Comments on: Commoditising High Cost Technology

By: taust

taust — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 13:35:10 +0000

cam;
presumably air war between ‘equal’ opponents would include ground to air as well as just air to air.

The UK airforce were forced to stop low level air strikes in the Gulf war by ground based fire and that was not exactly war between equals.

The Falklands War might be the most equal of posr WW2 wars and it took longer than 24 hrs to gain air superiority.

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 12:55:35 +0000

Precisely, though the V2 was not good value – it cost about the same to build as a four-engine bomber and could only be used once.

The V1, by contrast, *was* very good value, but too inaccurate with the technology of the time. But these days, there’s absolutely no reason why a V1 couldn’t be as accurate as a Tomahawk missile with the addition of $500 worth of GPS and controller.

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 08:35:12 +0000

Like V1s and V2s – though I guess V2s cost a lot more than a Barina!

By: Robert Merkel

Robert Merkel — Mon, 02 Oct 2006 07:35:45 +0000

Um, yes, for ground reconnaisance any idiot can build or buy a UAV.

Building something that can accurately destroy ground targets from the air, or, even harder, shoot down another aircraft, is much tougher. So is building a missile guidance unit for an anti-aircraft missile.

States are not likely to lose air superiority over non-state actors any time soon.

As for private satellites, governments take a rather keen interest in what private companies launch into space.

On the topic of what state militaries can do with UAVs, there seems to me to be a lack of thought put in to how to use them effectively – to a large extent, they’re building unmanned versions of the same Rolls-Royces they build for crewed aircraft. If you build’em cheap and simple, it doesn’t matter if half a dozen get shot down if you’re churning the things out on a production line for the price of a Barina.

By: cam

cam — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 14:40:09 +0000

Taust, US Air Force losses in Korea were 1,180 killed. It is surprising how little damage was done in air to air combat prior to precision weaponry like air to air missiles. The US didn’t have the opportunity of total war in Korea either, and couldn’t do ground strikes on the bases in China.

By: taust

taust — Sun, 01 Oct 2006 10:39:37 +0000

When two technically equal powers fight an air battle the casualties can be as high as any other form of warfare. Probably the last time this occured was in the Korean war.

By: cam

cam — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 02:31:59 +0000

JC, Air Force deaths are few and far between anyway. Air superiority is usually decided in the first 24 hours and most of the destruction occurs on the ground, not in the air.

By: Jc

Jc — Sat, 30 Sep 2006 01:13:29 +0000

As someone once wrote. The new cockpit will require a pilot and a dog. The dog is there to bite the pilot of he touches anything.

UAV’s are the way foward seeing we have develpoed a low tolerance for military deaths in combat.