News How Many Aircraft Carriers Do Leading Nations Operate?

[JPC]

hey

Was wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

1) Does USA really have 12 4.5 billion USD Carriers ? or are some from the cold war ?
Are Cold war carriers of any use ? (like to carry helicopters) ?

2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.

3) Which are the top 5 carriers in the world at the moment, and to which country they were built / belong to ?

4) Between all the new Carriers developments in the world , which are making the best ? Probably USA first , but then which countries ?

 

[Gokul43201]

There's 12?

Kitty Hawk and Enterprise were from the Vietnam Era. Carriers have been produced at a more or less steady clip since then. So about half of the rest are from the Cold War era, and the other half are more recent. USS Ronald Reagan was commissioned just after the Iraq war started (I think).

 

[mgb_phys]

There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existence of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.

A few countries have tactical/support carriers using Harriers or helicopters to support a beach landing.
The UK+France are jointly building a new type - when they have finished arguing about the spelling of the name.

 

[Smurf]

2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.

That, and it's not even a good one. Reactor problems, flight deck problems, it's slower than other non-nuclear carriers.

 

[mgb_phys]

That, and it's not even a good one.

But I bet the canteen is excellent.

 

[mheslep]

There's 12?

10 modern Nimitz class:
Nimitz
Eisenhower
Carl Vinson
T. Roosevelt
Abraham Lincoln
George Washington
Stennis
Truman
Reagan
G. H. W. Bush

 

[Gokul43201]

Has USS GHWB been commissioned already?

 

[devil-fire]

There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existence of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.

A few countries have tactical/support carriers using Harriers or helicopters to support a beach landing.
The UK+France are jointly building a new type - when they have finished arguing about the spelling of the name.

i think it will be unlikely that a submarine will attack an aircraft carrier in the next 20 or 30 years though.

 

[mheslep]

Ah you're right, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_George_H._W._Bush_%28CVN-77%29" to be commissioned mid 2009. $4.5B

 

[JPC]

Yes, normal that the french 'De Gaulle' is not excelent, it dates from long time ago.

But, which ones in development you think are going to be the best ?

 

[russ_watters]

hey

Was wondering.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft_carrier

1) Does USA really have 12 4.5 billion USD Carriers ? or are some from the cold war ?

The answer to both questions is yes. Here's a list that shows when they were commissioned: http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-aircraft-carriers-of-the-united-states-navy

Are Cold war carriers of any use ? (like to carry helicopters) ?

There are no fundamental differences between new fleet carriers ("supercarriers") and ones built 50 years ago. The Forrestal (1955) was 1067 feet long and displaced 81,000 tons. The George Bush (2009) will be 101,000 tons and 1092 feet long.

But we do also have helicopter carriers that are about the same size as WWII carriers (Ie, USS Wasp [1942] 872 feet, 36,000 tons; USS Iwo Jima, LHD-7 [2001], 844 ft, 40,000 tons). We used to have several converted WWII carriers that were used by the Marine Corps as helicopter carriers.

2) Does france really have only 1 aircraft carrier now ? That seems small , one error and no more french carriers.

4) Between all the new Carriers developments in the world , which are making the best ? Probably USA first , but then which countries ?

The US has the largest military in the world and the countries of Europe decades ago essentially decided that with the US's absolute supremacy in the oceans, there was no need for them to try to keep up - even if they could, which they probably couldn't. So today, the US has more fleet carriers than the rest of the world combined. (though it probably depends on how many of Russia's carriers are capable of leaving port).

There are two types of ships in the world - submarines and targets!
Following the recent surprise visit from a chinese sub and the existence of super cavitating torpedoes, large carriers aren't looking such a good bet.

A carrier certainly needs a sub escort, but I wouldn't worry too much about non-nuclear subs. They can't stay submerged long enough to be much of a threat.

 

[mgb_phys]

A carrier certainly needs a sub escort, but I wouldn't worry too much about non-nuclear subs. They can't stay submerged long enough to be much of a threat.

But non-nuclear are very quiet, they only have to stay submerged long enough for a carrier to sail over the top of them. Even with active sonar it's tricky to spot a diesel sub lying quietly on the bottom with it's tubes open.
In some confined waterway like the red sea they don't have to go far.

 

[JPC]

The US has the largest military in the world and the countries of Europe decades ago essentially decided that with the US's absolute supremacy in the oceans, there was no need for them to try to keep up - even if they could, which they probably couldn't.

