Cant these recognizable features be incorporated into the visionics to provide a frame of reference for the pilot like ARD's? This would prevent
disoreientation and still give the pilot the ability to do 'off the shoulder' targeting without the manuvering generaly required to do this. Plus
the boresight could also be incorporated into it to give the pilot the familiarity of "toss" bombing and manual gunery.
No. Because while you could put in a compass scroll bar or 'clock' numeric, you cannot SCALE relative to a position on the airframe. Because the
sensors are going to be in a position where those features are either disorienting to your position in the cockpit ('Look ma, the tail is right in
front of my face as I sit 40ft in front of it!'). Even as your ability to 'squint range' track the targets for depth of field positioning is
limited by the apertures fixed zoom.
And why should you bother? If someone fires a weapon from 11 o'clock and 7 o'clock, are you going to be able to 'see to avoid' both better with a
synthetic vision system than you can by simply putting up a bullseye display that puts your entire airframe at the middle and times a MAWS initiated
expendables burst (10-20 flares) at the same instant you are TOLD to 'break right'?
I would, by far, rather have the ability to see the relative closure RATES of 'what is, after all, just a MAWS' on both threats as synthetic vector
symbols. Than try to spin my head like Linda Blair and try to judge matters 'by eye' (remember, NOT vision, just a TV screen fixed-focal-depth
virtual equivalent.). Because the very act of twisting my head is going to take so much time, under G, that I will not be able to track both
I read some time ago in CodeOne that the Luftwaffe Migs had the off-boresight scopes that enabled them to increase their dogfight kill ratio
drastically because they could get targets at nearly 40 deg off boresight . Now with the JHMCS with the AIM-9X I would seem that the USAF would
aquire a 80 deg off the boresight ability which would reduce the risk of prolonged exposure in the threat area.
The only thing useful about the MiG-29's close in weapons suite is the OEPS-29 IRST. And even that has lost about 70% of it's functionality with
the deactivation of the KOLS laser ranger. Largely this is because they Luftwaffe MiG's didn't have the latest standard in R-72 (45` boresight
capability which is roughly the same as the AIM-9M /after/ lockon, realy primitive IRCCM qualities and the older autopilot/motor) and they were no
longer running a WARPAC IADS system to support the datalink.
What this means is that if you can anchor the fight at a decent offset angle and speed (between section members) you can turn IN to bring the fight
over/under the Fulcrum's sill line in a way that makes it impossible for the MiG pilot to use his helmet to slave-cue his heat weapon before you are
at min-R. It still requires a 'bit of faith' in the quality of the ASTE level MJU-5x expendables. But it works because the Luftwaffe drivers were
only wanted as 'threat emulators' whereby they flew WARPAC tactics utterly unsuited for few-on-few engagements.
Their MiG-29's were also derated in thrust and so tended to smoke quite a bit and had so many maintenance problems at the end that it was really a
light-fuse-run-away condition that saw them even being sold at 1 Euro each to the Poles. Under these conditions, the F-16 is actually a superior
slow-speed airframe because much of it's limiter performance is actually /better/ than that enjoyed by the Fulcrum (freer, easier to exploit in
slow-high vertical maneuvering out of plane).
Having said this, there is absolutely ZERO reason to cross a 6-8nm visual merge with a threat if you have ARH and they don't. NONE. So, in the
radar-merge fight (cleanup shots and passive cued shooting off someone else's radar); you are looking at a 10km motor driving a 20-25km seeker on the
Which, compared to virtually every other Gen-4 SRM/IRM out there (ASRAAM, D-30, P4/5, MICA) means that the HOBS capability is just lipstick on the
Heck, back in _1982_ the Argies proved what a good motor on a heat weapon can do in terms of driving a Sea Harrier almost 12,000ft off of FQ perch
BEFORE the latter could take equivalent headshot. Scared the bodily fluids right out of the pilot when this ancient R530 finally caught up with him,
only to steam right on by for want of proper fuzing.
So it CAN be done ! They could add more than six to make the imagery more fluid and process the image to compensate for the distortions of view and
other cancell other restriction like smoke, night etc in each of the IDA's and then by calculating the spatial orientations wrt the pilot fuse them
together. The radar employed can also be feedback into the image processing computer to gather a more precise perspective and match the visual clues
to the radar map generated.
