Kaktus29

whats the range in today's modern versions.. tomahawk is kinda old when it comes to what range it offers and obviously since cruise missiles get bigger ranges they become more strategic weapons than tactical.. i've read some articles about new gen Russian cruise missiles with a range of 6000 km, or even 10.000 km.. which would put them on par with ICBMs.. especially dangerous they are since they can overwhelm the defenses much faster and response time diminishes much more for the defender.. US has started voicing opposition to new Russian cruise missiles which only means they in fact do provide a bigger range and create real response issues for the other side.. http://en.ria.ru/world/20140130/187045403/US-Alleges-Russian-Missile-Treaty-Violation--Report.html soon, it would seem Bombers might become obsolete.. one might bombard another country safely from its own soil.. so whats the new thing that makes cruise missile with such a range.. do they fly super high super fast, or have better engines, better fuel.. i mean 2000 km is one thing but 6K, 10K? ..wow..

21 is a true icon, no way can we have a simulation of planes without it.. and this jewel is almost ready to pop and go out to be in our hands.. very important for that to happen..after that other modules follow.. i love the 21, and then as number increases i love them even more - mig-23,25,27,29,31.. ))

very good indeed... laser rangerfinder plus aiming.. now 21st century tanks act at least with shooting part like 21st century tanks..

my god, can you imagine the real world acting like we are.. Woman pilot in F-18 flying somewhere asks AWACS for Refueling coordinates AWACS dude: wow, hei youuu, so whats your name, what carrier do you come from..can i visit, buy you a drink, will you marry me?!.. Woman pilot: aaaam, lets put a pin on that one, and again can you give me coordinates to the tanker please.. AWACS dude: ohhh so the dude from refueling is good for ya ha? but not me? .. tough luck, no coordinates! )) Woman pilot: oh god this is DCS all over again..

i think the whole community kinda feels this as a big universe kick in the nads.. also quite dangerous as well, since the time to release modules or stuff is getting bigger and bigger, .. a cancellation of a module especially plane module that would be first (a new plane) in a long time would be bad.. i really do hope it gets through and not just through but still get released in march or lets say june.. but any longer than this and people might get fed up at standstill that has enveloped the pc war flight community..

picking Grippen and western missiles will mean one thing, no ability to use it in war unless green light comes from Washington.. Grippen comes from a nation that is western bound and tied over and under.. to believe for a second this nation will go against US pressure and force and still deliver maintenence parts and missile parts to Brazil in case Brazil angers US is wishful thinking.. How and why has Brazil chosen so badly only they know.. but its a stupid decision from strategic, tactical and just common sense point of view.. the chance of angering US is just sooo much bigger than angering Russia ..so this grippen will be mostly a tool used by Washington to exert influence in Brazil political decisions.. and Brazil did it all themselves.. why bother and pick grippen, just go for F-18 then if that's the stupid you want to drink.. why go to the middleman when you can go to the source..

@GG, sith.. lol, it seems you can't read, that is the problem here.. i didn't say anything about accuracy.. i am simply stating and wanting from you to SAY out loud.. IF, do you understand in english what IF means?.. IF a rocket anti-armor DOES land on TOP of the tank the tank will be destroyed.. that is all.. but you go on and rant its impossible, there is no way, Su-25 will not hit it on top but probably he will go under the earth and maybe hit his wheels.. and you make up all irrelevant things when the argument is simply IF a rocket anti-armor rocket HITS a tank on top of it will the tank be penetrated and destroyed or not.. its like i'm talking to children.. I admit the chances are low, i admit the accuracy is lower than gun or missile etc.. that is not the point.. we are discussing a very important scientific fact.. that is IF a rocket.. do i have to repeat this like 10000 times to get it? What is your problem in admitting scientific facts.. its like if you tell me IF you have a knife in your hand and stab a child in the heart he will die, and i go on a rant its impossible since i would never do such a thing.. i know that, i know i wouldn't do that but i have no problem confirming a simple fact that IF i would do something like that yes, the child would not survive.. you have such bias you can't admit it for the love of reason )) even in hypothetical scenario, even if i say there is a laboratory and tank is strapped, and rocket is 5 meter away, and lasers are pointing to the tank on top of it, and jesus himself gives special powers to guide the unguided rocket even at 5 meters away and if stars align and sun is in right position.. even then i have a feeling you will say, no way, it can't be done )) lol.. this is beyond laughable boys... beyond laughable.. this argument should be over long time ago by saying Rocket that LANDS on a tank means tank dead, chances of rocket land on tank = 0.05% or whatever.. but you keep claiming there is no chance to hit a tank with a rocket salvo and EVEN IF hit no chance to disable or do serious damage to tank since it will be only 1 missile.. it seems you need 1000 rockets fired from point blank range directly 90 degrees on top of the turret and EVEN then who knows right? )) L.O.L...