What do you know ? maybe in a latter future, once there's no more socialists/communist in europe , thinks would be going fine

 

[russ_watters]

Becasuse of the hardware and manpower costs, the only real way for the countries of Europe to keep up would be a combined military (which may happen in the forseeable future).

 

[russ_watters]

There is another issue, actually - conventional aircraft and aircraft carriers are on the verge of becoming obsolete. Large drones are cheaper and more capable than conventional aircraft and are already starting to replace them. And the US Navy hasn't helped itself by replacing its old planes with newer ones of lesser performance.

 

[JPC]

yeah but from where are you going to launch your drone ?

 

[Yonoz]

yeah but from where are you going to launch your drone ?

You can get a lot more out of an aircraft that doesn't have to carry a human being - they can fly longer and higher, they can be controlled by satellite, and you don't have to worry too much about them being shot down.
With a bit of thought as to the methods of utilization they can replace much more than warplanes.

 

[JPC]

yes but will your drones be able to locate the enemy planes, to use the right tactics to avoid being shot down and to shoot them down ?
For now, human pilots are way better at war tactics in the air, but if latter your machines can prove to be more acurate, and better, why not

 

[Yonoz]

yes but will your drones be able to locate the enemy planes, to use the right tactics to avoid being shot down and to shoot them down ?

That's what anti aircraft missiles do. They're also pilotless.
Pilots can't do much to avoid being shot down for quite a while now - it's all electronic; and as I said, it's not that much of a big deal to lose drones.

 

[JPC]

Well it is , if these things are expensive

and i thought most pilots usually manage to eject before being killed in the explosion

 

[Yonoz]

Well it is , if these things are expensive

Not as expensive and counter-productive as losing a human being.

and i thought most pilots usually manage to eject before being killed in the explosion

They still have to land somewhere, and in some armies someone has to get them out.

 

[JPC]

1) But wouldn't they be at destination faster if launched from near destination rather than homebase ? (aircraft carrier utility)

2) Or would ur drones be able to be launched without any aircraft carriers ? like that can take off on sea, or by any other way ?

3) I would imagine them well in special operations where they would fly at very high altitude to not be shot during travel, and when close to destination come down.

4) Would it be good if they are very small ? like very small and fast , so that they can do little damage at precise spots to enemy aircrafts (critical areas), with more chances of not being shot down ?

 

[Yonoz]

1) But wouldn't they be at destination faster if launched from near destination rather than homebase ? (aircraft carrier utility)

2) Or would ur drones be able to be launched without any aircraft carriers ? like that can take off on sea, or by any other way ?

3) I would imagine them well in special operations where they would fly at very high altitude to not be shot during travel, and when close to destination come down.

4) Would it be good if they are very small ? like very small and fast , so that they can do little damage at precise spots to enemy aircrafts (critical areas), with more chances of not being shot down ?

You can make them any way you like...
The large ones need standard airfields, there are small ones you can launch off a mobile platform, and there are tiny ones that can be launched by hand. The latter two types are built to withstand landing in the field.
They don't have to lower their altitude near their destination, and as I said enemy aircraft are dealt with AA systems. You can mount some AA systems on pilotless aircrafts, but that's just one use. Sometimes their aim is to be destroyed, such as anti-anti-aircraft radar drones, that's another use.

 

[JPC]

But could tiny ones shoot down a a good pilot in a F18 ?
Could it be destroyed with todays war equipment ?

 

[Yonoz]

The tiny ones are meant for over-the-hill reconnaisance - they are meant to be deployed by ground units to collect intelligence on their nearby surroundings - for example, whether a certain zone is occupied - important for figuring out whether it is to be avoided or taken, or where an enemy's reserve force is deployed - important for successfuly directing a battle.
I should make this point about UAVs engaging other aircraft clear I suppose - currently, UAVs do not attack aircraft in a traditional sense. The scenario in which a pilot avoids being shot down by some sort of maneuvering, or engages in a close-quarters dogfight is also very limited. In this day and age planes are meant to be shot down from afar by missiles. In this sense a UAV can play a roll as a platform for an aerial radar which locates the enemy and directs the missile towards it, as a communication platform which increases the range of the aerial platform, and an electronics countermeasures platform that blinds the enemy aircraft or fools it into performing certain actions to its disadvantage.