You can fuze the images. You cannot alter the perspective errors without generating 'synthetic' target motions which may or may not match the real
background as the pilot sees it.
And the APG-81 doesn't have a thing to do with integrating POV fields of regard because it uses a different spectrum and cannot operate beyond the
Maybe the point would be to supplement the optical gimball with a spherical laser scanner that could create a 3d point cloud representation which
could easily be recaliberated to appear to be focused form the pilots perspective!
A scanned LIDAR image is all well and good. But it would still be a frame to frame 'render' that lagged badly with what the pilot was actually
seeing. You have to remember that when you are 5-6 miles up in the air you are 'mapping' a HUGE volume of space. And you have to do so while
taking into account the existence of a fairly hefty body (32X50ft) blocking your perspective POV.
Since the excuse given was STOVL landing assist, I suppose it could be made workable. But it is a LONG way from being what Falcon Eye was, almost 20
Furthermore, the military gets twitchy when you start talking lasers and the notion of not needing a pilot to 'see things' as a function of killing
what he watches as a video feed also goes right back into the question:
"The sky and dirt aren't gonna kill'ya. The objects in it can be tracked as datasets without presentation at all. WHY BOTHER adding cost and
weight and LO concerns to improve imaging for a man whose biologic ability to integrate a 'big picture' is /so weak/ that you are having to crutch
Obviously this would mean massive computational ability and also precise caliberation by the engineers not to mention the number of scanners that
would be required and employed but with the improvements in IR laser scanners this should not be a problem in say 15-20 years.
The JSF will enter service in 2012. In 2015, the THEL will enter field trials. 1 year later the THEL-M will enter field trials. 5 years after that,
every first tier technical threat will have copied U.S. (if only because the Israeli's sold the technical package to the Chinese). 5 years after
that, LETHAL DEWS will have completely proliferated at a time when the U.S. is a 'service oriented economy' shambles. Why waste 256 billion dollars
on a visionic system which _does not work now_ as well as one tested 18 years ago. And which WILL NOT HAVE a man to employ it, in another 10?
We are not the worlds purse to be cut by every gutter thief out there in our government or foreign ones for purposes of continuing a military system
based on a doctrine that doesn't work sufficiently now. And WILL NOT work (at all) by the time the platform it is built around, enters line
Couldnt the entire HMD be incorporated into a sort of Helmet attachment that is mounted to the aircraft in the cockpit and is " attached" onto the
pilots helmet (magnetically if possible!) and held up by springs and actuators that would be calliberated for the pilot thus making the additional
weight "massless" on the pilot even during steep dives and dips ?
Mass is mass. If it's affixed to your head in any way, you aren't going to be moving it at 9G. At worst, you want to pull the system weight off
the head entirely, go back to having the helmet be just a skull protector as you bounce it off the sides of the canopy in maneuvering and have the
entire canopy be your 1:1 display area so that the overlay matches perfectly and you have the ability to employ 'floating' seconday systems outputs
which use retinal projection as a secondary channel, rather like a twin-monitor feed on your PC.
At best, dump the biologic blood bag which only serves to 'interface' between the machines in a way that doesn't merge data, but simply
Like I said: THERE IS NO TERMINATOR EFFECT IN A PROPER MAWS/SAIRST SYSTEM.
You don't get a 'television camera' perspective. It's all math. It's all about tracking numeric progressions and /understanding them/ as a
range of ultimate outcomes:
9 seconds at 70% SSPK comes before 15 seconds @ 85% SSPK.
Do you 'see' that? Or simply _accept_, conceptually, that the guy who shoots first with a probability of kill over 60% (2 out of 3) is going to
Such is the difference between having a human in the loop to destroy the efficiency of a mechanical killing system with the weight and performance
limitations of all his bio-crutches.
And having a computer that doesn't need to make symbologic interpretations of imagery to come to the same conclusion. On a millisecond to
millisecond basis of changing 'real time' outcomes.
THAT is where the humanist viewpoint really falls down in time-compressed activities you see. We take so long to gather the limited dataset we can
interpret that by the time we reach a decision, it's already been invalidated by events.
OUR PRESENCE is what makes the JSF cost 95 million each in Pentagon acquisition schedules. And for the schools and conversion to alternative fuels
and a better healthcare system that that kind of money will buy, I will NOT let the manned combat aircraft community sit that much higher on their
Well the display could be on retinally projected or even externally projected on a retro-reflexive canopy either way you get a better spatial
representation than the current JHMCS type of projection. Also pupil tracking could be utilized to enhance the FOV of the pilot without fine neck
control. The head movement might then be used to shift area of interest while any actually targeting is done by the eyes alone.
