Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2018, 22:26
by talkitron
The Senate Armed Services Committee, John McCain and friends, is exploring big changes to the US armed forces. They include making the Marines all about counterinsurgency and orienting the other three services to fight China and Russia. A lot of weapon systems, including the F-35, are seen as less effective than robots/drones. Whether Trump, with his admiration of the presidents of China and Russia, is on board with any of these major changes is not mentioned.

SASC asks skeptically whether stealth aircraft — specifically calling out the new F-35 fighter, the in-development B-21 bomber, and the proposed Penetrating Counter-Air platform — will be able to survive against increasingly advanced air defenses. It suggests that, at least in some cases, non-stealthy aircraft with upgraded weapons and sensors could do the job as well. It repeatedly lauds the increasing potential of cheap robotics for missions from reconnaissance to combat to supply — not only in the air but “on and under the sea, on land, and in space.”


https://breakingdefense.com/2018/06/sas ... e-marines/

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2018, 23:55
by wrightwing
The good idea fairies are alive and well.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 00:30
by talkitron
Why was this moved to off topic? This is an article about actual legislation proposed by the US senate. These senators partially control the budget to buy aircraft like the F-35 and the F-35 is specifically mentioned in the article.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 00:40
by SpudmanWP
You have to love their logic.. Stealth might not be survivable but non-stealth (with better weapons and sensors) could be????

This is absurd since the stealthy platforms should also have access to the same weapons and sensors (often better ones).

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 01:14
by southernphantom
SpudmanWP wrote:You have to love their logic.. Stealth might not be survivable but non-stealth (with better weapons and sensors) could be????

This is absurd since the stealthy platforms should also have access to the same weapons and sensors (often better ones).


They're lawyers and community organizers, not engineers. Look at Congress as a few hundred C-average students with family connections and the actions of most of its members will begin to make more sense.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 01:25
by talkitron
I don't think John McCain lacks intelligence. He certainly had family connections in the Navy and I am not sure about his undergrad grades at Annapolis. His focus on drones is not totally wrong; in an ideal world we would procure both manned stealth aircraft and combat drones as the drones can give combat mass.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 03:17
by madrat
I want to see drones in urban warfare before going full Skynet level aerial dominance. Computer controlled guns shoot quicker, more accurately, and don't fatigue.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 09:50
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:You have to love their logic.. Stealth might not be survivable but non-stealth (with better weapons and sensors) could be????

This is absurd since the stealthy platforms should also have access to the same weapons and sensors (often better ones).


Exactly. It's basic physics that stealth aircraft will be much more difficult to detect, track and engage using currently known long distance sensor technology (radar, ESM, infra-red). It's also basic physics that countermeasures are easier to implement with lower signature (radar or infra-red for example). So stealth aircraft will be far more survivable against threat sensors and weapons (which rely on sensors) no matter how they evolve in the future. That's not an opinion, but a fact coming from laws of physics. Sure future sensors and weapons might be much more successful against current stealth aircraft, but then they will absolutely murder any non-stealthy aircraft.

I don't get why stealth on aircraft is doubted for some reason. Nobody is designing noisy, magnetic and submarines because they would die no matter how good their own sensors and weapons are. No soldier is putting on scarlet coat and blow horns when they go to combat, no matter how good their eyesight and weapons are. That would just be stupid as they would not last long in modern battlefield.

It's not even cost issue. Making aircraft stealthy is not that much expensive to manufacture and operate as F-35 proves.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 17:17
by ricnunes
First of all, I would like to say that I fully agree with Spudman and hornetfinn.

Secondly I would like to add the following to what Spudman and hornetfinn already posted:

I honestly think that Senator McCain is both becoming senile and has a serious grudge against the F-35 (probably a "by-product" of his mental senility). The two "major points" of the above (by McCain&friends commission) have so many flaws that I really wonder how McCain managed to get as high as a Captain in the US Navy (which could confirm my senility thesis).
The first of these points is even considering the possibility of changing the US Marines current and very efficient (IMO) role of a multi-role expeditionary role to a dedicated counter-insurgency role. I can see a major flaw in this: One of the main reasons when and why conventional armies/military have lost counter-insurgency wars was because the lack of numbers, this is because in some details counter-insurgency wars have some resemblance with police operations and "police type of operations" only work when the "police forces" are present more or less evenly around the entire territory and doing this in countries such as Afghanistan, Iraq and similarly sized countries requires lots and lots of manpower/boots on the ground. If you leave entire areas without "policing" than you'll grant safe heaven to the insurgency forces where they can build on, successfully launch attacks from and which they can successfully recover from)
Senator McCain being a Vietnam War veteran and being the Vietnam War for the most part a counter-insurgency war (not only but again for the most part) should know this!
And doing a quick search over the web, namely on wikipedia we can look at the following numbers from 2017 in terms of size/manpower:
- US Marines: 182,000 active plus 38,500 reserve --> total: 220,500
- US Army: 476,000 Regular Army plus 343,000 Army National Guard and plus 199,000 Army Reserve --> total: 1,018,000

So who's technically better fitted at counter-insurgency operations in terms of numbers which again is a very important factor for these kind of operations? The answer IMO seems clear.