 

[Andre]

Some decade ago I wrote a book about the possibilities and limitations of UAV's (Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle). It has never been published and that wasn't the intention as well but it was to convince the government not to rely on UAV's for replacement of the fighter fleet. And so it did.

Bottom line, the two singlemost important parts of an aircraft are: eyes (eyeball mark I) and brains. In the complex multiple high speed control loop (observe, orient, decide, act) can only be as perfect as it weakest part in the chain. Amputating "observe" and "orient" and bring it to a remote location is a bad move. Then the control loop relies on the limits of artificial sensors and the limits of transmitting in the electromagnetic spectrum with bandwidth congestion, jamming and what not. The control loop is further weakened by the loss of time due to the extra required information processing, and in a fight every nanosecond counts.

Of course you could try and avoid those problems and attempt to engineer an autonomous vehicle. But don't be surprised if it doesn't work. Ever seen a car race without drivers? Compare it with that.

Furthermore, there are rules of engagement issues. The most important being positive visual identification of the target. Rather problematic if there are no eyes around.

So the number of tasks for UAV's is rather limited. Certainly it's an excellent reconnaisance platform but even then it lacks the brains to react on changes in the environment, not observable for remote controllers.

Conclusion
Don't send a small boy to do a mans job.

 

[Plastic Photon]

The US has the largest military in the world and the countries of Europe decades ago essentially decided that with the US's absolute supremacy in the oceans, there was no need for them to try to keep up - even if they could, which they probably couldn't.

Europe however does not include that islands across from France, where I believe they have a quite capable military. Especially the Royal navy which has access islands (chagos/oil ilsands) all over the world where US personel are stationed. Their naval prowess and history is well worth a mention.

 

[Yonoz]

Some decade ago I wrote a book about the possibilities and limitations of UAV's (Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle). It has never been published and that wasn't the intention as well but it was to convince the government not to rely on UAV's for replacement of the fighter fleet. And so it did.

Bottom line, the two singlemost important parts of an aircraft are: eyes (eyeball mark I) and brains. In the complex multiple high speed control loop (observe, orient, decide, act) can only be as perfect as it weakest part in the chain. Amputating "observe" and "orient" and bring it to a remote location is a bad move. Then the control loop relies on the limits of artificial sensors and the limits of transmitting in the electromagnetic spectrum with bandwidth congestion, jamming and what not. The control loop is further weakened by the loss of time due to the extra required information processing, and in a fight every nanosecond counts.

I doubt any military will ever elect to rely completely on unmanned vehicles, and if one ever did it would not happen for quite some time - but that is not to say they will not augment and replace manned vehicles in a greater variety of roles. Just as the technological advancements brought about by the industrial revolution radically changed ground combat and brought about mechanised and aerial warfare, so can electronics and miniaturisation bring about a change in the extent on which we rely on manned vehicles.
Pilots already rely almost entirely on electronic systems to aim and guide over-the-horizon precision-guided munitions - http://www.textrondefense.com/products/airlaunched/sfw.htm" don't even require them to aim (take a look at that B-52 captain's description in the video at the top right of the page). There aren't many weapons designed today that require line-of-sight to the target. In such an operational environment, there is limited advantage in having those eyeballs in the cockpit rather than on the ground/seas.
It's not only for aiming and guidance that pilots rely on their electronics - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-16_Fighting_Falcon#Negative_static_stability". The physiological limits of the human body have become the most limiting factor in terms of fighter jets' performance.
The same technological improvements that enable human pilots to do more also make them an easier target. AA technology has improved much from the 60's, when it was already becoming a serious problem. AA weapons are smaller, cheaper, more mobile, quicker to deploy and easier to operate. A fleet of expendable drones can carry out missions that manned aircraft can only accomplish after a few (crucial) hours or days of chipping away at an enemy's AA array.

The context in which this topic was brought up is one good example of the way UAVs can revolutionise warfare. One day mammoth carriers will be as obsolete as cavalry, the only question is when?

Of course you could try and avoid those problems and attempt to engineer an autonomous vehicle. But don't be surprised if it doesn't work. Ever seen a car race without drivers? Compare it with that.

Furthermore, there are rules of engagement issues. The most important being positive visual identification of the target. Rather problematic if there are no eyes around.

