251774
>Dogfights subroutines would have to include evading AAMs
You know what's a really good way to achieve that? Don't get into a fucking dogfight.
>tracking the enemy and attacking the enemy
Are you seriously implying that missiles don't track and attack the enemy?
>And AShMs subroutines are too basic to work.
Arbitrary judgement
>Rarely will one single AShM evade all Air defenses of a ship. You usually need to saturate Ship defenses with AShMs for a few of them to get through
Delusional. Even dumb AShMs with no terminal evasion measures are still a major threat and there has only been one case EVER of shipboard defenses actually taking out an AShM (and that was after the missile had already passed the ship).
>>28251946
>I....I didn't care anyway!
I said you could have been spared the humiliation. Now you're so desperate you're trying to say a Space Shuttle isn't a Space Shuttle. Weak.
>>28251957
Except the concept of a self destruct is DIRECTLY ADDRESSED by US officials as one reason the Iranians couldn't have an RQ-170 intact. See stories above. Furthermore, they wouldn't be the first self destructs:
http://www.army-technology.com/features/featurekamikaze-drones-military-robots-self-destruct/
Both Switchblade and SeaFox include the capability.
Here's DARPA working on self destructing IC/PCB components:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/176199-this-story-will-self-destruct-in-five-seconds-darpa-begins-work-on-self-destructing-electronics
And here's the Atlantic on that Iran drone question:
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2011/12/us-drone-that-went-down-in-iran-was-high-tech-intel-tool-officials-say/249562/
>The drones are thought to be equipped with self-destruct capabilities in the event that they lose contact with their controllers, which is why the U.S. was initially skeptical of Iran's claim to have the drone in custody. The officials didn't say if they knew for certain that the fallen drone had managed to self-destruct.
Here's another story:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2011/12/downed_cia_drone_was_it_rigged_to_self_destruct_.html
>the Pentagon was able to destroy its first generation of unmanned spy planes by remote control, in case they fell into enemy hands. And the feature really worked: Axe reports that pilots accidentally blew up a Northrop Grumman Global Hawk prototype during a 1999 test.
A story on another self destruct feature DARPA is working on, ICARUS:
https://www.rt.com/usa/318889-pentagon-drones-self-destruct/
So, you pretending like I'm coming out of left field with this is absolutely retarded. It's a historically demonstrated capability on a prioritized mission goal (avoidance of dissemination of classified materials).
PROVIDE A SOURCE TO THE CONTRARY.
>>28251957
Why are you so full of shit, anon? US has had confirmed self destruct all the way back to 1999. Fuck off with your dad works at nintendo bullshit.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/budget/fy1999/dot-e/airforce/99haeuav.html
>The crash of air vehicle Number 2 was attributed to Air Force personnel at a different site testing flight termination equipment that triggered the airborne Global Hawk's self-destruct sequence.
>>28252011
fucking kek.
were you just stringing that anon along just so you could take this massive shit on his head?
>>28251959
"satisfactory" is a broad term
How many LRASMs did it take to sink a well defended ship
A manned Fighter is superior to a drone for dogfight and evading missiles because they are not limited by the rigid subroutines installed in drones.
Cruise missiles don't turn to upto 50 degrees of AoA
>>28251969
>don't get into dogfight
Easy to say but when the enemy sends drone interceptors to stop your drone then what do you do ? Flee ?
Are you seriously comparing missile maneuvering to a fighter in a dogfight ?
You guys are dumb as hell.Not going to bother responding to you anymore
>>28252011
Well lets pick apart your points here.
1) The Switchblade and Seafox are intended to be used as weapons, so their "self-destruct" is part of their function as missiles and minesweepers.
2) Your DARPA stories are irrelevant as they're concepts. You might as well be posting a 50's image of a moon base.
3) Your Atlantic story about it having a self--destruct is also a baseless assumption
>are thought to be equipped
I wonder what you want as a source to the contrary? A signed document by the USAF saying current RPAS don't have self-destruct systems.