Coulda, woulda, shoulda. Extant, except for VLO and gas (both of which the F-22 matches or betters) the F-35 offers no real /systemic/ improvements,
as is, over what could be integrated, cheaper and quicker (AAQ-32 IFTS on the F-16E) on another platform.
Yet it is still a minimum 6 years from BEGINNING to enter squadron service. At a total cost of 256 billion dollars for less than half the original
That's just not right.
Well the USAF has already decided to incorporate the JHMCS with PNVG's system to complete the JHMCS. I doubt the AF will use the ANVIS any longer
with its mere 40 deg vision and that too for pilots. Presently, they do use it but it will change in the near future if the costs allow the AF to do
NVD-on-helmet goes back to the Kaiser 'Wide Eyes' of the 1980's. Indeed /Falcon Eye/ used BAE/GCC 'Night Eyes' devices to augment what the pilot
could see while the backseater 'stole' the HSF ball for targeting.
And none of it matters.
1. Because seeing at night only gives you an edge if nobody else can and/or you can exploit elments of threat signatures (SAMs can be see from
upwards of 60km away, just on the plume of their gas generators /after/ burnout) that other systems cannot. MAWS now gives us a way to link FLCS to a
superior (stereoscopic, multielement + 'intensity' driven rangefinding on multiple threats) secondary sensors which detect-not-see in all directions
and can be used to drive evasion routines orders of magnitude more precise than human reflexe+motor impulse driven muscles can achieve.
2. If the weight is on the helmet, it increases your chances of neck injury (or reduces the absolute G level which you can move your neck at all),
even if the tubes are not dangling off the visor knob but rather back by your ears.
3. If your display area is not big enough to support raster+stroke (imagery plus symbology) you are STILL stuck with 'FLIR or Airspeed, not both'.
Which means that, particularly on the Monocular JHMCS, you have to reengineer the entire helmet /all over again/.
The reason the various Kaiser/MACDAC 'projects' (Agile Eye, Night Eye, Wide Eyes) never got underway was because the pilot community would not
commit to an 8lb helmet and a 5-6G maneuver limit. At the same time they would not lowball their specs to remove half the capabilities they wanted.
And so they got _nothing_ while Elbit and the various Euro companies went ahead with basic systems. Now we have the JHMCS which effectively IS
Israeli (Kaiser having long since left the field) and we still are operating at levels which were standard back in the 1980's with the DASH
What did we learn? Three things-
1. Pride letteth the competition catch up.
2. Helmet-anything is unimportant if your airframe costs more than 10 of the enemy's and so you MUST kill from ranges beyond the point at which you
need to stay headsout (of cockpit with 8X8 or better displays).
3. Better visionics won't removed the costs which a human only ADDS to the airframe. At a time when we are less than a decade from seeing the
advent of weapons which require ALL airframes to be 'throwaway' _cheap_.
This may be true but all that a UCAV can track the " meatbag " can get too.
The gutsack cannot manually fly TFR and do /anything/ else, safely. Which is what you are asking him to after DEWS come online.
You might as well tell elevation in mm if the numbers please you but what you do with the information is what is important and any UCAV operator will
tell you that their is no substitute for being there!
Nonsense. Fly about as you please and if the enemy shows up, kill him. Anything else is rubbish. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MAN AND MACHINE THEN
1. The machine is small and quick enough not to be engaged by other systems in a way that prevents it from doing it's primary mission.
2. The machine is cheap enough to be PRESENT to do it's job. Air Superiority is 70% flown, 20% maneuvered and only 10% decisively (with a kill)
If the enemy doesn't come today, you still have to fly on the premise that he might and without a MIGCAP (sweep) and BARCAP (blocking force) you will
not be able to do other missions.
The problem is that manned airframes are so outrageously expensive that you end up 'multiroling them' which means that the joint air component
commander steals airframes he shouldn't be allowed to to fill holes.
Modern missiles and sensors make air combat more or less a point and click affair but if you aren't there, you can't have a memorex moment, no
matter how 'live' you are.