As I noted, pilots are already engaging targets which they only see on a monitor - IMO there are some advantages to having them make certain decisions when they don't have other things on their mind. There isn't much difference between an autonomous drone and the above mentioned sensor-fuzed weapons (already used by the US in Iraq), though I doubt we'll see autonomously attacking weapons deployed much because of these issues. As for the comparison with cars - I would like to see cars built and designed with a tenth of the JSF programme's budget race, then it will be a fairer comparison.

So the number of tasks for UAV's is rather limited. Certainly it's an excellent reconnaisance platform but even then it lacks the brains to react on changes in the environment, not observable for remote controllers.

Aircraft were also once seen as an excellent reconnaisance platform that is inherently deficient to perform other roles. It's all a matter of technological advances, and that is a field where a modern militaries have a significant advantage.

Conclusion
Don't send a small boy to do a mans job.

Sounds like something a WWI general would say about landships, er - I mean tanks.

 

[Andre]

Exactly the discussion we had. Every bit. Including the fallacy about WWI generals.

Again main point and is situational awareness. If you know exactly what is going on in the 360 degrees sphere around you, you and your fighter will live. No chance if you are not there. And remote operators have second hand, late, highly incomplete information, a fraction of the 360 sphere and in highly degraded resolution. How would you know from a few pixels on the screen if you are aiming on a friend? Sometimes there is no information at all when radio communication line of sight is lost, or frequencies are blocked. Well, in a total air-supremacy setting all those problems may be manageable but with enemies shooting back, you will never know what hit you, as has been experienced many times already in the recent conflicts. Doesn't matter cause cheap UAV's are expandable? But you still need your mission to be accomplished and loss rates may exceed expendability. So, you want to protect your UAV making it heavier and more expensive? Then you might as well have put a pilot in it in the first place. Mind that nowadays jets routinely outmaneuvre surface to air missiles -no big deal-while UAV operators will never see them coming in the first place.

Again, the electromagnetic spectrum can only take so much bandwith and basically there is none available for UAV datalink in the first place, you have no idea about the can of wurms here. Also better technology in the future us not going to compensate for the physical law limits imposed here. Apart from the ATC nightmare to manage unmanned air traffic, if it's more than a couple.

Don't expect the role of UAV's to expand much more from where it's now, limited numbers, limited role.

 

[JPC]

Yes

and wanted to point out

A human pilot can do a a bigger diversity of thinking/actions

if you make a UAV, you will have to make IFS for every situation (IF this then that, ect) . And what if the enemy makes a new aircraft (secretly), and that the UAV does not have the required strategy to fight it. Are you going to wait for the Millitary complex to make a new OS for your UAVS ?

And worst, what if there's a bug/error in the UAV OS , and you only find out when your UAVs are already at combat !

So, i believe that unless if we can make machines that can think by themeselves like humans , we should continue evolving machinery as a tool for humans.

 

[Yonoz]

How much of what is going on in the 360 degrees around you is important for a given mission? Having the operator on the same location as the people with which the pilots in the cockpit currently converse remotely has its advantages. Vis a vis friendly fire incidents: remember that recording of the A-10 pilots who attacked a British convoy despite the big-*ss tactical identification sheets they used? You have so many different elements on the radio who report to the pilot something that is already on some electronic medium somewhere else - so much for high speed control loops. What if you took the pilot out of the cockpit and put them in front of that electronic medium, so they could see battle charts and intelligence data aggregated in real time?
Sure, an operator sitting in an airconditioned compartment is not as romantic an image as a Top Gun with a leather jacket - but war is never as romantic as it's made out to be.
As I said, targets have been, are being, and will be attacked by weapons operators and pilots with less than a few pixels on a monitor, regardless of UAVs.
As for expendability and such - safety in numbers: all you have to do is make sure you have more UAVs dedicated per mission than your enemy can shoot down, not so hard considering that it would be very difficult for an enemy to tell which of the many UAVs in the sky isn't a dummy - let them waste their ammunition on dummy UAVs made by the lowest bidder. Even if they do hit the real ones occassionaly, better those than manned aircraft. It's also much easier to make a "stealth" UAV than a manned "stealth" aircraft - most of them can already be considered "stealth" thanks to their inherent low signatures.
Nowadays jets outmaneuver surface-air missiles that were made in the fifties and sixties in an almost sterile environment. A well thought AA array is a serious obstacle to achieving military goals.

Regarding the communications bandwidth - there are technical solutions to that, unfortunately they're not for internet forums.

As to their limited role expanding - hopefully time won't tell.

