Goes down faster than a female staffer for the Gingrich campaign.

Since when did the Heritage Foundation do analysis? It's a propaganda outfit.

The Heritage Foundation=biased, hateful right-wing bullsh*t

Amazing that they're still regarded as any kind of social force in this country.

I guess they're proof that money talks...

St_Francis_P: In this thread I expect a learned, rational discourse on the points raised by the commie pinko socialists who wrote this dangerous claptrap.

Moreover, I expect that everyone who comments will read the majority of the article before doing so.

[The Heritage Foundation] has come a long way in defense policy analysis, all of it downward.

FTFS

Regardless of what they did at once point, these right-wing think tanks have found that there's money - a lot of money - in pushing cross-spectrum rightist propaganda regardless of the factual content thereof. Even if they were good ad defense analysis at one point, everything suffers for the need to push a bought-and-paid-for narrative above all else.

Wasn't it the Heritage Foundation site that let young Republicans with no job skills whatsoever sign up for jobs 'reconstructing' Iraq?

sprawl15: Goes down faster than a female staffer for the Gingrich campaign.


GIGGITY

St_Francis_P: In this thread I expect a learned, rational discourse on the points raised by the commie pinko socialists who wrote this dangerous claptrap.

Hey, traveller!

FTA: On December 26, 2012 the Director of Heritage's Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dr. James J. Carafano, published a commentary in the Washington Examiner, "What To Do about Obama's Pound-Foolish Air Force."

TIME, before criticizing the literature of others, you might want to fix your own shiat first.

//but still, Heritage has a heritage of sucking dick.

Chuck Spinney is awesome.

He can barely iterate a coherent thought nowadays, unfortunately.

/doesn't make him any less awesome

Grand_Moff_Joseph: I've read a lot of "rant style" editorials and opinion pieces, but this by far is the best one I've come across. Well written, bereft of hyperbole and obvious falsehoods, yet withering in its criticism and 100% correct in its recollection of the historical aspects of the article.

TIME is just trying to cover its ass as usual. They want to be right-wing but not THAAAAT right-wing, apparently.

God damn, now that is how you crush an opponent in a debate.

Heritage Foundation: Begin with conclusion, force facts to fit conclusion, facts in opposition to predetermined conclusion are ignored.

Done.

tl;dr

I skimmed though, and noticed that just about every single paragraph had the name of a fighter jet in it. Surely that can't be the only gripe to be had about Heritage and defense policy analysis.

The Name: tl;dr

Read it. It's worth the time.

rmz: Moreover, I expect that everyone who comments will read the majority of the article before doing so.

I hope so, it's a fascinating read. Although slightly distressing -- I thought we were getting better toys for the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on these programs.


coeyagi: FTA: On December 26, 2012 the Director of Heritage's Center for Foreign Policy Studies, Dr. James J. Carafano, published a commentary in the Washington Examiner, "What To Do about Obama's Pound-Foolish Air Force."

TIME, before criticizing the literature of others, you might want to fix your own shiat first.

//but still, Heritage has a heritage of sucking dick.

Yeah, how could an article be published after the world ends?

I still don't understand how a $411 million F-22 is better than a $30-$40 million F-15, or a $154 million F-35 is better than a $20 million F-16 or even a $60 million F/A-18.

taoistlumberjak: I still don't understand how a $411 million F-22 is better than a $30-$40 million F-15, or a $154 million F-35 is better than a $20 million F-16 or even a $60 million F/A-18.

It's cool and new, therefore automatically better. See: KC-X which is in nearly every way WORSE than the current crop of KC-135's, yet is on contract for something like $40 billion to refit only a third of our tankers (and the lifetime of the KC-X is the same length as the contract, so as soon as the last one rolls off the line the first one will have to be replaced).

Arkanaut: I hope so, it's a fascinating read. Although slightly distressing -- I thought we were getting better toys for the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on these programs.

