The Must-Haves of the Next Strategic Nuclear Bomber

iguanaman said:

So you didn't read my link then. Ignorance is bliss. AI pilots have already beaten our best and like you said they are still in their infancy. Not to mention AI piloted craft are not limited by the weaknesses of the human body.

Click to expand...

They have not gotten the f-35 ai to work, which is thousands of miles behind what you are calling for. No country has come even close to it working other than in precise tests with virtually no variables. If it were that simple we would be doing it, however they can not get ai to hit the broad sode of a barn with the f-35 and somehow you expect decades of engineering that can not get it right to somehow figure it out.

beerftw said:

They have not gotten the f-35 ai to work, which is thousands of miles behind what you are calling for. No country has come even close to it working other than in precise tests with virtually no variables. If it were that simple we would be doing it, however they can not get ai to hit the broad sode of a barn with the f-35 and somehow you expect decades of engineering that can not get it right to somehow figure it out.

Click to expand...

The F-35 should be scrapped, it is an embarrassment and outdated before it is made. It has nothing to do with the AI advancements I am talking about. Not that I am worried about AI piloted planes not being implemented, there is nothing more important to the AF than getting rid of the expensive revolving door that training pilots has become.

iguanaman said:

The F-35 should be scrapped, it is an embarrassment. It has nothing to do with the AI advancements I am talking about. Not that I am worried about AI piloted planes not being implemented, there is nothing more important to the AF than getting rid of the expensive revolving door that training pilots has become.

Click to expand...

But ai advancements in general have still been horrible, in the future they may serve well but as of today they are buggy and failure prone and still only work in ideal sterile environments, the idea to use ai is down to variability, someone might think xyz programming is good but pilot vladamir may confuse the entire programming by doing moves it was not set for. The entire variable is so complex that no modern computers could handle it, while humans can.


I say keep developing ai, but put your money on manned aircraft for a while, maybe 30-50 years from now they might run the scenes, but they are not there yet. If you push them now they may end up like a tesla self driving car killing people.

beerftw said:

Actually the us only has far more modern bombers in the means of stealth, currenty the tu-160 and the tu-22m have no american equivilent, and the only american equivilant designed was axed by carter being the b1a bomber, the b1b bomber is a far cry from the b1a.

In terms of strategic standoff bombers, the only real one america has is the b-52 in any real capabilities, while russia has the tu 160, tu22m, and tu95. America has slacked on the strategic bomber front and has mostly focused on stealth bombers for specific tasks, meanwhile many of it's b-52 bombers were destroyed in vietnam and little has been done to replentish their numbers.

Click to expand...

Beerftw:

America has 76 B-52 Stratofortresses, about 100 B-1B Lancers and about 20 B-2 Spirit strategic bombers. That's a total of about 195 strategic bombers. The Russians operate about 60 TU-95 Bears, about 60 TU-22 Backfires and between 16 and 36 TU-160s of various types. That's between 140-160 strategic bombers in total 60 of which are propellor driven flying relics). So the US has strategic bomber superiority even when taking into account non-stealth bombers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

beerftw said:

But ai advancements in general have still been horrible, in the future they may serve well but as of today they are buggy and failure prone and still only work in ideal sterile environments, the idea to use ai is down to variability, someone might think xyz programming is good but pilot vladamir may confuse the entire programming by doing moves it was not set for. The entire variable is so complex that no modern computers could handle it, while humans can.


I say keep developing ai, but put your money on manned aircraft for a while, maybe 30-50 years from now they might run the scenes, but they are not there yet. If you push them now they may end up like a tesla self driving car killing people.

Click to expand...

Like I said they will keep developing AI at top priority. Getting rid of pilots will advance military aviation more than anything since the jet engine. In a decade or so piloted jets will be all obsolete relics. Even now the latest jets pretty much have pilots along for the ride and not much more.