 

[mheslep]

And remote operators have second hand, late, highly incomplete information, a fraction of the 360 sphere and in highly degraded resolution.

That situation is changing, improving.

 

[Yonoz]

if you make a UAV, you will have to make IFS for every situation (IF this then that, ect) . And what if the enemy makes a new aircraft (secretly), and that the UAV does not have the required strategy to fight it. Are you going to wait for the Millitary complex to make a new OS for your UAVS ?

Countermeasures employed by manned aircraft also require programming and reprogramming, there's no difference between them and UAVs in that sense. It is not a matter of "strategy", nor tactics - simply electronics, planning and a bit of luck.
For the last time JPC, UAVs are not meant to shoot enemy planes down, that is done by missiles. If you get your enemy's jets to waste their time on your UAVs rather than perform ground support missions you're either:
1) facing an enemy that can't prioritise, in which case you'll probably outmaneuver them;
2) on the brink of defeat.

And worst, what if there's a bug/error in the UAV OS , and you only find out when your UAVs are already at combat !

Even in 21st century militaries there's no substitute for good old fashioned practice.

So, i believe that unless if we can make machines that can think by themeselves like humans , we should continue evolving machinery as a tool for humans.

Fortunately there's no other way to go about it at this point in time.

 

[Yonoz]

I think another clarification is in order: the very reason for having an air force in the first place is ground support. Everything else is a lead-up to that, and anyone who thought otherwise was proved wrong - see Kosovo and the latest Lebanon conflict.

 

[Andre]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that? Only if you have, you could judge the difference in situational awareness between the real thing and the computer flight simulator game, even in full dome simulators. Believe me, it's huge. Yes whole 360 sphere is equally important, especially when manoevring, turning and banking, the horizon can be anywhere. "Rubber necking" is the name of the game.

And don't underestimate the pair concept, lead and wingmen covering each other for threats. About all incoming missiles have been spotted by the wingmen first. There is no way that UAV's can do that job.

About the battle charts, available in the cockpit nowadays. You can see all your wingmens radar air pictures as well as what the magic eye sends you. It's a kind of jet-internet. Just search the info and select that you want. Moreover, there is that ever smarter threat warning thing that tells about which radars are shining on you from which direction. But it's still the visual identification in the terminal phase of whatever engagement. Sure sometimes this goes wrong ending in fratricide. But any idea how many times this would go wrong without visual identification from UAV's? All of those problems may hint why pilot training is the most expensive in the world.

Another element about not develloping full capable UAV's is the general world situation. There is no more east-west cold war. There are no more high intensity treath scenarios in which it would be paramount not to risk pilots lives. And military budgets hold world records for diminishing rates. There are simply no more funds to devellop completely different concepts.

 

[Yonoz]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that? Only if you have, you could judge the difference in situational awareness between the real thing and the computer flight simulator game, even in full dome simulators. Believe me, it's huge. Yes whole 360 sphere is equally important, especially when manoevring, turning and banking, the horizon can be anywhere. "Rubber necking" is the name of the game.

And don't underestimate the pair concept, lead and wingmen covering each other for threats. About all incoming missiles have been spotted by the wingmen first. There is no way that UAV's can do that job.

That's all appreciated, but irrelevant nonetheless.
Fighter jets will stick around for a while, that's been agreed upon.

About the battle charts, available in the cockpit nowadays. You can see all your wingmens radar air pictures as well as what the magic eye sends you. It's a kind of jet-internet. Just search the info and select that you want. Moreover, there is that ever smarter threat warning thing that tells about which radars are shining on you from which direction. But it's still the visual identification in the terminal phase of whatever engagement. Sure sometimes this goes wrong ending in fratricide. But any idea how many times this would go wrong without visual identification from UAV's? All of those problems may hint why pilot training is the most expensive in the world.

A UAV doesn't need a threat warning thing. You don't need to watch for missiles or fly in formation - you don't even have to deal with that tiresome business of flying the damn thing. You can take your time to look at the target, around it, zoom in, zoom out, look at the maps to make sure you're looking where you should, print out a snapshot, or just give a call to the intel officer - he'll come right over if he's not busy.
You said it: pilot training is the most expensive in the world. So are the planes and their development programs. So are carriers. So is jet fuel.
A UAV array - several dozen million $US.
A captive ejected pilot - priceless.