Eh, I take it personally as the military being loathe to admit the days of the fighter pilot are coming to an end. If it weren't for the military's stubborn conservatism we'd already have supersonic interceptor UAV's and phased out the strike eagle and super hornet, allowing us one less role in which to design manned aircraft. Then again, the military does love their overbudgeted, bloathed multi-role pieces of crap to replace proven designs that had no need for replacement whatsoever, which they use to circle-jerk each other in preparation for our last war instead of the next one.

sprawl15: Goes down faster than a female staffer for the Gingrich campaign.

Crying and trying to keep her job?

The Name: tl;dr

I skimmed though, and noticed that just about every single paragraph had the name of a fighter jet in it. Surely that can't be the only gripe to be had about Heritage and defense policy analysis.

No, do read it. It's one of the best pieces of political writing I've seen lately, but if you really don't want to, here's the tl;dr version

Heritage shill Carafano: Obama's administration need to build more F-22s and F-35s. Legendary fighter pilot and air-to-air tactician John Boyd would agree with me

Article: Actually, Boyd thought the F-22 was an utter piece of shiat: it's absurd complexity and massive costs are preventing pilots from getting enough training hours to actually be able to fight. The F-35 is even worse than that. Boyd would give Carafano a well deserved cockpunch if he was still alive. (The latter is a paraphrase, but the article is far better at showing what an utter tool Carafano is)

Wow, I'd never heard of Boyd until just now. He sounds like a rare genius. I'm going to have to look for that biography.


"Not only did Carafano miss the boat on the technical differences between the F-86 and MiG-15, he ignored the even more important Boydian idea that, to win wars, people come first, ideas (i.e., tactics and strategy) are second, and hardware is a distant third."

No surprises there. For that crowd philosophy comes first and believing real hard is a close second. Do that, and blessings will rain down from above, whether we're talking about defense infrastructure, taxation, national debt, education, energy, economics ... everything.

that bosnian sniper: Arkanaut: I hope so, it's a fascinating read. Although slightly distressing -- I thought we were getting better toys for the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on these programs.

Eh, I take it personally as the military being loathe to admit the days of the fighter pilot are coming to an end. If it weren't for the military's stubborn conservatism we'd already have supersonic interceptor UAV's and phased out the strike eagle and super hornet, allowing us one less role in which to design manned aircraft. Then again, the military does love their overbudgeted, bloathed multi-role pieces of crap to replace proven designs that had no need for replacement whatsoever, which they use to circle-jerk each other in preparation for our last war instead of the next one.

I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

phaseolus: For that crowd philosophy comes first and believing real hard is a close second.

I think you missed the part in the article where Lockheed-Martin is a major contributor to the Heritage Foundation. I think it's more appropriate to say for that crowd money comes first and everything else is a far second.

taoistlumberjak: I still don't understand how a $411 million F-22 is better than a $30-$40 million F-15, or a $154 million F-35 is better than a $20 million F-16 or even a $60 million F/A-18.

Theoretically, it's supposed to be less visible to radar, be more maneuverable, and fly at low supersonic speeds without using the afterburner (which expends fuel much quicker than normal cruising). Now if they were able to deliver on those features, that would make it a more effective aircraft. But in reality, it's still pretty visible, the maneuverability is "disappointing" (whatever that means), and the "supercruise" ability still requires a lot more fuel, thus defeating the point.

Great article. I had the opportunity to hear a speech by Chuck Yeager (one of the greatest fighter pilots and test pilots of all time) at Oshkosh last July, and he was similarly contemptuous of the F-22.

The bottom line is that Congress is forcing these incredibly overengineered, overpriced, and underperforming projects down the throat of the US military, which doesn't want or need them. They're forced to dedicate huge amounts of time, money, and manpower to maintain them, when the actual benefit they give to the military is negligible at best. The money could be much better spent on projects that will give us benefit today (like infantry body armor, better counterinsurgency training, and IED-resistant IFVs like the Stryker). Impossibly overcomplex super-weapons like the F-22 are basically useless to the military in their current conflicts.

qorkfiend: I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

that bosnian sniper: phaseolus: For that crowd philosophy comes first and believing real hard is a close second.

