I basically said as much. But disruption will happen in warfare, and the effectiveness at finding it’s target remains a question mark.
I did not know you had an engineering background, but you are splitting hairs. F-22’s role is shrinking, drones is rising. As of now, much of that has to do with the low tech nature of the opponent. Drone technology is very young and will get better, especially if there is a necessity for it to do so.
Last, I said drones are the future, “not all fighters will be extinct tomorrow”
Yep, as I said: the military is slow to react and can be a little dumb. Those video streams were unencrypted, if you can believe that. WTF. It’s because the first drones were so small they could not carry encryption gear. That was a problem specific to the AF. All Navy drones were encrypted from the start. In this case the military (specifically AF) apparently didn’t worry about a high probability event, let alone a low probability one.
Also, the need to switch either allow autonomous take off and landing or to switch everything to encrypted satellite (as opposed to the currently employed radio link) is clear.
These things can and are being addressed with advances in communications equipment and encryption. It is a problem for all military communications.
Against any high tech opponent, drones will have limited to minor use over the next decade at the very least. No level of advancement in encryption, etc, will eliminate the serious risk that a nation with China’s hacking prowess couldn’t hack the encryption and turn an entire fleet against the US, effectivley destroying our military capabilities in a single event and risking thousands of lives.
Lastly, trying to address an easy low cost solution like jamming with communications equipment is going to be pointless and inneffective. Encryption doesn’t even play a significant role in countering jamming.
Drones are clearly vulnerable to hacking due to their remote control features and wireless signal. Distingushing friend signal from foe signal will be something akin to the spam filter escalation.
I do wonder to what extent live-piloted planes are vulnerable to hacking: both military, and civilian, by the way.
Not to split hairs, but the F-22 is not a carrier-based aircraft.
Modern aircraft generally ahve triple redundancies and hydraulic backups. Pilots are trained to not overly rely on instrumentation.
I know this. Trust me, I’m not stupid. I am aware, but there are several debates going on. In the more recent broader debate about drones v piloted aircraft, I included the F22 and F35 because both demonstrate modern capabilities of piloted aircraft. This stemmed from the carrier debate. In which case, just take the F35 and my point stands.
In all honesty, if you wanted me to guess what the battlefield will look like in 20-30 years, there will broader drone component. Maybe 50-50, battlefields will look something like scenes from terminator with electronic warfare going on simulatineously along side human warfare. You will have human piloted air and ground craft launching electronic and physical armaments alongside drones against a mixed foe. Back to the original discussion, the role of the carrier will not be diminished, but rather grow, as it becomes a floating fortress combining warfare on multiple levels. But my main point here, is that the human component is immune to hacking and exponentially more adaptive and thus, will continue to form the irreplaceable root of future warfare.
Right on. The key I am getting at I guess is that current drones are very rudimentary and the ability to project human adaptability and learning will become better. I was basically taking issue with the assertion that drones are going to be low powered, glorified gliders forever.
Machine learning could play a role as well, but you know (Skynet).
Never said you were stupid, just trying to keep things focused on the carrier debate. Now, inhale…exhale…inhale…exhale. Think some happy thoughts. Ok, continue with the debate.
Black Swan is right 100%, especially the points he made about the aircraft carriers. They are invaluable as portable air bases. (Not that US will ever WILLINGLY leave any land-based air bases it has got now, we are still in Germany and Kuwait, I believe.)
The only (minor) point of contention I’d pick is how vulnerable drones are to hacking. Notwithstanding the Iranians landing one safely by confusing its GPS, they are pretty immune and getting better.
The predator camera “hacking” was someone using SkyGrabber to intercept images being downlinked - that part is (“purposefully” but that could be a CYA) unencrypted for ease of use in the battlefield - turned out it is, for both sides 
They were not in danger of controlling the drone.
Yeah, but I was originally comp sci in college, and I believe it was Penrose that wrote The Emperor’s Mind giving a pretty clear disproval that AI will ever really exist, particularly on a human level.
