In his disturbed state Wolfman wrote: Reading comprehension, trying figuring that one out.
Aww poor Wolfie is trying to defend his idiotic commentary...isn't that special.
No one bats 1000 not even DARPA did I ever say that they were infallible? But yes, of course eliminating a few DARPA programs that you don't understand and assume are of questionable value because of your inability to grasp their significance and potential is the easiest way to solve our budgetary problems. "Just tell DARPA to fuck off"...that's quite a solution. Especially since DARPA accounts for such a tiny fraction of the defense budget. You invoked Kflint
But what about Kflint? Did you notice a qualitative difference between Kflint's posts and yours? I sure did. Did you notice that he spoke in specifics and included citations as well as his educated opinion? That is why I take Kflint seriously all the time
and give you the gaff most of the time sport.
DARPA's Approach to Innovation and Its Reflection in Industry wrote:Today's world is changing rapidly, providing exceptional challenges and opportunities. As shown by recent events, it is increasingly complex and chaotic with seemingly small actions triggering massive changes. In addition, the rate of technological change is accelerating at what some would say is an exponential pace based on principles such as Moore's law, Metcalf's law, and Schumpeter's waves. An outcome of this change is that our work is becoming more interdisciplinary. Information technology is impacting chemistry, physics is impacting biology, and nanotechnology is pervasive in many disciplines.
How does one manage and control these changes? How does one harness this complexity and growing multidisciplinarity to solve critical problems for society? For approximately 50 years the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) has played a leading role in turning innovations in technology into new military capabilities. In fact, most military and many civilian systems today can trace their origins to funding from DARPA. These include the Internet (ARPANET), high-speed microelectronics, stealth and satellite technologies, unmanned vehicles, and a wide variety of new materials. What are the driving forces, culture, and processes employed by DARPA to accelerate technical innovation, and how can these same techniques be used effectively in academia, national laboratories, and industry? Article
I found this comment of yours to be particularly enlightening Wolfman
Wolfman wrote:I'm not sure if Drones will be enough of a major aspect of combat in the coming years to make dropping an insane amount of money on it today worth it.
That is an absolutely amazing comment. It reminds me the US Navy's 'enlightened' attitude towards a funny rickety little thing called the airplane in the 1920s especially after the sinking of the SMS Ostfriesland by some rickety old biplanes.
In 1921 Admiral William D. Leahy wrote:"The entire experiment pointed to the improbability of a modern battleship being either destroyed or completely put out of action by aerial bombs." Battleships sunk by aircraft in open water WW2.
HMS Repulse, HMS Prince of Wale, Italian battleship Roma, INS Hiei, INS Musashi, INS Yamato, Greek battleships Kilkis, Greek battleships Limnos,Battleships sunk by aircraft in port WW2.
USS Oklahoma, USS Arizona, USS California, USS West Virginia, Schleswig-Holstein, Admiral Hipper, Conte di Cavour, INS Haruna, INS Ise, Niels Juel, Marat,
In contrast to your analyses of the usefulness and future of UCAVs or Unmanned Combat Air Vehicles the major nations of the the world are pursuing the development of these aggressively with the holy grail being the UCAVs that can operate without human intervention. The Autonomous Air Combat Vehicle.
What will these critters offer in the not too distant future? How about a level of aerobatic performance that would kill a human pilot, the ability to remain on station many times longer than an aircraft with a human pilot can (with the application of in flight refueling one could stay up for days). And this will be delivered at a cost that is only a fraction of what a high performance manned fighter costs.
And once the technology is refined and they start building production line models you can expect a drastic reduction in price (and that isn't even in question). Just imagine for a moment a small highly sophisticated 15 million dollar Autonomous UCAV that can out dance 150 million dollar F-22s or 100 million dollar SU-27s because it isn't limited to the -3g to +9g limits of a human pilot. The operational limits of the aircraft will be the limits of the air frame. And as Kflint said:
Kflint wrote:The price to build one unit, now that it has been designed and built, will be much lower than a single low cost fighter jet. Look at the size of the craft, drone deployment could be in the 1000's....enough to thwart most threats.
Sadly, there will come a day in the near future when a squadron of Autonomous UCAVs configured for Air to Air combat will show up at Nelis AFB and turn the place upside down and leave behind a lot of hombres in aggressor squadron with serious emotional problems. Of course UCAV's will never completely replace conventional fighter aircraft but they will powerfully augment the force...its just a matter of time.And Wolfman, make sure to tell DARPA to fuck off for me.