Are we surpassing the relevancy of air combat?

"BringBackTheCommodore" (bringbackthecommodore) 12/13/2015 at 09:17 • Filed to: None

0

31

Sorry for the clickbait title, but the question has been lingering in my mind for some time now.

Tyler Rogoway’s article on Foxtrot Alpha:

!!! UNKNOWN CONTENT TYPE !!!

led me to ponder this, as have several cyber attacks of note in the news. “The enemy cannot push a button,” Sgt Zim declared, yanking the knife from Rico’s hand, “if you disable his hand. MEDIC!”

I suppose we could go on to say that we need modern fighters to provide air superiority and assure the protection of our bombers as they go to “disable the hand” of the enemy. In this instance, they’re doing so by striking at the telecommunications centers of ‘the enemy,’ and provide close air support for our ground forces as they seek to gain control of infrastructure on the ground. I wonder, though, how relevant these things are as electronic warfare takes center stage. We can’t maintain air superiority if our own communications at home are disrupted by a cyber attack, which has become increasingly common, as we’ve seen in the news. The recent, massive breach of data with the Department of Veterans’ Affairs is one such example. On a personal level, I’ve seen massive disruptions in cable internet service reported in different cities simultaneously and ponder how major cities served by Cox Communications could concurrently lose service. (When I’ve lost cable internet, I head to downdetector.com and check the service outage reporting)

In certain applications, yes, I suppose the air superiority fighter is relevant; however, the battleground is changing, and we’re quickly finding ourselves in an electronic battlefield, where communications at home can dictate our communications overseas. Further, with the development of aircraft mounted lasers, being highly maneuverable is no longer what dictates being too dog in the dogfight, as no fighter can outmaneuver a laser beam, as shown in Tyler’s article.

So, still I wonder, are we surpassing the relevancy of the air superiority fighter?

PS9 > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 09:26

1

1) Yes, but 2) WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA AND WANT THE CHINESE/RUSSIANS TO BEAT US IN ARIAL WARFARE!?!?!??!

davedave1111 > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 09:33

0

If Tyler says no, the answer’s yes. If Tyler says yes, the answer’s no.

“no fighter can outmaneuver a laser beam, as shown in Tyler’s article.”

That was the usual babble from Tyler. Of course one can’t outmanoeuvre a laser beam once it’s been fired, but one can very definitely outmanoeuvre its mounting and tracking system, let alone the platform that is mounted on.

Do bear in mind that for months Tyler’s been criticising the F-35 for being unmaneuverable, and now is claiming that doesn’t matter.

Leon711 > PS9 12/13/2015 at 09:39

1

FORGET ARIAL WARFARE, THE REAL THREAT IS CALIBRI ATTACKS AND DON’T GET ME STARTED ON THE TIMES NEW ROMAN!

TractorPillow > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 09:47

1

No to “surpassing the relevancy.” (Kinda weird wording by the way) Nothing wrong with pursuing technology like fighters that have trickle down technology discoveries.

Yes we need to focus more on cyber warfare and all the branches are doing this. Unfortunately later than they should.

BloodlessWeevil > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 10:09

1

It has it’s place like it always has. Winning wars is about deploying the right mix of capabilites to the right place on the battlefield. Unfortunately, the Pentagon and Congress have become convinced that having the latest and greatest gadgets on a fighter jet is the be-all, end-all of any military action.

Jayhawk Jake > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 10:19

1

I personally don’t see the relevancy of manned fighter aircraft anymore. When was the last time we engaged in a true dogfight? You can fire a missile from a console just as easily as you can from a cockpit.

An unoccupied fighter aircraft can be far more effective anyways. G loads are limited by aircraft rather than pilot. Eliminate the cockpit and save space, weight, and cost.

davedave1111 > Jayhawk Jake 12/13/2015 at 10:33

1

We still need manned aircraft for now, although I tend to agree that we probably won’t need them all that much longer. Thing is, though, that once you stop sending up human pilots, the survivability factor is purely a financial equation - so it might well make sense to have a lot less defensive capability and a cheaper plane.

BringBackTheCommodore > TractorPillow 12/13/2015 at 11:10

0

For some reason it sounded better in my head....but I digress.

Cyber dominance really seems to be the point of criticality in this new era of warfighting. Whereas it was the trireme eons ago, the sailing ship centuries ago, the dreadnaught at the turn of the twentieth, the aircraft carrier in WWII, the helicopter in Vietnam, and the submarine in the Cold War, cyber dominance really seems to be the necessary focus now. Certainly, we need them, but the new focus looks to be almost entirely electronic.