Evilroddy said:

Beerftw:

America has 76 B-52 Stratofortresses, about 100 B-1B Lancers and about 20 B-2 Spirit strategic bombers. That's a total of about 195 strategic bombers. The Russians operate about 60 TU-95 Bears, about 60 TU-22 Backfires and between 16 and 36 TU-160s of various types. That's between 140-160 strategic bombers in total 60 of which are propellor driven flying relics). So the US has strategic bomber superiority even when taking into account non-stealth bombers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Those prop driven flying relics though are around the same age as the b-52 as both are 1950's designs, however the tu-95 does hold one of if not the best record for reliability, over 50 years in service with only a single failure, besides that it does a comparable role to the b-52 granted with super noisy turbo props since it uses 2 props per turbine engine spinning in opposite directions moving faster than the speed of sound, probably the only aircraft that will produce a sonic crack without ever travelling itself faster than sound.

But on the others neither the b1b or the b2 perform a similar role, the b1b is americas only supersonic bomber, and it is a low flying bomber and nowhere near as fast as the tu 160 or tu22m, given the speed and the high flying capabilities of the tu160 and tu22m, there are no equivilents in the us arsenal, since the valyrie and the b1a were both scrapped which would have performed the same roles.

Evilroddy said:

Iguanaman:

What gap? The US has about 12,000 combat aircraft compared to Russia's approximately 4,000. The US has far more modern strategic bombers than Russia does and Russia's recent programme of modernisation is proceeding at a snail's pace. The US operates about twenty aircraft carriers while the Russians have one decrepit aircraft carrying guided missile cruiser which can barely run. The Chinese have one carrier and another under construction. So who in the military or the US Government really buys the "gap argument"?

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Note

The Chinese have one fully operational carrier (retrofitted Soviet vessel), a second carrier close in design to the first currently undergoing sea initial trials. It is believed to have a third one under construction that will use Emals. A forth carrier with a nuclear power plant is being designed and systems being tested currently.

The first one is primarily going to be a training vessel outside of periods of war. The second one, probably limited operational uses for near aboard and overall fleet training. The third a prototype design ship. The 5th carrier would be the first built, designed and operated by china to be considered a fully operational carrier. The 4th being the first nuclear carrier for China is likely to have plenty of initial issues that would be worked out on the 5th. Meaning it will not have a truly operational carrier group until early 2030 that could compare to anything the US has had for 40 years

Evilroddy said:

Then why bother with very expensive strategic bombers when unmanned short-range missiles, medium-range missiles and ICBMs plus piloted or unmanned strike aircraft can do the same job in almost all military situations for far less cost?

Click to expand...

Because the missions needed can not be addressed by the systems you mention.

First of all, remember that each of these bombers is not only a nuclear bomber. They also fulfill a conventional strike role.

So just eliminate ICBMs altogether. Those are only nuclear.

Short range? Strategic bombers are long range. So any mission more than around 200 miles is no longer capable of being fulfilled by those weapons.

Unmanned strike aircraft, not likely. To vulnerable, to lightly armed. Great if you want to go after an SUV with a known target, of no real use on a battlefield.

Same with strike aircraft. They generally have a rather limited air to mud capability, mostly because of the amount of ordinance they carry. They also have an endurance issue. Most are only good for maybe 4 hours or so on station, then they have to return to base. Strategic bombers do not have this issue, and can literally linger over a battlespace for a day waiting for a call.

When I was deployed, we got to know the regular times that the B-1s and B-52s would take off to do their missions. Generally it was 4 times a day. 2 daytime launches, one going to Iraq, the other to Afghanistan. Then at night, the same thing. And the procedure was that these aircraft would hang out in locations near a battle (or expected battle), and respond if called.

And excuse me, "at far less cost"? What planet are you living on?

A single BUFF can carry 70,000 pounds of bombs.
The F-15E can carry 2,000 pounds of bombs.

So are you really trying to claim that flying a fleet of 35 F-15s is a lower cost than sending a single B-52?