Or perhaps Senator McCain has also a serious grudge against the US Marines? Perhaps because the US Marines are the biggest F-35 endorser (together with the USAF)??


Second point, UAVs:
So Senator McCain&friends think that Stealth aircraft will be less effective (I read "more vulnerable") against upcoming enemy advanced air defence systems but for some reason UAVs will not?? LoL, that's for laughs :doh:
Lets see, UAVs are already much less effective against forces equipped with advanced air defense systems - Just ask the Iranians everytime they tried to send UAVs into Israel! Jezz, UAVs are even vulnerable to gunship helicopters such as the Apache!
Of course one can always say, put countermeasures on UAVs and make them Stealth but then again:
- This (Stealth) shows how Senator McCain&friends are soo wrong about it (Stealth).
- If you start putting all these features in a UAV (Stealth, countermeasures, all around detection systems, defensive weapons, etc...) than you'll get an aircraft which is just as expensive but likely more expensive (lets not forget the UAV control centers) than manned aircraft and this will the major UAV disadvantages still present (latency between what the UAV actually "sees" and what the human UAV operators see, lack of situational awareness, etc...).
One can argue that the points above can be countered with advanced AIs but then again I ask the following:

- Do you really want to have fully autonomous UAVs targeting dynamic and/or moving targets which the UAV can easily confuse with any "by-standard" or innocent "target"?
- Do you really believe that AI is that advanced to the point that it doesn't require humans to successfully accomplish the vast majority of objectives? If you think so than try the following: type/text a message with a few lines and words of text (SMS message for example) in your Android or iPhone and tell me if the AI that advises you on words and even automatically changes your words depending on your phone settings works that well?? :roll:
And if the current AI can't even "text" or change text properly (without human intervention) than imagine something way more complex than UAVs and warfare!

Well, my 2 cents anyway...

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 17:31
by wrightwing
It's silly talk like this, that leads to death spirals. We end up spending more, and getting less capability than if we'd just stuck with the plan. There's nothing that can be done to conventional aircraft to make them relevant in the high end fight. UAVs are nowhere near capable enough to replace manned aircraft. We need to stick with 5th generation manned aircraft, while continuing to develop NGJ, and systems like MALD/MALD-J, and their successors. The idea of UCAVs under the control of F-35s has merit, but not at the expense of F-35, B-21, KC-46, PCA, hypersonic weapons, etc

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 18:58
by hythelday
Didn't McCain also want to turn Gators into smaller, cheaper, and obviously better CVs? I mean if Marines were to be relegated to COIN, why would they need all those big, expensive L-letter ships? Just bus them right into the AOR with pistols and culture-sensitive treats to win over hearts&minds.
Did McCain miss Hue City events due to his Hanoi Hilton "vacation", or is it just his deteriorating health that lets him come up with such stupid ideas?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2018, 19:08
by madrat
Mao loved utilizing stooges as long as possible, using any tricks in the book to disrupt. Sal Alinsky used Maoism as his blueprint. If anything, McCain has undermined congealing in the Senate on everything he's been associated with. When you examine his record you see a pattern unfold. If anything McCain will use everything within his influence to get his way, which is why I don't trust one bit his health is in a downwards spiral.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 00:20
by kostas29
anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

the notion that the F35s will be operationally and relevant by 2070 is ridiculous

ad hominem attacks against Senator McCain show lack of convincing arguments or attempts to subliminally influence other people. In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 00:37
by ricnunes
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

the notion that the F35s will be operationally and relevant by 2070 is ridiculous


And the certainty that people like yourself have in guessing the future and claiming without a margin of a doubt that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare and will replace manned fighter in the future is IMO what's indeed ridiculous!

During the 1970's many "experts" such as yourself claimed that missiles were the future of warfare and would completely replace manned combat aircraft. More than 40 years later and while missiles are very important in today's and future warfare they did not replace manned combat aircraft by any means - they (missiles) only made manned combat aircraft more capable and the same I bet will also happen regarding UAVs - They (UAVs) won't replace manned fighter aircraft, they'll improve manned fighter aircraft capabilities!


kostas29 wrote:ad hominem attacks against Senator McCain show lack of convincing arguments or attempts to subliminally influence other people. In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


In case you missed I mentioned in my last post which was quite long, several reasons why I feel that Senator McCain is being ridiculous!
And in case the "lack of convincing arguments" are regarding to what I posted (and you haven't miss my post), perhaps you should counter with arguments explaining why do you feel that my and others arguments are "lacking" instead of posting that rambling of your above, no?? :roll:

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 02:32
by madrat
I think he was referencing my post. I have no love for McCain or any other confederate doing the bidding that our opponents wouldn't dare try directly. His track record speaks volumes about his loyalty. The people of Arizona could have done way better.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 14:29
by sferrin
McCain can't go soon enough. He stirs the pot just so somebody will stick a mic in his face.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2018, 16:44
by f-16adf
Sen. McCain is not affected by the ACA and its eternal premium increases. He is completely oblivious to assert that there needs to be a 2 party approach to solve the problems facing US health care. Did Lord Obama and his party feel the same way back in 2010 concerning their legislation?? The answer is a resounding NO.

