Paying the fair share

[Shad]

The US spends more in actual dollars than Russia, China, UK, and many other nations combined. The US is not larger in population or land area than the combination of these other nations. Not even remotely close. So, there is no reason to spend such an excessive amount on so-called "defense."

Russia and China wages for soldiers are 1/4 of the US. Consider that factor before you look at blind stats.

Also neither China nor Russia even attempt to maintain international laws. In fact China is trying to get around international laws regarding the South China Sea with man-made islands. A few times China's military has tried to bully the USN with it's claims of "sovereignty" over the area. The USN gives China the bird. What do you think would happen if the USN was not around to keep China in check?

"Other nations" have jokes of a military as those nations are protected by the USA.

 

[Rational Agnostic]

I find it hard that you could actually quantify what Russia and China spends on their military. As it is said "The figures for China are SIPRI estimates, since the government does not release reliable data".

So I can't quite agree.

Perhaps the figures are not accurate for those countries. In any case, it's clear that our country could be sufficiently defended against any foreign threats while spending much less on the military. The vast majority of what the military is doing in the world today has nothing to do with "defense." The US military is currently deployed in more than 150 countries around the world. This is ludicrous.

 

[Falvlun]

Better accounting would do wonders for the budget and should be a priority before cuts. After all if there are cuts but the budget is still mismanaged the military can come back asking for increased funds due to wasteful spending itself. (I do not mean wasteful based on spending priorities. I mean paying more for items than items are worth)

Completely agree. There’s a huge issue with various departments (like DOD but I’m sure it happens in others- heck, it happens in my private hospital) where if they don’t use all their budget then their budget gets cut for the next year. So to avoid that they spend money they don’t need to spend just so they maintain their budget. Such a waste.

 

[Shad]

Completely agree. There’s a huge issue with various departments (like DOD but I’m sure it happens in others- heck, it happens in my private hospital) where if they don’t use all their budget then their budget gets cut for the next year. So to avoid that they spend money they don’t need to spend just so they maintain their budget. Such a waste.

Toss in stuff like R&D contracts going over budget, costs when a product is not up to par as the developers claim like the F-22.

 

[Revoltingest]

Toss in stuff like R&D contracts going over budget, costs when a product is not up to par as the developers claim like the F-22.

Why do you think the F-22 wasn't up to par?

 

[Shad]

Why do you think the F-22 wasn't up to par?

It wasn't up to par. It's avionics were outdated in the design and production phase. It's computer system was based on designs from the 90s. The USAF has already moved on to fully modern designs. F-22 production lines are closed thus replacement parts must be fabricated by the USAF.

 

[Revoltingest]

It wasn't up to par. It's avionics were outdated in the design and production phase. It's computer system was based on designs from the 90s. The USAF has already moved on to fully modern designs. F-22 production lines are closed thus replacement parts must be fabricated by the USAF.

It did have a ridiculously long development time, but it was continually updated as time went on.
A big reason for the delays were changes in its mission by Congress, ie, design objectives were
moving target. (It started out as an air superiority fighter, but became multi-role after the Soviet
threat changed.) This aspect of the problem is hardly the fault of the contractor.
I'm not a fan of the F-35 either. One plane for multiple roles? That hasn't worked in the past.
I'd prefer that several similar designs be created, with fewer compromises for commonality.
Moreover, I see UAVs as the future.

 

[Shad]

It did have a ridiculously long development time, but it was continually updated as time went on.

Minor updates. The USAF ruled out the massive upgrades as too costly. Upgrades which would make it state of the art. The USAF has moved on to true state of the art designs for 2030.

A big reason for the delays were changes in its mission by Congress, ie, design objectives were
moving target. (It started out as an air superiority fighter, but became multi-role after the Soviet
threat changed.)

It is still an air superiority fighter. It is not a multi-role Fighter/Bomber. Any purpose designed Fighter/Bomber can fulfill the ground support role better than the F-22 on any day of the week.

I'm not a fan of the F-35 either. One plane for multiple roles? That hasn't worked in the past.

Fighter/Bombers designs have been successful since pre-WW2. The Hurricane, P-41, Spitfire 11, P47D, FW190. Multi-purpose, which is the continued warfare philosophy of the F/B has the f-16 and f-16. Those are just commonly known ones. Russia has had successful Mig designs for the role as well.

