Modern Jet Fighters are WWII Battle Ships.

[Al]

Even a less than top of the line F-15 costs 50 million.
It seems like there is very little it can't do. And it can do a lot that say an F-15 can't do.

And yes I realize we need "some" jets .

 

[Danh]

A new F-15 is more like $90mm. And, huh?

 

[Soft Cars]

But can it do as much damage as a WWII battleship?

 

[y_p_w]

But can it do as much damage as a WWII battleship?

I suppose a 16 inch gun is pretty destructive. However, all Iowa-class battleships were retrofitted with missile launchers. A Tomahawk is pretty devastating and could conceivably carry a nuclear warhead.

 

[Rand]

Even a less than top of the line F-15 costs 50 million.
It seems like there is very little it can't do. And it can do a lot that say an F-15 can't do.

And yes I realize we need "some" jets .

WWII Battleship (Montana class) cost 100million which is 2billion+ now.
Was there a point to your post it seems lacking.. or maybe I'm just missing it.

 

[ZeeOSix]

It seems like there is very little it can't do. And it can do a lot that say an F-15 can't do.

What am I missing? Seems like double talk, or you didn't mean F-15 here.

 

[Pew]

Enormous running costs and the navy went all-in with aircraft carriers.

 

[Soft Cars]

I suppose a 16 inch gun is pretty destructive. However, all Iowa-class battleships were retrofitted with missile launchers. A Tomahawk is pretty devastating and could conceivably carry a nuclear warhead.

I have reason to believe that one single Iowa class battleship could flatten a city the size of New York by using its guns only.

 

[Al]

What am I missing? Seems like double talk, or you didn't mean F-15 here

Readers digest for ya: Drones make more sense than Manned aircraft like F-15's

 

[vavavroom]

I have reason to believe that one single Iowa class battleship could flatten a city the size of New York by using its guns only.

Yeah but only with Commander Liam Neeson in charge and Petty Officer Rhianna on the rotary gun. A terrible movie.

 

[MSCH]

dont know what the final tally will be on the F35, but I suspect the cost and the relative cheapness of the drone is going to make the use of manned airplanes, boats and such the way of the future.

 

[Skippy722]

But can it do as much damage as a WWII battleship?

The F-15E can carry multiple B61 nuclear bombs.

 

[Astro14]

For what mission do drones make more sense?

Since an F-15 can “do it all” - you need to be clear on the mission for which you intend your statement.

Air superiority, for example, can’t be done by drones. Interdiction, with known, fixed targets, can be done by long range missiles, like Storm Shadow, or a cruise missile, like a Tomahawk. Mobile targets make using those weapons pointless.

So, interdiction against mobile targets requires a fighter.

No drones yet exist that can re-role and do Close Air Support when they were tasked for interdiction.

Can a drone do what the A-10, or F-16, or F-15E, does in close proximity to friendlies?

I don’t think the OP understands what a fighter mission looks like. Without a sophisticated understanding of how the airplane is used, how can you state that it can be replaced by a drone.

When surgeons are replaced by drones/robots, we will be at the point where fighters can be replaced by drones.

 

[Astro14]

dont know what the final tally will be on the F35, but I suspect the cost and the relative cheapness of the drone is going to make the use of manned airplanes, boats and such the way of the future.

Well, the future vision of the USAF, and to some degree, the USN, is that the F-35 goes into combat with two “loyal wingmen” - armed drones controlled by the F-35.

You can use a drone as a force multiplier, if that platform has the survivability, range, speed, maneuverability and payload of the manned fighter controlling it. And that is the idea, a future stealth, weapon carrying drone that is controlled by a pilot, a human brain able to make tactical decisions on the battlefield, in response to a fluid situation, and the drone simply gives that pilot more weapons for delivery.

But the enemy gets a vote in this. Without the ability to think, the drone becomes a sitting duck in some missions. For most missions, the airplane (manned or not) has to find the target, it isn’t known before hand, and the sensor input from the drone is useful, but a human still has to make decisions in real time.

 

[MSCH]

.

But the enemy gets a vote in this. Without the ability to think, the drone becomes a sitting duck in some missions. For most missions, the airplane (manned or not) has to find the target, it isn’t known before hand, and the sensor input from the drone is useful, but a human still has to make decisions in real time.

yeah, nobody is going to replace the human brain for complex decision making AI be ****ed , but my thinking is if you want to deliver a load of bombs,or sink a ship you might do better to do it via cruise missile etc than trying to fly a 2 billion dollar airplane to do the same thing.
I also suspect if there was a peer to peer fight,( even though it doesn't look like the Russians or the Chinese are all that much of a peer) all the modern stuff will be out of business within a couple weeks and the situation will devolve back into a WW1 style situation like they have going in the Ukraine right now. Fighting for 50 yard gain in the dirt.

