F-35 over F-22?

[AngryABCGirl]

Originally Posted by LaiSteve66

Spending money on airplanes to prepare for some unlikely war despite the fact that our country and government is bankrupt is about as bright of an idea as someone on unemployment insurance buying a P90 for the unlikely home invasion when he can barely pay the mortgage and put food on the table.

It's also not only that issue- it's unlikely a large-scale conventional war will be fought by the US in our lifetimes- if not ever again. The US military up until very recently has been designed to repel a Soviet Invasion of Europe, which quite frankly is no longer a danger because it no longer exists and indications that that was never a threat. However military contracting and structure had largely not been changed until Iraq and Afganistan and still not changed all that much and faces challenges being changed because of machine of work contracts, etc.

The other issue is big dangers, threats to security, and the movement of the types of global conflicts most nations will face is assymetrical warfare through these "bush conflicts" and more guerrila and urban warfare that deserves military investment and training- not items like conventional fighter aircraft.

[MarshalStealth]

In terms of military warfare, the U.S. priorities have changed and the # of oppositions has increased. Regardless of their choice of fighter jets, Obama's administration realized that their first priority was to protect the computer networks and databases from various foreign powers. It has been penetrated many times for the last few years.

For those foreign powers, the name of the game is exploiting and implementing from beyond the borders.

Penetrated network and databases means the opposition knows almost everything about the objectives, the tactics, the means and the modes of their target. They can also create illusions within the network.

Conclusively, having access to this level of intelligence means the attacker has the advantage of the first move. This first (strategic) move could be a collection of many small moves that is based on the access of network and the available intelligence. However, that is another post.

Obama's team made the right move to protect the computer networks and the databases first.

[LaiSteve66]

Originally Posted by MarshalStealth

Each and every major global power has a military machine. It will be here long after we are gone. ...

So what? That doesn't change our current situation now does it?

[MarshalStealth]

Originally Posted by LaiSteve66

So what? That doesn't change our current situation now does it?

It does not change our current situation.

The more things change, certain things remain the same.

[LaiSteve66]

The other issue is big dangers, threats to security, and the movement of the types of global conflicts most nations will face is assymetrical warfare through these "bush conflicts" and more guerrila and urban warfare that deserves military investment and training- not items like conventional fighter aircraft.

What we need is a neutral foreign policy. If we had one, we never would of wasted all this money on these stupid neo-con toys or involved ourselves in these useless conflicts that would call for urban warfare training.

[Sunflare]

Chase251 should have set up a poll. That would have been interesting.

[LaiSteve66]

Originally Posted by MarshalStealth

It does not change our current situation.

The more things change, certain things remain the same.

You're right, the last country to choose guns over butter went bankrupt, collapsed, and lost its position on the world stage. Yes things do remain the same.

[MarshalStealth]

Originally Posted by LaiSteve66

What we need is a neutral foreign policy. If we had one, we never would of wasted all this money on these stupid neo-con toys or involved ourselves in these useless conflicts that would call for urban warfare training.

Be like Switzerland.

Originally Posted by Sunflare

Chase251 should have set up a poll. That would have been interesting.

Should have, ... could have, ... and would have. ... What would be the focus point of the poll?

[MarshalStealth]

REVISED

Originally Posted by Sunflare

Chase251 should have set up a poll. That would have been interesting.

What is the purpose of this proposed poll?

Originally Posted by LaiSteve66

You're right, the last country to choose guns over butter went bankrupt, collapsed, and lost its position on the world stage. Yes things do remain the same.

No one stays #1 forever.

[Sunflare]

Originally Posted by drydem

They problably won't transform into anything like in the Japanese anime or be autonomous like in the Terminator film series - but should be just as deadly.

The Pentagon already got unmanned vehicles of all sorts in the works.



The Armed Robotic Vehicle Assault Light or XM1219. It will feature an integrated weapons and reconnaissance, surveillance, and target acquisition system to support the soldier to locate and destroy enemy platforms and positions. The robot will support both anti-tank and anti-personnel weapons that will be remotely operated by network linked Soldiers.

Imagine a mounted machine gun or auto shotgun on one of these suckers.



The BigDog. Something straight out of Star Wars.

Instead of using wheels or threads it uses four legs for movement, allowing it to move across surfaces that would defeat wheels. The legs itself are incorperated with sensors, including joint position and ground contact. the robot also features a laser gyroscope and a stereo vision system.

The BigDog is approcimately 3 feet long, in full standing position @ 2.5 feet, and weighing about 240 pounds. It is capablities includes of traversing difficult terrain, at a top spoeed of at 4 miles per hour. It can carry up to 340 pounds and climb a 35 degree incline.