And let's take this a bit farther. The only UCAV that carries bombs is the upgraded Predator known as the MQ-1C Grey Eagle. It carries 4 2 pound bombs, for a total of 8 pounds of explosives. Is it really cheaper to send 8,750 drones to do the job of a single B-52?

That is 8,750 drones, and 8,750 pilots. At a cost of $21.5 million each. You just spent over $188 billion, to replace a $14 million dollar aircraft. Not counting the fuel, personnel to maintain and operate the aircraft, and all the other costs.

So please tell us again how drones doing the same mission is less expensive.

beerftw said:

Those prop driven flying relics though are around the same age as the b-52 as both are 1950's designs

Click to expand...

Actually, the Tu-95 is not a "1950's design". It is a 1930's design.

Literally it is an upgrade to the Tu-4, quite literally a copy of the Boeing B-29. And that aircraft was designed between 1938-1939. Other than increasing the size by 20%, raking back the wings and tail, and increasing the engine size it is the same bomber.

The B-52 is a 1940's design however, first drafted in 1948.

Although both aircraft came out the same year, there is still a decade in design differences between the two.

beerftw said:

But on the others neither the b1b or the b2 perform a similar role, the b1b is americas only supersonic bomber, and it is a low flying bomber and nowhere near as fast as the tu 160 or tu22m, given the speed and the high flying capabilities of the tu160 and tu22m, there are no equivilents in the us arsenal, since the valyrie and the b1a were both scrapped which would have performed the same roles.

Click to expand...

And this is by design.

The US once had a bomber like that, the XB-70 Valkyrie. High altitude, high speed. However, for many reasons (including advances in navigation RADAR and swept wing designs), it was decided ultimately to concentrate on a bomber that could do either large conventional missions, or operate in a penetration mode for nuclear strike missions. And now with the advent of stealth technology, we rely on other techniques to penetrate enemy borders.

This is simply by design. The same way we have nothing like the Mi-24 HIND helicopter, or the Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier. We have our concepts of military equipment design, they have theirs. We could build a carrier that fires cruise and strike missiles, and we could build a flying tank. But our military concepts do not support these concepts.

Oozlefinch said:

Because the missions needed can not be addressed by the systems you mention.

First of all, remember that each of these bombers is not only a nuclear bomber. They also fulfill a conventional strike role.

So just eliminate ICBMs altogether. Those are only nuclear.

Short range? Strategic bombers are long range. So any mission more than around 200 miles is no longer capable of being fulfilled by those weapons.

Unmanned strike aircraft, not likely. To vulnerable, to lightly armed. Great if you want to go after an SUV with a known target, of no real use on a battlefield.

Same with strike aircraft. They generally have a rather limited air to mud capability, mostly because of the amount of ordinance they carry. They also have an endurance issue. Most are only good for maybe 4 hours or so on station, then they have to return to base. Strategic bombers do not have this issue, and can literally linger over a battlespace for a day waiting for a call.

When I was deployed, we got to know the regular times that the B-1s and B-52s would take off to do their missions. Generally it was 4 times a day. 2 daytime launches, one going to Iraq, the other to Afghanistan. Then at night, the same thing. And the procedure was that these aircraft would hang out in locations near a battle (or expected battle), and respond if called.

And excuse me, "at far less cost"? What planet are you living on?

A single BUFF can carry 70,000 pounds of bombs.
The F-15E can carry 2,000 pounds of bombs.

So are you really trying to claim that flying a fleet of 35 F-15s is a lower cost than sending a single B-52?

And let's take this a bit farther. The only UCAV that carries bombs is the upgraded Predator known as the MQ-1C Grey Eagle. It carries 4 2 pound bombs, for a total of 8 pounds of explosives. Is it really cheaper to send 8,750 drones to do the job of a single B-52?