@sithspawn.. you see, you said if you landed ALL your rockets on target sure you could do some major damage.. " ..so now we agree that point 1: you will not hit anything cuz inaccuracy.. point 2: EVEN if you hit a tank on TOP of it with 1,2 rockets it will do no damage since you need to land ALL of your rockets to do serious damage" .. the biggest problem with the discussion is not accuracy but the ability of 1 single rocket IF landed on top armor just as any armor attack is usually done would create a kill situation ..while you experts are claiming it would do minor damage while 30mm cannon of A-10 will 10000 % for sure kill the tank.. this is the child like logic we are witnessing here.. its amazing really.. i'm waiting for you expert to tell me Kh-29 will not penetrate a truck..

i find it very strange when A-10 using 30mm cannon is somehow okei and it hits targets and can disable and destroy a tank even though cannon rounds are UNGUIDED as rockets but when it comes to Russian rockets claims pop up that you cannot hit anything, and if you hit anything you will not penetrate anything .. lol.. Rocket is stronger than 30mm cannon plus it gives you more range than gun.. we can all argue rockets are not good if major war happens since IAD will make it really hard to come so close to your tank targets.. but if we just ask a simple question will Russian or any other anti-tank rocket be able to demolish a tank? well of course the answer must be irrevocably YES.. let's have some consistency now.. or else we might hear Russian Kh-29 is not capable of destroying a truck..

Do you think its possible to arm Mi-28 with Hellfire missiles? i ask because US is delivering Hellfire missiles to Iraq and Iraq has Mi-28 and Mi-35 gunships.. so assuming those hellfire missiles must be fired from somewhere (presumably helicopters) i would like to know is it possible to use them on Mi28.. Also did US sold any apache to Iraq? ..if so, then well, disregard my first question.. although i think there are no apache in Iraqi air force as far as i know..

times of building your army once war starts are gone, WW2 was last such war that rebuilding your army while under severe attack was humanly possible, today with the tremendous damage modern air force that WINS the air war can inflict is soo huge that war is lost if you loose the air war.. you simply cannot put up resistance anymore after that.. to those who say nukes will prevent this major war to happen, well US is building ABM for exactly such reason.. to negate the nukes.. today Russia has 1200-1400 nukes, and 700 launch vehicles for them.. this number will keep droping while US ABM missiles will count in the hundreds if not thousands.. then a madmen in pentagon after playing with simulations in supercomputer world will say, "heck guys, we can take 'em, clean shot, first strike ability boys!" .. and just like that we are in a big load of trouble.. problem is, first strike can be soo devastating that there is no way to fight back.. Israel actually attacked first in the 1967 war and in 1973 war.. contrary to propaganda.. Israel ex-president and generals admit it themselves, Egypt was not ready and Syria was primary target, .. first strike that israel did was something akin to nazist on USSR when they demolished over 70 % of USSR airforce on the ground in one strike.. today, same thing... launch 10.000 cruise missiles, target airports, railroad, highway junction points, oil reserve depots, oil rigs, water purification and distribution systems, power-plants.. heck, you don't even need nukes to put out a country out of a fight.. after such a strike there is no fighting back (i'm talking in post-massive ABM installed world) ..

