Superiority of American weapons and tactics

[average american]

I would consider if I was India ditching the PAK-FA and buying a minium number of planes from Europe and try to work out with Boeing or Lockheed going directly to combat drones,,,,,,,by investing along with the USA and other pardners, India could have combat drones superior to any possible enemies by the time the PAK-FA would be in production. I expect production of combat drones is much more advanced then any one suspects.

 

[LurkerBaba]

The Myth of American Military Superiority

When I have suggested that America's military might not be "the best," the inevitable question is, "Against whom? Name an opponent who can beat us." History is not kind to those who are so sure they know the future, and in today's vapid culture the confident prediction of supremacy is articulated in the absence of anything beyond a superficial bean count of forces and hardware — sometimes not even that.
----

We also heard a lot of bombast after the first war with Iraq, Operation Desert Storm in 1991; then, the technologists declared a "revolution in military affairs." The Government Accountability Office (GAO) spent two years looking at that: The air campaign should more accurately be characterized as bombing a tethered goat led by a military jackass, and even then, the air campaign did not live up to the hype. The high-cost "silver bullet" of the war, the F-117 stealth light bomber, badly underperformed its puffery. For example, in contrast to claims that "alone and unafraid" it destroyed Saddam's air defense system in the first hours of the first night, the F-117s actually had help from 167 non-stealthy aircraft and were confirmed by the Defense Intelligence Agency's bomb-damage assessments to have effectively destroyed only two of the 15 air defense targets assigned to them that first night. Overall, the GAO found that effectiveness did not correlate with cost and that on many dimensions the ultralow-cost A-10 close-combat attack aircraft was the top performer.

Nothing is changed today; the bluster is as frequent and hollow. Typical examples are unmanned drones, such as the MQ-9 Reaper and the Air Force's F-22 fighter.

The real-world performance of the MQ-9 Reaper is actually rather pathetic. With a tiny payload of an extremely limited selection of weapons and very poor ability to find targets to which it is not precisely shepherded, the Reaper is incapable of defending itself, and it is several times more expensive than manned aircraft that are more effective, such as the A-10. Also, it crashes so routinely that the Air Force appears to not even report all "mishaps" on the appropriate website. Yet, such drones are slavishly characterized as a revolution in warfare, yet again, and technologists are talking proudly about future nuclear bombers that are "optionally manned."

The F-22 fighter is described by the Air Force as an "exponential leap in warfighting capabilities." A review of the data shows the F-22 to be more expensive and less impressive than the hype would have you believe. For one thing, the cost for each F-22 is not the $143 million the Air Force asserts but rather a whopping $412 million, according to the GAO. The plane was supposed to be less expensive to operate than the F-15C; instead, it is 50 percent more. For another, its radar-evading "stealth" capability is significantly limited, as we know from two F-117 "stealth" casualties in the 1999 Kosovo air war, and its ability to detect, identify, and engage enemy aircraft at very long range with radar-controlled missiles relies on a technology that has repeatedly failed in combat. Finally, the F-22 compares roughly in close-in air combat to early versions of the F-15 and F-16. This June, that unexceptional agility was on display when German pilots flew Eurofighter Typhoons successfully against F-22s in mock dogfights.

Because the F-22 is so expensive to fly and difficult to maintain, its pilots get too few hours in the air to train — half of what fighter pilots got in previous decades. Worse, a controversy has raged over how safe the F-22 is to its own pilots. Powerful toxins populate the areas where the F-22 derives its oxygen for the pilot, and despite an Air Force explanation that "contamination" has nothing to do with the physiological problems pilots have experienced, some observers are deeply skeptical that the Air Force is taking the proper care to protect F-22 pilots. Already two pilots have been killed in accidents in which those toxins are very possibly at play. Even though pilot skill is a dominating factor in air combat, the U.S. Air Force provides few in-air training hours and requires pilots to fly aircraft that are not free of potential poisons. These are not the signs of a first-rate military organization.

.....

Just as those F-22 pilots had difficulties against some highly skilled Typhoon aircrew, the United States can expect to encounter smart, skillful enemies in the future. The country has been surprised by opponents it had assumed were inferior — for example in the Vietnam War — and by crude but highly effective technology it failed to anticipate, such as handmade road mines (decorously called improvised explosive devices) in Iraq and Afghanistan. The "we are the best in the world" foolishness is prologue to wars of choice making America pay dearly, just as the country discovered immediately after the arrogantly predicted "cakewalk" against Iraq — a prediction that contemplated no "after."

-----

The empty rhetoric that U.S. armed forces are the best masks serious problems that have been festering for decades. Obama tolerates the problems; candidate Romney would make them even worse. All of it will continue until leaders emerge who understand that more money has meant more decay, and less money can mean the start of reform.