Another element about not develloping full capable UAV's is the general world situation. There is no more east-west cold war. There are no more high intensity treath scenarios in which it would be paramount not to risk pilots lives. And military budgets hold world records for diminishing rates. There are simply no more funds to devellop completely different concepts.

That's right - they're all being spent on pilots' training, R&D, carriers, jet fuel, maintenance. How much does it cost to feed a carrier at full capacity?

BTW what's better for modern scenarios than a fleet of long haul UAVs that can reach anywhere on the globe? Those predators operating in Afghanistan [EDIT]used to[/EDIT] take off from Nevada.

 

[mheslep]

you guys think too much in technical terms and fallacies. Leather jackets and top gun don't count. Have you been there? Have you done that?

"Are you a fighter pilot?"
"You don't ask a man if he's a fighter pilot, if he is he'll let you know, if he's not, don't embarrass him."

Flight of the Intruder

 

[Andre]

Gee, there are so any jets flying around, chances are that somebody is a fighter pilot.

Anyway, let's complicate the matter a bit. We're thinking Middle East scenarios with no cloud in the sky, viz unlimited. In the Balkans there was not a day without a cloud. Rather a nuissance for a targeting pod. -BTW there is no need to contact a intell guy should a target be identified. That's part of the knowlegde.- Anyway, flying around trying to find a hole to punch through the clouds and then navigate with 40 seconds worth of visibility will be very challenging for remote operators

Another story, Mike a friend loves to tell his favorite story, he was on his way to target with his F-16 four ship during Gulf war I, when the magic eye asked him if he could help out some isolated forces that were pinned down by the bad guys. So he diverted to there and soon had the bunch visual. So when he started the attack he noticed that the own troops were way to close into the bad guys, within the lethal bomb range and that the bomb blast and fragmentation would likely be fatal. So he terminated the run dry and got an idea. He was going to give them an airshow that they would remember for the rest of their lives. So he made multiple very low dry passes with sonic booms. That worked. In no time the bad guys ran and everybody made it home safe. His portrait is in the hall of fame of that unit. Tell me how you would do that with UAV's, that is including the retasking, the identifying the individual men and judging the distance to be within lethal range and the airshow itself.

Oh, and the main job for air forces is not to support army surface operations but to achieve the political aims of our own coalition, with our without the army.

 

[Yonoz]

Anyway, let's complicate the matter a bit. We're thinking Middle East scenarios with no cloud in the sky, viz unlimited. In the Balkans there was not a day without a cloud. Rather a nuissance for a targeting pod.

And we saw how well modern fighters and bombers performed under those conditions anyway... Have you had a chance to check out some modern IR sensors? It's all a matter of technological development. In this case the technology is already available, it's only a matter of specifying how you want it put together.

BTW there is no need to contact a intell guy should a target be identified. That's part of the knowlegde.

So you don't believe there's any added value in having the people whose entire job is to know what's going on down there on the same site as the person who operates and aims the weapons.

Anyway, flying around trying to find a hole to punch through the clouds and then navigate with 40 seconds worth of visibility will be very challenging for remote operators

A decade ago, maybe. These days we have GPS, gyros, and computers that don't mind doing a bit of trigonometry. Want to know where you are? Just look at the monitor - that's you in the center, and there's the point on the ground where your sensor is looking.

Another story, Mike a friend loves to tell his favorite story, he was on his way to target with his F-16 four ship during Gulf war I, when the magic eye asked him if he could help out some isolated forces that were pinned down by the bad guys. So he diverted to there and soon had the bunch visual. So when he started the attack he noticed that the own troops were way to close into the bad guys, within the lethal bomb range and that the bomb blast and fragmentation would likely be fatal. So he terminated the run dry and got an idea. He was going to give them an airshow that they would remember for the rest of their lives. So he made multiple very low dry passes with sonic booms. That worked. In no time the bad guys ran and everybody made it home safe. His portrait is in the hall of fame of that unit. Tell me how you would do that with UAV's, that is including the retasking, the identifying the individual men and judging the distance to be within lethal range and the airshow itself.

