US naval aviation back on the rise

Flight Global ^ | 04/04/2011

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

That’s the American technology experience talking. My point was not that some better, more high tech UAV that costs $30m will come around eventually, but that some ingenious nation will build a massive air armada of cheap as dirt, off the shelf UAVs with current or even mostly obsolete technology, that will jump them to the head of the pack militarily.

Let’s leave the US out of the equation, to get over the psychological obstacle. Pick two theoretical nations, one of which has a 50 quality fighter aircraft advantage, the other of which is too poor to afford more than just a few fighter aircraft. So the poorer nation decides to do a UAV sneak attack, with each of 100 UAVs carrying a 1,000lb bomb, and another 100 in reserve.

The first indication that anything is up happens when 100 aircraft appear on the first countries radar. Even if they have an ‘alert’ squadron of a dozen fighter aircraft ready to respond, which they probably won’t, by the time they get to intercept altitude, 1,000 lb bombs will be raining down on their airfields and other major military and civilian targets.

Their more than 50 advanced fighters will mostly be blown up on the ground, or have nowhere to land. Just the few fighters kept by the aggressor will become air superiority.

[tarawa]

I don’t entirely agree, Steve. WWII, Germany had some very high-quality equipment, particularly armor. The main method of defeating Panzers by both the Americans and Soviets was just to pour more of their own armor into fighting the German tanks than the Germans could handle.

[Steve Van Doorn]

That is all true but when winter came the Blitzkrieg attack became stagnant and vulnerable. The Russians were equipped for the winter and took advantage of their maneuverability over the Germans in the winter.

If the Germans were able to hold out the winter they would have won in the spring.
In other words the Germans were not equipped for the winter conditions and the Russians were. Very simply the German armor got stuck in the mud and the Russians main attack units didn't.

[Steve Van Doorn]

But if you are referring to after the push into Russia about 1943 and on then yes just about anything could win at that point. The Germans lost over a million troops and equipment they could never fully recover from their losses.

[Steve Van Doorn]

Then there are still tons of things that could take place in your scenario. For example: Pearl harbor the Japanese didn't evade the Island and take advantage of their devastation of the bases.

in other words very poor strategy made them lose in the end.

[dfwgator]

What saved our bacon at Pearl Harbor was that our carriers weren’t in port. When Yamamoto realized they weren’t there, he knew he was screwed.

[dfwgator]

Hitler should have placed more importance on taking Moscow, for the psychological implications, and the fact that Stalin may very well would have been deposed if Moscow fell, and perhaps the entire Communist apparatus collapsed along with him.

[Steve Van Doorn]

yeah but Yamamoto never even took troops with him to take the island it was a huge strategic blunder

[Vanders9]

I'm not american.

I know what your point is, but I think my point still stands. The fact is that the current "low-cost off-the-shelf UAV's will not be able to overcome a modern hi tech air force, no matter how many there are, because they simply do not have the capabilities that you fear.

However, I happen to sort of agree with your point, which seems to concern the balance of quality vs quantity. Quality is better, obviously, but quantity has a quality all of its own. At some stage UAV technology will advance to the point where although they will not be as effective as manned fighter planes, they will become more cost-effective. This is the point where your hypothetical scenario becomes true (and very frightening).

But, take heart! The USA is not only at the forefront in the development of UAV's, but the people its closest competitors in this field happen to be its closest allies! Because of this, the US is particularly well-placed to judge when that "tipping point" of UAV cost-effectiveness will come about, and take steps accordingly.

For what its worth, I am of the opinion that the US military, and in fact western forces in general, are becoming over-reliant on high technology solutions. I think we would be better off with "more and simpler" rather than "few and powerful", and not just in aircraft either.