Since we had this discussion about UAVs and F22s etc...

[Skipjack]

For what I know the fighter and reconnaissance planes are affected by this as well.
In any case it should be easy to fix on the planes and UAVs. It is just a matter of cost. The signals are meant to be viewed by the ground troops via some sort of PDA (I am sorry I am not totally up to date on this part of the NCWF, so forgive me my lack of detail here). Many hundreds of these have been deployed in Iraq allone. Replacing these things will probably be costly.

[Helius]

I suspect that the only video feeds they can hack into today are ones the DoD WANTS them to see, to provide informants within insurgent groups plausible deniability when information is leaked and attacks come.

Good catch. It also facilitates tactical informational exchange with friendly militia without compromising encryption methods. Tactics gains a great deal, unfriendlies gain fear, but little else. Unfriendlies will see little more than random patches of the ground. In all probability, the capability of eavesdropping on UAV video was told to "friendly" insurgent groups by the American military, not 'discovered' by insurgent groups. It helps to split their ranks.

The tactical significance you caught, is, of course lost on the media.

[DeltaV]

Air combat will change, no doubt. But, there are bigger agents of change at work than AI, UAVs, UCAVs, etc. Those agents are (near-) speed-of-light weaponry (lasers, masers, xrasers, particle beams, focused EMP, ...) and very-high-speed sublight weaponry (plasma guns, rail guns, pulse-detonation cannons, acoustic shock beams, ...).

"Dogfights" of the future will be more like drive-by shootings. The advantage will go to the weapons platform with the best sensors, the best fire control, the most weapon apertures and the most available power for the weapons employed. The small size of UAVs, touted as an advantage above, will become a disadvantage as maneuverability becomes immaterial, and the abilities to (a) resolve targets (sensor aperture, interferometric baseline), (b) bring a greater number of weapon apertures to bear (exterior area) and (c) provide a greater amount of power to each weapon (internal volume) become paramount. Think fast mosquitoes vs. a much faster oxyacetalene torch.

This will all happen too fast for a human pilot to be part of the innermost fire control loop. The pilots role, besides flying the airplane and making mission profile decisions, will be at a higher level, such as assigning priorities to target types ("Computer, take out all J-75 UCAVs with the neutron beams before masering the Hyperwasps. EMP the Su-91s at zone 3 penetration, jam the UV-43 comm links in zone 4 and continue Hyperwasp suppression until the B-7s exit the target zone..."). Who knows... if he comes up against an evenly-matched, human-piloted adversary, it might even end up as an old-fashioned dogfight...

Researchers demonstrate mosquito laser in action (w/ Video)

"...the lasers could shoot between 50 and 100 mosquitoes per second."

[DeltaV]

Lockheed's New Laser Super Turret Could Change Air Combat Forever
http://foxtrotalpha.jalopnik.com/lockhe ... 1635210849

[hanelyp]

I'm guessing the answers are classified, but what kind of effective range and required time on target does the laser have? And how effective would optical coating or active cooling countermeasures be?

[GIThruster]

My questions as well, but I'd note this is for a turret, including the focussing system. I'm not certain it includes the laser itself, which is still a large part of the challenge. There's all sorts of blather about putting them in F-35's etc., but I'm not familiar with any laser with the power/mass necessary to be used as a conventional weapon. Against other aircraft for example, you need pretty quick kills. Missiles work really well. I doubt we'll be trading them in anytime soon, especially since they can kill outside visual range. Now killing the missiles themselves, that would be interesting. And something that could protect a B-1 Missile Mothership like what Rand has recommended would be most welcome.

http://alert5.com/2011/03/03/rand-recom ... -fighters/

I think it was on the History Channel I saw the animation of this: a B-1 carrying a score of longer range missiles flies in and blasts huge numbers of enemy fighters from out of range of their weapons. Seems a very effective tactic to me, and if you can keep the mothership safe from any missiles that get in range with a laser turret, all the better.

[paperburn1]

F-22
http://www.funker530.com/f-22-raptor-bu ... ver-syria/

[Skipjack]

And furthering my point that networked manned and unmanned bombers and fighters are the future of air combat:
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/01/next-g ... .html#more
Cheaper and faster than a B2 too. Yes, this is a bomber, but faster than the B2. Combine that with reconnaissance drones and you have only the air superiority fighters left and I wonder how long before those are going to be unmanned (or some of them unmanned in a team with manned fighters).

[GIThruster]

I have to say as much as I love the idea of a next gen bomber, I think this is a very poor idea at the current time.

First off, lets dispense with the ridiculous notion that this is an $80B program. This is a $300B program at the least. It could easily run upward of $500B by the time LockMart gets through bilking the American public.

Second lets look at all the kinds of smart expenses this would replace.

The first arguments people lobbying for bomber funds will make, will be that assets like the BOne are aging and need to be replaced. In fact, the B1 does not need to be replaced. It could use a refit, with another updated radar, and the ability to haul 60 tons of missiles. The History Channel did a very nice treatment of this a couple years or so ago, examining this new application of the BOne, where it flies in as support to attacking groups of fighters and when a target launches its defense, it launches huge amounts of what are under normal conditions ground to air missiles, but specially adapted for extremely long range air-to-air use. The BOne then completely eliminates entire squadrons of enemy combatants in a single volley.

The main requirement for this is really good radar, but that requirement is far cheaper than building a new bomber we will probably never use. And please just note, we are still using 1950's technology battle rifles. Cruise missiles are astonishingly cheaper than bombers. And especially note right now, by far the greatest threat to our national security, is our indecent and idiotic spending. Both entitlements and defense need to be cut deeply, and that is not going to happen if we decide to spend $300B on a new bomber. I'm sure we can build an improved B2. The question is should we? Seems to me there are so many other things that are more urgent, that it is foolish to entertain such things.

[Skipjack]

And as predicted, fighters are next... "optionally manned" and networked.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2015/01/fa-xx- ... .html#more

[Skipjack]

Remote controlled F16s... for targets... for now...
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/03 ... cnn-boeing

[Skipjack]

US Navy Secretary Wants to Stop Using Fighter Pilots in Favor of Drones
http://gizmodo.com/us-navy-secretary-wa ... socialflow

[ltgbrown]

I wonder when the last aircraft carrier will be bought? Imagine a strike group with an E-2D system in an aerostat overhead (24/7 by the way) and a fleet of drones (that could have substantially different takeoff and landing requirements, thus smaller and denser flight decks). Would we still need Nimitz/Ford class size aircraft carriers?

CDR Glenn "Woodgie" Brown
US Naval Aviator
3500 flight hours
750 arrested landings
Former Mini Boss

[GIThruster]

Would we still need Nimitz/Ford class size aircraft carriers?

I think the tentative plan is to fly them off subs. The modern aircraft carrier would be replaced by a smaller drone carrier that is submersible. But that plan is contingent upon technological development as is currently expected, and the Pentagon is not expecting Mach Effect physics and gravinertial technology. When GI technology proves itself all combat on the seas is likely to end in favor of battle in the skies and heavens. There is little point in surfacing 100 miles off the coast of a target and flying drones at it, when you can orbit 100 miles above it more quickly and easily, and have much greater protection from their defenses. Most nations are simply not equipped to shoot so far up, and will not be for decades. And those nations that can shoot that high will no doubt be facing anti-ballistics with a fantastical advantage--they're shooting down instead of up. Some things never change and this has always been great advantage.

[paperburn1]

Or not