Just one question - what sort of payload was Mike carrying? Because if it's one of those big CBUs, it's a terrific example why smaller drones with smaller payloads are much more versatile. Mike couldn't use the payload because the simple fact that we have to face more and more lately is that big, heavy jets with big, heavy cluster bombs are overkill for most targets in a modern battlefield, especially in the higher-likelihood scenarios. Why use a large fragmentation bomb when you can pick individual targets one by one with small, accurate weapons?
Retasking is simpler with UAVs than with planes that are already in the air, the operators are right there in the HQ or very near it. You can tap one of them on the shoulder and brief them inside their "cockpit" in person. Rather than converse with someone through at least a third party, over a radio, you do it in person, and you can put your finger on the monitor and say "there they are". No need to transmit coordinates or code names, less fumbling with maps and booklets, finding the right frequency etc.
It's much easier to identify ground forces and figure out who's who with a UAV - there's no need to conduct any sort of run, you can see the shell casings in the IR. Look at the detail in the footage that starts about 10 seconds into this video, you can see the detail down to the charging http://switch3.castup.net/cunet/gm.asp?ClipMediaID=1451741&ak=null" (around 0:55). Have you ever seen anything like that in a cockpit? You can tell the distance very accurately with a UAV, you just point, click, repeat. Or click and drag. Or whatever you ask the designers to make it.

Oh, and the main job for air forces is not to support army surface operations but to achieve the political aims of our own coalition, with our without the army.

Seems like this is evolving into a military doctrine discussion.
The political aims of your coalition, and every other political entity have everything to do with the ground and very little to do with the sky. This has always been the case and always will be, at least until we start living in airborne cities, like in that Star Wars movie, but they also had droids.

 

[Andre]

1. Technology, again all available technology is available in the manned fighters and it's no problem to know where you are, where you're going and where your target is. Now tell a blindfolded man (clouds) that he is at 42.368542255 North 028.2548889921 East and that his target bearing and range is 021.02558 degrees at 12.87433 nautical miles. And now? He can get his weapon there blindly (GPS), punching in the numbers, no problem but what if the convoy just drove away or when a crowd of citizens just had arrived? Then you'd have a formidable legal problem. Nowadays the squadrons and headquarters are crowded with legal advisors to see if targetting was done in accordance with the conventions, laws and rules. .

2. Balkan, it's quite possible to hide battaillions in a theater like that, under the trees, in sheds etc. The best possible way to have effective use of weapons there would have been with eyes on target of a SOF unit, procedures for that been implemented and this means coordination. Coordinating with remote operators or robots is a tad more difficult than with a guy in a cockpit. Meanwhile, a Predator type UAV in that area would not have lasted long, there was plenty of air defence around

3. I don't know what Mike's ordnance was but likely he was there for a bigger job and the standard ordnance in those days was the Mk84 2000lbs for busting bunkers etc. Not suitable to end a fire fight between parties some 100 feet apart.

4. Nice IR footage. Compared to targetting pod footage it's certainly remarkable but what would you do with your U(C)AV to hit the bad guys while avoiding hitting the good guys?

5. Military doctrine. Yes, the most important military philosopher, Tzun su, wrote a book, "The art of war", oh errm..some 2600 years ago. The bottom line is to try and find the best way to win a war by not fighting. Try to have your opponent lose his will to fight. Tank bataillons engaging each other seems not to be the most effective way to discourage an opponent to continue hostilities, since that's what tank bataillions are there for in the first place. Gulf War one was a good example of trying it the Tzun Su way. John Warden III became legendary by designing the air campaign according to his own idea of the 5 rings of target categories. If a hostile country is completely controlled by a tirant, then the tirant is the main target, the central ring, the "centre of gravity". It had worked with Ghadaffi before (1984). If the tirant keeps busy hiding for air raids then there isn't much time left for controlling the war. The idea is that this should be rather discouraging. Then there are no tank bataillions needed and hence there is no army around to support and hence no supporting function for the air force.

Bottom line. It takes strategists to win wars, facilitated by hardware provided by the technicians. If the latter want to adapt the hardware to meet the strategists needs, they need to know what the strategists know and they better listen.

Now a completely different story, the other week we had an airliner with a serious technical electrical emergency disabling him to navigate. The only gadget left was the emergency radio on a separate battery circuit. So, we were alerted and we sent two Quick Reaction Force fighters airborne which joined up with the airliner and guided it to a suitable airport to land. I wonder how you would do that with UAVs.

 

[Yonoz]

1. Technology, again all available technology is available in the manned fighters and it's no problem to know where you are, where you're going and where your target is. Now tell a blindfolded man (clouds) that he is at 42.368542255 North 028.2548889921 East and that his target bearing and range is 021.02558 degrees at 12.87433 nautical miles. And now? He can get his weapon there blindly (GPS), punching in the numbers, no problem but what if the convoy just drove away or when a crowd of citizens just had arrived? Then you'd have a formidable legal problem. Nowadays the squadrons and headquarters are crowded with legal advisors to see if targetting was in accordance with the conventions, laws and rules.