A manned aircraft thought bogged down by physical limitations in maneuvering is better at situational awareness and effeciency of response than a UCAV
To which I say bunk. Computers are so fast that they can process, interpolate and fuze data to present to the human, visually, what he couldn't
/begin/ to filter himself.
The detail parameters of that data is what makes or breaks your kill vs. the threats such that 'everything becomes fractal'. i.e. At some point
where you see the micro in sufficient details, the ordering of the macro follows a like form of X-then-Y-then-Z orientation.
What the human (previously) COULD do had nothing to do with the wetware slopping around /in/ his head. But rather the way it was soft-hinged to his
body. Translating biomechanical motions into unusual viewing angles and thus an ability to see where the all-nose-forward sensors could not.
Even this was insufficient however for man is nearly blind compared to the most base of beasts and relative to machines he is not only myopic but
retarded. So that, in a world where missile closures on the order of 800-2,500fps makes them a threat for MILES before he can see and track them.
We had to do better.
Thus we invented DAS (MAWS in a new box) as a means to compensate for his limitations and are trying, desperately, to 'look, oh wow, it's a nav-FLIR
too!' integrate him with it's superior functioning.
What we DID NOT take into account was the notion that smart people will see the price tag associated with this 'man limps into a machine cheetah
age' attempt to keep us in a battlefield we have no business in.
And chose to speak up and say "_Wait_, is what they toot-own-horn lie about really worth it, even if it CAN be made to work, eventually?"
And the answer is no. Because numbers defeat sophistication to the point where you can only ask "Is a man worth more than the machine in
And in this case the response is simple: "You get more numbers by NOT having a man."
The simple reason is the "meatbag". Plus the limitations of the UCAV system in general of being constrained in communicative devices and a less than
desirable picture presented to the "operator" at the other end. Well, that is the case presently, in the future it may change but their will still
be no sustitute for being there to asses the situation.
Probably the singlemost KEY DETERMINATOR of warfare is identification. If you know -who- is doing X you can almost always gauge what X is as a
function of 'intent', which often means victory is assured, provided only that you have the time to do something about it. In missile-age aerial
warfare, things are more compressed but in many ways even simpler because the speed of execution is so fast that often strategies end up being highly
linear (must drop on A before threat 1 kills me. Must kill A before he reaches the point of being able to drop on 1).
In a radar dominated world, this process of identification can happen in one of many ways:
1. Optically. As Danger Ranger Dan has eyeballs on the runway for launch warning.
2. COMINT. The GAI team calls the tower for permission to taxi to the active. Or their IOC to ask for directions.
3. Historical. He launches from X. X is a badguy base. He is a badguy as a function of 'evermore' geography lessons.
3. ELINT. The threat team goes nose-hot with a key-tagged radar signature that you hear for hundreds of miles before you 'see' a return
4. IFF. You Ping, he Dings. He's a bad guy because his transpond doesn't match to the tenth decimal point.
5. Radar. You look down his engines and count blades. Or you match to a 2D ISAR image using extinction pulse interferometrics.
6. Electro Optically. Somebody has a set of zoom optics hooked up to a CCD imager and looks at the silouhette, onscreen.
7. Optically. The pilot closes until he sees the threat jet with his own "20:10 = 6-8nm, nose on with an F-15, if it's 3-4 and I'm still not
sure...it must be a MiG." process of
deduction. Assuming the other guy doesn't fire first. In which case he's a bad guy, regardless.
Of ALL of these, the meatbag is only technically important in the bogey-bandit-friendly-neutral determinator in the last two. And then only because
we have not invested in ATC (Automatic Target Classification) software for A2A optical systems (such as they are) as we have for air to ground biased
ones (LANTIRN had ATC/ATR as a requirement from the the start back in 1979 or so)..
Now, lets look at your typical 'radar picture' shall we?-
And compare it to the typical football play book-
And finally compare it to what I imagine your mind is thinking an Air To Air UCAV control interface would look like.
If I am right, you live in a Hollywood movie if not a video arcade.
I live in a computerized world where the only 'display' of interactive data required is for the (blind, moronic) HUMAN to see the way the future
will unfold as a series of preemptive time-as-spatial-vectors decisions.