i think once a person recognizes realities its better, .. the turnover is simply not huge enough to warrant such quick development that would be in line with other genres of pc games (1-2 years of development before release of new game).. since the market is small, everything becomes harder i guess.. its okei.. just don't WAIT, continue with your lives, play other games, and keep your ED page refreshed once a month to see what is going on.. i know i will definitely play new products that will come, but until they do i shouldn't be angry or nervous or demanding things to happen quicker.. ED has its own plan, let them be.. it is a bit depressing that this niche of a market is really becoming dry.. ED is pretty much the only one left in the game.. we will see what future brings.. i hope positive things, ..

autonomous drones.. this trend is visible from space by now.. 20-40 years from now, i see a network of all kind of drones, some fully autonomous, some semi-autonomous, some constantly guided by operators on the ground, maybe even operators from AWACS or other fighter-jets kind of platform.. high AI of the said network that will make split-second decisions of what to do and how to defeat a radar, missile and other threats.. its only inevitable.. technology is developing, and complexities of plane systems are only increasing.. already now most of the hard work is done autonomous by computers in the plane, .. in our economy for better or worse AI has taken to some degree already, trading is done by machines in a particular trade that is mostly non-strategic as in day-trading milking and scooping the "change" left by the inefficient market..but doing it million of times in a second it comes to a huge money profit for those with such AI.. so, future air wars will be highly AI rich, and fast, super-fast in either winning or loosing the war.. it will be like, 3-5 days of intense air-war followed by capitulation of the defeated nation..or starvation of that nation since all critical infrastructure parts can be hit once the air war has been won by the "conquistador" ..

Rest in peace indeed, . . . a very modest man, who did everything in his power to protect the motherland.. he will never be forgotten.. Take care Mikhail Kalashnikov.. future Russian engineer will surely follow your footsteps ..

we will see how much of this is real as in "it will happen in 6-12 months" from now.. or more of a "nano-technology batteries that last 10 years without recharge" hype.. i'll believe and be happy about it when this is in the stores and games exist that implement it.. until then we can pretty much disregard it to start trek )) lol..

5th generation helicopter that goes 600 km/h .. and has stealth features.. http://en.ria.ru/military_news/20131219/185741567/Russia-to-Develop-5th-Generation-Attack-Helicopter-by-2017.html how can Mi-28 be transformed into this miracle i don't know, but i'm excited to see what happens.. is it possible to just strap a jet engine on its back and there you go..but then overall range will be bad as chopper gets much heavier..

GG i'm not trying to say drones will be used as japanese kamikaze, that would truly be useless tactic since as you said they're not really inexpensive.. but, a stealthy drone coupled with satellite, sub detection nets will guide the particular drones to a healthy 200-400 miles range from which to fire anti-ship cruise missiles.. now the biggest advantage i was going for was that if you have "global" drones its easier to converge them to this threat you are dealing with (1 carrier group, or 2 or whatever) than calling your ships from other side of planet and that takes 2 weeks to reach your theater of operations.. its takes just soo long.. in every combat speed matter, speed determines if you dance around your enemy or enemy does to you.. i will give you the weakest link of them all-satellite link-ups and possibility to jamm it, destroy the satellite or any combination of that.. but it depends on drone development or should i say AI development.. if AI improves to a point where drone can make rudimentary choices (attack, defend, observe and report, observe and await orders, ) ..so no constant link-up to direct the drone would be required than drones suddenly become much more resiliant and in its automatic response even more fast to the slow ships below.. no matter how we flip it, in the end, its network centric approach that will be determined with high computational speed and AI that works and decides on milisecond decisions on what to do and where... the thing is, drones will still be faster than ships.. and this is advantage that ships can never replace.. just as battleships couldn't when fighting carriers.. if our planet would be the size of jupiter with gigantic oceans so no drone could operate from mainland to strike ships at sea, then of course, aircraft carriers or drone carriers would be number 1 still.. but as soon the drones acquire the range that almost surpasses what carrier provides then it becomes useless.. would you agree that 200 fighter jets (same class, same tech, etc) from the mainland going after 70 fighters from carriers in a battle..do you believe that the latter would loose because outnumbered? .if so, what to do here? ..carrier move further away from coast.. obviously.. but since mainland planes endure more and more time in the air(drones) this space from coast becomes bigger and bigger to the point where floating airfields loose any advantage to your regular normal air base.. US navy will do whatever missions they want straight from Hawai, of Japan, or San Francisco.. so why bother putting a massive target practice ship in the ocean?.. of course, much of my hypothesis lays on further drone development that will mostly assist in autonomy of the drone and networking ability with other drones to manufacture a sensible assault plan in choice is made to attack certain target + be able to work in situation where satellites/support are/is knocked off..

