US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.


TerraN_EmpirE

Tyrant King
And already there has been fighting. Basically the US State department made a Faustian bargain full of loop holes large enough for the Taliban to drive a 12 wheeled Truck bomb through.
 

AndrewS

Captain
Registered Member
What does similar concept actually mean?

So does a WW1 fighter plane. It takes off, fight and then lands like any 5th gen fighter.
There is a plethora of logical fallacies out there because people has very innovative way of invoking false logic.
As you put it yourself, autonomous drones completely change the cost-benefit equation in the Western Pacific.
So if it works for the Air Force on land, logically it should work for the sea.
It's the principle between shared aircraft types between the Air Force and the Navy, that we've observed over the past decades.

I am not a fan of Elon Mask. If you wish to make an argument you need to articulate your position. I am not going to read something to try to figure out why it is even relevant to a non stated position.
My consistent premise is that autonomous drones will change the nature of aerial warfare, both for land-based aircraft and naval-based aircraft. Your rebuttal was just because there's no programme of record, it's not going to happen, which is a very short sighted viewpoint.

If you don't agree with Elon Musk, then what does that tell you about the Air Force officials who invited Musk to speak at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire art of China-watching is based on inferences and logical arguments, because there is so little information publicly released. If you don't agree with such an approach, perhaps you should find another forum?
 
Last edited:

Air Force Brat

Brigadier
Staff member
Super Moderator
And already there has been fighting. Basically the US State department made a Faustian bargain full of loop holes large enough for the Taliban to drive a 12 wheeled Truck bomb through.
Yes, very sad, President Obama promised to win the war in Afghanistan during his Presidential campaign and started a large surge there and pulled the plug on Iraq.

President Trump promised to bring the troops home from Afghanistan and various other God forsaken places, and as he stated on his "town hall" the other day, maybe we should ask the Russians how their tenure in Afghanistan turned out.

The President stated, I want our people home. I have son in laws in the military, I surely agree with that....
 

Brumby

Major
As you put it yourself, autonomous drones completely change the cost-benefit equation in the Western Pacific.
So if it works for the Air Force on land, logically it should work for the sea.
It's the principle between shared aircraft types between the Air Force and the Navy, that we've observed over the past decades.
The disagreement isn't about the benefits of autonomous drones. I was addressing your post #11974

The issue was over timing and when those capabilities can be operationally actualized. The problem with you as I mentioned in a preceding post is very often rather than providing a direct rebuttal you simply switch to a different narrative as if that was the point of contention. This is such an example. The CSBA document was about tanking, ISR, and DCA and the Valkyrie is an attritable drone. Both of them offer very different capability sets and therefore timing to actualize.

It is a very different conversation on how quickly and or whether the USAF or USN would adopt such a technology. I have no interest in engaging in a black hole discussion. It is the type that has no reference point, no purpose, no meaning and no end state. I do not intend to waste my time on such discussions.

My consistent premise is that autonomous drones will change the nature of aerial warfare, both for land-based aircraft and naval-based aircraft. Your rebuttal was just because there's no programme of record, it's not going to happen, which is a very short sighted viewpoint.
Your point just demonstrates how disingenuous you are in engaging in a conversation by selective omission. The following is what you quoted I said previously :
"Your whole argument is premised on a think thank paper about a range of conceptual USN air wing construct. Such constitution bears no relationship to any USN program of record that would possibly achieve such a state by 2040. On top of that you then infer that PLAN can equally get to that state by 2040 because it has the money to spend.The only conclusion I can draw is that your propensity to imagine and to extrapolate is very healthy."

There is a big difference in meaning between "not going to happen" that you said I said vs what you quoted me as saying "Such constitution bears no relationship to any USN program of record that would possibly achieve such a state by 2040."

Either your comprehension ability is so poor that you can't understand the difference or you are not engaging in good faith. Take your pick.

If you don't agree with Elon Musk, then what does that tell you about the Air Force officials who invited Musk to speak at the Air Force Association's Air Warfare Symposium?
Elon Mask has the right to say whatever he wants to say. What relevance has that got to do with our conversation?

In case you haven't noticed, the entire art of China-watching is based on inferences and logical arguments, because there is so little information publicly released.
I rather not comment.

If you don't agree with such an approach, perhaps you should find another forum?
Whether I agree or not is my prerogative. It is freedom of choice even if it may be alien to you. You should know when to mind your business

Unless you have something meaningful to add I will no longer reply because so far your replies are far from meaningful and I do not intend to waste further time on silliness.
 

Top