It's over, Annakin...
Posted on 02/21/2020 10:39:59 AM PST by Freeport
Well, they are really good at shooting down commercial airliners............
Battle tanks are fine for big land wars. When TOW missiles began taking out Assad’s tanks in high numbers, Assad relied on air power (Russians) to carpet bomb the forces with the TOW missiles. Helicopters some distance from a group of tanks can also carry air-to-ground missiles that can take out tanks.
The U.S. heavy use of air and sea power is to command the air and seas so as to prevent enemies from bringing a land war to the U.S.
I think Stormin' Norman either said or quoted this.
We are going to see a future battle where a million dollar drone takes out about ten F-35's at once - and the Air Force won't accept it any better than the Navy accepted Billy Mitchell.
I still reread that one from time to time. My first Clancy read.
My first Clancy read.
If you replace the tank driver with a computer the heavy armor is no longer needed. For the price of one heavy tank we could have 10 light / fast suicidal robot tanks.
Pilots have a term for tanks...targets.
During the Vietnam War, the US had total control of the air but the Vietnamese, who had no air force, won the war.
Sighhhhh, another koolaid imbiber that believes the Armed Forces of the U.S. LOST the war. Off to the Walter Cronkite room with ye with all the others.
It's over, Annakin...
The US Air Force still uses the old F-16 and F-15, but has mothballed all of their newer F-117s.
That’s a lot of money rusting away.
Historically, militaries have long had to choose between quality and quantity. If they veer too far in either direction, they make themselves vulnerable to the other.
Quality breakthroughs are rarely decisive in war. The crossbow never was more decisive than the longbow. The WWI tanks were slow and easy to inhibit. They needed decades more before they mattered.
Which brings us to modern times. Advanced battleships and aircraft carriers were easy to attack by air, so the modern aircraft carriers are surrounded by layered screens against air attack, reaching out for hundreds of miles.
Even missiles will likely soon be humbled by energy weapons.
The US almost lost the Korean war because China was able to field gigantic armies. General Douglas MacArthur (PBUH) was well aware of this so requested nuclear use before they could cross the Yalu River, which was denied. The result was UN forces being pushed back to a small enclave in the South. After the landing at Inchon split their forces, things were still touch-and-go until the Chinese were decimated with Hantavirus.
The US has a singular focus on quality. So the *obvious* way to counter them is by making cheap, off the shelf, combat drones, for about the price of a nice car, say $100,000 each.
The production cost of an F-35B is $115.5 million each. For that price, any country that can make a car, which is a lot of them, could make 1,155 weapon carrying drone aircraft.
An air armada.
Each might carry a 1,000 pound bomb, or a machine gun capable of downing a high performance aircraft. Their skin could be made of aluminum, with a large fuel tank and an engine, and an off the shelf simple computer for guidance. Like later Russian aircraft, they could use tubes, not electronics, so would be invulnerable to electronic countermeasures. Old style wire guidance.
Most importantly, they would be expendable.
An armada of these aircraft could take on an F-35B. It might kill a dozen, but still lose. Air defenses would also fail, because of target redundancy. A 1,000 pound bomb makes a big hole. A thousand of them can devastate a country.
Oh, the Titworth wars.
Now you’re getting into political will. That’s a different animal.
The tank is going to be first and foremost, a mobile power generator.
An Infantryman will not be able to carry enough energy to make a difference on the battlefield.
Modern Israeli tanks have systems that detect and defeat incoming tank rounds and guided missiles.
The crews in the tank can drop down a visor and see what is going on behind the tank and at great distance.
The computers on the tank use a variety of sensors to locate friendly forces and enemy targets and provide their locations and targeting data to the crew.
It would not be hard to hang a couple of Stinger antiaircraft missiles on a tank and link them to the sensors and computers.
Army Air Force Commanding General H.H. “Hap” Arnold
Only 5 star general in two services!
It’s like firearms.
It’s better to have them and not need them
Than to need them and not have them.
As George Washington said if we want peace we must prepare for war.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.