I think you missed the part in the article where Lockheed-Martin is a major contributor to the Heritage Foundation. I think it's more appropriate to say for that crowd money comes first and everything else is a far second.


Okay, yeah, very true at the wholesale level. I think I must have been fixating on the retail market where they're trying to wrangle popular opinion and political will.

Byno: qorkfiend: I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

[www.theelectronictribe.com image 640x269]

Nothing to do with Skynet or some sort of robot revolution; there are things that a human inside an aircraft can see and do that a soldier on the ground with a remote control can't.

qorkfiend:
I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Not for dogfighting, no. But I think his entire point was really that dogfighting is almost never an actual tactical necessity in modern warfare, as it's likely cheaper to just fly in enough drones that they can't get 'em all than to fly in a bomber with a fighter escort. Easier to conceal, too.

Basically, it's the "combat aircraft" part of your statement that is becoming obsolete, not the people inside them specifically.

qorkfiend: I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Well, here's the kicker as far as I see it.

Our military is overwhelmingly preparing for symmetrical conflicts in doctrine and equipment. Now, there are two countries on Earth that could actually engage us in a symmetrical conflict (China and Russia) and we're highly unlikely to fight either any time in the near future. That leaves asymmetrical conflicts, in which we're already overprepared to the point of weakness: we saw how supereffectiveawesometastic rapid dominance and net-centric warfare worked in Iraq and Afghanistan firsthand (total shiat). Iran's premiere jet fighter is a derivation of the F-5 for God's sake. Now, in that atmosphere why on farking Earth do we need a fifth-gen fighter design anyhow when the only two countries on Earth that could fight us symmetrically are still trying to design something to compete with the strike eagle and super hornet?

As far as the equipment itself goes, having a human in a cockpit is nice, sure. But with that said, technologically we're getting to the point having a squishy lump of bodily fluids, soft tissue and bone, and the equipment necessary to keep that lump in one functional piece, is holding design back. Sure, electronic and software-based countermeasures pose a challenge to UAV's that manned aircraft would not have, but the question would then be how countermeasure-proof can we make those vehicles and whether the benefit of a UAV outweighs the potential challenges and risks (which at least in my opinion, is a resounding yes). And either way, do we even live in an age in which (given our likely opponents, the comparative strength of our military, particularly anti-air defenses) air superiority vis-a-vis interceptor aircraft is a necessity?

qorkfiend: I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Then you don't read enough engineering journals.

qorkfiend: that bosnian sniper: Arkanaut: I hope so, it's a fascinating read. Although slightly distressing -- I thought we were getting better toys for the hundreds of billions of dollars we spent on these programs.

Eh, I take it personally as the military being loathe to admit the days of the fighter pilot are coming to an end. If it weren't for the military's stubborn conservatism we'd already have supersonic interceptor UAV's and phased out the strike eagle and super hornet, allowing us one less role in which to design manned aircraft. Then again, the military does love their overbudgeted, bloathed multi-role pieces of crap to replace proven designs that had no need for replacement whatsoever, which they use to circle-jerk each other in preparation for our last war instead of the next one.

I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Why not?

UAV's will be able to pull maneuvers that will make a human pass out. Fighter aircraft are already held back by the meat bag they carry inside. Unmanned aircraft is the future, no doubt about it really.

Good article. Was amazed it was in Time. If you want something interesting click on the link about the Russian carrier Kiev being converted into a hotel.

that bosnian sniper: qorkfiend: I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Well, here's the kicker as far as I see it.