Americans should not hold their politicians as near divine. Regardless of his service, he is simply out of touch-

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 00:56
by marauder2048
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


Which is why McCain wants hundreds of two-seater manned light attack aircraft?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 02:39
by ricnunes
madrat wrote:I think he was referencing my post. I have no love for McCain or any other confederate doing the bidding that our opponents wouldn't dare try directly. His track record speaks volumes about his loyalty. The people of Arizona could have done way better.


Perhaps.
However his "ad hominem attacks" accusation on the wild and the fact that I consider and posted that Senator McCain is "senile" left me to believe that he was (also) addressing me. I guess that the fact that he didn't mentioned anyone in particular also leaves the possibility that he was actually referencing/replying to both of us as well as to any other poster that shared and posted a similar opinion as us.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 18 Jun 2018, 04:47
by rheonomic
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


who do you think builds unmanned platforms?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 00:57
by kostas29
rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


who do you think builds unmanned platforms?


it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 02:22
by marauder2048
kostas29 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


who do you think builds unmanned platforms?


it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?



Except the margins are often better on unmanned systems than manned systems.
And contractors can not only produce them but also operate them on the government's dime.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 02:25
by madrat
kostas29 wrote:You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?


No, not really. I'd be targeting the middle ground between quality and quantity, and play a wider swath of sales potential. Sales theory revolves around a curve. Would you corner yourself off to one slope or the other when you have so much in the meaty center? Never.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 02:48
by SpudmanWP
UCAVs also get "lost"' more often so in the end you build a lot more.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 04:01
by Corsair1963
John McCain is all about keeping pressure on the US Military. Just like a Drill Instructor is to a New Recruit! Yet, in the end you're stronger for it. Something he knows a great deal about.....



Honestly, odd that so free people get it or respect him for it. :?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 07:55
by hornetfinn
UCAVs are great for some things but they are not going to replace manned aircraft during the next 50 years IMO. More and more of them are going to be used and they will have larger role in the battlefield, but it will take a long time before they are going to replace manned combat aircraft in meaningful way.

Currently and in the near future (next 20 years) they are going to be used in reconnaissance and limited strikes in single units or very small co-operative groups. In the future they are going to be used for more and more demanding missions as their capabilties improve and in larger co-operative formations.

I do think that the techologies and other aspects needs to be studied and new designs made. They are the future for sure with almost unlimited potential, but it will take a relatively long time before they rule the skies. Even the newest designs are still very limited in capabilties and are very expensive. I think there needs to be at least couple new generations of UCAVs before they can do what F-35s with a pilots can do now. I'd think UCAVs as supporting and supplemental platforms for manned aicraft and not a replacement.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 17:29
by zero-one
SpudmanWP wrote:You have to love their logic.. Stealth might not be survivable but non-stealth (with better weapons and sensors) could be????

This is absurd since the stealthy platforms should also have access to the same weapons and sensors (often better ones).


I'm trying to find their logic....After a lot of "soul searching" I think I may have gotten it.

Maybe what they mean is. Stealth won't survive no matter how stealthy. So better divert resources to the development of better stand off weapons.

Makes sense????? anyone?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 18:06
by SpudmanWP
A VLO platform will always be able to get closer & survive longer (vs a 4th gen platform) so the weapons used will be smaller, will cost less, and the platform will be able to carry more of them thereby requiring less platforms to be bought.

Throw in the fact that VLO platforms will need less escort, decoy, ISR, and ESM support and the choice is clear: VLO platforms will always get the job done for a cheaper price vs current 4th gen platforms.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 03:31
by rheonomic
kostas29 wrote:You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?

That's really not how it works. The customer arrives with a set of requirements, you and a group of competitors submit a proposal, and the customer selects based on various figures of merit. If you want any chance of winning you're going to follow those customer requirements as closely as possible. This, of course, does not imply that the customer requirements have to make sense; in fact the vast majority of costs ends up baked in at the requirements definition phase. (Simply put, bad requirements kill you...)

Not to mention the government customer gets to tell you how much profit you can make (if you ever suffer from insomnia, I suggest attempting to read the DFARS).
hornetfinn wrote:UCAVs are great for some things but they are not going to replace manned aircraft during the next 50 years IMO. More and more of them are going to be used and they will have larger role in the battlefield, but it will take a long time before they are going to replace manned combat aircraft in meaningful way.

