• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Wasn't it obvious? As of today US will lose a serious war.

When is the the last time fighter jet supremacy was a significant factor in any war? Korea?
The future of air warfare is autonomous drones. If we want to remain supreme that is what will do it.

Air supremacy is essential for any military force who is dependent upon it for both defense and offense. And air supremacy is only achievable through fighters capable of suppressing enemy air and protecting delivery platforms from enemy aircraft.

There is a future for drones, but to rely on yet another type of technology dependent on an information from satellites or remote commands or piloting is just plunging futher into the hole the US military finally discovered - cut access to external communications and the drone becomes a GPS lost and minimally purposeful platform.
 
True, but our entire Air Force cannot be deployed to such a war nor can the Navy.
And all of such a war will be in Chinas region. The Aircraft carrier for China is called China and it will be in full range of the conflict.

Used by commanders who have never employed it in conflict and as part of operations the Chinese have only limited experience with. While they have made strides over the past decade, this is still an area where the Chinese lag significantly behind the United States.

I’m sure admiral Kimmel thought the same thing

"I know, I'll throw in a historical reference to try to score cheap points even though there is no real equivalence or relevance!"

And the Qianlong Emperor thought there was nothing for China to learn from foreigners.

Foolish. Political disunity has certainly lost wars

There's more political disunity caused by Neo-traditionalists who think we need a monarchy and ban everything that doesn't contribute to procreation. For someone who screams so much about a demographic crisis you apparently don't realize China has an even bigger one on it's hands.
 
Used by commanders who have never employed it in conflict and as part of operations the Chinese have only limited experience with. While they have made strides over the past decade, this is still an area where the Chinese lag significantly behind the United States.
and German commanders who were the heirs of Prussian tradition could claim in 1917 Americans didn’t know how to fight a real war.

"I know, I'll throw in a historical reference to try to score cheap points even though there is no real equivalence or relevance!"
roll eyes
And the Qianlong Emperor thought there was nothing for China to learn from foreigners.
ok so what?

There's more political disunity caused by Neo-traditionalists who think we need a monarchy and ban everything that doesn't contribute to procreation. For someone who screams so much about a demographic crisis you apparently don't realize China has an even bigger one on it's hands.

But they don’t have it now and they can suffer much more losses then we can. They can fight and dispose of excess male population. And likely there is less political cost to China over fighting in China then Americans fighting in China. And if the war triggers conflict with Russia and North Korea, the US military cannot fight such a war and win. And the attempt to would likely mean the whole global order would be upset.

The one thing you forget too is that we can say good bye to endless debt if China can only manage to fight us to a draw, you want to see the riots that will occur if we have to cut social security and stop the welfare checks?
 
Air supremacy is essential for any military force who is dependent upon it for both defense and offense. And air supremacy is only achievable through fighters capable of suppressing enemy air and protecting delivery platforms from enemy aircraft.

There is a future for drones, but to rely on yet another type of technology dependent on an information from satellites or remote commands or piloting is just plunging futher into the hole the US military finally discovered - cut access to external communications and the drone becomes a GPS lost and minimally purposeful platform.
Autonomous drones do not need pilots and they can function under the same intelligence conditions that pilots do. If a pilot lose GPS they are no more capable of adapting that a properly written AI. They also do not get sick, retire or have mental issues. The same revolution that has affected everything else in society will inevitably come to fighter aircraft. Surely you don't think we will have self-driving cars and still rely on human pilots for our fighters. The tactical advantages of humanless flight alone are undeniable.
 
While the military was busied itself for decades focusing on getting women into combat roles and their relentless diversity training they failed to do its real job - make sure the US wins in the next war.
Good grief.

The US military didn't have a bad war game because of SJWs. The DoJ budget is so massive, that they have more than enough resources to integrate personnel and recalibrate large-scale combat.

Further, the implication that the DoD is somehow starved for cash is complete and total bullshit. The growth in DOD budget has outpaced inflation every year since the 1980s. Spending increased for the first 4 years of Obama's term, and only fell as we scaled back forces in the Middle East.

That said, the military is certainly aware of cyberattacks. In fact, they used them during the wargame.