>>28252050
Satisfactory was a word I decided to use. If you agree or disagree you welcome to look up the public reports. They achieved what they've set out to do so far.
>A manned Fighter is superior to a drone for dogfight and evading missiles because they are not limited by the rigid subroutines installed in drones.
>Cruise missiles don't turn to upto 50 degrees of AoA
Time to stop posting grandpa. Its OK though, I know you mean well.
>>28252055
See >>28252029
and the following:
FROM A FUCKING .MIL DOC (T&EA report):
http://www.dote.osd.mil/pub/reports/FY1999/pdf/af/99haeuav.pdf
>The crash of air vehicle Number 2 was attributed to Air Force personnel at a different site testing flight termination equipment that triggered the airborne Global Hawk’s self-destruct sequence.
Here's another government report on the crash causes of vehicle number 2:
>The mishap occurred when Global Hawk inadvertently received a test signal for flight termination from a test range on Nellis Air Force Base, Nev., which was outside the frequency coordination zone in which the UAV's mission was being flown. This caused Global Hawk to go into a termination maneuver involving a pre-programmed, rolling, vertical descent from an altitude of 41,000 feet.
http://thediplomat.com/2011/12/u-s-mulled-retrieving-drone/
>The RQ-170 almost certainly comes equipped with a self-destruct device. After all, even the older Global Hawk spy drone is rigged to blow itself up in an emergency. We know this because an Air Force operator accidentally triggered a Global Hawk’s self-destruct during a test flight back in 1999. The malfunction that severed whatever signal ground-based operators were using to track the Sentinel might also have disabled the Unmanned Aerial Vehicle's self-destruct.
>>28252106
Link to .gov crash report
http://fas.org/irp/program/collect/docs/n19991223_992288.htm
>>28252106
Well goddamn anon. As >>28251600 I guess I have my answer now. I'll leave the rest to you.
>>28252099
>your obviously retarded
>implying you know what you are talking about
>nope
>stfu what you're like 12 years old
>gtfo now
>laughinggirls.jpg
>LOL TROLLED
>HURR DURR I THINK THIS WAY
>THIS IS WHAT YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE
>LAUGHINGGIRLS.jpg
>FAGGOT
>DIE
>
>
>>28252153
You're acting childish now. Only person acting like that is (surprise) you.
What I DID do was tell you where you were completely wrong. Please do look up the reports if you disagree with me or the program in the grand scheme of things. Ignorance isn't bliss this time around...grandpa.
>>28249794
holy fucking shit you are a dumbass.
That is on the level of "hur durr I could be a soldier because I play tactical video games"
>>28252050
>How many LRASMs did it take to sink a well defended ship
Sink? Lots. Hit and disable? Probably just one. Maybe two or three if you want to cover your ass.
>A manned Fighter is superior to a drone for dogfight and evading missiles because they are not limited by the rigid subroutines installed in drones.
You're literally retarded if you think fighter pilots don't follow rigid evasion procedures in response to a missile warning.
>50 degrees AoA
>useful
Yep... definitely retarded.
>Easy to say but when the enemy sends drone interceptors to stop your drone then what do you do ? Flee ?
Sure. And make a point of having more attackers in the air than the enemy has interceptors (not hard to do when you plan the attack and the enemy is merely responding to it), so that you can still BTFO whatever airbase the interceptors took off from to keep it from happening again.
>Are you seriously comparing missile maneuvering to a fighter in a dogfight ?
No, YOU started that.
>>28249560
>what is the military industrial complex
>what is imperialism
The military of today has 2 functions
1. make contractors and lobbyists money
2. bomb the poorest of countries that have no way of fighting back... so contractors and lobbyists can make money
>>28252106
Not that guy, but I think it's important to point out what "flight termination" actually means, and where it would and would not be used.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a526141.pdf
>A second critical consideration for UASs requiring continuous control links is how the system responds to lost
communications with the ground control station. Programs vary from immediate flight termination to prevent the air vehicle from leaving the test range, to complex flight paths to attempt to reacquire the signal and navigation (avoiding terrain) to a safe field for an autonomous landing.