The Myth of American Military Superiority � Counterpunch: Tells the Facts, Names the Names


@average american

 

[average american]

In the real world Iraq had the 4th largest military in the world and the USA went through it like crap though a goose twice. Its not americas fault muslims cant fight. At this point in history any country that goes up against the USA is going to look like a tethered goat led by a military jackass. With the avent of smart bombs airpower has been increased by a hundreds of times what bombing could accomplish in World War II. Who ever has superior airpower is going to have massive miltiary superiority in conventional warfare. In World War II it took a 1000 bombers to do what one can do today.

The United States Army Air Corps claimed that its Norden Bomb sight, which was used in the B-17, could "place a bomb in a pickle barrel at 20,000 feet." Though it was not quite as accurate as claimed, it could hit a 100 foot square target area consistently from 20,000 feet. Using this bomb sight, which was considered top secret for the first years of the war, formations of up to 1,000 B-17's would be able to hit a target in broad daylight accurately. The effects of these bombing runs were felt heavily in the Germans manufacturing industry. On October 14, 1943, 229 B-17s struck the ball bearing plants in Schweinfurt, Germany, resulting in a white out in ball bearing production from those factories.

In 1943, it was necessary to use 229 planes to complete a mission of that sort effectively. Today, it would be considered a waste of time and resources. With the use of radar, GPS and laser technology, we are able to destroy the same manufacturing plants with fewer than four strategic bombers such as the F-1, B-2, or F-117. The use of smart bomb technology in these planes has taken aerial bombing into the 21st century. Instead of bombing large areas, our bombers can hit specific points in buildings. Rather than using 1,000 tons of bombs in one run against a manufacturing plant, the use of little more than four 2,000 pound bombs are needed to destroy the same building.

 

[spikey360]

We need America to stay arrogant and ignorant like our friend Average American here. Sure sure, you're the best. Now go to hell.

 

[average american]

New Air Force Missile Turns Out Lights With Raytheon Microwave Tech This should be a real game changer, especially if it works on air to air missiles against enemy aircraft and it should. Champ should just be able to be with in a few miles of enemy aircraft and they would just turn into dead weights when their electronics go out.

The missile launched from the wing pylon of a B-52 heavy bomber and streaked over the desert of western Utah. At pre-set coordinates, a microwave emitter installed in the winged, jet-propelled cruise missile blasted a target building. But there was no big bang, no billowing clouds of dust and debris. Instead, the building was struck with disruptive, high-frequency microwaves.

The goal of the test on the morning of Oct. 16 was "to render ... electronic and data systems useless," according to Boeing, the lead contractor for the three-year, $40-million Counter-electronics High-powered Microwave Advanced Missile Project, or CHAMP, initiated in 2009.

While the program is led by Boeing the crucial technology comes from a small company called Ktech, which Raytheon bought in June last year. At the Paris Air Show, AOL Defense interviewed Raytheon executive Mike Booen about the company and its capabilities. Basically, Ktech's microwave generators generate an EMP-like field which shuts down electronics.

This did not come out of nowhere. Work began roughly four years ago, an industry source said.

Engineers, researchers and test personnel from Boeing, Raytheon and the Air Force Research Laboratory observed the test flight from a conference room at nearby Hill Air Force Base. A television camera mounted in a room in the unoccupied target building showed rows of desktop computers, their screens on and programs running.

When CHAMP passed overhead and activated its Raytheon-built microwave emitter, the computers went dark -- and, a moment later, so did the camera monitoring the test. "Cheers erupted in the conference room," Boeing spokesman Randy Jackson wrote in a press release published Monday.

"This technology marks a new era in modern-day warfare," Keith Coleman, the CHAMP program manager at Boeing Phantom Works, told Jackson. "In the near future, this technology may be used to render an enemy's electronic and data systems useless even before the first troops or aircraft arrive."

CHAMP's successful first full test marks the culmination of a four-year process of formulating requirements, soliciting bids, selecting contractors and managing technology development and testing. The Air Force's original solicitation called for "a multi-shot and multi-target aerial platform that targets electronic systems."

The microwave weapon's development began shortly after Israel's air strike on suspected Syrian nuclear facilities in late 2007. In that raid, Israel apparently used non-lethal electronic attacks to shut down Syrian air defenses -- a move that could be a model for future surgical strikes. At an off-the-record symposium in Pennsylvania in August, experts from the military, industry and academia plotted ways that microwave and other energy weapons could disable enemy forces, ending conflicts before a lethal shot has been fired.

That's still easier said than done. Work on microwave weapons dates back to the 1970s, according to Robert White from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research. Early efforts were "dominated by the pursuit for greater and greater power levels," White wrote. Later, the Air Force and industry focused on controlling the microwave pulse, eventually making it possible to aim the beam.

In that way the Air Force "mov[ed] away from the 'flamethrower' mentality," Edl Schamiloglu, professor of electrical and computer engineering at the University of New Mexico in Albuquerque, said at an Air Force conference in July. Instead, the Air Force wanted something akin to an electronics-frying sniper rifle.