I'd prefer that several similar designs be created, with fewer compromises for commonality.

You would need a massive air force for non-war times (I mean a real war) as dedicated equipment means you need more equipment in general.

Moreover, I see UAVs as the future.

A UAV as this time and in the foreseeable future will never combat a real plane with a pilot. UAVs are useful in our current wars against forces that have kites for an air force. The US military has to stay competitive with real powers such as China and the Russia. Both of which are catching up. In some areas, such as the T-14 Arma for Russia, have leaped current US equipment.

 

[Revoltingest]

A UAV as this time and in the foreseeable future will never combat a real plane with a pilot. UAVs are useful in our current wars against forces that have kites for an air force. The US military has to stay competitive with real powers such as China and the Russia. Both of which are catching up. In some areas, such as the T-14 Arma for Russia, have leaped current US equipment.

Setting aside your other points, I still see the future as quickly becoming predominantly
UAVs for fighters & bombers. (Electronic warfare & ground support would lag.)
A major hurdle I see to their use at the moment is public squeamishness about
software making kill decisions. I doubt our enemies have that reluctance.
They have some important advantages over on-board manned aircraft....
- Cheaper because no on-board pilot requiring space, life support, ejection, protection.
- Cheaper & safer because remote pilots are fewer & need less training.
- Can be made in greater volume because of lower cost.
- More maneuverable because no human limitations or burdens.

 

[Shad]

Setting aside your other points, I still see the future as quickly becoming predominantly
UAVs for fighters & bombers. (Electronic warfare & ground support would lag.)

Lag time has not been resolved yet.

A major hurdle I see to their use at the moment is public squeamishness about
software making kill decisions. I doubt our enemies have that reluctance.

Software does not make that call. UAV are controlled by people still

They have some important advantages over on-board manned aircraft....
- Cheaper because no on-board pilot requiring space, life support, ejection, protection.

Which means no reaction time nor a mind which makes UAV unsuitable for as fighters.

- Cheaper & safer because remote pilots are fewer & need less training.

Which means less hands on experience in the aircraft.

- Can be made in greater volume because of lower cost.

Sure.

- More maneuverable because no human limitations or burdens.

UAV's are still not as maneuverable as fighters.

 

[Revoltingest]

Lag time has not been resolved yet.

By "lag", I meant that some planes would likely have on-board humans longer than others.

Software does not make that call. UAV are controlled by people still

That situation is what will change somewhat.
The human roll will move away from micro-management, & towards
specifying mission objectives. The UAV would thn act autonomously,
with humans watching at times, no doubt.

Which means no reaction time nor a mind which makes UAV unsuitable for as fighters.

The UAV would have a fast reaction time, so that's not the issue.
It would be confidence that what it decides to do is the right thing.
(Gotta kill the bad guys, & protect the rest.)
And as its "mind" is improved, it would require less & less human
oversight & action.

Which means less hands on experience in the aircraft.

Aye, hands on experience (in the plane) is very spendy & risky.
Methinks that too many people are mired in ye olden times,
wherein warriors kill each other directly, fights are somehow fair,
& humans want the illusion that they're in total control.
Eventually, machines will make ethical decisions.

UAV's are still not as maneuverable as fighters.

Current ones generally aren't (F-4 drones being one exception),
but that is entirely by design for the roles they play, ie, surveillance
&/or bombing. Note that missiles, a type of UAV, are faster than
any fighter, & highly maneuverable. But the whole nature of air
superiority will change....I'll wager no dogfighting.

Now, imagine an F-22 without a pilot....
This would allow a large weight savings, providing & enhancing
the ability to pull more than the typical 9G limit. (No pilots to keep
alive & conscious.)

I'm not alone in this view.
I searched, & found....
Revealed: America’s Lethal Stealth Drones of Tomorrow
I guarantee (money back) that the Chinese & Russians
are thinking this way.

 

[Shad]

By "lag", I meant that some planes would likely have on-board humans longer than others.

K.

Do consider my point about lag time between operator and the UAV. That is a major issue atm.

That situation is what will change somewhat.
The human roll will move away from micro-management, & towards
specifying mission objectives. The UAV would thn act autonomously,
with humans watching at times, no doubt.

Which works in low intensity warfare right now for CAS

The UAV would have a fast reaction time, so that's not the issue.