Flight termination is a risk mitigation measure. In testing (such as your cited example), when a yet-unproven UAV is operating over a relatively unpopulated area and the biggest concern is the possibility of the UAV wandering away from the test area and crashing where it could potentially do a lot of damage, flight termination systems are almost universally used and triggered soon after a malfunction.
On the other hand, when a tested-and-proven UAV is operating in-theater, often over populated areas where a crash would be unfavorable, flight-termination is a last-resort and only triggered if the operators or aircraft systems are certain they are not over a populated area. If the UAV is having communications issues, it is generally much more preferable to have the UAV attempt to fly and navigate autonomously to a point where communications might be reestablished or where flight termination can finally be executed in relative safety.
Lastly, flight termination systems don't "blow up" the aircraft. They usually just drive the controls hard-over so the aircraft spirals into the ground, or in many cases actually deploy a parachute to bring the UAV down with minimal damage to both itself and anything/anyone on the ground.
>>28252400
So "our drone is being actively jammed/hacked by foreign operators in a war zone" would not be one such instance?
Also, that anon claimed categorically here >>28251585 that drones had no means for self destruction. This is absolutely not the case.
>>28250847
>F35 in a lately simulated duel lose to a f16
>>28250878
If f35 better than f22 how would us sell them to other country?because us need more money
>>28252452
That... What?
It was a maneuvers test on an early airframe several years ago with early flight control software. The F-16 was there as a reference, chase plane and formation participant.
Do you even read about the shit you cite?
>>28252459
F-22 is also 5th gen, dumbass. It's the air superiority high to the F-35's multirole low. They work and serve together. The F-35 is not an F-22 replacement.
>>28252433
>So "our drone is being actively jammed/hacked by foreign operators in a war zone" would not be one such instance?
No. Absolutely not. Refer to my previous source:
>The next higher form of fail-safe, and last to be discussed, is employed on more recent, and typically larger UASs. These systems are capable of significant autonomous operations including navigation and terrain clearance with no command link. As opposed to a simple return home mode, these systems may be programmed with one or more entire emergency plans. These plans are then executed based on entry criteria including loss of command link. The plan may include recovery from the original launch site, or an abort to a recovery site closer to the air vehicle’s present location. It is typical for these systems to make use of INS, GPS, and dead reckoning data with a graceful degradation to lesser modes in the event of failure(s).
A UAV such as the RQ-170 would default to dead-reckoning under INS in the most severe jamming environments, and still be capable of navigating home (not with sufficient precision to land, but certainly enough to reestablish connection if systems aren't malfunctioning).
And to further cement the fact that FTS are rarely actually used in theater, I'd direct you to the 2009 MQ-9 link-loss incident, where the Reaper in question had to be intercepted after it failed to execute a proper failsafe sequence and could not be terminated by other means.
http://www.airspacemag.com/daily-planet/robot-airplane-goes-awol-gets-shot-down-116731476/?no-ist
>>28252513
>And to further cement the fact that FTS are rarely actually used in theater, I'd direct you to the 2009 MQ-9 link-loss incident, where the Reaper in question had to be intercepted after it failed to execute a proper failsafe sequence and could not be terminated by other means.
But that suggests that it WAS used in theatre, and this was only a big deal because the flight termination failed and they were forced to intercept it. Which in turn proves it was a procedure used in theatre, and may have been attempted in the case of the RQ-170.
>>28252535
>But that suggests that it WAS used in theatre
What is "it?" Flight termination or simply a failsafe "return home" procedure?
>and this was only a big deal because the flight termination failed and they were forced to intercept it.
It was a big deal because it did not execute it's failsafe procedure, which includes returning autonomously to a predefined position where communications can more easily be reestablished. This much we know. We can't say for certain that the Reaper even uses FTS operationally, beyond "circle here until we reestablish connection or run out of fuel." It might, but if so that raises the question of why it didn't work and why it's never mentioned in any accident reports (outside of testing, that is).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/drone-crashes/database/
>>28252400
>http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a526141.pdf
All this paper pertains to is testing procedures. It has nothing to do with the rarity or use of the Flight Termination procedures in theater or during other operations.