@vampyre.. you again claim who will protect those merchant ships in the middle of the oceans.. i told you.. DRONES.. when a drone will have 60 hour endurance and will be able to refuel from another drone than yes, that merchant ship will have a REAL drone above them protecting them. .. i don't see the problem here.. and if needed other drones can converge to ANY POINT in the map to assist with a threat no matter the size.. do you see the advantage now?.. other navy ships will be right away swarmed by them.. and drones WILL see the ship before ships see them.. meaning the ability for first fire will be with the drone operators.. the strike can come from subs, drones, or mainland cruise missiles.. so your navy ships will be more or less safe only close to their shores.. meaning useless scrap of metal they become..

it was AAA, .. artillery system so yeah AAA did it..

i would like to think that this is compatible in gaming terms with DCS.. like if we imagine our oculus on our heads-eyes, our hands on HOTS throttle and stick..and since in DCS simulated plane like A-10 and hopefully others a mouse that is in front of the desk and you grab it and as you move your head in the plane you can find the panel or whatever you are looking for and use the move for the button-pressing in the cockpit.. i don't know how "easy" it would be to find a mouse in front of your computer, myself i think it shouldn't be too hard, its like, right there in front of you.. and to a degree it simulates real life.. you have to use left hand or right hand to press a button thus removing your hand from the stick or throttle.. only problem is you won't see the mouse in real life but will have to blind-search it and use it.. all in all, i think oculus will be a blast..