Again the lag issue (my use of the word)

It would be confidence that what it decides to do is the right thing.
(Gotta kill the bad guys, & protect the rest.)
And as its "mind" is improved, it would require less & less human
oversight & action.

Problem is morality can not be programed.

Aye, hands on experience (in the plane) is very spendy & risky.
Methinks that too many people are mired in ye olden times,
wherein warriors kill each other directly, fights are somehow fair,
& humans want the illusion that they're in total control.
Eventually, machines will make ethical decisions.

My point was about computer systems not being as capable as a human mind is.

Current ones generally aren't (F-4 drones being one exception),
but that is entirely by design for the roles they play, ie, surveillance
&/or bombing. Note that missiles, a type of UAV, are faster than
any fighter, & highly maneuverable. But the whole nature of air
superiority will change....I'll wager no dogfighting.

Dog-fighting is with guns not missiles. Dog-fighting was phased out once during Nam via removal of gun systems as per the Phantom. This backfired in combat and mission goals. Combat-wise pilots had no backup system once all missiles were depleted forcing the craft would be forced to leave the combat zone. If engaged it left pilots vulnerable as with only speed and defensive systems providing an escape with no chance of any kills or forced withdraw of the enemy craft.

Now, imagine an F-22 without a pilot....
This would allow a large weight savings, providing & enhancing
the ability to pull more than the typical 9G limit. (No pilots to keep
alive & conscious.)

Flight systems already account for this. A lot of combat tactics involve pilots blacking out.. Sure the human limitation is removed but so is the human mind.

I'm not alone in this view.
I searched, & found....
Revealed: America’s Lethal Stealth Drones of Tomorrow
I guarantee (money back) that the Chinese & Russians
are thinking this way.

It states the limitation I have brought up already. It still uses CAS as the primary example of it's use

 

[Revoltingest]

Do consider my point about lag time between operator and the UAV. That is a major issue atm.

This is because they use dumb telepresence. I don't know how
big a problem lag in the human-UAV system is, but incorporating
intelligence & autonomy into the UAV would mitigate it.

Again the lag issue (my use of the word)

How is a fast reaction a "lag"?

Problem is morality can not be programed.

Of course it can.
Much experimentation will be required, & it won't be perfect.
But then, human soldiers are also imperfect.
And software won't get angry or sadistic.

My point was about computer systems not being as capable as a human mind is.

They need only be capable enuf to do the job.

Dog-fighting is with guns not missiles.

Not entirely. Air to air missiles are integral.

Dog-fighting was phased out once during Nam via removal of gun systems as per the Phantom. This backfired in combat and mission goals. Combat-wise pilots had no backup system once all missiles were depleted forcing the craft would be forced to leave the combat zone. If engaged it left pilots vulnerable as with only speed and defensive systems providing an escape with no chance of any kills or forced withdraw of the enemy craft.

I'd say dogfighting wasn't phased out until production cancellation of the F-22.
That strikes me as a watershed moment, even if the F-22 does some day
see such an application. It'll go the way of trench warfare.

Flight systems already account for this. A lot of combat tactics involve pilots blacking out.. Sure the human limitation is removed but so is the human mind.

Nonetheless, an on-board human limits G forces.
And blacking out poses obvious risks.
If indeed greater maneuverability is needed, UAVs are the way.
A synthetic mind can handle higher Gs.

It states the limitation I have brought up already. It still uses CAS as the primary example of it's use

This is about how the military has chosen to use them.
This will change in order to meet Chinese & Russian threats, which
will result in loss of (our) human life...something which traumatizes us.
Protecting life in a war machine which is also a very attractive target
is expensive....really expensive. Protecting an unoccupied attractive
target which exists in greater numbers is cheaper. And we don't feel
bad when these die.

 

[Shad]

This is because they use dumb telepresence.
Incorporate intelligence & autonomy to ditch the lag.

We have no such AI capable of that.

How is a fast reaction a "lag"?

I was talking about lag between operator and UAC.

Of course it can.

No it can't as it requires a sentient mind. AI does not have that.

Much experimentation will be required, & it won't be perfect.
But then, human soldiers are also imperfect. And software
won't get angry or sadistic.

It also will not have compassion, empathy, nor pain. The AI will never see a human as a being like another human can. If some child has an AK-47 the AI will kill that child. The human may not.

They need only be capable enuf to do the job.

Which is why UAVs are in low intensity CAS and Recon

Not entirely. Air to air missiles are integral.