The only really pertinent quote is
>Programs vary from immediate flight termination to prevent the air vehicle from leaving the test range, to complex flight paths to attempt to reacquire the signal and navigation (avoiding terrain) to a safe field for an autonomous landing.
Everything else in this post is your own speculation, unless you also have a source for statements like
>when a tested-and-proven UAV is operating in-theater, often over populated areas where a crash would be unfavorable, flight-termination is a last-resort and only triggered if the operators or aircraft systems are certain they are not over a populated area.
Obviously reestablishing positive control whenever possible is preferable, but your suggesting that flight termination as a means of ending the flight and destroying the gear seems completely unsupported.
>>28252614
I am still failing to see anything suggesting a lack of use of the flight termination protocols, which have been demonstrated to include a self-destruct catastrophic landing sequence.
Positive demonstration of the capability has already been proven a few times in this thread. I've yet to see any evidence suggesting this capability is not employed as a final fail safe.
Because we're not ready for Terminator D-Day yet.
Are you guys really argueing about what happened to the RQ-170 over iran, because reaper guy already explained it.
If it is something else, then nevermind. This thread is TLDR
>>28252724
What did ReaperGuy say?
>>28252737
The drone had a malfunction which caused power loss.
It defaulted to its go home protocols, but lolnoengine. Thus, it got as far back as it could on glide slope before crashing.
>>28252764
Seems plausible, but for both the US and Iran initially claiming it was in Afghanistan, not over Iran. Meh. Probably some CIA fuckery there, as they're the ones operating it.
>>28249794
Real life doesn't have patches to make sure the different teams are balanced. We dump money into projects to make sure they're not balanced.
>>28250636
barely, guy is lucky he didn't end up KIA from that landing
BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRT best plane
>>28252671
>but your suggesting that flight termination as a means of ending the flight and destroying the gear seems completely unsupported.
Well, it does. None of the known link-loss incidents that occurred in-theater seem to have ended with the deliberate SELF-destruction of the UAV.
>>28252680
>I am still failing to see anything suggesting a lack of use of the flight termination protocols
I suspect you're willfully ignoring the evidence I've provided. In that case, I simply can't help you.
>which have been demonstrated to include a self-destruct catastrophic landing sequence.
Only in cases where it is absolutely necessary to avoid danger to surrounding areas and people/property on the ground. Again from the previous source:
>Range restrictions usually call for the throttle to be set to idle power, or engine shut down, and flight controls to glide positions. In extreme conditions, where range space is limited and risk of injury exists outside of the controlled airspace, it may be required that the controls be set to cause an immediate crash to ensure that the vehicle stays in bounds. This is often accomplished by programming pro spin control positions and engine to idle. Since the fail-safe mode can be triggered by a temporary loss of command link, it is advisable to use engine idle vice shut down, as a controlled recovery may be possible.
>I've yet to see any evidence suggesting this capability is not employed as a final fail safe.
Nothing conclusive, no, but as I've already pointed out, the primary purpose of FTS is always to minimize damage. The only time that this would favor a violent, catastrophic crash over a gentle glide or parachute to the ground, would be when in a confined testing area which is known to be unpopulated.
Lastly, the apparent lack of actual deliberate self-destruction of UAVs in-theater is quite telling. Go ahead and flip through the accident reports; I doubt you'll find a single case outside of testing (I couldn't).
>>28255400
>Well, it does. None of the known link-loss incidents that occurred in-theater seem to have ended with the deliberate SELF-destruction of the UAV.
There's no evidence for this. Causes of most of those losses are not directly attributed or timeline cataloged.
>I suspect you're willfully ignoring the evidence I've provided. In that case, I simply can't help you.
You haven't provided any evidence whatsoever of in theater ops or procedures, only the equivalent of "range rules" for the testing of prototypes. You further ignore the added urgency of rendering the classified items destroyed in case of loss in enemy controlled areas.
>Only in cases where it is absolutely necessary to avoid danger to surrounding areas and people/property on the ground.