This is largely in line with my own thoughts on the matter. I'm not entirely convinced that unmanned aircraft will ever have the flexibility and adaptation enabled by a human pilot. I'm also concerned about datalinks. In the event we're ever in the type of conflict that would require such assets (over say something like a Reaper) I'm not convinced that satellite datalinks will even exist, much less that we can guarantee assurance. Of course, you can always pre-program missions, but then you're going open loop and I don't think that's something that we in the West will do with armed vehicles (at least, not until we start losing at which point all bets are off).
hornetfinn wrote:Even the newest designs are still very limited in capabilties and are very expensive.

I think it's safe to say that UCAVs will continue to be expensive. :)
hornetfinn wrote:I think there needs to be at least couple new generations of UCAVs before they can do what F-35s with a pilots can do now. I'd think UCAVs as supporting and supplemental platforms for manned aicraft and not a replacement.

The various "Loyal Wingman" programs are going to be very interesting to follow. (This also solves the datalink problem mentioned above with LOS options like MADL.)
SpudmanWP wrote:A VLO platform will always be able to get closer & survive longer (vs a 4th gen platform)
[...]
Throw in the fact that VLO platforms will need less escort, decoy, ISR, and ESM support and the choice is clear: VLO platforms will always get the job done for a cheaper price vs current 4th gen platforms.

:applause:

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 05:58
by geforcerfx
rheonomic wrote: Of course, you can always pre-program missions, but then you're going open loop and I don't think that's something that we in the West will do with armed vehicles (at least, not until we start losing at which point all bets are off).


Cruise Missiles? Programmed missions, only recently adding data links allow to allow more flexibility.


For a strike mission I don't see any issue with having a programmed mission. Plane can use the same systems already in the F-22/35 to avoid detection and pick the best route to the target, deploy weapons and leave back out. They have to shoot it down to stop it, and we get to reuse it if they can't, a lot cheaper then current cruise missiles.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 10:57
by sferrin
kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those? You know, you could have just as easily said, "personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color or possibly the amount of hair on their head. But nah, that wouldn't fit the narrative. McCain is an attention whore. Full stop. Did he serve the country? Sure. Did he sit in a cell in Vietnam? Sure. Does it change what he is? Not one bit. The sooner he exits Washington the better.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 15:49
by kostas29
sferrin wrote:
kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those? You know, you could have just as easily said, "personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their skin color or possibly the amount of hair on their head. But nah, that wouldn't fit the narrative. McCain is an attention whore. Full stop. Did he serve the country? Sure. Did he sit in a cell in Vietnam? Sure. Does it change what he is? Not one bit. The sooner he exits Washington the better.


You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.

Old people, people with health problems have the right to have their own opinions. If you think they don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.

In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.

Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.

People seem to be ignorant of all the progress being made in AI. We already have self driving cars in a very complex road environment.

Flying is not that much more complex (according to some is actually less complex).

Now in regards to some sensitive decision making: don’t we already have low latency secure data links? what is MADL

what is more cost effective to try to fit a human being in a fighter (with all the weight/cost/complexity/vulnerabilities) that this brings or just add a couple of fighters in the formation with the task of being data links nodes to higher echelons?

What is so complex about the air refueling option to justify a huge manned platform when this mission can be performed by unmannned platforms (MQ25)? do we really want to pay for the aircrew when we can get the same mission done by unmanned platforms? Please don’t tell me that the air refueling mission can be performed by unmanned platforms by the navy but it requires manned platforms for the air force.

Again I see some tendencies that are not fully justified by logical explanations in the most technologically advanced country of the world. On the contrary, I suspect political agendas, industry interests, pilot nostalgy as the main driving force behind these decisions.

To change things you need brave, rational politicians. The same way that politicians enforced the military to form the special operations command, the same way change should happen now as well

I love airplanes and especially fighters, all my family is in the field, but the reality is changing and we need to adapt otherwise our adversaries will get the advantage. No one wants that, correct?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 17:45
by XanderCrews
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare

the notion that the F35s will be operationally and relevant by 2070 is ridiculous

ad hominem attacks against Senator McCain show lack of convincing arguments or attempts to subliminally influence other people. In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.



Really? You are complaining about people making broad sweeping and unprovable statements about McCain while making Broad Sweeping and unprovable comments about the MIC while calling for civility?


So just so I understand the rules, ad hominem attacks are not OK for McCain but are OK for everyone else so long as you are flinging them??

What happened to everyone can have an opinion? even those wacky combat pilots who actually understand UAVs?

Moreover, it wasn't an Ad hominem attack, Mad Rat specifically mentioned his voting record and his history in the Senate, hardly an "Attack" Unless you consider holding him accountable is the same as an "attack"

kostas29 wrote:
You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.

Old people, people with health problems have the right to have their own opinions. If you think they don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.





Please spare us. People cited actual real reasons, be not happy with theim and you created this emotional appeal by lableing it an "attack against old people" McCain isn't just "some old person" with an "opinion" hes a senior United States Senator with loads of power and as such we are able to question him and criticize him-- its a part of being in the western world you mention.

simply put if hes too old to criticize, hes too old to serve as a senator.

