Do you guys think it's true that we're just going to

No

Don't be stupid

>>32247226
I don't personally beleive this, but I know a guy who does, and as he says "the invasion of Iraq is almost old enough to drive, it's a waste of money to build shit we don't need like the f-15, our military should be low and slow attack air craft, submarines, MRAPs, and special forces."

>>32247272
So?

>>32247272
So the guy you know is an idiot. It's that easy.

>>32247272
Let me guess, he's less than 25.

>>32247322
He's like 30

>>32247322
Age means nothing.

I've met a grown man with a family who assumed that tanks had kept growing since WWII and we essentially used Baneblades now, and another one (who was in military intelligence no less) who says that Nimitz carries could connect together to make a longer runway.

Manned combat aircraft are deprecated. Drones can do it better and cheaper. They arent there yet, but soon.

That doesnt mean carriers are obsolete though since they fill important logistics roles, at least if they have catapults.

>>32247533
>Drones can do it better and cheaper.

Not even close.

>>32247446
>connect
How do you know they cant?

>>32247446
>who says that Nimitz carries could connect together to make a longer runway.

I'm picturing several dozen sweaty rednecks with harbor freight TIG welders and some zip ties.

>>32247576
>ignores very next sentence

In the context of this threads OP, the answer is no, we should not waste effort developing new fighters. We can use the ones we currently have for a few decades and by then we should have unmanned fighters no problem.

>>32247580
Because I'm not an idiot and I know how carriers operate?

>>32247617
I think maybe you need to learn to write.

If you're talking about the future, you need to say "drones will", not "drones can".

>>32247617
>>ignores very next sentence

The next sentence has absolutely nothing to do with that statement

>>32247637
They can right now if we spent the resources to make it happen, so drones, as an abstract technology, is currently capable of those things. Specific existent drones are not, but thats not relevent since if you start considering things like that you would have to assess each individual drone for potential flaws or unexpected advantages from manufacturing defects.

You always discuss the abstract when talking about capabilities of tools since some retard will always come in and say "its down to the skill of the user :^)"

>>32247675
>They can right now if we spent the resources to make it happen

But they're not.

Christ, is reality a concept to you? Do you understand other people can't see the imaginary world in your head?

>>32247675
>They can right now if

>if

You know this is the part where it becomes a fantasy right

>>32247218
Hell no. Eventually some dictator somewhere will something that's universally disagreeable, and we'll need to kick him over. Even in the unlikely event that the major powers never war between each other again, conflicts caused by lesser ambitions are inevitable.

>>32247716
Ive got a cup on my desk. I can drink from that cup. Its not currently got anything in it so i would have to go pour something into it to actually drink from it, but i assure you the cup is perfectly capable of being drank from.

>>32247831
Are you high?

>This cup isn't broken
>This means that all the shortcomings of UAV technology can be overcome right this second if anyone felt like it

>Do you guys think it's true that we're just going to be doing COIN from here on out?

shit like this makes you realize how stupid people on 4chan are. Its been obvious for a couple years now that the COIN meme has been firmly laid to rest and then this asshole makes a thread like this in almost 2017

>>32247614
>"Hey Earl! They want to make this here boat bigger. You remember what we did last summer with your brother's pontoon boat and Clem's john boat?"
>"Yeah"
>"I'm thinkin' we could fix two of them together and do it"
>"I'll get couple cases of beer, you call the boys up. This is gona be better than that RV we made into a deer blind."

>>32247855
>take missile that already is proven to work
>put missile on drone

fighter could be replaced today. ground attack would be more difficult since you need to do more than identify a target, there are other considerations.

>>32247917
So the fact that it doesn't have the speed/manoeuvrability/EW protection/system integration/payload capacity to use said missile just doesn't register to you huh

>>32247917
It's amazing how people use ignorance to think they know how something should work, only because they don't know the first thing about how it actually works.

>>32247218
No on all three. No one knows what the future holds. Hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

File: 1454095021533.jpg (146KB, 835x1170px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 835x1170px

>>32247917
>fighter could be replaced today

>UAV's are physically incapable of sharp turns

>Thinks this could replace an aircraft who's sole purpose is to get into a position in the air as swiftly as physically possible

>>32247958
What you do is build a bunch of really cheap ones. You could easily get the basic chassis and flying controlls for under $1k a piece.

That just leaves the missile and what makes it work, which can be welded on. Make thousands of them and just have them hover everywhere and attack anything that doesnt transmit the right identification code. There you go, air superiority.

>>32248021
This is what happens when you're so retarded you think you're the smartest one in the room

>>32248021
How much paint thinner did you huff before posting that? FFS thats not how any of that works, at all.

>>32248011
>ole purpose is to get into a position
The purpose of the fighter is to keep enemy aircraft away so your other aircraft can operate with out getting blown up.

There are numerous ways of accomplishing this.

As i propose just have thousands of slow moving missile armed drones in all places at all times. If they see something thats not friendly they attack it. Think of it more as an air superiority minefield with mines that are BVR missiles.

The reason this is easy is because you dont need complex target recognition. Just fit all your friendly craft with IFF transponders and anything with out one gets automatically killed.

>>32248080
How's it feel to be in the same category as new-build battleships and assault gliders?

>>32248116
Nobody is pointing out any problems with my plan :^)

Alternatively instead of drones you could use baloons tied to the ground.

File: 1480909713706.jpg (17KB, 239x306px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 239x306px

>>32247446
>Carrier gattai
>mfw the upcoming Power Rangers movie is actually going to be a recruitment tool for the Navy

>>32247675
>>32247705
>>32247763
>>32247917

> mfw the Actual Plot of COD Black Ops II in the works with this, just maybe 10 years later down the road.

>>32247446

> (who was in military intelligence no less) who says that Nimitz carries could connect together to make a longer runway

TBHF, that sounds pretty bad ass.