Movement, navigation and balance of the machine is controlled by an onboard computer that receives input from the robot's sensors. are also managed by the control system. Even when hit, the robot can regain it's position and keep moving.

The Big Dog has a two-stroke, one-cylinder, 15-HP go-kart engine operating at 9,000 RPM. The engine drives a hydraulic pump. Which drives the hydraulic leg actuators. Each leg has four 'actuators' which consists of a hydraulic cylinder, servovalve, position sensor, and force sensor.

The comuter powerhouse is a PC/104 board stack with a Pentium 4 class computer running on QNX. (What is QNX?)



The Dragon Runner is another military robot built for urban combat. Weighing at 9 pounds it is light enough to even be carried in a Marine's backpack.

The robot has four wheels, is very rugged, and can be thrown over fences, up or down stairwells, or from a moving vehicle, or even from a window from the third floor. It really doesn't matter how it lands because neither side is actually the right side up.

This robot is designed for areas too dangerous or inaccessible for human soldiers. It features a front mounted tilting camera and a microphone which provides a good view. The video feed is relayed back to the master control by a wireless modem. It can can be useful in giving the soldier the ability to look around a corner where an enemy might be hiding without getting barraged with bullets or grenades in the process. The Dragon Runner is especially useful is urban combat.



The R-Gator an Unmanned Ground Vehicle. It has been used in real time combat operations in Iraq.



The XM1216 Small Unmanned Ground Vehicle (SUGV). It is a lightweight, manportable Unmanned Ground Vehicle capable of conducting military operations in close quarter terrain particularly in urban terrain, tunnels, sewers, and caves. The SUGV is udeful in the performance of manpower-intensive or high-risk functions such as in urban Intelligence, Surveillance, and Reconnaissance missions.

Interestingly, the combat engineer uses an X-box type controller to maneuver the robot.





The SYRANO is the first operational battlefield robot developed by the French military. Now that's a mean looking kick ass machine right there.

And finally of honorable mention:



The MQ-1 Predator. An unmanned remote controlled vehicle used by United States Air Force. It serves in a reconnaissance role and can be equipped with AGM-114 Hellfire missiles. The MQ-1 is a veteran robotic aircraft that has seen combat over Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bosnia, Serbia, Iraq, and Yemen. The U.S. Customs and Border Protection uses the aircraft for border patrol within the U.S.

Originally Posted by MarshalStealth

What is the purpose of this proposed poll?

To see what ppl's opinions are on the plane that kicks the most ass: The F-35, F-22, SU-35 or the Su-30?

[MarshalStealth]

Originally Posted by Sunflare

To see what ppl's opinions are on the plane that kicks the most ass: The F-35, F-22, SU-35 or the Su-30?

Unless a sector of the YW readers have real jet fighter experience and true interest in this topic, I do not think people care.

[Sunflare]

Well I think it's good that we all dwell away from the usual hardcore APA topics once in a while. This is one outlet.

[MarshalStealth]

SIDEBAR TIME:

Here is some more material on why the change of strategy from a policy viewpoint

S-Flare,

Cyber Warfare was one of the game-changers that I was talking about. ...

Whenever, a game-changer of this magnitude is implemented, the decision-maker(s) must decide whether he/she is willing to live with the consequences from such disruption. At the end, the top-tier decision maker must determine whether the intended outcome is greater than the secondary after-effects.

August 2, 2009
Cyberwar
Halted ’03 Iraq Plan Illustrates U.S. Fear of Cyberwar Risk
By JOHN MARKOFF and THOM SHANKER

It would have been the most far-reaching case of computer sabotage in history. In 2003, the Pentagon and American intelligence agencies made plans for a cyberattack to freeze billions of dollars in the bank accounts of Saddam Hussein and cripple his government’s financial system before the United States invaded Iraq. He would have no money for war supplies. No money to pay troops.

“We knew we could pull it off — we had the tools,” said one senior official who worked at the Pentagon when the highly classified plan was developed.

But the attack never got the green light. Bush administration officials worried that the effects would not be limited to Iraq but would instead create worldwide financial havoc, spreading across the Middle East to Europe and perhaps to the United States.

Fears of such collateral damage are at the heart of the debate as the Obama administration and its Pentagon leadership struggle to develop rules and tactics for carrying out attacks in cyberspace.

While the Bush administration seriously studied computer-network attacks, the Obama administration is the first to elevate cybersecurity — both defending American computer networks and attacking those of adversaries — to the level of a White House director, whose appointment is expected in coming weeks.

