F-22 will see no more orders, VH-71 cancelled

[TCO]

There's a pretty long list of examples of how giving the local commander organic assets is preferable. Given how UAVs are currently used (non-strategic asset, intel missions) having to coordinate to state-side is a pain in the ass.

[BeBMan]

This thread sucks without Serb - FACT!

[Grandpa Troll]

ugh, imagine if you will, that you go to a hospital to undergo open heart surgery.

would you prefer the doctor to be in the operating room where you are, and the rest of the staff, or would you have him remote controlling a robot from his living room?

We have an inbound round that should have detonated but not sure, perhaps, you could give us a description of where that round should have exploded?

[Kuciwalker]

There's a pretty long list of examples of how giving the local commander organic assets is preferable. Given how UAVs are currently used (non-strategic asset, intel missions) having to coordinate to state-side is a pain in the ass.

Yeah, despite all the hate KH and Asher are laying on him, Siro's initial assertion doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

[Asher]

Yeah, despite all the hate KH and Asher are laying on him, Siro's initial assertion doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

It is unreasonable because his assertion that is it unreasonable for the pilots to be based in the USA rather than locally, when either way they fly it remotely.

It's a ridiculous stance. You're flying the damn thing remotely. Whether you do it in a room in Iraq or a room in Utah, you're still not fighting with the troops in real danger -- you're still controlling a drone from a monitor with a joystick.

The only difference is it's easier for attackers to take out the drone control center the closer it is to a hostile environment, it costs more to do, and it limits the talentpool to people who wish to go to Iraq rather than come home and see their kids after a day at the office.

No, it is not the end of the world for the control centres to be based locally, but Siro's case was that they should not be based state-side. Those are very different arguments.

Siro hasn't done anything but spew meaningless nonsense or outright baffling claims regarding why they should be done locally.

[KrazyHorse]

Yeah, despite all the hate KH and Asher are laying on him, Siro's initial assertion doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

The assertion isn't unreasonable. The reasoning so far provided is. However, while the assertion is not unreasonable I do think it's wrong in this case. I've already provided the reasoning and so far, nobody has mentioned anything compelling to change my mind.

[TCO]

The assertion isn't unreasonable. The reasoning so far provided is. However, while the assertion is not unreasonable I do think it's wrong in this case. I've already provided the reasoning and so far, nobody has mentioned anything compelling to change my mind.

But I didn't read it.

Much less stretch flabby muscles and think about it.

[KrazyHorse]

[TCO]

Sorry. I was tired and there was a bunch of back and forth.

why don't you draw me an issue tree. What are the factors to consider.

Also, I sorta got the impression that some of y'all (Asher, you, DanS) were talking about some sort of hypothetical future state in terms of drone usage. Right now, they are mostly used for intel and for spotting. It would be very silly to have this controlled from the states. Better to have it all in theater (reagional CINC level). A lot of it should really be pushed way down to different operating forces. You get a very different (and better) intel product when the N-6 has to look the CVBG in the eye, reports to him, eats dinner with rest of the staff, etc. That does not mean he doesn't draw on some national assets (sats or the like). But in general, the more you can avoid bearacracy and coordination and the like and have it together, the better. It's human nature.

[Patroklos]

BTW, the Marine Corps VTOL requirement is based on the need to replace the harriers, or in other words being able to operate off of our large deck amphibs. I consider that a valid requirement.

[TCO]

If they really need harriers that much, should they stop flying F-18s?

[Kidlicious]

It doesn't matter. No one's penis will be even 1 inch longer.

[Patroklos]

If they really need harriers that much, should they stop flying F-18s?

The plan is for them to eventually stop using F-18s.

I imagine they will still embark F-35Bs on carriers from time to time, after all if a full carrier is in the vicinity of required support why not use the superior aviation platform, but it will give them far more versatility in unit assignments. Not to mention it greaty reduces the training pipeline and maintenance needs by having one airframe instead of two.

[KrazyHorse]

It doesn't matter. My penis won't be even 1 inch long.

[DanS]

Also, I sorta got the impression that some of y'all (Asher, you, DanS) were talking about some sort of hypothetical future state in terms of drone usage. Right now, they are mostly used for intel and for spotting. It would be very silly to have this controlled from the states.

That may be so, but from what I have read, all of the larger drones (predator, etc.) are entirely piloted from the US, with support in theater. Also, I think the drones increasingly are being used to deliver ordinance. This is a recent phenomenon, leading me to believe that development is progressing rapidly enough that drones designed for air superiority aren't out of the question.

I'm more concerned that we'll build all of these nice shiny expensive F-22s with decades-long lead times. Meanwhile, the Chinese will field a large drone air force for a fraction of the cost and lead times and use it to overwhelm any F-22 force.