@vampyre afganistan is a clear example that navy had nothing to do with it.. you say they provided cruise missile attack etc.. yes,but they overflew Pakistan--which means they had access to pakistan which means this goes under the "LAND" route not navy route.. it was Air force and Army doing the job not navy.. - maintaining the drones, yes, having a base that is visible on the map, yes.. BUT, can you approach the base ? if you have drones patrolling the surroundings of the base like 1000 miles away.. i would say this base is more protected than carrier.. again, ..land bases are easier to stuff with lasers and anti-missile defense than ships are.. i thought this is no brainer here.. - you say navy stays away until safe to approach nearer.. well in that case they are useless altogether.. its like saying i will punch you in the face but only when you are on your knees.. and how exactly are you going to get on your knees? by whom if not by the warring party which is afraid to approach you.. If carrier is so far away that it cannot get involved with the mainland than its useless from the get-go.. If USN can't approach lets say China under 1000nm for all practical reasons we can safely say Naval assets are useless.. of course this is not true today, but in a major nation like China or Germany, Russia armed with drones with superior range, endurance, stealth coupled with land-based cruise missiles, submarines (that act like real naval assets) can launch devastating attack on enemy navy IF they dare come close to their shore(this distance is getting only bigger as time goes by not shorter.. -you are saying drones are evolutionary not revolutionary.. same thing was said for planes onboard battleships in WW1-WW2.. but they are in fact revolutionary that ended the reign of battleships.. drones i think will bury idea of standing navies altogether .. those building carriers in this age and time are just drawing a big circle on themselves.. -again you emphasize the need for sea lanes in order to supply troops, and bring troops.. forgeting the air component.. US send its soldiers to Vietnam mainly with passenger planes.. there was no marine amphibious invasion to secure the beaches and then expanding on that part.. as you simply cannot sustain logistics of such a move..it would be akin for me to travel to US and box 1 round with you, then going back across atlantic ocean to drink some fresh water and going back for round 2.. while you would drink 5 feet away from the ring.. in normandy the distance was measly 200-300 km.. in Vietnam it would be 8000 km.. landing on small islands that matter nothing in grand scale of things is one thing-since small islands can't station huge number of troops you can take them if you have naval superiority and small island cannot defend itself against incoming naval armada -even armed with anti-ship missiles sooner or later they would run out of ammo and would need to re-supply but naval lines would be blocked by enemy navy so there you go.. but trying to pull that on a MAINLAND its not the same.. its akin to destroying the whole nation simultaneously as you try to disembark and do Normandy 2.0.. -which is why i say wars will not be fought CLOSE to mainlands since with ever increasing and smart weapons with extending ranges, and drones "shadowing" all kind of naval assets the position of ships will be known, and decision to sink them will be able to implement easier than what this navy can implement to do damage to enemy mainland.. when cruise missiles increase ranges up to 4000-6000 miles we are in situation where navies can be sunk in their harbours.. they don't even need to get out of the harbout in the open ocean to be sunk.. who can spot such cruise missiles? ships?who are/will be main targets of drones? or OTHER drones that will patrol the skies, sea with almost laser precision.. you keep imagining the drones as today drones where they are flown by container pilots.. i think they will ride of this concept quite soon.. it will be more like 1 pilot/manager having control of 20 drones covering something like half of pacific ocean.. drones will detect threats on the ground, air automatically as Patriot or S-300 system does.. all you will do is be alerted to this situation and act on it by sending accordingly right orders to the many drones under your command.. --couple this with REFUEL able drone that will be able to automatically connect and refuel on its own as they can land on their own.. and we are close to a FORCE that resides in the skies 24/7 and moves ALL the time with speeds up to 500km/h. compare this with a navy and a picture shows you carriers are old relics indeed.. but as i said..it is much harder to sell this to USN which will i think stick to it on the basis of national pride if anything else.. which is kinda ironic since US is the only one as close to implementing what i'm describing .. -going the drone way is not only the cheap route but the best route.. remember, old cruisers armed with couple of catapult bi-planes were cheaper than modern battleships of WW1-WW2 era..but it proved them to be deadlier than battleships while being much cheaper.. US is mistaking cheapness as something less able..which is i think a historic mistake.. now what IS a laugh riot is India, China, Russia and UK, France still playing the carrier game )LOL..