But senior White House officials remain so concerned about the risks of unintended harm to civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure in an attack on computer networks that they decline any official comment on the topic. And senior Defense Department officials and military officers directly involved in planning for the Pentagon’s new “cybercommand” acknowledge that the risk of collateral damage is one of their chief concerns.

“We are deeply concerned about the second- and third-order effects of certain types of computer network operations, as well as about laws of war that require attacks be proportional to the threat,” said one senior officer.

This officer, who like others spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the classified nature of the work, also acknowledged that these concerns had restrained the military from carrying out a number of proposed missions. “In some ways, we are self-deterred today because we really haven’t answered that yet in the world of cyber,” the officer said.

In interviews over recent weeks, a number of current and retired White House officials, Pentagon civilians and military officers disclosed details of classified missions — some only considered and some put into action — that illustrate why this issue is so difficult.

Although the digital attack on Iraq’s financial system was not carried out, the American military and its partners in the intelligence agencies did receive approval to cripple Iraq’s military and government communications systems in the early hours of the war in 2003. And that attack did produce collateral damage.

Besides blowing up cellphone towers and communications grids, the offensive included electronic jamming and digital attacks against Iraq’s telephone networks. American officials also contacted international communications companies that provided satellite phone and cellphone coverage to Iraq to alert them to possible jamming and to ask their assistance in turning off certain channels.

Officials now acknowledge that the communications offensive temporarily disrupted telephone service in countries around Iraq that shared its cellphone and satellite telephone systems. That limited damage was deemed acceptable by the Bush administration.

Another such event took place in the late 1990s, according to a former military researcher. The American military attacked a Serbian telecommunications network and accidentally affected the Intelsat satellite communications system, whose service was hampered for several days.

These missions, which remain highly classified, are being scrutinized today as the Obama administration and the Pentagon move into new arenas of cyberoperations. Few details have been reported previously; mention of the proposal for a digital offensive against Iraq’s financial and banking systems appeared with little notice on Newsmax.com, a news Web site, in 2003.

The government concerns evoke those at the dawn of the nuclear era, when questions of military effectiveness, legality and morality were raised about radiation spreading to civilians far beyond any zone of combat.

“If you don’t know the consequences of a counterstrike against innocent third parties, it makes it very difficult to authorize one,” said James Lewis, a cyberwarfare specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

But some military strategists argue that these uncertainties have led to excess caution on the part of Pentagon planners.

“Policy makers are tremendously sensitive to collateral damage by virtual weapons, but not nearly sensitive enough to damage by kinetic” — conventional — “weapons,” said John Arquilla, an expert in military strategy at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, Calif. “The cyberwarriors are held back by extremely restrictive rules of engagement.”

Despite analogies that have been drawn between biological weapons and cyberweapons, Mr. Arquilla argues that “cyberweapons are disruptive and not destructive.”

That view is challenged by some legal and technical experts.

“It’s virtually certain that there will be unintended consequences,” said Herbert Lin, a senior scientist at the National Research Council and author of a recent report on offensive cyberwarfare. “If you don’t know what a computer you attack is doing, you could do something bad.”

Mark Seiden, a Silicon Valley computer security specialist who was a co-author of the National Research Council report, said, “The chances are very high that you will inevitably hit civilian targets — the worst-case scenario is taking out a hospital which is sharing a network with some other agency.”

And while such attacks are unlikely to leave smoking craters, electronic attacks on communications networks and data centers could have broader, life-threatening consequences where power grids and critical infrastructure like water treatment plants are increasingly controlled by computer networks.

Over the centuries, rules governing combat have been drawn together in customary practice as well as official legal documents, like the Geneva Conventions and the United Nations Charter. These laws govern when it is legitimate to go to war, and set rules for how any conflict may be waged.

Two traditional military limits now are being applied to cyberwar: proportionality, which is a rule that, in layman’s terms, argues that if you slap me, I cannot blow up your house; and collateral damage, which requires militaries to limit civilian deaths and injuries.

“Cyberwar is problematic from the point of view of the laws of war,” said Jack L. Goldsmith, a professor at Harvard Law School. “The U.N. Charter basically says that a nation cannot use force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any other nation. But what kinds of cyberattacks count as force is a hard question, because force is not clearly defined.”

Copyright 2009 The New York Times Company
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/02/us/politics/02cyber.html

[MarshalStealth]

Originally Posted by Sunflare

Well I think it's good that we all dwell away from the usual hardcore APA topics once in a while. This is one outlet.

What is the current set of hot hardcore APA topics?

[Sunflare]

Well I'm sure plenty of ppl (like me) gets burnt out after hearing about the latest scoop on Asian bashing or IR all the time. Yeah most defintely these are all revelent issues, but ppl need a break from it once in a while to catch a breather and talk about something new.