 

[Astro14]

yeah, nobody is going to replace the human brain for complex decision making AI be ****ed , but my thinking is if you want to deliver a load of bombs,or sink a ship you might do better to do it via cruise missile etc than trying to fly a 2 billion dollar airplane to do the same thing.
I also suspect if there was a peer to peer fight,( even though it doesn't look like the Russians or the Chinese are all that much of a peer) all the modern stuff will be out of business within a couple weeks and the situation will devolve back into a WW1 style situation like they have going in the Ukraine right now. Fighting for 50 yard gain in the dirt.

In a peer to peer fight, with conflict taking place across the electronic and cyber spectra, and deception in use as defense - a cruise missile is not as capable as you might imagine.

All of this drone talk assumes that you have mensurated data on the location of threat targets.

A very poor assumption.

How, for example, does a cruise missile know where the target is? It doesn’t. It flies to a lat/long.

And, if the lat/long is off? Because we couldnt get good targeting data on an enemy that is clever, and fighting across the spectrum, then it hits a bit of dirt in their territory.

Shot wasted. Failure to achieve objective.

The $2 billion airplane is a strategic bomber. In a high end conflict, a long range, survivable, stealth delivery has a role.

But the OP posited that the F-15 is a battleship - and I still don’t know what he means. Does he mean that it’s obsolete? Well, that is ridiculous. Does he mean that the capability can be used for other missions? Because that is what we did with battleships. Built for a ship-ship engagement, they excelled at fire support for amphibious landings, show of force, shore bombardment, and cruise missile platforms 50 years after they were built.

 

[MSCH]

the F15 is old school, is it not. I wondered why the OP didn't bring up the F35.
Battleship is a good gun platform within the range it can operate at
It also has a high degree of survivability.
. That is all it is.

 

[Hillbilly Deluxe]

The US' fight from now on will be a combined effort of electronic (China/Russia/Etc Hacking into the electrical grid, shutting it down and other systems), fighting barbaric individuals who travel by goat, donkey, camel and horse using AK-47's and 80's era shoulder-fired missiles/rockets, and a mixture of aerial attack/ground attack with manned and unmanned aircraft and even ground vehicles.

 

[Astro14]

the F15 is old school, is it not. I wondered why the OP didn't bring up the F35.
Battleship is a good gun platform within the range it can operate at
It also has a high degree of survivability.
. That is all it is.

The F-15 is old school.

It also has a combat record of 100+ kills and zero, repeat, zero, losses. The best fighter ever built, so far.

I still don’t understand the point that the OP was making. But we have had the drone discussion before, on BITOG, and the only ones who are saying that drones can do fighter missions, are people who don’t actually understand fighter missions.

There are not a whole lot of people on the board who have flown a fighter in combat, or been involved in planning theater size air campaigns, which requires a detailed, complex, understanding of how air power is used.

Guys who were BOG and saw the missions flown have more understanding than a layman, but even then, they’re like the proverbial group of blind men describing an elephant. One grabs the tail, and says, “an elephant is a skinny creature, covered with hair”..because that is his only intersection with something much larger.

That’s how these discussions go, and I freely admit, they frustrate me. Guys opine and post on a topic with which they have little understanding, and they don’t know just how much they don’t know. They’re like the guy grabbing the elephant tail, and thinking they know what an elephant looks like.

Imagine reading post after post on oil and engine building by a person who has never changed oil, doesn’t have a driver’s license, has never driven a car, doesn’t own a car, or even a wrench, and has never even seen a car, and yet, will tell you all about which oil works and how to do it.

That’s where I am with this topic.

 

[MSCH]

The F-15 is old school.

It also has a combat record of 100+ kills and zero, repeat, zero, losses. The best fighter ever built, so far.

I still don’t understand the point that the OP was making. But we have had the drone discussion before, on BITOG, and the only ones who are saying that drones ca do fighter missions, are people who don’t actually understand fighter missions.

There are not a whole lot of people on the board who have flown a fighter in combat, or been involved in planning theater size air campaigns, which requires a detailed, complex, understanding of how air power is used.

Guys who were BOG and saw the missions flown have more understanding than a layman, but even then, they’re like the proverbial group of blind me describing an elephant. One grabs the tail, and says, “an elephant is a skinny creature, covered with hair”..becasue that is his only intersection with something much larger.

That’s how these discussions go, and I freely admit, they frustrate me. Guys opine and p[ost on a topic with which they have little understanding, and they don’t know just how much they don’t know.

Imagine reading post after post on oil and engine building by a person who has never changed oil, doesn’t have a driver’s license, has never driven a car, doesn’t own a car, or even a wrench, and has never even seen a car, and yet, will tell you all about which oil works and how to do it.

That’s where I am with this topic.

yeah, that is true of most subjects.. one thing I am is a very experienced mechanic. very... and I read some of the stuff on this forum and just wonder why are these people doing what they are doing but no amount of sense gets thru to them.
same appplies to me on alot of subject. I am just an outsider looking in.
leave it at that.