BringBackTheCommodore > Jayhawk Jake 12/13/2015 at 11:12

0

Drones have certainly reshaped the face of combat. While we did need manned aircraft at one point, I feel as you do - that the future of combat is unmanned. We don’t have an A.I. advanced enough to quicklymake a decision as to whether or not to pull the trigger, but we are getting very close to that point.

BringBackTheCommodore > Leon711 12/13/2015 at 11:13

1

And then comes along comic sans, which REALLY screws up the whole battlefield. Warfare is serious business.

BringBackTheCommodore > davedave1111 12/13/2015 at 11:18

0

The other part of this, in my mind, is that a laser is a beam of light. If the skin of the aircraft were polished enough, that, in and of itself, would be enough to keep the aircraft from being susceptible to a laser attack, I suppose. I tend to agree with you on Tyler’s articles, though - they do seem to be biased in their own way.

whatisthatsound > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 11:19

2

We will have manned aircraft for decades to come. When people bring up cyber warfare don’t be fooled. China/Russia/Iran aren’t trying to get into our databases for social security numbers. They want to destroy military technologies. If we go purely unmanned and they found a way to hack into our links and steal drones in flight then we no longer have air assets. The example is when Iran claimed to hack and crash the air force drone. You can’t hack in and take control of manned aircraft. ps I’m heavily biased.

BringBackTheCommodore > PS9 12/13/2015 at 11:19

0

Well, as we advance in technology, they reverse engineer what we have, so really, we should be fielding Wright Flyers and REALLY throw them for a loop!

BringBackTheCommodore > whatisthatsound 12/13/2015 at 11:23

1

Nothing wrong with being biased, not at all. You also bring up a good point in that a manned aircraft can’t be hacked - although FCA’s recent issues with cars being hacked shows that a manned vehicle of any type can be disabled with the right approach.

If anything, we need cyber dominance to protect our aerial platforms, which in turn protect our ground forces. That said, a massively expensive aerial platform, even manned, could be reduced to an expensive paperweight if we don’t take the right approach to the future of combat.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 11:26

1

Not really, sometimes having a man in the air is the only solution. As advanced as radar and other sensors are getting, you can’t get all the info you might need from a distance. No current computer can quite match the data accumulation and more importantly recognition that the human brain is capable of. There are definitely situations where you need a person pulling the trigger.

BringBackTheCommodore > BloodlessWeevil 12/13/2015 at 11:26

0

I agree with the right amount in warfighting - overreliance on one type of technology over another narrows our flexibility, in my opinion.

As for the DoD and Congress focusing too much on new, expensive weapons systems, indeed they have! Just the same as it is with platforms like the DDG 1000, and others. The most expensive, most technologically advanced machines are not always the answer, but taking a balanced approach to the future of warfare is.

BringBackTheCommodore > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 12/13/2015 at 11:34

0

I agree with having a person there to pull the trigger. A.I. is still not sophisticated enough to make that decision on its own as of yet. I shudder to think of the possibility of humanity actually handing that control over (see fictitious examples of Skynet or Doctor Who’s Cybermen) - at the very least, even if we fully remove pilots from our weapons platforms, they need to be at the controls.

As for eyes on target, this is why I feel it was a bad idea to do away with aircraft like the SR-71 - but really, with technology driving the future of combat, and with what seems like a global focus on new technology and the cyber battlefield, I foresee the gradual removal of people from weapons platforms. Of we go that route, I think we’re eliminating the need for a high-tech fighter, and are creating the need for advancing our cyber security.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 11:44

1

Unidentified aircraft enters your airspace and will not respond to hails. Nearest radar station can tell what type of plane it is and that it’s heading for a distant city. Is this enough info to decide to pull the trigger? Nope. Gotta scramble an interceptor to go check it out and determine the risk the plane poses.

Drones are useful but they rely on a remote data connection, which isn’t foolproof.

If I put you in a car and have you drive a racetrack, then slap a camera on the bumper and have you drive the car remotely, which lap will be faster?

The reason manned recon planes were abandoned was that missiles were created that can fly as high and fast as them. The only way to get recon now is via satellite.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 11:47

1

Ask Vladimir Putin.

Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 11:48

0

Drones ought to be pretty easy to shoot down, seams to me.

BringBackTheCommodore > Rusty Vandura - www.tinyurl.com/keepoppo 12/13/2015 at 11:58

0

Or Turkey, for that matter.

davedave1111 > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 12:09

1

How effective would metallic/ceramic armour or specially designed surfaces that reflect certain light wavelengths be against a laser weapon? What other countermeasures could be used e.g. jamming?