Whereas the UCAVs _autopilot_ their way to the target as a function of straight line, minimum profile, signature vs. geometry management. In pure
In math, you send a 'picture' like this-
As series of binary coordinates (relative spatial offsets as rise-over-range datums at time+X in a geometry model subprocedure labelled 'me vs. 1'
on designated radar target) that the lead robot fighter, who is 'jacked in' to the overall JTIDS datahandling network (can talk, can listen, to any
node in the theater) thens send discretely across to his wingmen on an IFDL (Intra Flight Data Link, different band segment, lower data rate, usually
with limited to 'broadcast only' or simple weapons/fuel/position update cross talk).
And they fly the game plan with perfect mechanical execution at a level the Thunderbirds would envy IF THEY COULD SEE IT. Because these UCAVs are
upwards of 10nm separated like wolves in a forage line, driving an unknown prey to it's doom.
Now, assume for a moment that I can buy 5, 20 million dollar, UCAVs for the same price as one F-35. Or ten for the price of one F-22.
To continue with the football analogy, what happens when a quarterback sees five defensive ends turn into werewolves coming right at him with 'evil
intent' in their eye?
He either runs like a striped ape. Or he pulls out a gun and starts capping them off. Because they are gonna murder him even if he tosses the
Except. If your UCAV's are stealthier than ANY manned airframe (because they are _not_ sprouting tails and radars and canopies). So the enemy
QB-as-fighter-pilot likely won't see them until he can literally SEE them. At which point it's no longer a sniper rifle but a 9mm pistol fight.
And if they can (collectively) launch 10 missiles while he (and his wingman) are only carrying eight. They will win.
On nothing more than the notion that the single shot probability of missile kill on a hyper agile UCAV (being shot with weapons intended for a manned
opponent) is likely less than 20 percent. While their own weapons are probably in the range of 50-60%. i.e. With eight shots (four per manned
plane), the threat will bag 1.6 UCAVs. While the UCAVs (with two per plane) will nab both enemy interceptors with their first four weapons.
Now. Let's add friction vs. long range optics.
It's 2015 and EVERYBODY has RF stealth. Thus the only way to certainly acquire a target is to run a skirmish line forward like a giant game of red
rover /we're/ coming over.
The target cannot see the UCAVs because they are spaced 10nm apart.
The target is a friendly. UCAV one spots the target and sends it's own 'sweep around' command while itself slowing down and going oblique to
maximize the distance at which the two aircraft will cross behind each other. The bogey responds suspiciously as it 'sees' the lead UCAV turn away
and begins to skitter off towards the opposite side, it's dim but logical threat tactics generator 'hoping' that both will merely play a
pass-in-the-night game. EXCEPT. That it is running into the rest of the pack who are sweeping under and outside it in a single-side offset, using
their 1:1+ T/Wr _in military_ to hold a 1.2-1.4 (cold) supersonic vector that gives them all the leverate in terms of final geometry positioning of
the participants as they sweep around. Too late, the bogey sees them too and straightens and goes to maximum subsonic speed, presumably to have an
evasive energy reserve as The Pack converts.
Except 'as they come up alongside', (within 20 miles of their optics ability to resolve a silouhette anyway) they see that the bogey is in fact
itself just a British FOAS drone, randomly in-air tasked to support an SOF troop that found something interesting to drop on. Now 'lost and moving
against the flow of traffic'.
And they let it go. Not because they are more moral. But because they _do not care_ if they live or die. And so can close the distance to the point
where they are able to make a determinancy that the pilot cannot wait for.
Now turn it around.
They find that it is an Indian Pak-FA that is coming with 'intent' (hey, he's flyin' ain't he?) to do ill good. /Except/ that the InAF jet has a
Being a 'wise blood bag', he knows that he _cannot_ let these mechanical wolves get in close or they will rip him to pieces. What he /doesn't
know/ is how many they are and the fact that they are widely spread across the horizon, already partially enveloping him. So he fires once and then
does his own F-Pole maneuver, turning away and running, 'thinking' that he can brag about the shot after he RTBs, saying merely that the corrupt
Americans are lying about another loss because he 'saw the flash on the horizon'.
Unfortunately for him, his shot is instantly detected by the UCAVs MAWS systems as the high-intensity blip of IR energy that it is (high and clean
against a cold sky at 35,000ft). Thus, even though he is running out the side of the fight for all he is worth, he is actually only passing in front
of the teeth on a threat that is already within NEZ on the crossing shot.
And he dies from a wolf he didn't know was already close enough to hamstring him, even though none of the drones themselves 'yet had the smell of
him' as a function of conventional radar tracking and historical, IFF or NCTR based ID (probably from an offboard asset like an E-3).