That is 8,750 drones, and 8,750 pilots. At a cost of $21.5 million each. You just spent over $188 billion, to replace a $14 million dollar aircraft. Not counting the fuel, personnel to maintain and operate the aircraft, and all the other costs.

So please tell us again how drones doing the same mission is less expensive.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

The US military wants to dump the expensive B-1s and B-2s but wishes to keep the cheap B-52Hs running. That means they want a reliable heavy duty platform with long flight duration for delivering sensors and munitions to war zones but are not that concerned about either stealth or speed. So why spend bundles of public monies on such hi-tech airplanes when what the military really wants is a robust and long range delivery truck to bring sensors, E.W. packages and ordinance to bear on weaker enemies who cannot defend themselves adequately against American air power and electronic warfare capabilities? Design a new, cheap delivery truck to replace the B-52Hs when they wear out and don't spend billions or even trillions of dollars making high-tech bombers designed to penetrate first tier military powers' air defences when a missile, or a hypersonic cruise missile can do the same job. After all if the US military finds itself in a position where it has to send bombers into Russia or China, do you honestly think that those states will not use nuclear tipped missiles to shoot your bombers down? Then it is unlikely that you or they will be able to deescalate from a thermonuclear war. So any US bombers intentionally flying deep into Russian or Chinese airspace will have to be nuclear armed because you will only get one chance to cripple the enemy with a nuclear first strike before a thermonuclear exchange makes all your planning and procurement rather moot.

Countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc. can't hope to effectively shoot down many of your bombers whether they're expensive stealth wonders or just clunky delivery trucks. You need delivery trucks to deliver large volumes of munitions onto weaker powers as part of your military power projection policies. That is the role that US bombers delivering high volumes of conventional ordinance will be used for; so why buy a Rolls Royce when a panel truck is really what you need? If you're concerned about flight crew safety, then make the delivery trucks pilotless or be creative in designing a binary weapon system where the aircrew can escape in a smaller and stealthy vehicle if the delivery truck gets in to too hot a situation.

The rest of the jobs can be done by better using existing weapons systems, by developing cheaper alternatives and most importantly by relying less on military power to advance US policy abroad.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Oozlefinch:
Countries like Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria, Somalia, Venezuela, Mexico, Nicaragua, etc. can't hope to effectively shoot down many of your bombers whether they're expensive stealth wonders or just clunky delivery trucks. You need delivery trucks to deliver large volumes of munitions onto weaker powers as part of your military power projection policies. That is the role that US bombers delivering high volumes of conventional ordinance will be used for; so why buy a Rolls Royce when a panel truck is really what you need? If you're concerned about flight crew safety, then make the delivery trucks pilotless or be creative in designing a binary weapon system where the aircrew can escape in a smaller and stealthy vehicle if the delivery truck gets in to too hot a situation.

Click to expand...

Uh-huh. Nice fantasy.

Do you really think that a Third World nation can not shoot down our bombers?

Please, oh please go and learn some damned history. Then you might actually say something that is close to the truth.

Are you even aware that Vietnam shot down 29 B-52 bombers? Either actually destroying them in the air, or damaging them so badly that they crashed in returning to base, or were scrapped because of the damage they took?

You just said "can't hope to effectively shoot down many of your bombers", even though a Second World Nation at about the same military capability was able to shoot down dozens of them 40 years ago.

Of course, it is also interesting that you mentioned at least 2 nations that are allied with the US, and others that have no real capabilities in air defense. Why not mention Pakistan? Or India? China? Japan? Egypt?

And you seem to be under some kind of blindness if you think Syria could not shoot down our bombers. They have 33 Air Defense Brigades, and have some very sophisticated air defense systems.

Including the SA-2 (the same missile that shot down U-2 aircraft during the Cold War and B-52s in Vietnam), the S-200, and the S-300.

If you think Syria could not shoot down our bombers, you really are living in a fantasy.

Oozlefinch said:

Uh-huh. Nice fantasy.