Our military is overwhelmingly preparing for symmetrical conflicts in doctrine and equipment. Now, there are two countries on Earth that could actually engage us in a symmetrical conflict (China and Russia) and we're highly unlikely to fight either any time in the near future. That leaves asymmetrical conflicts, in which we're already overprepared to the point of weakness: we saw how supereffectiveawesometastic rapid dominance and net-centric warfare worked in Iraq and Afghanistan firsthand (total shiat). Iran's premiere jet fighter is a derivation of the F-5 for God's sake. Now, in that atmosphere why on farking Earth do we need a fifth-gen fighter design anyhow when the only two countries on Earth that could fight us symmetrically are still trying to design something to compete with the strike eagle and super hornet?

As far as the equipment itself goes, having a human in a cockpit is nice, sure. But with that said, technologically we're getting to the point having a squishy lump of bodily fluids, soft tissue and bone, and the equipment necessary to keep that lump in one functional piece, is holding design back. Sure, electronic and software-based countermeasures pose a challenge to UAV's that manned aircraft would not have, but the question would then be how countermeasure-proof can we make those vehicles and whether the benefit of a UAV outweighs the potential challenges and risks (which at least in my opinion, is a resounding yes). And either way, do we even live in an age in which (given our likely opponents, the comparative strength of our military, particularly anti-air defenses) air superiority vis-a-vis interceptor aircraft is a necessity?

Oh, sure. I wasn't trying to defend Heritage's analysis that we need newer and better jet fighters; just that UAVs won't entirely preclude the necessity for skilled human pilots and well-designed and constructed combat aircraft.

Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend:
I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Not for dogfighting, no. But I think his entire point was really that dogfighting is almost never an actual tactical necessity in modern warfare, as it's likely cheaper to just fly in enough drones that they can't get 'em all than to fly in a bomber with a fighter escort. Easier to conceal, too.

Basically, it's the "combat aircraft" part of your statement that is becoming obsolete, not the people inside them specifically.

Basically, what defense contractors want people to believe modern combat looks like:



What modern combat actually looks like:

kapaso: UAV's will be able to pull maneuvers that will make a human pass out. Fighter aircraft are already held back by the meat bag they carry inside. Unmanned aircraft is the future, no doubt about it really.

Yup. Add to that the fact the equipment necessary to keep the meat bag inside the aircraft alive and provide them enough information to be combat effective is not an insubstantial portion of an aircraft's weight.

Glockenspiel Hero: The Name: tl;dr

I skimmed though, and noticed that just about every single paragraph had the name of a fighter jet in it. Surely that can't be the only gripe to be had about Heritage and defense policy analysis.

No, do read it. It's one of the best pieces of political writing I've seen lately, but if you really don't want to, here's the tl;dr version

Heritage shill Carafano: Obama's administration need to build more F-22s and F-35s. Legendary fighter pilot and air-to-air tactician John Boyd would agree with me

Article: Actually, Boyd thought the F-22 was an utter piece of shiat: it's absurd complexity and massive costs are preventing pilots from getting enough training hours to actually be able to fight. The F-35 is even worse than that. Boyd would give Carafano a well deserved cockpunch if he was still alive. (The latter is a paraphrase, but the article is far better at showing what an utter tool Carafano is)

Additional: And we know all this because he told us so in person and we worked with him for decades, and oh by the way, here's our credentials, we wrote the book on this stuff.

This goes beyong an OH SNAP! and is approaching the intellectual equivalent of a curbstomp. I'd love to know what Carafano's response (if any) to this article is/was/will be. In his place I'd just STFU and hope people would forget about the whole thing, but somehow I suspect they won't be that smart.

qorkfiend: Oh, sure. I wasn't trying to defend Heritage's analysis that we need newer and better jet fighters; just that UAVs won't entirely preclude the necessity for skilled human pilots and well-designed and constructed combat aircraft.