Nothing in that source suggested this as a priority, beyond concerns for allowing it to leave range airspace. Nothing suggests any sort of corollary pointing to combat procedure on loss of positive control.
>>Range restrictions usually call
There's that conditional concept again: range restrictions.
>Nothing conclusive, no, but as I've already pointed out, the primary purpose of FTS is always to minimize damage.
Again, on the range. However, the US has demonstrated across many, many platforms the capability and priority to destroy and render inert any materials and data which may compromise classified technologies and operational details. I fail to understand why you continuously ignore this point.
>The only time that this would favor a violent, catastrophic crash over a gentle glide or parachute to the ground, would be when in a confined testing area which is known to be unpopulated.
Or over enemy territory where it would be impossible to sanitize the crash site due to political reasons. There are many times when the need to sanitize the tech and data would outweigh the small chance it might crash in a populated area.
>>28255400
>Lastly, the apparent lack of actual deliberate self-destruction of UAVs in-theater is quite telling. Go ahead and flip through the accident reports; I doubt you'll find a single case outside of testing (I couldn't).
In fact, there doesn't appear to be any good sources for the majority of these losses. No public crash reports beyond press releases and certainly no play by play loss reports. Where are you reading these? You have not provided them here, and since I can't find them I have to ask if they even exist in the public sphere.
>>28255400
why you still fighting this? you flat out claimed above there was no self destruct sequence at all that any of the drones were capable of. you got completely BTFO. now you put your goalposts on wheels and you claim it just never happens, based on some range rules for testing.
if you got proof, fucking make with it. otherwise fuck off.
>>28251198
There are many legitimately awesome things in the world, and many legitimately awesome achievements still ahead for humanity.
Your ideas are not even remotely one of those things.
>>28251807
Not a self-destruct system. It's a remote-destruct system that's been part of every rocket NASA has ever launched over land, for obvious reasons.
Don't try to equivocate on this, you'll just make yourself look even more retarded.
>>28255478
>Causes of most of those losses are not directly attributed or timeline cataloged.
>>28255485
>In fact, there doesn't appear to be any good sources for the majority of these losses.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/drone-crashes/database/
Many link-losses are documented, some of which include description of link-recovery failsafes. On the other hand, there are no documented cases here of deliberate self-destruction outside of testing. Insisting that it's common practice in the absence of evidence isn't rational.
>You further ignore the added urgency of rendering the classified items destroyed in case of loss in enemy controlled areas.
I'm not, at all. If you're flying sensitive materials through enemy territory, it would seem to me that a deliberate crash IN enemy territory would be the LAST thing you would want to do. Furthermore, let me point out AGAIN that FTS are not intended to destroy the aircraft; they are intended to terminate a flight-gone-wrong with a minimum of collateral damage.
>the US has demonstrated across many, many platforms the capability and priority to destroy and render inert any materials and data which may compromise classified technologies and operational details.
Prove it.
>Or over enemy territory where it would be impossible to sanitize the crash site due to political reasons. There are many times when the need to sanitize the tech and data would outweigh the small chance it might crash in a populated area.
Well, that's your opinion. I've yet to see any indication that the military itself has such priorities. (Do you remember the F-15 crash in Libya, which the USAF refused to sanitize due to the possibility that there were civilians around the wreck?)
>>28249669
>PT boats
Small range. They will require mother ship to operate in the blue water. But you are thinking in right direction.
>>28255942
Thanks for being literally the only anon that's remotely kind to my ideas. Sea Magic Fast Craft has some designs that look like they would make great tenders and bases for PT boat sized craft to operate from.
>Small range
We don't know that. We are used to seeing reactor designs that are decades old. We are used to seeing old coal and oil powered ships. Decades ago we had the capability to build and launch the Orion Battleship, and have it patrol from Earth to Saturn. We are used to seeing old ideas, not new ones :( old world thinking, man.
>>28257874
The new USN Mk.VI PT boat only has a range of about 750NMI.
>>28249560
I wonder who's behind this post...
