|
02-07-2011, 08:42 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Sarasota, Florida
15,395 posts, read 21,711,857 times
Reputation: 11118
|
|
|
|
|
02-08-2011, 12:04 PM
|
|
|
|
14,781 posts, read 41,716,811 times
Reputation: 14596
|
|
|
The irony to me on this one is that given the capabilities of automated mid-air refueling you could end up completely negating the need for the carrier battlegroup to launch the things. It doesn't seem too far fetched that drones and "robo" planes operating from just the continental U.S. would be able to force project airpower whenever and wherever it was needed.
|
|
02-08-2011, 05:03 PM
|
|
|
|
15,919 posts, read 19,456,625 times
Reputation: 7680
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The irony to me on this one is that given the capabilities of automated mid-air refueling you could end up completely negating the need for the carrier battlegroup to launch the things. It doesn't seem too far fetched that drones and "robo" planes operating from just the continental U.S. would be able to force project airpower whenever and wherever it was needed.
|
And if the battle scenario requires multiple air strikes?
Are the planes going to fly from CONUS to wherever, drop their loads, fly back to get another weapons load and go back to drop another load?
I thought that's one of the main reasons why carriers existed, the ability to rearm planes close to the battle front.... |
|
02-08-2011, 05:04 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Bike to Surf!
3,080 posts, read 10,737,766 times
Reputation: 3019
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
The irony to me on this one is that given the capabilities of automated mid-air refueling you could end up completely negating the need for the carrier battlegroup to launch the things. It doesn't seem too far fetched that drones and "robo" planes operating from just the continental U.S. would be able to force project airpower whenever and wherever it was needed.
|
Flight time. Even supersonic, it takes a while to cross an ocean. |
|
02-09-2011, 09:24 AM
|
|
|
|
313 posts, read 684,114 times
Reputation: 173
|
|
|
Go to the DARPA Wikipedia page. All sorts of cool stuff being developed.
|
|
02-09-2011, 09:30 AM
|
|
|
|
313 posts, read 684,114 times
Reputation: 173
|
|
|
At what point do fighter pilots become obsolete? I think we are getting pretty close.
How long until all aircraft are flown remotely? How about passenger jets? How would you feel getting on a 737 knowing the pilot is 1000 miles away in some secured office building?
|
|
02-09-2011, 02:40 PM
|
|
|
|
14,781 posts, read 41,716,811 times
Reputation: 14596
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sponger42
Flight time. Even supersonic, it takes a while to cross an ocean.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by plwhit
And if the battle scenario requires multiple air strikes?
Are the planes going to fly from CONUS to wherever, drop their loads, fly back to get another weapons load and go back to drop another load?
I thought that's one of the main reasons why carriers existed, the ability to rearm planes close to the battle front....
|
I did actually think about this after I made the post and it does on the surface make sense to keep the carriers for that reason, however...
Given that the "drones" are capable of carrying far more payload since we are removing the pilot, ejection seat, etc. We have more weapons available per plane.
Add to that, how many drones can we buy/operate for the cost of building and maintaining a single carrier battlegroup? I would venture that the number would work out to the point that you could provide equal firepower flying multiple groups to and from the battlefield to re-arm and maintain at least the same presence, even over great distance. Not to mention, that we wouldn't be slaved to having to defend the carrier, which is nothing more than a giant floating target. |
|
02-09-2011, 10:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Southern California
15,083 posts, read 19,693,612 times
Reputation: 10336
|
|
|
That's interesting. The Blue Angels will never be the same.
[let's make sure Skynet doesn't become self-aware...]
|
|
02-09-2011, 10:34 PM
|
|
|
|
15,919 posts, read 19,456,625 times
Reputation: 7680
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJGOAT
I did actually think about this after I made the post and it does on the surface make sense to keep the carriers for that reason, however...
Given that the "drones" are capable of carrying far more payload since we are removing the pilot, ejection seat, etc. We have more weapons available per plane.
Add to that, how many drones can we buy/operate for the cost of building and maintaining a single carrier battlegroup? I would venture that the number would work out to the point that you could provide equal firepower flying multiple groups to and from the battlefield to re-arm and maintain at least the same presence, even over great distance. Not to mention, that we wouldn't be slaved to having to defend the carrier, which is nothing more than a giant floating target.
|
And if there is a war where the military installations that control these unmanned fighter/bombers are taken out what do we do then with no battle groups?
A combo of both unmanned and a few battle groups makes the most sense. |
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