What if he could see where his weapon was going, like those famous 1st Gulf War cam shots of missiles going into a window? That technology is over a decade old.

2. Balkan, it's quite possible to hide battaillions in a theater like that, under the trees, in sheds etc. The best possible way to have effective use of weapons there would have been with eyes on target of a SOF unit, procedures for that been implemented and this means coordination. Coordinating with remote operators or robots is a tad more difficult than with a guy in a cockpit. Meanwhile, a Predator type UAV in that area would not have lasted long, there was plenty of air defence around

I highly disagree with that SO statement, but I'll have to leave it at that.
A high-flying UAV isn't easy to shoot down for a variety of reasons, but I think the heaviest toll extracted of NATO was that F-117 that was shot down (by an SA-3) - certainly no one made a deal of the 32 UAVs that were lost to accidents and AA fire. I believe it was even cheaper to lose all those UAVs than that F-117, but economics are only a part of the equation. What if that pilot hadn't been recovered?

3. I don't know what Mike's ordnance was but likely he was there for a bigger job and the standard ordnance in those days was the Mk84 2000lbs for busting bunkers etc. Not suitable to end a fire fight between parties some 100 feet apart.

Sounds like the perfect job for a Predator packing hellfires.

4. Nice IR footage. Compared to targetting pod footage it's certainly remarkable but what would you do with your U(C)AV to hit the bad guys while avoiding hitting the good guys?

That was just a demonstration of what operators can do to differentiate the good guys from the bad guys, without having to conduct runs etc. Imagine what IR sensors will be able to do in 5, 10, 20 years' time. Had that been a UAV with attack capabilities in a war situation, it would've attacked the enemy without requiring a ground force to go in and make sure it's not just two kids playing in the dunes in the middle of the night.

5. Military doctrine. Yes, the most important military philosopher, Tzun su, wrote a book, "The art of war", oh errm..some 2600 years ago. The bottom line is to try and find the best way to win a war by not fighting. Try to have your opponent lose his will to fight. Bataillons of tanks engaging each other seems not the most effective way to discourage an opponent to continue hostilities, since that's what bataillions of tanks are there for in the first place. Gulf War one was a good example of trying it the Tzun Su way. John Warden III became legendary by designing the air campaign according to his own idea of the 5 rings of target categories. If a hostile country is completely controlled by a tirant, then the tirant is the main target, the central ring, the centre of gravity. It had worked with Ghadaffi before (1984). If the tirant keeps busy hiding for air raids then there isn't much time left for controlling the war. The idea is that this should be rather discouraging. Then there are no tank bataillions needed and hence there is no army around to support and hence no supporting function for the air force.

I agree with everything except that last bit - what war does that tyrant have to control if there's no one on the ground fighting, or at least threatening to fight? You need those tank battallions, even if they don't fire a shot in anger, otherwise that tyrant can simply stay under cover and call your bluff. I believe Col. Ghadaffi is still in power.
BTW Sun Tzu's writings are indeed a source of great wisdom, but one has to interpret them to use in modern warfare. That interpretation is naturally quite open - mine differs from yours.

Bottom line. It takes strategists to win wars, facilitated by hardware provided by the technicians. If the latter want to adapt the hardware to meet the strategists needs, they need to know what the strategists know and they better listen.

Agreed. Unfortunately, good strategists can be defined as such only in retrospect: so far the handywork of those strategists that conducted what our analysts call "the fire wars": Kosovo, Grapes of Wrath, Lebanon etc. is pretty much agreed to be fundamentally lacking.
Lacking what? The fundamental principle of warfare: a maneuver effort.

Now a completely different story, the other week we had an airliner with a serious technical electrical emergency disabling him to navigate. The only gadget left was the emergency radio on a separate battery circuit. So, we were alerted and we sent two Quick Reaction Force fighters airborne which joined up with the airliner and guided it to a suitable airport to land. I wonder how you would do that with UAVs.

Like I said, fighters will stick around for a while - no argument there. It does not contradict my assertion that UAVs will adopt greater, more varied roles. I believe there are other types of manned crafts that can do that and don't cost as much.