Do you really think that a Third World nation can not shoot down our bombers?

Please, oh please go and learn some damned history. Then you might actually say something that is close to the truth.

Are you even aware that Vietnam shot down 29 B-52 bombers? Either actually destroying them in the air, or damaging them so badly that they crashed in returning to base, or were scrapped because of the damage they took?

You just said "can't hope to effectively shoot down many of your bombers", even though a Second World Nation at about the same military capability was able to shoot down dozens of them 40 years ago.

Of course, it is also interesting that you mentioned at least 2 nations that are allied with the US, and others that have no real capabilities in air defense. Why not mention Pakistan? Or India? China? Japan? Egypt?

And you seem to be under some kind of blindness if you think Syria could not shoot down our bombers. They have 33 Air Defense Brigades, and have some very sophisticated air defense systems.

Including the SA-2 (the same missile that shot down U-2 aircraft during the Cold War and B-52s in Vietnam), the S-200, and the S-300.

If you think Syria could not shoot down our bombers, you really are living in a fantasy.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

You would suppress and destroy the SAM and AA systems with missiles and strike aircraft before sending in strategic bombers.

Just like in Korea, in Vietnam you ran up against Soviet "advisors" crewing air defense systems in and around Hanoi. Likewise if you press too hard in Syria it will likely not be the Syrian Arab Army but Russian advisors, regulars and maybe mercenaries who present a serious threat to US air power. But you know you can suppress and then destroy that threat even if more S-300's are delivered to Syria, Iran or even Iraq.

Please explain to me why your own military leadership wants to get rid of the B-1s and B-2s but keep the B-52s? They want delivery trucks and not money-pit, fifth-generation strategic bombers. The political/civilian leadership and the arms industry have other ideas unfortunately and that's bad news for US taxpayers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Just like in Korea, in Vietnam you ran up against Soviet "advisors" crewing air defense systems in and around Hanoi. Likewise if you press too hard in Syria it will likely not be the Syrian Arab Army but Russian advisors, regulars and maybe mercenaries who present a serious threat to US air power.

Click to expand...

Ohh, I got it now. The poor little wogs can't possibly do it on their own, they need other "white men" to do it for them.

Yea, thanks. Now I understand how I am to consider any future posts.

Oozlefinch said:

Ohh, I got it now. The poor little wogs can't possibly do it on their own, they need other "white men" to do it for them.

Yea, thanks. Now I understand how I am to consider any future posts.

Click to expand...

Oozlefinch:

You are the one using derogatory terms like "wogs" and denigrating lesser military powers. I simply stated what was historical fact in Cuba, Korea and Vietnam and what would likely happen in Syria if the US attacked the al-Assad regime with a full out air campaign. Look to yourself for the anger and contempt you accuse me of showing.

No cheers for you just now.
Evilroddy.

Evilroddy said:

Oozlefinch:

You would suppress and destroy the SAM and AA systems with missiles and strike aircraft before sending in strategic bombers.

Just like in Korea, in Vietnam you ran up against Soviet "advisors" crewing air defense systems in and around Hanoi. Likewise if you press too hard in Syria it will likely not be the Syrian Arab Army but Russian advisors, regulars and maybe mercenaries who present a serious threat to US air power. But you know you can suppress and then destroy that threat even if more S-300's are delivered to Syria, Iran or even Iraq.

Please explain to me why your own military leadership wants to get rid of the B-1s and B-2s but keep the B-52s? They want delivery trucks and not money-pit, fifth-generation strategic bombers. The political/civilian leadership and the arms industry have other ideas unfortunately and that's bad news for US taxpayers.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Where are you getting that the military wants to get rid of the B2. Sounds a little suspect considering that they are already working on what will basically be a next generation B2. Talking about the B21. The actual topic of this thread.

Seems the military still sees a use in that type of bomber.

braindrain said:

Where are you getting that the military wants to get rid of the B2. Sounds a little suspect considering that they are already working on what will basically be a next generation B2. Talking about the B21. The actual topic of this thread.