No it isn't. Dog-fighting is gun combat. Air combat is any form of combat which is what missiles fall under. Guns have a limited range far below missiles.

I'd say dogfighting wasn't phased out until production cancellation of the F-22.
That strikes me as a watershed moment, even if the F-22 does some day
see such an application. It'll go the way of trench warfare.

I was pointing out the idea was already tried and failed.

Nonetheless, an on-board human limits G forces.
And blacking out poses obvious risks.
If indeed greater maneuverability is needed, UAVs are the way.
A synthetic mind can handle higher Gs.

We have no such technology.

This is about how the military chooses to use them.
This will change in order to meet Chinese & Russian threats, which
will result in loss of human life....something which traumatizes us.
Protecting life in a war machine which is also a very attractive target
is expensive....really expensive. Protecting an unoccupied attractive
target which exists in greater numbers is cheaper. And we don't feel
bac when these die.

China and Russia still have yet to catch up to US current UAV use let alone using in a fighter role.

Do consider deployment targets if it came to a conflict with China or Russia. Those types of wars UAV will save a few lives in a conflict that will claim millions.

 

[Revoltingest]

We have no such AI capable of that.

I say that is unknowable for us ordinary folk.
We don't know what is currently being worked on in secret, just waiting in the wings.
This is normal in the industry.
So without info to the contrary, we must look at what current AI in the public sector
can do, & envision how it would be applied militarily. A computer has already
thoroughly beaten a top professional go player. This was an AI hurdle jumped
decades before expected. An autonomous UAV would be similar in difficulty, &
relatively cheap compared to a replacement for the F-35 or F-22.
It's a natural direction for development to proceed, therefore it's already in process.

I was talking about lag between operator and UAC.

I addressed that. Telepresence has no lag if the UAC has sufficient autonomy.

No it can't as it requires a sentient mind. AI does not have that.

With no objective (relative to an autonomous weapon) definition of "sentient"
this cannot be argued. But whether it's AI or something more predetermined,
computers could do the job. It's all about how soon the can (or already do) &
how soon we'll accept their deadly autonomy.

It also will not have compassion, empathy, nor pain. The AI will never see a human as a being like another human can. If some child has an AK-47 the AI will kill that child. The human may not.

Weapons don't need compassion, empathy or pain.
They need only do their job.
As for child soldiers, it would be possible to identify them as not adults.
Children are smaller & have different proportions. But this is a choice.
If a child is fighting against us, trying to kill us as a combatant in war,
then I find it acceptable to kill them.

Which is why UAVs are in low intensity CAS and Recon

That they're limited to a particular function, doesn't mean they're inherently so limited.

No it isn't. Dog-fighting is gun combat. Air combat is any form of combat which is what missiles fall under. Guns have a limited range far below missiles.

There's no point arguing about the definition.
I define dogfighting as combat between fighters by whatever means work.
guns, missiles, ECM, chaff...they're all part of the mix.
And....
Air-to-air missile - Wikipedia

Air-to-air missiles are broadly put in two groups. Those designed to engage opposing aircraft at ranges of less than 30 km are known as short-range or "within visual range" missiles (SRAAMs or WVRAAMs) and are sometimes called "dogfight" missiles because they are designed to optimize their agility rather than range. Most use infrared guidance and are called heat-seeking missiles.

I was pointing out the idea was already tried and failed.

What failed?

We have no such technology.

While I don't see a UAV needing it, a missile can pull 60 Gs (IRIS-T).
As for the synthetic mind (software), I can't say whether we do or don't
have current technology. But again, it appears achievable.

China and Russia still have yet to catch up to US current UAV use let alone using in a fighter role.

Their being behind could give them an advantage. We're wedded to our current
view of things, & our major weapon inventory is geared towards threats de jour.
To be cost effective, the enemy could focus upon leap frogging us in not entirely
predictable ways. We have the advantage in conventional warfare, eg, naval
power, air force, littoral force. But if attack is on their minds, it would be a different
battlefield. Think in terms of missiles, UAVs, space, electronic & warfare....&
perhaps nuke, bio, or chem warfare.

Do consider deployment targets if it came to a conflict with China or Russia. Those types of wars UAV will save a few lives in a conflict that will claim millions.

I consider that, thus advocating a more peaceful foreign policy.
But not in weapon system design, which is about winning.