Rule #1 of Air Combat: As goes the intercept, so goes the fight. If you are set up to make the ID FIRST. With today's weapons. You will make the
UCAV wolves can do this 'instant geometry advantage' setup /better/, _instinctively_, than man can. Just using the speed of their linear processing
math to monitor more continuously stream data inputs (positioning of self vs. others vs. threat) in real time than he will ever manage by
Granted that the pilot is suseptible to GLC and maneuverability is compromised but manuverability may not come into the picture any longer if the
current trends in High energy Laser weapons are any indication. However fast or manuverable a craft is, it can out run light/Laser. A UCAV may be
agile but will that agility really be needed in tomorrows battlefield?
Then why are you putting a pilot in the cockpit? Why do _I_ have to pay for this college education, his UPT, his 20hrs per month, per mission, to
remain FMC rated His quarterly checkrides for overall competency, his marriage, his relocation to 4 different bases before the war. His first kids
braces. His second kids broken arm. His insurance when they bring him home in a shoe box.
In effect, his LIFE. Before he threw it all away in the space of a heartbeat.
Because once the airframe can be fireballed from 100km standoff, the only thing you can do is make it cheap enough that you can replace it.
And having a man aboard /hardly/ does that (did you know that it ANNUALLY costs the U.S. about 8 _billion_ dollars to keep it's 'core force' of
tactical aviators fully trained?).
I think that is one dimension that the AF will have to look at coupled with the fact that can you depend on a machine thousands of miles away with a
payload like a nuclear weapon?
I would put more trust in an AGM-129 being able to penetrate than a B-2 in the SIOP role. Not least because the 'flying machine' which levels the
playing field with max-rems is going to be a ballistic missile that was fired 10hrs before the Batarang was even in the theater on it's one-way trip
to make the rubble bounce.
Nukes are not useful weapons. Lasers are.
Lasers can cripple the U.S. as an expeditionary airpower bully if we do not have robots to walk into their Photon-Maxim fire.
Nukes can only end the world as we know it.
The Romans had it right. So did Eisenhower. You MUST make your armies steal from /other people/ to pillage if not pay their way forward as a useful
element of society. Usually this means having the bloodyminded will to wage genocidal warfare (see Americans, Native) until the opposing team sees
the logic of peace or extinction as their only choices. Where that is no longer 'morally possible' after a World War in which we made mass attacks
on civillians a crime against our own nature (giggle), the only recourse for the military is to prevent war. And having done that, they become little
more than a parasitic insurance policy in which the amount of money that can be premium paid to 'to protect society' must be no more than half the
value of a lost resource _for the period of years_ it would take for a new force to be raised (or an alternative resource developed) to retake it.
Oil demands from the Far East 'production' economies are rising 10% per year. At that rate, with no new reserve discoveries on the horizon and God
Knows What effect on the environment already in play, oil demand will no longer meet production levels by as early as 2025. A JSF will burn more fuel
_in a single mission_ than most cars do in 6 years (20,000lbs internally/6.8lbs per gallon/20 gallons per tank/2 fillups per month/12 months per
Right now, the military is thieving from our own future that which they can NEVER give back as a conquering amalgamator of someone else'. And thus
the true danger of the Cold War is revealed in our worship of a militaristic-adventurist way of life the we know is wrong. But have no alternative
value system to CHOOSE to invest those same dollars into, as a function of tapering off the blood flow to a vestigial organ that is at best wasteful
as a standalone system. And at most aggressively infective as a means-over-motive pathology of behavior by which we are sucked back into supporting
an insurance policy that cannot work if there are no car crashes to justify the blood shed.
And which, by design, is always chasing the last ambulance of technology-as-doctrine to empower itself rather than truly make war itself efficient.
How truly 'human' that we make a habitual waste out of a system designed for the ultimate in Darwinistic Downselect. Solely to avoid proving that
the very metric of evolutionary performance by which war works, means that we no longer have what it takes to participate in it's functional
achievement of perfection.
It's time we started a discussion 'outside the military' (whose perview does not include governance) to reestimate the efficiency of what makes war
a system of systems. So that we can determine whether it's moral repugnancy exceeds the value of it's 'fan based' enthusiasm as a spectator
[edit on 23-1-2006 by ch1466]