Seems the military still sees a use in that type of bomber.

Click to expand...

Braindrain:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-forces-budget-retire-b-1-b-2-keep-the-b-52-2018-2

and:

USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

beerftw said:

They have not gotten the f-35 ai to work, which is thousands of miles behind what you are calling for. No country has come even close to it working other than in precise tests with virtually no variables. If it were that simple we would be doing it, however they can not get ai to hit the broad sode of a barn with the f-35 and somehow you expect decades of engineering that can not get it right to somehow figure it out.

Click to expand...

Its not the F-35 AI which he is describing its a combat AI developed by one of the universities that can defeat our best pilots 99.9% of the time and exceeds them by several orders of magnitude in running a more than one unit. It basically a restricted AI/ expert system that utilizes a neural net algorithm, the US Air Force trained on the basics and over a relatively short time learned to kick the hell out of computers and then eventually the best we can offer. This is regardless of how perfect the information it uses is. Its a very impressive system.

An article: https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html

braindrain said:

Where are you getting that the military wants to get rid of the B2. Sounds a little suspect considering that they are already working on what will basically be a next generation B2. Talking about the B21. The actual topic of this thread.

Seems the military still sees a use in that type of bomber.

Click to expand...

It has been reported that the USAF is looking to retire all legacy bombers but the B52 once the B21 comes on line. The operational costs are too high etc
USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive

On February 11th, 2017 Aviation Week reported that the USAF has created an updated "bomber vector," basically its future roadmap for its bomber platforms, which includes divesting both the B-1B and B-2A fleets fully by the mid 2030s. This development is especially eyebrow-raising for the B-2 community which was slated to serve into the second half of the century and continues to receive an array of upgrades that would supposedly allow it to do so effectively.

Click to expand...

Evilroddy said:

Braindrain:

https://www.businessinsider.com/us-air-forces-budget-retire-b-1-b-2-keep-the-b-52-2018-2

and:

USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

Click to expand...

Your link actually proved what I was saying. They are going to retire the B2 not because they don’t see a use for that type of bomber but because what will basically be the next generation B2 will be tacking it’s place.

Pretending the military doesn’t want a plane that does what the B2 can do is rather silly.

And how exactly can you say the AF doesn’t want a expensive 5th gen bomber when they are replacing it with something that will no doubt be even more expensive.

braindrain said:

Where are you getting that the military wants to get rid of the B2. Sounds a little suspect considering that they are already working on what will basically be a next generation B2. Talking about the B21. The actual topic of this thread.

Seems the military still sees a use in that type of bomber.

Click to expand...

They will be "getting rid of" the B-1, in another 15 or so years. And ultimately, that will all depend on how many of the B-21 bombers are made.

Remember, the B-2 was supposed to replace the B-1, but there were never enough built to accomplish that. And the B-1 was to replace the B-52, but it did not for the same reason.

At this time, they are hoping to build 200 B-21 bombers, and replace all 3 of the older ones. But dollars to doughnuts, that will never happen. The bean-counters in Congress and the DoD will eventually step in and end the program early, with I expect maybe 1/4 to 1/2 of the target goal actually met. Which will mean that the older bombers will remain in service even longer than expected.

But the main reason the Air Force wants to retire the B-52 is maintenance. I am 53 years old, and the newest B-52 in the fleet is older than I am. We literally have one case where the grandson of a B-52 pilot is flying the BUFF. His father flew it also.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...r-flew-Cold-War-grandfather-flew-Vietnam.html

They are long past their lifespan, and they need to be retired. And the same is starting to come true to the B-1, the newest plane in service is over 30 years old. The military is frequently forced to operate equipment that civilian carriers would have long since retired, but they have no choice. I drive in the field in a HMMWV that was built when I was still in the Marines 30 years ago, and long before my co-driver was even born. And we accept that as normal, because people are more worried about money than the equipment we operate.