CHAMP's precise appearance and capabilities remain a secret, but it's apparent that the missile meets the Air Force's requirement for multiple, controlled shots at multiple small targets. CHAMP reportedly flew for the first time in mid-May without fully activating its emitter. That test, which used the same software as the October test, confirmed that the missile could navigate a complex flight path, selectively turning on and off the microwave.

In the October test, the CHAMP hit seven separate target buildings, Boeing's Jackson wrote.

There is a good chance that CHAMP technology is part of F22 and F35 weapons, with ranges of more then 75 miles.


New Air Force Missile Turns Out Lights With Raytheon Microwave Tech


New Air Force Chief Offers Strong Support For Lockheed's F-35 At Fort Worth Plant

 

[average american]

Lockheed Dismisses $1 Trillion Estimate For F-35 JSF

 

[average american]

Run Silent, Go Deep: Drone-Launching Subs To Be Navy's 'Wide Receivers'

WASHINGTON: This Saturday the Navy will christen its newest nuclear-powered submarine, the $2.6 billion USS Minnesota at the Newport News shipyard in Virginia. Countless movies have cemented the popular image of subs as stealthy underwater killers, stalking hapless surface vessels with periscope and torpedo. But today's Navy is experimenting with launching robotic mini-subs and even unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) from Virginia-class attack subs like the Minnesota.

The cost of this one sub is about 1/15 of the entire military budget of India.


In Navy tests of a mini-UAV called Switchblade, "you can launch it, you can control it, you can get video feed back to the submarine," said Rear Adm. Barry Bruner, chief of the undersea warfare section (N97) on the Navy staff, at the recent Naval Submarine League symposium in suburban Washington. Future subs could also launch unmanned underwater vehicles (UUVs) to scout ahead stealthily beneath the surface. "It sure beats the heck out of looking out of a periscope at a range of maybe 10,000 to 15,000 yards on a good day," Bruner said. "Now you're talking 20 to 40 miles."

Pair that sensor range with new long-range torpedoes -- yet to be developed -- or submarine-launched missiles, and you dramatically increase the kill range of the current submarine fleet, Bruner enthused. "It's phenomenal, it's asymmetric, and it's cheap, [and] we're not that far away."

Some informed observers are more skeptical. The sub-launched UAVs and UUVs are still experimental. A "universal launch and recovery system" to get the small robots off the sub and then, critically, back on again is still in development -- and current attack submarines like the Minnesota lack the large-diameter launch tubes to accommodate the system anyway, although the next-generation "Block III" Virginia-class subs entering service in 2014 will be able to. The Navy is also designing a "Virginia Payload Module" that would increase future submarines' launch capacity, but it's uncertain whether actual development will get funded.

"They seem to be in a period of experimentation that doesn't have any obvious or clear end point," one congressional staffer told AOL Defense. "I can't tell you exactly where they're headed."

What's more, while sub-launched drones are a new idea to American admirals, "the Israelis experimented with it more than than 20 years ago," said naval historian Norman Polmar. "The US Navy's just been horribly slow."

In some respects, said Polmar, the Navy's even gone backwards. Submarines have long been able to launch missiles from underwater. (And a missile is just a crude drone that doesn't come back). But the Navy phased out the sub-launched version of its Harpoon anti-ship missile years ago, and the Tomahawk cruise missiles that submarines currently carry can only attack targets on the land. So today's sub fleet can strike ground targets deep in enemy territory, but it's arguablly less capable against enemy surface ships that it was 20 years ago.

At stake is not just the combat power of individual submarines, but the Navy's future vision for the entire fleet. The objective: to integrate the traditionally lone-wolf underwater hunters into a digital battle network that links submarines to surface ships to aircraft to satellites. The opponent: the multi-layered, high-tech, "anti-access/area denial" defenses -- long-range anti-air and anti-ship missiles, cyber-attacks, sea mines -- being developed by emerging powers, most of all by China.

This emerging interservice doctrine, known as "AirSea Battle," is "very much a team sport," said Vice Adm. Michael Connor, the Navy's Commander of Submarine Forces (COMSUBFOR), at the Naval Submarine League conference. "We know what part we play in that team," he went on. "We're sort of the wide receivers, more or less, getting down field."

The Navy has struggled to build stealthy surface ships, like the immensely expensive DDG-1000 class, and it has yet to field its first stealth fighters. But submarines have been a stealth weapon for over a hundred years. Even today, in the face of advanced sonars and spy satellites that can peer hundreds of feet below the surface of the water, submarines are harder to detect than any stealth aircraft.

In peacetime, that invisibility puts them in high demand for covert reconnaissance. In wartime, it would make them the leading edge of US naval power, slipping unseen into waters where other forces dare not go, then launching long-range weapons like Tomahawk cruise missiles to crack open enemy defenses and to let less-stealthy forces in.

The new role of operating as part of a networked fleet requires not just new equipment but a new mindset. "Submariners like to sink ships; they don't like to do other things," said Polmar. "They're being forced to change and broaden that... The submarine community now realizes they have to be part of the bigger picture."