Stop trying to censor discussion, using victumhood guilt. Bottom line McCain is indeed old. McCain does indeed have problems with his brain (tumor). McCain Does indeed have a very nasty habit of talking out both sides of his mouth, Which might explain why some are having a hard time telling if he is lucid. and bottom line McCain is saying and doing some very odd things.

and again, no one even mentioned that. They criticized him for his JOB PERFORMANCE, hardly unreasonable. If bringing up and speaking about McCains very shady dealings and past decisions is too much for you to bear, then perhaps this is not the website for you.


We are allowed to question him, If you think we don’t, you might consider moving out of the free western world and join regimes with similar opinions.


please stop white knighting the underpriveldged millionaire senator, whom youve decided is beyond reproach.

We can't even have factual debates anymore, because its more important to identify a "victim class" and make emotional appeals to create a "moral high ground" The mere fact that you have fallen into this trap is sad.


Write this down because its important:

I will hold John McCain, a US Senator accountable to me and the American people for his words and his actions and promises both kept and broken, so long as he serves. If he is too old or sick to serve, he needs to step down or be removed from office, as by that admission he is not longer fit to serve and be held accountable.



In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.


Guess How I know you don't know what youre talking about?

Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.


Why not an AI F-35? Why are these ideas so separated in your mind?

The USAF is saying exactly 2070s. And No, its not far fetched at all. according to you we are the "most technologically advanced country of the world." afterall.

Your "Rule" is that there is no amount of tech that can keep an F-35 relevant for 50 years, but the technology to completely cut pilots out of the loop Exists RIGHT NOW. Thats a strange argument IMHO.



People seem to be ignorant of all the progress being made in AI. We already have self driving cars in a very complex road environment.



And its still not ready for prime time yet. The advances in AI are still not significant enough for real world combat operations.

I like that you mention the self driving cars, because even in civilian land, the jury is still out on those...

We have a hand full of self driving cars that still have issues, some of them fatal. If me still insisting that I drive myself as the AI is not yet advanced enough to do the job better makes me "ignorant" I'll gladly plead guilty. They are still not widely adopted and are considered a novelty currently. Its not a modelor example I would suggest when trying to make the argument you are, but thats your choice.


what is more cost effective to try to fit a human being in a fighter (with all the weight/cost/complexity/vulnerabilities) that this brings or just add a couple of fighters in the formation with the task of being data links nodes to higher echelons?


this is why the F-35 will remain relevant, if only to steer and guide the future UAVS. :D

What is so complex about the air refueling option to justify a huge manned platform when this mission can be performed by unmannned platforms (MQ25)? do we really want to pay for the aircrew when we can get the same mission done by unmanned platforms? Please don’t tell me that the air refueling mission can be performed by unmanned platforms by the navy but it requires manned platforms for the air force.



That small Unmanned tanker is in service already with the Navy? Is it similar to a KC-46? Or Are you making an unfair comparison?


Again I see some tendencies that are not fully justified by logical explanations in the most technologically advanced country of the world. On the contrary, I suspect political agendas, industry interests, pilot nostalgy as the main driving force behind these decisions.


completely and utterly wrong. moreover its a clear lack of understanding. just saying "most technologically advanced country of the world." doesn't mean we can create magic out of thin air, and when the magic isn't there blaming pilots (Ad hominem?)

To change things you need brave, rational politicians. The same way that politicians enforced the military to form the special operations command, the same way change should happen now as well


No

I love airplanes and especially fighters, all my family is in the field, but the reality is changing and we need to adapt otherwise our adversaries will get the advantage. No one wants that, correct?


Correct, which is why your suggestions are terrible, short sighted, biased, ignore reality and current technology. I don't know what your "family in the field" is telling you, but I am hearing vastly different things.

UAVs are coming, we understand that. The current challenge is ensuring the UAVs are competant and capable and can fulfill the roles assigned, are electronically hardened, and recognizing and learning their strengths and weaknesses.

You simply declaring them the future and then declaring anyone who recognizes the above, and the constraints of these platforms now and in the near future as evil tools of the MIC is absurd.

Do you actually want to know what is happening or do you just want to share a false narrative? What smart people are trying to avoid is the same thing that happened with early Air to Air Missiles. Someone declaring them the future and then throwing the baby out with the bath water that in turn causes massive problems when it turns out that like AAMs in the 1960s, UAVs are not perfect weapons, and still have their own pros and cons. There is a reason the F-35A is equipped with a Gun... even 50 years after AAMs were used in combat.

the irony of you saying that the F-35 being relevant in the future is crazy, while simultaneously saying we are "most technologically advanced country of the world." seems to be a bit of a contradiction :wink:

I really don't think you understand what you are talking about to put it nicely, which is why you are going on about McCain (this is pure disctraction and acting offended, to win which is a tactic I see repeatedly and its an emotional appeal) and trotting out the same old stereotypes about the services.

UAVs are the future, just like Lasers of course they always have been. in the 1920s theorists were predicting airplanes that could lay waste to whole cities, planes and bombs so powerful 1 bomber could drop 1 bomb and wipe out a city-- which was indeed true but it took decades and scientific breakthroughs to make happen.

