Replies

I don't see how, in a GPS/satcom-prohibited environment. And that is exactly the capability the Chinese have been working on assiduously with their direct-ascent ASAT system.

I'll put aside the fact that if China wants to harm us, they will do so economically long before they do so militarily, since they are in a position to already hurt us economically. I'm not trying to expand the topic into what definese air superiority since the definition has broadend over the years, but if we can dump in cruise missiles at will, that don't require GPS or satellite communications, that they can't easily counteract, and if we can destroy the facilities they need to support their own aerial operations with those very same missiles, well we gain air superiority regardless of whether we have humans in the cockpit or not. We take out their ASAT capabilities, we quickly relaunch any GPS or other systems that are needed, and we are in business.

Not really. USAF pilots did just fine over Vietnam without satnav or GPS.

USAF and USN lost over 2,200 aircraft to enemy fire and almost a thousand more due to operational problems, and the North Vietnamese didn't have nearly the capabilities our potential adversaries do now. Those aircraft were a lot easier to maintain and a lot more resilient than some of the aircraft we have now.

UAV's will be cruise missiles if you remove GPS guidance and communication, or interrupt the session the way the Iranians are supposed to have done .

What is wrong with cruise missiles? How is Iran going to interrupt the communications if we are dumping in terrain following cruise missiles that don't need to communicate with us once they are launched?

All this stuff is setting us up for a big lesson in how, the more bells and whistles you need to do the job, the more Achilles' heels you bring with you to the contest, and the more sh&t you have available to break down at the most inconvenient time possible.

Rule One of electronics on expeditions and missions: Half your sh&t doesn't work any more, the minute you leave the end of your driveway/clear the jetties/clear the runway.

And here I agree with you. We are headed down a road where we have fewer and fewer manned aircraft, and they are more and more expensive and complex to maintain. It will bite us in the ass.

I'm not trying to expand the topic into what definese air superiority since the definition has broadend over the years .....

Well, let's say it's what happens at 55,000 feet over the FEBA and go from there.

What's going to happen when you send UAV's and they send J-20's and Su-30MKK's to the party? I wouldn't even like a contest between your UAV's and a squadron of Gen 3 airframes like the J-7/8/8C (=MiG 21) "Fishbed"/"Finback".

...if we can dump in cruise missiles at will....

Against swarms of AWACS-directed older fighters armed with IR-seeking AAM's? Don't think so.

At some point you have to clear enough of the airspace you're going to be fighting in, to let the cruise weapons do their jobs. You have to clear it with manned fighters, because UAV's are not gonna git 'er done.

[Me] Not really. USAF pilots did just fine over Vietnam without satnav or GPS.

[You] USAF and USN lost over 2,200 aircraft to enemy fire and almost a thousand more due to operational problems

The point was, American pilots found their way around without 21st-century navaids. Losses due to enemy activity are not germane to the point here. The point is that American pilots could hack it, but UAV's could not, without their complex navaids and inertial guidance backup. And we're just talking here about finding their way around, not actually engaging highly motivated adversary pilots in modern aircraft.

By the way, that loss of 2200 a/c was incurred IMHO due to excessive micromanagement against a second-rate air and anti-aircraft establishment. If we'd campaigned like that against the Russians, we'd have gone through three times that many aircraft and pilots.

We are talking, I emphasize here, about engaging a major opponent, not an off-the-shelf Third World air force.