DB : There are certain materials and coatings that may be used to reflect laser energy, but these are typically only good for a certain set laser wavelength. These countermeasures also add weight to the target: for example, if a missile were to be covered in a specially built metallic or ceramic case to reflect laser radiation, it would partially reflect laser weapons, but it would also dramatically reduce the range of the missile, and that would defeat why the missile might be used (because of the additional weight). Also, if a different laser wavelength is used against the target than what the armour or coating is designed to protect against, it may or may not reflect the laser as intended.

These trade-offs might work or they might backfire. Even polishing a target to have a highly reflective surface may or may not work – nothing is 100% reflective, and even if a reflectivity of 99.99% is obtained, then a 0.01% absorption of a 1 megawatt laser still results in 100 joules of absorbed energy per square centimeter per second – enough to first damage sensors, then to buckle metal if it was held onto the target for a long-enough time.

http://www.theengineer.co.uk/more-sectors/d…

“they do seem to be biased in their own way.”

If it was their own way, it wouldn’t be so bad. It’s pretty clear that Gawker Media take money to push all kinds of stuff, so I would be fairly surprised if Tyler isn’t paid to publish his horseshit.

BringBackTheCommodore > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 12/13/2015 at 12:10

0

The missiles can now fly as high and fast as the SR-71, true - but it only means that we would need to develop something that can fly higher and faster than the SR-71.

The scenario with the unidentified aircraft is a good one, one that would be resolved just as easily with an F-5 as it would be with an F-35. If the intruding aircraft turned out to be a SU-50, then we turn to something capable of eliminating the threat. Of it turned out to be something like a TU-95, same thing. If it turned out to be a hijacked airliner, then we turn to Kurt Russel’s team aboard a modified F-117 (okay, that might be reaching). But still, even with an unmanned drone, we could still discern the nature of the threat. It doesn’t mean an A.I. system would be able to make the decision to shoot or not shoot, but an unmanned drone running 4K cameras could still show what the aircraft is, and the nature of the threat.

The signals can be disrupted; this is true. The face of warfare is changing. Not in a way that many of us like, but the seeming unchangeable and unstoppable reality is that we are marching to a future of unmanned weapons platforms, and insuring the security of said signals is the best way to ensure we can maintain dominance with unmanned platforms.

BringBackTheCommodore > davedave1111 12/13/2015 at 12:17

0

That answers the question about reflective surfaces and light wavelength absorption. Then we get into the invisible spectrum of light, which poses more interesting questions about being able to reflect the light. Another thought did cross my mind, if the reflective armor absorbed enough energy so as to start scorching the armor, then the scorched surface is no longer reflective, and readily absorbs the energy. Further, a missile could stop the aircraft altogether.

If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 12:21

0

Going higher and faster is financially unsubstainable. You know how automotive tech has advanced enough that race teams have to spend untold millions just to shave a few tenths off of a lap time? Aerospace engineering is eventually going to hit that same stall point where you’ve got to spend billions upon billions of dollars just to get a few hundred feet higher and a few dozen mph more. The SR-71 and U2 were already operating at the extremes of what was possible with full military funding, so we’re probably pretty damn close to that point already.

You can’t just “fly higher” or “go faster”. The air is so thin that the U2 needed those massive wings to lift that spindly pencil body so high, and the Blackbird required special materials invented just to keep it from melting and breaking up at such extreme speeds.

davedave1111 > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 12:30

1

I don’t think aircraft-targeting DEWs are on the cards any time soon. To start with we’re probably talking about short-range systems for things like a tank taking out incoming RPGs.

I reckon for now the biggest problem is making sure you don’t hit stuff behind what you’re aiming at.

BringBackTheCommodore > If only EssExTee could be so grossly incandescent 12/13/2015 at 18:12

0

From what the pilots have said, the SR-71 would melt before it would hit its maximum attainable speed. I agree with you where flying higher and faster is concerned, there comes a point when you’re operating in high Earth atmosphere. It’s not an undoable feat, simply a VERY expensive one, probably on the order of billions of dollars. The days of Kelly Johnson are long since passed now. Perhaps I oversimplified the manner in which we would achieve something to the effect of a hypersonic reconnaisance vehicle...

BringBackTheCommodore > davedave1111 12/13/2015 at 18:14

0

Very true, it would likely vaporize anything not designed to withstand the blast of that laser.

Jayhawk Jake > davedave1111 12/13/2015 at 19:45

0

You still don’t want to lose aircraft, financial concerns or not. There’s availability and security concerns if you treat them as being disposable

Jayhawk Jake > BringBackTheCommodore 12/13/2015 at 19:45

0

I didn't say AI. Unoccupied. Still piloted, just remotely

BringBackTheCommodore > Jayhawk Jake 12/14/2015 at 09:05

0

True enough, and a camera could easily withstand G-loading compared to what a human pilot can withstand.