Heres an example, lets say that a UCAV would not be full combat capable and able to fully replace a manned fighter in all aspects until 2038? That would make for a very awkward 20 years of shortfall in the meantime. meaning that people who are saying "hold on, and don't jump from one rock, until youre sure you have another rock to land on" makes a lot of sense. Amatuers practice until the get it right, and professionals practice until they can't get it wrong. And thats a wide gulf right now.

One of the consequences of Vietnam was the "Don't trust anyone who doesn't wear a flight suit" Which was fair considering when the tech or tactics failed, and the good idea fairies were miles away, and Managment/leadership vastly over or underestimated capabilities-- it was the people in the flight suits who suffered the consequences. And I'm not saying that as some pilot worshiper. Its a matter of people not knowing what they don't know, getting lots of power and then making poor decisions that cost the "little people" who "lacked vision" their lives. And after the hell of SEA that was very prudent reaction, by those in flight suits.


MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 18:54
by XanderCrews
kostas29 wrote:
rheonomic wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


who do you think builds unmanned platforms?


it has to do with the overall amount of money that they can get from the government. Big manned platforms can pay better because they are usually much bigger programs

You own a store that sells cars. Wouldn't you try to promote the more expensive car model to the customer in order to make a higher profit?



Nope. And the list of retailers who sell cheap and make up with volume in the MIC is enormous, in fact its one of the big criticisms of the Evil MIC who morphs and changes depending on who is criticizing it and why. Always a funny thing to witness


And Big "manned" programs "get more money" because they actually exist. I've also noticed the money the government allocates for Genetically engineered super soldiers is smaller than just turning Civilans into service-people; Its a conspiracy, alright.


Your theory is also interesting in the fact, that what McCain and Co are suggesting would clearly enrich the MIC, as it calls for more programs, more investments in other things, and spending in even more areas. To use your above car analogy, McCain and Co are suggesting the customer buy BOTH The cheap and Expensive cars after military already paid a great deal for the expensive car. Which is a great profit, don't you think?

Notice that they are not saying F-35s are the future, We won't be distracted with shiny things, they are saying "hey what if none of all this other stuff we already invested billions and billions in doesn't work? Better invest billions and billions more into other things too!! And there is just nothing at all that benefits the old MIC here! These new weapons we need are as important as the last set of weapons we needed we now say probably won't work for some reason"

If that's your idea of the future or responsibility, I want no part of it. This is a classic case of wanting to have the cake and eat it too, and simply throwing it on the tax payers credit card in order to make it happen.


Corsair1963 wrote:John McCain is all about keeping pressure on the US Military. Just like a Drill Instructor is to a New Recruit! Yet, in the end you're stronger for it. Something he knows a great deal about.....

Honestly, odd that so free people get it or respect him for it. :?


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. The problem with your analogy is McCain is both the recruit and the DI here...

McCain is the big brother who grabs your hands and smacks them against your own skull and chides you with "why are you hitting yourself!?"

McCain has been deeply involved with defense services for years, and the more power he gets, and more time he puts into, the more he complains its a complete disaster--its fascinating. Maybe we should elect someone else to fix it, John? oh wait! not that. Vote McCain!

So to review McCain is deeply involved in running the pentagon, DoD, and MIC, and is upset about how the Pentagon, DoD and MIC is being Run.


marauder2048 wrote:
kostas29 wrote:anyone who has no conflict of interest with the MIC understands that unmanned platforms are the future of air warfare


Which is why McCain wants hundreds of two-seater manned light attack aircraft?



And a rabid A-10 Advocate.

He sure is complicated...

f-16adf wrote:Sen. McCain is not affected by the ACA and its eternal premium increases. He is completely oblivious to assert that there needs to be a 2 party approach to solve the problems facing US health care. Did Lord Obama and his party feel the same way back in 2010 concerning their legislation?? The answer is a resounding NO.

Americans should not hold their politicians as near divine. Regardless of his service, he is simply out of touch-


^This^

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 21:04
by XanderCrews
sferrin wrote:
kostas29 wrote: In any case these personal attacks against McCain show discrimination against people on the basis of their age or possible health status. Shame on you.


:roll: Really? You're one of those?


opiio
welcome to the future of debate. You said something not positive about someone who is a part of an identity group. Your points and facts are now irrelevant!

The sooner he exits Washington the better.


There is something deeply comical about someone defending John McCain, a pilot, establishment politician and hero of the military industrial complex, while simultaneously holding him as an innovator who calls on the military to buck the establishment, the MIC, and Traditionalist pilots
:doh: :doh:

"I keep putting John McCain in charge... Why aren't things changing?!" LOL

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 22:35
by marauder2048
kostas29 wrote:
You should read again comments implying that he has deteriorating health, mental senility etc

Such comments are insulting, discriminating and really unnecessary for our discussion.