I agree there to a certain extent. We'll still need and want pilots and manned aircraft, just not for interceptors. Which, as I mentioned earlier I think has become and ought to be treated as a doctrinal niche, given the symmetry of conflicts we can expect and technological developments over the last decade or two. The days of filling the sky with fighters to counter and escort bomber groups are long gone and will probably never return, and we ought not spend billions of dollars pretending they'll somehow make a miraculous return.

liam76: Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend:
I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Not for dogfighting, no. But I think his entire point was really that dogfighting is almost never an actual tactical necessity in modern warfare, as it's likely cheaper to just fly in enough drones that they can't get 'em all than to fly in a bomber with a fighter escort. Easier to conceal, too.

Basically, it's the "combat aircraft" part of your statement that is becoming obsolete, not the people inside them specifically.

I disagree.

The weight alone of all the systems that humans require limit the capablities of the aircraft, nevermind the restrictions to carry peopel safely.

I see both sides of this. It may well be that, on balance, the tactical advantages of having a live pilot aboard - someone with human judgment who can process sensory imagery and act on it immediately, without any latency, someone who can smell and feel combat - has certain advantages over a remotely operated drone. Thing is, we can deploy so many more of the drones so cheaply, compared to the cost of operating traditional aircraft, that any such benefit can be more than offset by sheer force of numbers.

A Dark Evil Omen: Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend:
I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Not for dogfighting, no. But I think his entire point was really that dogfighting is almost never an actual tactical necessity in modern warfare, as it's likely cheaper to just fly in enough drones that they can't get 'em all than to fly in a bomber with a fighter escort. Easier to conceal, too.

Basically, it's the "combat aircraft" part of your statement that is becoming obsolete, not the people inside them specifically.

Basically, what defense contractors want people to believe modern combat looks like:

[www.james-strocel.com image 640x480]

What modern combat actually looks like:

[www.featheringtheemptynest.com image 634x473]

Got to love the battle-guitar that one guy is rocking. Good to have a bard, helps with the combat buffs.

Antimatter: Got to love the battle-guitar that one guy is rocking. Good to have a bard, helps with the combat buff

No sh*t. I wonder if that would make you an instant target, or would you be spared out of pity?

Glockenspiel Hero: The Name: tl;dr

I skimmed though, and noticed that just about every single paragraph had the name of a fighter jet in it. Surely that can't be the only gripe to be had about Heritage and defense policy analysis.

No, do read it. It's one of the best pieces of political writing I've seen lately, but if you really don't want to, here's the tl;dr version

Heritage shill Carafano: Obama's administration need to build more F-22s and F-35s. Legendary fighter pilot and air-to-air tactician John Boyd would agree with me

Article: Actually, Boyd thought the F-22 was an utter piece of shiat: it's absurd complexity and massive costs are preventing pilots from getting enough training hours to actually be able to fight. The F-35 is even worse than that. Boyd would give Carafano a well deserved cockpunch if he was still alive. (The latter is a paraphrase, but the article is far better at showing what an utter tool Carafano is)

I hereby submit Glockenspiel's name for Editor of the Week with oak leaf cluster.

Antimatter: A Dark Evil Omen: Jim_Callahan: qorkfiend:
I don't think UAVs will ever be able to fully replace an actual, physical human inside a combat aircraft.

Not for dogfighting, no. But I think his entire point was really that dogfighting is almost never an actual tactical necessity in modern warfare, as it's likely cheaper to just fly in enough drones that they can't get 'em all than to fly in a bomber with a fighter escort. Easier to conceal, too.

Basically, it's the "combat aircraft" part of your statement that is becoming obsolete, not the people inside them specifically.

Basically, what defense contractors want people to believe modern combat looks like:

[www.james-strocel.com image 640x480]

What modern combat actually looks like:

[www.featheringtheemptynest.com image 634x473]

Got to love the battle-guitar that one guy is rocking. Good to have a bard, helps with the combat buffs.

Well, it looks like they're running without a tank or healer, so they'd better hope that guy has really good AoE buffs.