>>28258041
It barely carries any weapons, too. Compared to older PT boats it's got nothing.
>>28255942
So they could just be carried by some sort of mothership, wouldn't be super difficult.
But this role is done by aircraft or subs anyways.
>>28257874
I wanted to say that this idea is already implemented by Navies as main offensive power. Only instead of PT/missile boats they use aircraft. Well, aircraft is better PT boat if you think about it. It's even faster and smaller, aircraft is so fast that that antiship weapons stop working against it. "Swarm of light combatants tearing down lumbering leviathans" is right here just not everyone can see it.
>>28249560
GuaranteedReplies.jpg
>>28258218
If it had been an equal number of battleships facing the carriers
Then the planes would have been totally impotent
>>28258161
I've seen some mention, but of course nothing substantiative, that it could be reconfigured to carry missiles (or marines, or a helicopter).
But A super Hornet can probably carry nearly as much, the same range, just faster. A patrol boat would be useful for littoral patrol and not much else, which seems to be what the Mk.VI is designed for, not ship hunting like the WWII counterparts.
>>28258229
Do I even want to know why you think that, especially with Japan's all-but-useless AAA capabilities?
>>28257874
Please be joking, I don't even know where to start.
>>28255878
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/national/drone-crashes/database/
>Many link-losses are documented, some of which include description of link-recovery failsafes. On the other hand, there are no documented cases here of deliberate self-destruction outside of testing. Insisting that it's common practice in the absence of evidence isn't rational.
Not rational. Right. When so many of the reports read as follows:
>A Predator crashed in southern Afghanistan. Air Force officials classified the exact location and withheld details about the circumstances except to say that it was not shot down by hostile fire. The Air Combat Command did not convene an Accident Investigation Board to produce a publicly releasable report.
You're so full of shit. You act like this is all fully documented when it is precisely the opposite. A huge chunk of the in theater accidents read just as above.
>Furthermore, let me point out AGAIN that FTS are not intended to destroy the aircraft; they are intended to terminate a flight-gone-wrong with a minimum of collateral damage.
That's your read, not based on any source you've provided. Once more, you fail to address this important priority (proven so time and again by US crash/loss sanitation procedure) by handwaving it away because it does not fit your narrative.
>Prove it.
Every time a US aircraft goes down, the crash site is sanitized whenever humanly possible. If you knew anything about US military aviation you would be aware of this.
>Well, that's your opinion. I've yet to see any indication that the military itself has such priorities. (Do you remember the F-15 crash in Libya, which the USAF refused to sanitize due to the possibility that there were civilians around the wreck?)
Yes. Not starting a war just to sanitize a wreck they believed to already be completely destroyed made sense in that situation. It only goes to further strengthen the point that the US would implement failsafes. Which they have, as demonstrated.
>>28258236
The WW2 pt boats were also designed for hit and run shore bombardment. That was near the end, though.
>>28258627
I don't even know what I'm trying to convey. Range isn't the issue to me because we have bases EVERYWHERE. There are many different ways of doing the same job. Look what Russia did with thevKuznetsov class, a full size carrier designed to operate without escorts. If American naval strategy decided to make future carriers more independent you'd probably think it was dumb as hell, too.
This is /k/, if it isn't nuggets or old Soviet tanks it's defacto retarded. I don't come here for intellectual discussion.
>>28259069
>You dont come here for intellectual discussion
We noticed that. You're talking about space battleships and an emphasis on PT boats in our navy, then calling current technology "Old thinking." Protip: Range is much more important than you give it credit for.
>>28259069
>Look what Russia did with thevKuznetsov class
Made an incredibly inefficient platform that only carries 1/3 the aircraft of a Nimitz while being 2/3 the size of one? One that can't even launch and recover fixed wing AWACS or UNREP aircraft? And all because they couldn't be fucked to build proper escorts.
>>28259138
Range is important for peacetime operations
An actual war is going to only have combat in a relatively small area, so a 1000/2000 mile range is ample.
Especially if you were making large numbers of cheap 2000 ton corvettes.