Truth is, the military would love to replace most of our equipment, and replace it with something at least designed and built in this century. But as we close in on the start of the 3rd decade of the 21st century, we know realistically that simply will not happen. So we will continue to operate and use stuff designed and built when I was in Junior High and High School, even as I am preparing to retire from the military when I hit the mandatory retirement age of 60.

And as others try to cram down our throats dreams and ideals that we know will simply not work. Funny thing is, we went through all this in the early 1960's, and the concepts of MacNamara's Brain Trust almost destroyed our military for a generation.

Lord Tammerlain said:

It has been reported that the USAF is looking to retire all legacy bombers but the B52 once the B21 comes on line. The operational costs are too high etc
USAF's Controversial New Plan To Retire B-2 And B-1 Bombers Early Is A Good One - The Drive

Click to expand...

Yes they are retiring it because there will be a next generation bomber to replace it. Not because the Air Force doesn’t want an expensive 5 gen bomber like evilroddy was claiming.

beerftw said:

Drones can be too easily jammed, any country with half a brain in electronics could figure out how to jam them, traditional manned aircraft can be jammed too but they can be flown and operated without someone far away pulling the strings, while a drone would crash or fall out of the sky when jammed.

Drones are a good tool, especially when you want to send in aircraft to an area where you do not want to risk even more expensive equipment or human lives, however to this date drones are not nor will be in the near future viable against any organize military with electronic warfare.

Click to expand...

Even Iran is capable of jamming our drones, hijacking them, and flying them into their own airspace to be recovered. And this is Iran.

Is anybody stupid enough to think that Russia and China do not have similar (or more likely superior) capabilities?

The military uses drones in very specific situations, primarily in reconnaissance or more covert strike operations. Following and taking out the SUV carrying a Taliban leader is a good use for a drone, and it has enough ordinance to accomplish that mission. Something that it is actually much better suited for than say having an F-15 lingering over an area for hours to accomplish.

But providing close air support on even a battalion sized engagement? Nope, not even close. The drone would fire it's entire load in the first 2 minutes, then have to return to base to get another 2 minutes worth of ordinance then return. A human pilot with their aircraft is a lot more effective in doing the same mission, and has a lot more ordinance available to them.

And the human pilot can not be spoofed and told to fly in a different direction by a fake signal. Or have to abort their mission and return to base because the EM static put up to complete a single mission (that is what drones are designed to do in the event of high EM interference, abort mission and return to base).

We love drones, they are a great tool. But none of us are really comfortable putting our lives on the line to a machine that is operated remotely thousands of miles away.

And our adversaries have anti-satellite capabilities. Most of the pilots of those drones are back here in the US, the drones are operated remotely from thousands of miles away. In the event of a war getting seriously hot, does anybody think those communication birds will remain flying? No, they will not. Which is yet another reason why we use them, but do not rely upon them.

But I have learned you can tell the drone lovers this until you are blue in the face, they will never believe you and never accept that they are wrong.

PirateMk1 said:

Its not the F-35 AI which he is describing its a combat AI developed by one of the universities that can defeat our best pilots 99.9% of the time and exceeds them by several orders of magnitude in running a more than one unit. It basically a restricted AI/ expert system that utilizes a neural net algorithm, the US Air Force trained on the basics and over a relatively short time learned to kick the hell out of computers and then eventually the best we can offer. This is regardless of how perfect the information it uses is. Its a very impressive system.

An article: https://magazine.uc.edu/editors_picks/recent_features/alpha.html

Click to expand...

It may be impressive, but will likely not hold up in the real world for decades. For one the software must accomodate every type of terrain, as well as the full capabilities of enemy aircraft, not just what we suspect them to have. For example russia and china do not tell us their secrets of the full capabilities of their aircraft, and amaerica and nato never tell russia or china their full capabilities, which means such software would be innefective unless an actual war with dogfights and bvr fights was done so the software could be tweeked.