And of course, if you genuinely believe that China or Russia is going to attack because of problems with a wargame, then I've got a bridge for sale. Excellent Manhattan views....
 
and German commanders who were the heirs of Prussian tradition could claim in 1917 Americans didn’t know how to fight a real war.

I'm sorry, did you think this analogy proved anything?

American forces didn't arrive in bulk until 1918 and at that point Germany was on the brink of starvation.

roll eyes
ok so what?

Bad historical comparisons are bad. Do better.

They can fight and dispose of excess male population.

China can mobilize 50 million men and it will mean jack shit since this would be a naval and air conflict, two fields where China lags significantly behind the US in.

The one thing you forget too is that we can say good bye to endless debt if China can only manage to fight us to a draw, you want to see the riots that will occur if we have to cut social security and stop the welfare checks?

The moment China goes to war with the USA it loses access to the Australian iron ore the Chinese economy is dependent on.
 
I'm sorry, did you think this analogy proved anything?

American forces didn't arrive in bulk until 1918 and at that point Germany was on the brink of starvation.



Bad historical comparisons are bad. Do better.



China can mobilize 50 million men and it will mean jack shit since this would be a naval and air conflict, two fields where China lags significantly behind the US in.



The moment China goes to war with the USA it loses access to the Australian iron ore the Chinese economy is dependent on.

And instead they’ll buy it from Russia or Mongolia
 
Autonomous drones do not need pilots and they can function under the same intelligence conditions that pilots do. If a pilot lose GPS they are no more capable of adapting that a properly written AI. They also do not get sick, retire or have mental issues. The same revolution that has affected everything else in society will inevitably come to fighter aircraft. Surely you don't think we will have self-driving cars and still rely on human pilots for our fighters. The tactical advantages of humanless flight alone are undeniable.

Oh yes...we've seen such genuflecting worship of the hopes of future technology before - and then gotten rude awakenings from the experience of today. After Korea, 'future thinkers' were confident that maneuverable aircraft were a thing of the past and that electronics made gun fights history. For those worshipers of tech, the key was straight-line air speed and the air to air missile shot, right? After a painful lesson in Vietnam of poor missile reliability, and ponderous unsuitable dogfighters they rightly learned they got it all wrong...only then maneuverability and guns were back in the F-15 and F-16.

Then there was the F-111 debacle, the Brainiac's under McNamara whose bright idea it was to make a universal fighter bomber for all the services to "save money" (remind of us something current?). They ended up with a plane so badly compromised that only one service saw any use for it only in a bomber role, and learned to live with it's compromises.

And yet here we are again, with a high-maintenance, overpriced, jack of all trades (and master of none) F-35. It's goals of cost-cutting and commonality has also crashed, and our eggs are all in one newer technology...stealth.

And the latest fad that is supposed to save us "drones", which will most assuredly, find them oversold and underperforming.

In and since WWII the American military and civilian culture has one prevailing strength undermined by another constantly growing weakness - a military that relies on a huge industrial capacity and massive material expenditure on firepower so as to avoid large causalities over a lengthily war. In WWII, heavy material expenditure for heavy firepower (e.g. artillery) prevailed, and the same philosophy was used in Korea and Vietnam.

But those days are over. We no longer have massive domestic merchant shipping to support our logistics and our industrial production "base" is the likes of "facebook" and "twitter" and "netflix". The US doesn't have the power available it had in the Iraq war, which itself was a shadow of the forces available in the prior gulf war. Whereas at one time the US had a 1 1/2 war strategy (Europe and Asia), today its not even a 1/2 war military . It would be impossible, for example, for the US to fight a Vietnam sized war.

So rolling the dice on "future technology" against a constantly advancing, accelerating, and technologically gifted people in China isn't going to cut it. There is a point were quantity is .more important than quality, and where quality of the weapon is more important than facebook, diversity training, and "the cloud".

The next war ain't gonna be won by twitter my friend, time we faced up to it.
 
Republicans would not object to a nuke going off in an American (liberalss!!) city.

A good number of them would probably love to push the lauch button themselves.

0c63d0e58b4556bb09cb519672cfe245edc6c41e.gifv


Look at how they allowed the "chinese bioweapon that escaped from the lab" take hold and say that half a million dead Americans is something they can live with (a mere drop in teh bucket).

