It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Head of Marine Aviation: without more money we'll stop flying

page: 2
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ThePeaceMaker




there still has to be some kind of human input
Considering the F35 it would seem like human input is being replaced or its headed in that direction .Pre-programmed drones with on-board sensors do what they are told to do. I am sure that the technology for military equipment has two parts . The 1 part the public knows and the part hidden . If you can get a drone doing what you want it to do on Mars then how much of a big deal would it be over a distance of a few hundred miles . just saying




posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:28 AM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf




It is not a big old sky its actually fairly crowded when you figure in the speeds they can be flying at.
cruise missiles seem to manage .



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Cruise missiles fly at low altitude, using terrain to mask their radar signature. At any point in the day there are several hundred thousand aircraft in the air worldwide. The US averages around 85,000 a day, between military, commercial, and general/business.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The F-35 is designed all about the pilot. It gives the pilot as much information as possible to keep him informed about what's around.

UAVs programed to go somewhere with no human input are just going to blunder through high traffic areas and end up causing an accident, until they get a good sense and avoid system. UAVs currently can't even fly within US airspace except over military and testing areas without having a manned aircraft flying escort.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:15 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




The F-35 is designed all about the pilot. It gives the pilot as much information as possible to keep him informed about what's around.
Yes I realize that but its not too hard that AI may replace the pilot in the not too distant future as well . It may actually exist now for all we know . Another thing to consider is that maybe they looked around at threats to marine fleets and battle ships and made the decision to go in a different direction . Considering that a 10/20/30k$ missile can take out a billion dollar ship from a guy in a row boat or standing on shore ,a new approach or mind set was needed .

Consider going to war with a country like Iran . Do you invade them with ground troops ? probably not .Do you send jets in to bomb the heck out of them ? probably not . So do you start lobbing missiles ? ......who would make that call ? and for what reason would it be made ? Can space base weapons work ? This may sound very strange but we might be moving to a time where war will not be a option outside of a defensive position .imo



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:27 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

The US has a tried method of fighting that works. The current and foreseeable force structure is built to continue that doctrine. Yes, missiles will be used, as will large fleets of manned aircraft, and when a certain point is reached, unmanned aircraft.

Theoretically they could plant an AI in some aircraft, but realistically it's probably not going to happen for years to come, even if they had an AI ready to go right now.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is there a time frame you have noticed where hidden (secret) technology makes it into main stream from its inception ? I only ask because remote controlled aircraft was a option for the military in the early 60's and may have gone back as early as ww2 ?



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 11:46 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

It goes back much farther than that. The first unmanned vehicles were balloons in the late 1800s.

It depends on the technology involved. The F-117 was about 10 years, while the B-2 was fairly open from first flight. Then there are some that are pushing 30 years in the deep black.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 01:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58




It depends on the technology involved. The F-117 was about 10 years, while the B-2 was fairly open from first flight. Then there are some that are pushing 30 years in the deep black.
Which is only a part of the point I was trying to make .Another aspect is what did intelligence discover about Russia's Technology over the past few years . One thing was their cruise missiles and the ships that can launch them .Another that is maybe true and maybe it isn't is the jamming features they might have . If true then back to the drawing board and a new strategy has to be worked out . That may be why Trump said he was going to re=build the military . The old standard ways of war wouldn't work facing what they may have discovered . just saying



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 04:15 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

He's going to rebuild the military because our readiness rates are atrocious, and the vast majority of our air fleet is as old as, or older than the crews flying them. Our bomber triad currently consists of the B-52, the youngest of which entered service in 1962, the B-1, which entered service in the 80s and early 90s, and the B-2, which entered service in the mid 90s.

The rest of our fleet is as bad or worse. Our fighters are approaching their 40s, and have serious structural issues, etc. And that's just the Air Force.
edit on 2/2/2017 by Zaphod58 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Well considering the same old same old approach has brought the US to this point, then complaining about it does little .Trump may in time unfold a much better approach. Sticking band-aids on old wounds that has infection so bad may not be the best option . Better to amputate and find new ways forward .



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

And so far, what's happened is worse than a bandaid. Comparing F-18s to F-35s to determine if an F-18 is comparable is insane.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Zaphod58 With drone technology being what it is and auto pilot ,one would think that needing flying time would be a thing of the past . just saying


Sorry, but if that's not dripping with sarcasm (and I admit I'm pretty poor on here at picking that up) that's one of the most inane comments I've seen written down.

The mission set for drones is still very limited, as is the size of airframe they use. Without being familiar with not only with the pilots end up with pretty short but eventful lives but you're also putting at risk the people they're supporting.



posted on Feb, 2 2017 @ 08:52 PM
link   
The President has a rather good rapport with the military presently. Probably a great time to ask for a raise they will almost certainly get.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:21 PM
link   
a reply to: charlyv

I would disagree with both comments. There are many in the military that are very pissed off by what the president has done since taking office. He has only made their jobs harder and the one military action under his command was an absolute failure not to mention a total embarrassment. There has been no positive action towards our armed services since the transition of office, period. In fact he's only done damage.

Also, no one's getting a raise. Even with a leatherneck in charge of DoD the corps are going to be hurting for cash as they always are. I can absolutely see their aviation numbers dropping drastically. From what I'm hearing the plan is to focus on the LHA F-35 wings and the days that Marines shoot off the decks of USN carriers may be close to an end. We are very close to the point where fixing what needs to be fixed with those Hornet squadrons would be cost prohibitive. And I suspect that's exactly what's going to happen.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   
a reply to: aholic

The Navy has said that in addition to Boise, if they don't get more ship maintenance funding, which there's currently pretty much zero progress on, they're looking at 5 more subs losing certification and requiring substantial yard work to be able to sail again.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:49 PM
link   
Im thinking we budget enough for military use.

But im not a big fan of war.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 07:56 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Not for the military we have, no. If the country decides to downsize then yes we have the budget, but we will no longer be able to provide the type of security that we've been accustomed to. And I doubt this administration wants to be known for castrating our military.

We could easily budget a military the size of, let's say, Britain, but the capability gap would be way too huge for many to swallow.
edit on 6-2-2017 by aholic because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:05 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

The problem is that our military is so old and maintenance intensive that our current funding levels don't keep up anymore.



posted on Feb, 6 2017 @ 08:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Zaphod58

Perhaps it's time for the military to re-prioritize it's budgetary spending.

The U.S. spends as much on defense as the next 25 nations combined. They have far more than enough funds to keep our vital functions running.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join