(06-27-2017 05:35 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 04:44 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:50 PM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  Nothing yet has stated why the first missile didn't hit the target, so why is the miss assumed to be missile error? Maybe the MIG pilot evaded the first missile. Maybe the F-18 fired too soon. Maybe this, maybe that.

Can't we just reserve a bit of judgement here?

The article says the Russian plane deployed flares. It goes on to say that it's believed the missile software was tested to avoid American flares, but may have been fooled by Russian flares that burn differently and are not as consistent in their intensity.

I can believe that. Why would our government spend money on well thought out projects that consider every possible scenario when they can waste billions on poorly thought out ones that don't require a lot of critical thinking skills?

Probably because when they develop something awesome like the world's best air superiority fighter a moron politician comes along and cancels it before the full production run.. so why bother?

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

(06-27-2017 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

This we agree on. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I'm swinging more towards bad.

(06-27-2017 05:56 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

This we agree on. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I'm swinging more towards bad.

It is what it is. We have a volunteer army---- so we will rarely be able to count on overwhelming opponents by the sheer number of boots on the ground.

(06-27-2017 05:56 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

This we agree on. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I'm swinging more towards bad.

It is very good as a deterrent.

But it gets bad when you connect the plans to the internet and they are stolen or the Iranians hack it in flight and land it at their airport.

Or you willingly let foreign nationals work in sensitive places and they naturally pass the info on.

Etc., etc.

Your expensive tech advantage is short-lived if you are lax about protecting it. You end up just paying your enemies R&D costs.

(06-27-2017 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:56 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

This we agree on. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I'm swinging more towards bad.

It is what it is. We have a volunteer army---- so we will rarely be able to count on overwhelming opponents by the sheer number of boots on the ground.

I don't want to get deep into it here because it would be too much of a derail, but you raise a larger point that probably deserves its own thread. Generally speaking, only certain classes of American society serve in the military. How do we re-ingrain the idea of military service into American society as a whole? Not only is it a shared sacrifice thing, I view it as a legitimate national security issue.

(06-27-2017 07:05 PM)ArmyBlazer Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 06:33 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:56 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 05:50 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(06-27-2017 03:41 PM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  These weapons are essentially those things you see at car, electronic, tool, etc expos. Bring something big and shiny to get people to invest in research. It's just that at those expos, the product often never makes it to market as is because it is obviously impractical. That LED car you see at a Detroit Expo is never going to be sold, even if the tech behind it is put to use. If that LED car were to be made by Northrop, the government would pay a sh*tload of money for it.

We are dependent on being the most technologically advanced military because we replace manpower with technology.

This we agree on. Whether it's good or bad, I don't know. I'm swinging more towards bad.

It is what it is. We have a volunteer army---- so we will rarely be able to count on overwhelming opponents by the sheer number of boots on the ground.

I don't want to get deep into it here because it would be too much of a derail, but you raise a larger point that probably deserves its own thread. Generally speaking, only certain classes of American society serve in the military. How do we re-ingrain the idea of military service into American society as a whole? Not only is it a shared sacrifice thing, I view it as a legitimate national security issue.

Although it goes against my generally libertarian leanings, I would be open to exploring some sort of arrangement whereby everyone between, say, 18 and 26, had to perform two years of some sort of national service--military, peace corps, something like the old VISTA or WPA or CCC, things like that.

One problem with a pure draft military has been suggested here--the level of technical sophistication in the modern armed forces exceed what many draftees could handle. But my idea would allow the armed forces to be selective. It would also mesh well with my other idea of converting about 400,000 active duty military to maybe 1,000,000 reserve positions. With a reserve slot costing about 20% what an active slot costs, that would cut the cost of the affected slots in half.