The Military’s New Toys

hardcorps

The Unwashed
Mar 27, 2014
32
3
8
near Harrisburg, Pa
#85
The video of the submarine launching is pretty cool. One is that the audio signals are the same as the US uses. No surprise I suppose as a lot of these things are governed by international agreements. Don't want ships crashing into each other because one country's horn blast means something different than another countries.
The uniforms they wear look like hospital scrubs. I am assuming they are all cotton for fires. And while all the equipment looks rather antiquated by our standards, the sub is much brighter and lighter than any sub I have seen. I am sure it is not IRL, but it looks open and spacious compared to US subs.
 

G.I.*EDDIE

gobbles a LOT of cock
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
43,433
423
83
S.E. Mich :(
#91
Oh I'm sure it's not new, it's just something rarely seen. At least for me. Whatever the above is, I don't recall ever seeing it. Pretty freaking cool looking though. Almost looks like something you would see on GIJOE.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
8,013
410
83
44
VA
I dunno. They look pretty impressive though: unmanned, stealthy, significantly less expensive than manned aircraft, able to work in conjunction with manned aircraft as a "swarm." Pretty good stuff there. Imagine the force multiplication of a 4 pack of F-22s, F-35s or even a couple B-2s with another 4 - 8 or so of these guys following their guidance to strike a whole slew of enemy AA sites, vehicle or infantry concentrations or other HVTs.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,985
327
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Pretty crazy considering the possibilities, especially when you consider the missiles being shot at them cost the same as the ucav. You could easily overwhelm any air defense system and unfortunately that pertains to ours too.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
8,013
410
83
44
VA
This is actually potentially a new approach for us. It has always been our perceived adversaries in the past that ran with the "overwhelm them with sheer numbers" of aircraft/tanks/etc. approach. We always took issue with that because the "numbers" usually consisted of pilots/soldiers who were being treated as necessarily expendable. The unmanned revolution allows us to counter punch much more effectively without having to use people as the fodder.
 

pcsguy88

Number 2
Staff member
Mar 14, 2011
10,985
327
83
KC
www.fighting118th.com
Yes, I've always thought we swapped our approach to weapons engineering with the German's approach after WWII which is weird considering both us and the Russians used numbers to overwhelm them. Numbers seem way more important in the air since you can only engage targets 1 at a time after the initial merge.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
8,013
410
83
44
VA
Yes, I've always thought we swapped our approach to weapons engineering with the German's approach after WWII which is weird considering both us and the Russians used numbers to overwhelm them. Numbers seem way more important in the air since you can only engage targets 1 at a time after the initial merge.
Yeah, it's strange that we decided to mimic the losers of the war. However, it didn't use to be as pronounced a difference. The whole purpose of the F-16 was to create a lower cost (yet still high performance) aircraft so we could have more of them. They were/are obviously less survivable than the larger, two engine aircraft (F-14, F-15, F-18). And, combine the size and stealth and you got the F-22, which is too expensive to ever be considered expendable or possible to manufacture at large numbers. The F-35 was supposed to bring the F-16 approach to generation 5 aircraft. While cheaper than the F-22, it has a long way to go before becoming inexpensive. I like this unmanned approach as an alternative. Seems like technology is there now and the right people are making the necessary choices to compete with Russia and (mostly) China.

Additionally, with the latest tech, stealth jet pilots can engage just about as many targets as they have ordnance for, so long as they can stand off and not be detected. Enter stealthy, well armed drones flying ahead and no pack of enemy aircraft or vehicles is safe from even a single command jet.

It'll be interesting to see a change in tactics, more important to hit the command and control nerve centers in that case, OR just go for populous places to do as much damage as possible.
Yeah, hitting C & C has been highest priority for quite a while now, just as soon as a safe corridor could be made in air defenses to allow allied aircraft entry and exit. Depending on the range of these drones, they may make this mission a whole lot less risky for pilots.
 

NSA

Brotherhood
Admin
Mar 13, 2011
25,616
386
83
Southern California
www.fighting118th.com
I kind of meant the reverse, in people trying to take on the US. Espionage and hacking will play a big role. If they could shut down all our drones remotely.. that'd be bad. Likewise, if they could sneak into the country and blow up our C&C locations it'd do some major damage if we got too reliant on Drones.

Heck, find a way to turn them against us! You won't get any loyalty from a machine.
 

ThunderDan19

Here Comes the Boom!!!
Founder
Mar 14, 2011
8,013
410
83
44
VA
Anything is possible, and must be safeguarded against, but I'd find it hard to believe that an enemy would be able to physically compromise (to the point of getting the weapons to turn against us) C & C on bases within the continental US, at least on any scale. Hacking into them might be a more likely scenario, but I'm sure the safeguards there must be immense. Even moreso if the drones are terminally controlled closer by pilots in the theater. I'd imagine there is a major arms race in the hacking/anti-hacking arenas ongoing at all times...