@vampyre .. i'm not convinced by your argument to be frank.. you say navy is the one that responds to crisis.. like what? Afghanistan? a land locked country? or CAR in Africa where Drones operating from GERMANY air base were launched and were conducting missions deep in central Africa?.. what navy?.. today forces count in the thousands not hundred of thousands of soldiers.. the complexities of combat are huge and destruction delivered even more so, .. the force needed in war in terms of soldiers today count in 10's of thousands of soldiers ..not 100's, or 1 million etc.. because again, we come to logic conclusion-drones.. radars, spying equipment.. all of that makes any BIG HUGE assembly of force an easy target.. destroying 200.000 enemy troops is today much easier than it was 60 years ago.. droning supply lines and trucks that deliver food, water, ammo and those 200.000 troops disintegrate and surrender in a humiliating demoralized way.. which is why all armies in the world are cutting their soldiers and rather upgrading their technological levels and doctrines than just increasing the numbers of soldiers that mean nothing in our "Intel" war conducting world.. Navies and their job was needed because no other asset could be deployed to the smallest world corner.. today this is changing.. Drones have that ability and they will do it cheaper.. about that "laser" thingie.. yeah, this is meant for slow CLOSE drone flying targets.. not for hypersonic anti-ship missiles send in saturation attack on a ship.. problem is distance between planes and carriers has dramatically closed, i mean ability to reach from mainland a naval battle group has increased to such a degree it makes a carrier only useful in open ocean like PAcific ocean or Atlantic.. and in the middle of it .. as soon as carrier approaches the mainland of any moderately modern and powerful country the danger of saturation attack is there.. so what's the point in having a carrier 2000 miles away from the coast? analysis already prove that those ships in piracy infested waters have much bigger chance of Drones assisting them then ships.. calling for help if you are a tanker near Somalia waters will be heard by a Naval asset (destroyer, cruiser etc).. which will deploy helicopter, plane to its rescue.. NOT itself.. since the ship is just too slow to respond .. i feel US will not be the one to take the revolutionary change in this course since they are carrier leaders in number and planes fielded on them..it would be unthinkable if US would scrap carriers EVEN as Drone technology supersedes carriers.. history shows us that implementing NEW doctrines and technologies is always because of a MUST, a NEED that arises from scarcity.. Japanese navy didn't have enough steel to create a big battleship flotilla.. so implementing the new promising weapon-carriers was forced on them.. it was a gamble of sorts that proved right.. while US at a time and USSR, UK, Germany still competed who will build biggest Battleship.. its a mindset that carries a big momentum that is hard to stop.. So, my prediction is US will keep the carrier doctrine until defeated like Germany by UK with the "new" weapon-doctrine.. one has to put in perspective this, 1 carrier (12 billion dollars), 6 support ships (each 500 million), 3-5-supply/secondary ships (each 100-200 million dollars) = over 15 billion dollars.. for a force that moves 30 miles per hour.. and can be seen from space!.. a drone= let's say the futuristic drone (in 4-6 years time) costs more than today drones but still.. about 150 million dollars.. how many drones can one buy for this.. 1000 drones.. this represents 1 carrier group.. now this drones can patrol whole of Atlantic ocean and PAcific ocean and still have some force remaining for contingencies .. and this is the job of 3 carrier groups today.. so you can cover same space as 3 carrier groups more cheaply, efficienty, FASTER, and much more dynamically. and this is if drone costs so much which price would drop if build in the thousands (most probably the price would be 50-70 million) meaning you would have 3000 drones for the cost of 1 carrier group.. with 12 carrier groups USN has this would amount to 12.000 (or considering lower price of drone-36.000) drones capable of patroling world oceans and maintaining EYE-contact with most of the SEA-surface.. and flying much faster than ships can move, much stealthier than ships are, and can relocate to other strategic places much easily.. on supply notice, much easier on the budget and eyes, the mere fact that this doctrine replaces (carrier group consist of what about 7000 sailors) a huge amount of personnel that increases cost, training, etc.. with a force that requires maybe 200 pilots, majors, generals... about those saying but look at all the fancy weapons put on a ship.. yes, but still thats like saying lets put lasers on Mig-31.. so what..its still a big plane with big RCS that is visible for all to see.. now what?.. you can't tip the balance by saying lets arm it more, make it more dangerous, etc.. it is what it is.. a ship is bigger target than a drone.. today we have a problem that most drones still don't have the endurance needed for what i'm proposing..but to an extend they already do.. depending on what you want to accomplish.. for a country like France, UK, India, Japan, Russia, Turkey, Brazil the choice is obvious.. more drones, stealth drones, coupled with cruise missile-changing into hypersonic missile in end game.. and there you are.. USN feels threatened by coast now a days.. imagine USN in Black sea.. or the Med.. or Indonesia-Vietnam, Baltic?.. easy target .. big target, no where to hide or run.. so what's the point.. about those saying Navy is only one that can support major invasions by sea.. the guy in the analysis was right.. no such thing.. if anybody is under an illusion that USN which is a superpower in itself can perform a successful landing invasion from sea on a medium power house successfully is crazy.. we had landing in normandy supported by absolute superiority in everything and even that was VERY close to the mainland (which acted as UK) .. to think US doing this from Washington and landing lets say in Brazil is beyond reason.. and you would land what? 2000 marines.. this is it.. 2K )) and then what? fight 100.000 enemies.. launching everything they have on that spot on beach you decided to die in.. to support your landing force your ships need to be 100 miles from coast -which implies they will all be sunk by coast-fire.. same goes for any nation, landing invasions is a thing of the past.. wars will be fought in much more clever ways.. if you control the sea you won.. no need to land anything anywhere.. with control you force opponent to declare defeat or bankruptcy.. whatever comes first..