But likely true since most people with glioblastoma suffer from cognitive deficits.

kostas29 wrote:In any case, I don’t fully agree with Senator’s suggestions, but I definitively believe that unmanned platforms do not get the appropriate attention. The possible reasons are many: air force and navy decisions are made by fighter pilots, manned platforms are in general more expensive and have a longer life span thus having a greater profit potential for industry.


The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm. And the
sustainment contracts are more lucractive and the military doesn't have to burn its own money
on LFT&E survivability and resolving human interface issues.

The Navy hasn't had a CNO with an aviation background in nearly 20 years and when
given a chance by the Air Force (the optionally manned LRS-B took center stage) to take the lead in UAVs
via UCLASS fumbled it badly.

The Air Force has been run mainly by fighter pilots but they also have the largest
and most capable drone fleet; the Navy has very little and won't have anything carrier based until 2026.

So it's hard to assert that there's some intersection of nefarious service leadership with
pilot biases and industry interests.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 22:53
by SpudmanWP
The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm.

The latest MQ-9 (IOC in 2014) will only last through the 2030s while the F-35 (IOC 2015) will last through the 2060s at least (last one built in mid 2040s).

If you are talking lifespan in flight hours, then yes the Reaper has about 40k while the F-35 has 8k (likely to go 12k or 16k in an MLU). That being said, it's a lot less stressful on the airframe (hence the larger hours) for a drone vs a fighter.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 23:17
by rheonomic
geforcerfx wrote:Cruise Missiles? Programmed missions, only recently adding data links allow to allow more flexibility.


For a strike mission I don't see any issue with having a programmed mission. Plane can use the same systems already in the F-22/35 to avoid detection and pick the best route to the target, deploy weapons and leave back out. They have to shoot it down to stop it, and we get to reuse it if they can't, a lot cheaper then current cruise missiles.


I agree, but people get all weird about "autonomous" weapons.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 23:31
by sferrin
rheonomic wrote:I agree, but people get all weird about "autonomous" weapons.


They should educate themselves. We've had "autonomous" weapons since the 50s. Matador first entered service in 1953. Regulus in 1954. 99% of what the public thinks are "autonomous" aren't.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 00:13
by marauder2048
SpudmanWP wrote:
The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm.

The latest MQ-9 (IOC in 2014) will only last through the 2030s while the F-35 (IOC 2015) will last through the 2060s at least (last one built in mid 2040s).

If you are talking lifespan in flight hours, then yes the Reaper has about 40k while the F-35 has 8k (likely to go 12k or 16k in an MLU). That being said, it's a lot less stressful on the airframe (hence the larger hours) for a drone vs a fighter.



Lifespan in flight hours. And what's overlooked is the manning requirements.
It's about 10:1 airmen:aircraft to operate a UAV on average vs. 1.5:1 for an F-16.
The cost differences in manning are strictly borne by the government.

Autonomy can help but it along with AI-derived decision aids would benefit
manned systems as well.

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 02:58
by rheonomic
sferrin wrote:We've had "autonomous" weapons since the 50s.

Should we count the Kettering bug?
XanderCrews wrote:
kostas29 wrote:Again, notions similar to what we see for F35 (that it will remain relevant in air combat until 2070) are unrealistic.

Why not an AI F-35? Why are these ideas so separated in your mind?

The USAF is saying exactly 2070s. And No, its not far fetched at all. according to you we are the "most technologically advanced country of the world." afterall.

I mean, aside from the life of the airframes, there's really no reason why an F-35 can't remain relevant with tech refreshes and software updates.
XanderCrews wrote:And its still not ready for prime time yet. The advances in AI are still not significant enough for real world combat operations.

I like that you mention the self driving cars, because even in civilian land, the jury is still out on those...

I once attended a talk by the project lead for the Google self-driving cars. The end featured a video of a test drive where, after finishing their test ponts, they let the vehicle navigate on its own. It entered a traffic circle, and kept going around and around until finally they safety driver took control.
XanderCrews wrote:MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?


Why not? :mrgreen:
Image

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 03:48
by XanderCrews
The lifespan on the latest MQ-9s is greater than practically any manned plaftorm. And the
sustainment contracts are more lucractive and the military doesn't have to burn its own money
on LFT&E survivability and resolving human interface issues.

The Navy hasn't had a CNO with an aviation background in nearly 20 years and when
given a chance by the Air Force (the optionally manned LRS-B took center stage) to take the lead in UAVs
via UCLASS fumbled it badly.

The Air Force has been run mainly by fighter pilots but they also have the largest
and most capable drone fleet; the Navy has very little and won't have anything carrier based until 2026.

So it's hard to assert that there's some intersection of nefarious service leadership with
pilot biases and industry interests.


Correct. I almost fell out of my chair when I read that the Navy was Run by Fighter pilots. Pretty sure its the boat and ship folks... In the end Kostas is making blanket statements that fall apart on cursory review.

The notion that the Service Chiefs are actually creating and controlling the output of the technology that is going to lead to increasing UAV use or lack thereof is absurd.