For example let's say the russians mastered turning their flankers 30% faster while keeping gforce under control with some special tech, how would the ai handle that? A human can adjust on the fly and rethink a strategy, while an ai is limited to it's programming.

beerftw said:

It may be impressive, but will likely not hold up in the real world for decades. For one the software must accomodate every type of terrain, as well as the full capabilities of enemy aircraft, not just what we suspect them to have. For example russia and china do not tell us their secrets of the full capabilities of their aircraft, and amaerica and nato never tell russia or china their full capabilities, which means such software would be innefective unless an actual war with dogfights and bvr fights was done so the software could be tweeked.

For example let's say the russians mastered turning their flankers 30% faster while keeping gforce under control with some special tech, how would the ai handle that? A human can adjust on the fly and rethink a strategy, while an ai is limited to it's programming.

Click to expand...

The program runs on the equivalent of a smartphone and can run an entire air forces strike packages and adapt in an instance, the biggest thing about the RI Expert system is its adaptability. It programs itself. Thats the point. It's decision making is similar to ours except much faster. Read the article then you will understand what I am writing of. Its not a traditional program, its a modified neural net/ genetic program. Believe me its the real deal and when used in genuine combat airframes a game changer. My company is using a similar approach so much so our attorneys have been watching like a hawk to make sure we dont inadvertently cross into their IP. Right now we are just getting started in making genuine ACAV's (Autonomous Combat Aerial Vehicle.) Real ones will not be constantly controlled by pilots they will be given orders to be accomplished autonomously.

Oozlefinch said:

Actually, the Tu-95 is not a "1950's design". It is a 1930's design.

Literally it is an upgrade to the Tu-4, quite literally a copy of the Boeing B-29. And that aircraft was designed between 1938-1939. Other than increasing the size by 20%, raking back the wings and tail, and increasing the engine size it is the same bomber.

The B-52 is a 1940's design however, first drafted in 1948.

Although both aircraft came out the same year, there is still a decade in design differences between the two.




And this is by design.

The US once had a bomber like that, the XB-70 Valkyrie. High altitude, high speed. However, for many reasons (including advances in navigation RADAR and swept wing designs), it was decided ultimately to concentrate on a bomber that could do either large conventional missions, or operate in a penetration mode for nuclear strike missions. And now with the advent of stealth technology, we rely on other techniques to penetrate enemy borders.

This is simply by design. The same way we have nothing like the Mi-24 HIND helicopter, or the Admiral Kuznetsov class carrier. We have our concepts of military equipment design, they have theirs. We could build a carrier that fires cruise and strike missiles, and we could build a flying tank. But our military concepts do not support these concepts.

Click to expand...

Yeah I googled the tu-4, apparently it worked ok but was inferior to the b-29 in every way except the guns. Stalin was so adamant about copying it to every detail, that they were not allowed to modify the structure to accomodate poorer aluminum alloy mixtures so it could retain the same strength as the b-29. The tu-95 was more what the military wanted as a bomber than what stalin wanted, tupelov actually defied stalin when he demanded the next bomber be jet powered, and instead tupelov designed a revolutionary turbo prop system, which ended up wining since it was the only way to meet the range requirements stalin demanded without making an epic sized bomber like the b-52 with probably the same price tag.


In conventional missions you are correct the us decided the could do with conventional bombers, the soviet union felt the same way, as the kept the tu-95 and america kept the b-52, The divergence in thought comes down to speed vs stealth. The b-51 is not really that stealthy, it is only stealth from the bottom but vulnerable to systems in the air, the b-2 is full stealth, however it is subsonic, meaning if it did get caught it was pretty much done. The tu-22m is hypersonic and does not use stealth, however for it's day no anti aircraft could hit it, it was always out of range before they could fire, granted that was with older systems like the hawk missile and that same advantage does not exist today.