The point I keep making though, is that remote communication will always be susceptible to hacking, no matter how much you evolve the system. It’s a structural fact. It may evolve, but it will not change. China has proven they have phenomenal hacking expertise. The issue with this is that it’s scalable enough to be catestrophic for an entire military. It’s not just losing control of the drones, it’s having them take off, make a quick circle and completely decimate their own militaries and nations. It’s also an advantage that can be hidden until it is revealed at an inopportune time. A single defector can cause scaled damage on a level not possible before.
Dong Fen 21d. - aka the Chinese “carrier Killer.” the pentagon openly admits that it’s carriers have no defense against such a missile.
http://thediplomat.com/china-power/china-confirms-carrier-killer/
Yes, a large, expensive floating target indeed.
-
Not useful for fights 3rd world countries, as Black Swan has already pointed out, drones and long range bombers make more sense.
-
also not useful against a real power, like china, who can just send missiles and make it useless.
So basically, only useful at inflating some commanders ego and maybe “intimidating” some shitty countries that haven’t bout this missile from the Chinese yet.
This article has three great bullet points:
"The reasons the U.S. Navy is concerned about the missile are numerous:
- It is indefensible, within range.
- Its range stretches to the so-called “second chain of islands” meaning any U.S. carrier deployed near South Korean or Japanese bases is under threat.
- Even if it’s not perfectly accurate yet, China can just launch more missiles in a single strike.
Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-aircraft-carrier-missile-2010-12#ixzz2MhtNGb8L
http://www.businessinsider.com/china-aircraft-carrier-missile-2010-12
you humans are adorable
One funny thing about the new ford class is that they are working on its “missile defense” and “stealth” ability. 
I prefer Battlecruiser rush myself.
^CT, I already adderessed the missile.
First off, the Pentagon said the missile had “initial operating capability”. That was all the Pentagon said. They never said they have “no defence against it” or whatever garbage you’re spewing.
The list of points you’re putting forth are the analysts conjectures. At least as many analysts have said they don’t see the Chinese missile as a threat against the Aegis defense and US electronic warfare, although it is an interesting question mark. Most of your articles are three years dated, and the updated missile described in your bullet points was from the 2011 article about a redeveloped missile in early stage development that doesn’t exist and may never exist. Great counter point there.
Listen, the hype about carrier killer is just that it’s hype. The fact is a missile that small would take many many hits to disable a carrier and there are in fact counter measures against this “theoretical” missile that is still undergoing development which this wired article from over a year ago covers.
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/03/killing-chinas-carrier-killer/
So you’re right, using phantom technology that isn’t implemented or proven as operational yet, the carrier is at risk. But defenses develop. You just seem like you have no idea what you’re talking about end to end, and a few hyped out articles about R&D projects from 2010 don’t help.
The most concrete thing out there is one “test” carried out in the desert against an inanimate hull with no defences last month. I’m not going to get too stressed out about the fact that htey have a missile that can hit a derelict hull.
Excerpt from Wired article in 2012:
"There’s also something that Greenert didn’t mention: he has time on his side.
The Navy conceded in December 2010 that the DF-21D had reached “initial operating capability.” But its intelligence chief quickly added that blowing up a carrier is still past China’s means. Hitting a moving object is difficult. Testing the thing at sea is too. Then China needs to integrate the missile into its general surface warfare plans. And after all that come the countermeasures Greenert outlined. Solving all that takes time.
And while China works on that, the Navy will continue its own development. If Greenert is freaked out by a weapon that can punch through one of the most potent symbols of American power, he’s doing a good job of hiding it in public."
And here’s an article - written two year later - that pretty much debunks all that.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lorenthompson/2012/01/23/can-china-sink-a-u-s-aircraft-carrier/
If I was the pentagon I’d say it’s “indefensible” too. Let’s the Chinese think they’ve got a winner. Anyway, carriers aren’t invincible, but they are damn hard to sink. And, a single carrier group could just about wipe out any country on Earth. So, I’d say you’re leaning towards the incorrect side of this debate.
Edit in case it wasn’t obvious: I was addressing CT, not BS. OK.
You just can’t initiate a respectable invasion without aircraft carriers.