6cbb725f04dd9c95c281bb8cc226183c2fdd4997.jpg
 
And yet here we are again, with a high-maintenance, overpriced, jack of all trades (and master of none) F-35.

So, an aircraft that has repeatedly proven itself in usage?
 
I do not know why losing a war in a simulation is a big deal, that is how it should be. We have had far too many self inflating egos try and make war games about america winning against a theoretical enemy.

When wargames are done as intended they are done to train troops for combat without actually being in combat as well as train commanders on doctrine. Unconventional warfare is a big issue with any military where what they trained for is not what they fight.

But to put it simply losing in a wargame simulation gives commanders as well as soldiers and nco's valuable knowledge on how prevent such a loss during the real deal. In a war game you may lose, in real war not only may you lose but many lives lost as well as equipment, I would rather see the losses in a virtual even to address issues than see them in real war where being wrong on doctrine can be fatal and too late to reverse in time before major damage happens.
 
lol what?

Russian and Mongolian iron ore production is a fraction of Australia's.
Australian ore production may be higher but they can barely even refine their iron ore, they need to send it to japan. Russian iron is actually high quality and can be produced within russia, which would prove better for chinese supply chains in the event of a war.

The australians used to have decent iron production, but the state run programs were a failure, and they became dependant on japan for iron refining, though japan is friendly with australia, china is not friendly with japan, and australia and china have been hating eachother, hence they would likely push for ore more local.

This could also pose problems as economically they rely on cheaper iron and steel for a price advantage, so outside of war they would see higher prices for steel exports, and during war mongolia hates china so I doubt they would sell them anything meaningful, and russia with it's own interests could also cut china off, for example despite the island dispute with japan russia is friendly with japan, they are friendly with south korea and taiwan as well, a chinese war might force the russians to refuse to sell iron to the chinese even if they do not intervene directly in a war.
 
With Chinese investment it will rapidly rival.

The time from investment in a mine to that mine churning out ore is measured in months to years. And you were bitching about carriers taking a couple weeks to reach a battle zone.
 
So, an aircraft that has repeatedly proven itself in usage?

How has the F-35 “proven itself”? It’s dropped a couple bombs on terrorists in the absence of any AA or air opposition. That’s not impressive. A militarized crop duster can do the same thing.
 
The time from investment in a mine to that mine churning out ore is measured in months to years. And you were bitching about carriers taking a couple weeks to reach a battle zone.
Because it takes less then a week to sink a carrier.
 
How insane do you have to be to believe that our strategic warfare issues are caused by the presence of women in the military?
 
How has the F-35 “proven itself”? It’s dropped a couple bombs on terrorists in the absence of any AA or air opposition. That’s not impressive. A militarized crop duster can do the same thing.

The Israelis have used it repeatedly without any issues avoiding Russian air defense systems in Syria despite repeated efforts to prevent it by Assad's forces. If it was such a shitty aircraft Israel would not have employed it then promptly asked for more.
 
The Israelis have used it repeatedly without any issues avoiding Russian air defense systems in Syria despite repeated efforts to prevent it by Assad's forces. If it was such a shitty aircraft Israel would not have employed it then promptly asked for more.

Maybe because the Russians don’t actually want an incident with Israel.
 
Autonomous drones do not need pilots and they can function under the same intelligence conditions that pilots do. If a pilot lose GPS they are no more capable of adapting that a properly written AI. They also do not get sick, retire or have mental issues. The same revolution that has affected everything else in society will inevitably come to fighter aircraft. Surely you don't think we will have self-driving cars and still rely on human pilots for our fighters. The tactical advantages of humanless flight alone are undeniable.
1627659958720.png
 
The Israelis have used it repeatedly without any issues avoiding Russian air defense systems in Syria despite repeated efforts to prevent it by Assad's forces. If it was such a shitty aircraft Israel would not have employed it then promptly asked for more.

You do know the Israeli version and the US version aren’t the same, yes?
 
You do know the Israeli version and the US version aren’t the same, yes?

Are you really suggesting that the differences are so stark they can't be compared? Because that seems like just a cop out.

Mind you I don't believe Lockheed Martin's claims that the F-35 is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But claims that the aircraft is a piece of garbage have become just a meme at this point. While som people have made careers out of hating the F-35, the people who actually use it don't have those complaints.
 
Back
Top Bottom