If all the pilots in the whole world just up and died tonight, How long would it take to create our self flying airplanes? and how many human pilots would we start training in the meantime?

One of the issues that causes a lot of friction, and Ive seen it in action with a lot of services but I'll use my own as an example. "it takes 12 men to support 1 man in the field" Ok great. But what happens then is that 1 man is invariably outnumbered. And Ive witnessed this many times. So theres a meeting of 13 people, and only one of them is grunt/combat arms/field type. And suddenly 12 people come to a consensus on something and theres 1 combat guy who says "hey not so fast there, ive been there done that, and your idea/suggestion/solution is going to get some people killed if you implement it like that"

Image


now the military is not a democracy, but that one guy is almost always going to be outnumbered, and thus by extension his bosses are less likely to understand or sympathize. The odds of that man getting a combat commander who understand is 1 in 12 for example. And its not hard for that 1 guy who knows whats up to be labeled "cocky" or "difficult" etc. i'm not advocating for the Zipper Suited Sun God. I'm just saying as someone alluded to earlier, the good idea fairies roll out their ideas and some people take issue with them, and then instead of altering or scrapping the idea, they try to bash the people (selfish, just looking out for their cushy pilot jobs, military industrial complex, corruption) who objected based on their hard won experience of blood sweat and tears.

There has to be a balance. I'm a Marine, which means we are always trying to maintain tradition while staying cutting edge to remain relevant in the future. Its a constant push pull. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. sometimes its seen as bizarre or anachronistic by outsiders, and its constantly misunderstood.

Cool Story bro: one of my friends says that Major Powers there above is the most villainous characters ever created for the big screen and I think he has a real point. That man will infuriate you far more than some mustache twirling bond villain...

Ive actually seen people gripe that things in the military would be easier if it wasn't for these damn rough and outspoken combat types... you know like how being a parent would be a lot easier if it wasn't for the damn kids.


rheonomic wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:MY favorite question to ask is will a UCAV have a gun?


Why not? :mrgreen:
Image


LOL

Well let me put it like this. Take an A-10. In the Future will we be removing the pilot, the gun, or the entire airplane first?

:mrgreen:

Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 04:03
by rheonomic
XanderCrews wrote:Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?


Obviously, just like a backup gun, you need a backup pilot so that when the autonomy fails they can take over and fight like it's 1950 over Mig Alley.

I kind of feel like the "buy all the UCAVs!!!" crowd are the post-modern version of the old "Military Reform Movement" enabled by the current AI hype cycle and the mistaken impression that, because the UAS used in permissive environments today are relatively inexpensive, UCAVs will cost much less than manned aircraft. (After all, like the original, the goal is to decrease military spending, and what better argument than "our solutions are cheaper and better"?)

Most of the speculation about UCAVs and autonomous systems in general lack grounding in technical reality. (My favorites are over-hyping of AI as if "Stealh" were a documentary and not a terrible movie whose sole virtue was form-fitting flight suits for certain cast members and "without a pilot we can make an airplane that can pull 3243252345g's and win all the dogfights!")

Re: Senate Proposing Major Changes to US Defense

Unread postPosted: 21 Jun 2018, 04:18
by XanderCrews
rheonomic wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Interesting question no? everytime someone says "well guns are obsolete" someone says "no technology will always fail, look at Vietnam and AAMs"

but what happens when the pilot is technology too? does he "inevitable fail? " just like all the AAMs that missed, that lead to this swirling dogfight of guns and silk scarves?


Obviously, just like a backup gun, you need a backup pilot so that when the autonomy fails they can take over and fight like it's 1950 over Mig Alley.

I kind of feel like the "buy all the UCAVs!!!" crowd are the post-modern version of the old "Military Reform Movement" enabled by the current AI hype cycle and the mistaken impression that, because the UAS used in permissive environments today are relatively inexpensive, UCAVs will cost much less than manned aircraft. (After all, like the original, the goal is to decrease military spending, and what better argument than "our solutions are cheaper and better"?)

Most of the speculation about UCAVs and autonomous systems in general lack grounding in technical reality. (My favorites are over-hyping of AI as if "Stealh" were a documentary and not a terrible movie whose sole virtue was form-fitting flight suits for certain cast members and "without a pilot we can make an airplane that can pull 3243252345g's and win all the dogfights!")


And that's the Rub as they say. Is the "flight suit mafia" just fighting the inevitable as stooges of the military industrial complex? Or do they maybe, just maybe through real world experience understand the situation better than all the good idea fairies combined?

Wasn't it just a few years ago people were crapping bricks over the idea the A-10 was going to be retired, yet here we are now and all manned aircraft can be replaced by AI thanks to huge advances in driverless cars?

And of course the reason people were passing bricks was every conceivable antiquated "aw shucks. The old way just works better, and the A-10 will never go out of style just duck behind a cloud" cliche traditionalist good old boy phrase imaginable based on a massive misunderstanding of current CAS...


But also were are the UCAVs already!! :doh: