Planet's future depends on US combat aviation

"The future of the planet depends on how the Americans solve this problem. Combat aviation is the basis of the defense power of the United States. For the time being, no one knows how the Americans are going to deal with the problem of China's growing military power. In spite of the fact that Taiwan, South Korea and Japan are US allies in the region, but it does not mean that they will let the US Air Force use their airbases to attack China," the expert said.
from a Russian newspaper none the less.
english.pravda.ru...
i would just like to state that i am just reporting this and am not all for war i dont even live in the us of a

reply to post by pleasetryagain


I don't foresee any future war between China and America. Yea they are bolstering there military, but I think it is more of a deterrent the same reason America bolstered it military might. The stronger you are or appear the less likely you are to be attacked. I think people are reading to much into what people are saying. I mean analysts from Fox News are just bad sources in the first place as Fox is the King of Fear Mongering.

The Romans loved their Empire. Now the Americans love theirs.

Only The Romans believed they knew how to rule the world. And used Peace as their argument. Now the Americans are doing the same.

The world managed very well without the Romans after it fell. I guess the world will manage without the Americans after it falls.

I bet a lot of nations will be very happy. The Americans? Well, they will probably not be so happy. But it is better to have many happy and free nations then just one.

back at the beggining of ww2 the us had the 5th largest military in the world, behind the uk,russia,germany and i cant remember the other(maybe japan). has anyone tried to invade the us since, the answer is no but yet now they have the largest military.

china is growing economically and some people dont like it!
what do you do if you have enemies? you watch your back and if they are scary enemies then you go out and find some way of protecting yourself.

i think the us military is the biggest threat to this planets future out there and the uk is not far behind.

The future of the planet is assured until the sun balloons into a red giant. The future of us humans is extinction if military weapons systems are supposed to solve the problem of keeping our ingrained instinct to kill ourselves in check. The much bigger threat to the US and China, indeed for most of the world, is the upcoming collapse of our fiat currency systems and the implosion of the $700 trillion derivates market. No military system on earth, no matter how advanced, can withstand the rampage of billions of starving and destitute humans.

reply to post by lewman


Actually I'm quite sure that is incorrect. At the beginning of the Second World War the United States did not have a huge military force and I'm more than certain they didn't have the fifth largest army in the world.

reply to post by Kram09


possibly by the time they interviened in the war then, i saw that fact on a tv programme the other day so maybe slightly inaccurate but they did say the 5th largest military in the world. they would have needed to be quite big anyway as they were fighting the japs while sending a few squadrons to the uk to be sent to africa and germany to fight with the british.

The future of this planet will come down to energy...should we create a free energy method for all nations, then war will become unnecessary.

Should war be critical to the planets future plans, then our plans will be short lived as weapons keep advancing.

Soon there will be a day when the poorest of nations will be able to develop incredible genetic bio-weapons in a lab no bigger than a small room with only a few thousand $ budget. What then? What can a highly advanced aircraft do when the enemy is potentially everyone...

Its time we rethink the war thing and instead, spend our collective world budgets on creating a world economy devoid of need and want for resource wars.

It is either that, or inevitable extinction of our entire species.

We need a New World Order!

Originally posted by spy66
The Romans loved their Empire. Now the Americans love theirs.

Only The Romans believed they knew how to rule the world. And used Peace as their argument. Now the Americans are doing the same.

The world managed very well without the Romans after it fell. I guess the world will manage without the Americans after it falls.

I bet a lot of nations will be very happy. The Americans? Well, they will probably not be so happy. But it is better to have many happy and free nations then just one.

Where did you learn your Roman history from? It appears you have also totally forgotten about the Dark Ages as well and for how long that lasted. After that, there has been century after century of war and destruction with very little harmony at all. Now your saying a post American collapse will make the world a happy place...except for the Americans (who by the way are a mixture of every race and ethnicity of humans on the planet).

I think your wishing for a bit of schadensfreude.

reply to post by fockewulf190


I wouldn't bother.

People whom blame America for everything are just people whom have an inability to accept personal responsibility, so blame everything on everyone else verses look at themselves.\

This propaganda is also stirred up by other governments whom do not want their citizens to look at their own corrupt government...its a ploy.

Such mindsets will never achieve any leadership or power in their life, because they cannot accept it themselves personally. They feel impotent by phantoms controlling their life...it comforts them and gives them an excuse as to why they always fail.

Originally posted by spy66

The world managed very well without the Romans after it fell. I guess the world will manage without the Americans after it falls.

The fall of Rome ushered in the Dark Ages and it took hundreds of years for the world to right itself and catch back up to where it had once been in terms of civilization, medicine, and technology.

I wouldn't call that managing "very well".

~Heff

reply to post by lewman


Ah right okay, I understand.

Obama gave us a clue about what is coming. He mentioned the word "innovation" without a shred of explanation.

I'm continually amazed that so many people are very interested in aircraft, but limit themselves to only acceptable areas of aviation and/or space vehicles that have been authorized. For instance, if I mentioned that the shuttle is a deathtrap for one crew and ship for every 56 missions, people simply turn off their minds and ignore that fact. But as I've said elsewhere here recently, that is the plain facts. And the odds are increasing for another total failure with this aging fleet of three as three missions remain..

If I say, if you want to get a handle on where aviation is headed in the very near future, review the triangle "UFO" over Belgium in 1989. That suggestions slides into oblivion. There is tons of supporting evidence for that event as with the shuttle. But the typical aviation enthusiast will ignore them because they are awe-struck by the propaganda about the new F-35 and its helmet, etc. and that it would be unkind or unpatriotic to say anything untoward. That is unrecognized loyalty toward a system that spoons you with exactly what it wants you to know and therefore think.

reply to post by spy66


With the one exception that there currently would be 0 free nations right now if not for the United States. The world would be speaking German or Russian and would be run by a cabal of dictators. Soon it will be run by some fanatical bloodthirsty imam.


The US is an exceptional nation established by God Allmighty as a refuge from a world wide sea of tyranny. But now that the citizens of the US have been hoodwinked into accepting the miserable slave religions of the fallen nations, we are becoming worse than the rest of the world. As the US follows Jesus it will prosper. As it rejects Jesus it is brought to shame.

It may be that there will be no US to fall back on, when Islam marches on it's final jihad. I suspect the antichrist will come out of the MIddle East and he will be very angry.

So to say that nations will be free apart from US dominance is wishful thinking at best. There is a thin veneer holding a semblance of democracy together. That will be gone soon. Tyranny is the norm for human governance. Indeed tyranny is necessary for a Godless people, which is why Jesus said , "He whom the Son sets free is free indeed."; and it's why the founding father implied that their form of government was unsuitable for a godless people.

stealth technology has been developed by the US since the 70's, and shown in the 90's...now in the 2000's is when China is known for stealth technology.

if the US is 30 - 40 years ahead from other nations about aviation technology...I can't imaging where the US is today concerning aviation technology.

Only a world war or an invasion on US soil will let the world know how strong (or weak) the US aviation is...something I would like to find out...that's for sure.

reply to post by Aliensun

If I say, if you want to get a handle on where aviation is headed in the very near future, review the triangle "UFO" over Belgium in 1989. That suggestions slides into oblivion. There is tons of supporting evidence for that event as with the shuttle. But the typical aviation enthusiast will ignore them because they are awe-struck by the propaganda about the new F-35 and its helmet, etc. and that it would be unkind or unpatriotic to say anything untoward. That is unrecognized loyalty toward a system that spoons you with exactly what it wants you to know and therefore think.

Aerospace fighters and high-altitude airframes are a completely unnecessary expense outside of special warfare commands where interceptions of satellites and spontaneous recon is required. They are very maintenance intensive, expensive to operate, and are inefficient at more 'normal' operating altitudes.

It's cheaper and more practical to launch cruise missiles at targets from standoff distances rather than try and bomb them from low-orbit with virtual impunity.

As for the future of aviation - a lot of it is going to combat networks and integrating that with remote and autonomous combat and support vehicles. Why require pilots to fly rigorous hours in that C-5 when you can have ground crews load them up, send the plane off, and it fly itself to its destination (and be programmed to fly its circuit)? Not to say anything bad about cargo pilots - but, really, we could put their skills and man-hours to use elsewhere.

The same goes with a number of bombers. The way it works, now - a B-52 sits in high 'orbit' (not ballistic orbit - but a flight pattern) over the combat airspace. They get a request from a ground unit (a soldier equipped with the appropriate gear) for support - a GPS coordinate as a target designator (say they've got a dug in position giving them trouble). The coords are sent to a JDAM-equipped munition and the weapon drops and guides to the target.

The bomber just flies circles and takes evasive action if necessary, acting as a bomb-on-demand service.

For air superiority - why put a hundred fighters into the air when you can put twenty fighters with four UCAVs 'slaved' to each manned fighter? The pilot can employ the UCAVs in a number of ways - the datalinking systems allow for complex radar functions using multiple antennae while also allowing the UCAVs to actively guide a missile to the terminal guidance phase or passively run an intercept vector.

Since the pilot has tools that are merely metal and wires that are far more advanced than missiles - he can now control the flow of the battle rather than simply react to it, as all current air superiority fighters do. Humans will likely never be completely removed from the cockpit. We will, however, choose to augment ourselves with the benefits of unmanned combat vehicles.

While it's nice to think about space flight and hypersonic vehicles - it's not really all that sensible of a direction to go. Who are we going to shoot at in space? Why would we need a "go faster" plane?

I'm sure there are various research projects being funded to different extents. Aerospace designs are likely being funded up to wind-tunnel testing and probing the development of materials to construct these airframes out of - but how many of those make it to building a demonstrator is likely very, very low - perhaps one every five to ten years. There's no necessity for such a design.