of course, ships "holding ground" are needed, but if by holding ground they are susceptible to saturation attacks from the "mainlands" of the enemy than whats the point..re-arming and re-launching new attacks is easier if your forces are on mainland then if your force is a ship.. 100 years ago or even more so ships were ideal, there was no other way of controlling sea lanes and monitoring trade routes.. but now with this new drone army that IS cheaper than the actual fighter planes and bombers.. makes it (i didn't calculate but i have a strong feeling its much much cheaper than a carrier battle group) much affordable.. about bases, US has many bases from where drones could land, resupply, and assault any ship that comes close..since world is really SHRUNK by new ever expending ranges of planes and drones in particular the ability to monitor the sea lanes and HOLD the AIR of those lanes 24/7 is becoming REAL and CHEAPER than a big ass ship with a nuclear reactor.. which still needs many supply ships and escort ships to protect it.. i'm not talking about US, US has enough money to deploy BOTH, even though Carrier groups would in my scenario be just over-crowding the tactical space of the "new navy-drone doctrine).. but other nations like Japan, UK, France, Russia, etc.. i think building carriers would be quite foolish.. i think Drones are definitely the way to go.. with just 200 hundred drones one could control Atlantic.. 24/7 and be able to respond to threats in minutes not days.. by a fraction of the cost that is the CVN battle carrier groups.. plus it makes it much more survivable since spotting big capital ships will always be more easy than spotting slim stealth drone high up in the air.. as GG usually says, stealth and RCS of objects do play a role in determining who gets the first shot..and i agree.. which means only thing holding Drone Naval Doctrine back is Range or should i say Endurance.. once we go into 100 hours endurance i think this will be the breaking point.. Navy will become airborne and i can't see logic in deploying boats on sea anymore.. as the carriers SUNK battleships forever i feel drones will do for navy ships this time around..

i read many times what is the endurance (the time spent in the combat zone before they return to base to refuel, maintenance etc..) .. so endurance is measured in hours, 10 hours, 24 hours, even more etc.. now the speed at which the drone flies is what.. i mean cruises? obviously not supersonic and obviously faster than a glider.. so lets say 500 km/h.. so if the drones can fly and ENDURE to fly in the air for 24 hours or 36 hours what does that mean about their range.. ferry range for instance.. this must be 36 hours X (times) 500 km/h = 18.000 km ))) WTF )) .. so they can fly half way around the earth.. and they are not even designed for strategic bombing missions that usually require big range.. so, my question is, is the time of Navies truly over? Big aircraft carriers that in our modern day and age with satelites that are tracking almost all capital ships and range of planes that can strike all naval assets safely away from the mainland obsolete? are navies as such obsolete? except submarine forces that still have advantage of stealth to a degree and endurance (since they really don't need to refuel for the duration of the mission as other ships must (even CVNs since aircraft flying means fuel is spending thus resupplying the crap of the carriers is a must).. with drones in the future that will have dramatically bigger range (lets say endurance of 60 hours for starters) would make UK be able to patrol the Atlantic ocean faster, cheaper, better than any Navy could.. i think we are coming to a point of WW2 moment when realization hit that navy capital ships particularly battleships are obsolete compared to CVs with their planes and advantages that they offer.. So, do you think Drone control of Sea lanes is a better, cheaper, more efficient way?.. article i found that elaborated on many questions i had.. http://www.johntreed.com/sittingducks.html

good grief.. talk about reaching your norm or you're fired) .. great pilot of course..but this is just stupid, such URGENCY should be needed only in times of urgent environment disasters or WAR.. not for working in a company every day and till you crash and die probably..