OT: China's new carrier

[ShadoWarrior]

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

Remember that thing about over-reliance on technology?

[ShadoWarrior]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

Remember that thing about over-reliance on technology?

Yes. In this case it's replacing a very expensive, technologically very complex manned plane with a much cheaper, less complex unmanned one. So your point is what?

Using something newer isn't automatically bad. Or is nothing short of lining up hordes of troops and having them toss rocks at enemies going to please you? No western country can afford to field a massive "low tech" (50-70s level) army. Hell, the current Libya thing is showing just how poorly Europe is prepared to handle even a short duration 'war' against a third-rate country. Several of the NATO participants are already running low on ammo (which the US is having to supply in the interim), and that's not even the best high-tech stuff such as cruise missiles, just the sort of bombs and missiles that were used as far back as Gulf War I. So any force multiplier, such as cheaper unmanned drones that don't cost friendly lives and a whopping amount of money if lost is a smart idea. The alternative is worse. If you have a better idea regarding using tech to solve manpower and cost problems (other than to not fight at all, which is an entirely different discussion), I'll be interested to hear it.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

Operating cheaper UCAVs that don't risk pilot's lives and have longer loiter times in zone is worse for America than operating expensive and very complex jet fighters that risk pilots to imprisonment, torture, and/or death?

This is an aerospace technology that could to a certain extent level the playing field. Advanced manned combat jet aircraft are very expensive to develop and manufacture, and this is an area where America is unquestionably ahead of the rest of the world, as America's main competitors dont have the money (Russia), the technology (China, India) or the political will/unity (Europe) to fully compete. The development of combat UCAV's could give other countries a chance to catch up to a degree with American aerospace technological dominance in the future.

[ShadoWarrior]

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

[RN7]

Originally Posted by ShadoWarrior

The UK (RAF) also has their own (and impressive) UCAV development program. They just aren't throwing as much money at it, nor publicizing it as much as the US Navy and Air Force programs.

Well I would consider Britain's aerospace industry among the strongest in the world, mainly due to BAE Systems and Rolls Royce plc. I would also argue that Rolls Royce plc is the most important industrial company in Europe, and its notable how the British government has never let it be taken over by a rival company or a foreign based concern despite its relatively small size.

Unfortunately Britain is part of the EU, and the British government insists on cooperating with other European countries in defence matters, supposedly to save money in R&D and manufacturing. However most of these project always end up over budget and lead to squabling, and usually harm its competiveness and potential marketability.

[Webstral]

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don’t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers—only poor leaders), logistics that aren’t equal to the task, or don’t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Webstral

I agree with previous posters that eschewing technology becomes almost an article of faith. Nations don’t lose wars because they have incorporated new technologies. Nations lose wars because they have poor strategy, poor doctrine, poor leadership (there are no poor soldiers—only poor leaders), logistics that aren’t equal to the task, or don’t know how to make the most of the technology they possess. To the degree that reliance on new technology supplants leadership, doctrine, and motivation, it is possible to become over-reliant on technology. However, a military that goes down this path has deeper problems than new gadgets.

Webstral

Pretty much what I was trying to say. Also over-reliance in technology actualy increases the amount of conflicts a nation is willing to fight.

Increases in technology has reduced casualties, reduced risk and has therefore made governments MORE willing to deploy a military option, believing (mistakenly as history has recently proved) that such technology will enable a quick and bloodless victory.

This lures nations into conflicts where they believe the tech advantage will secure victory in a shot space of time but as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya have proved, the enemy just develops tactics and stratagies that lower or negate the tech advantage and leaves the more modern nations in a conflict they have not really anticiapted or prepared for.

Hell the Iraq war strategy was nothing more than "blow the bastards to hell with our superior air force, blitzkrieg to Baghdad with our superior armour and enjoy the sun while the Iraqi people shower us in flowers and thank us for ridding them of Saddam"

The resulting mess is mostly due to lack of any real strategy for dealing with an insurgency or rebuilding post-war, we expected to go in, kill the bad guys and go home.

[raketenjagdpanzer]

Congratulations to the ChiComs. They now have exactly the same amount of fleet air power that Brazil, Thailand, France, India, Spain, Netherlands, and the United Kingdom have.

We've got 11 active and more that could be made active if the need were pressing.

The Soviets never, ever managed to get the Kiev nor its aircraft working right.

I hate to sound like one of "those" Americans, and pride goeth before the fall and blah blah blah but honestly we've perfected blue water Naval ops to a fine art in the 20th century and we're pretty much the only country to do carriers "right", ever.

If China wants to fuck around with a through deck cruiser and join the CV club they're welcome to try. Lots of luck with that 40 year old tub. On the other hand if China wants to put us in our place they should just do it like they're planning to do: via Citibank and the Federal Reserve. A lot simpler and so easy we won't even feel it until its too late. Then our CVNs will in actuality belong to them without them having to sink a one.

Remember the scene in Jericho? "DO NOT FIGHT. CHINA IS YOUR FRIEND."