Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 85 posts

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#61

Post by raducu »

pc86 wrote: post #59
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is very strange to me considering that Adderall was a disqualifying factor when I joined the service. Very interesting, I had no idea this was used today. Appears that Amphetamine is no longer used but Modafinil is not even close to being "meth" > Modafinil is not considered to be a classical psychostimulant, but rather is classified as a eugeroic (wakefulness-promoting drug) and is used primarily for treatment…

There's a huge difference between making something available to someone in a prolonged combat situation, or where a drop in situational awareness could get them and others killed, and needing that substance during comparatively "easy" civilian life. Not defending that viewpoint or assertion but that's very likely the justification that would be used. Needing it for HS or college is disqualifying while choosing to use…

Modafinil especially with coffee absolutely feels like a clasic stimulant IF I've taken a long enough tollerance break.

I see only benefits -- maybe I'm a little bit too talkative and too many things seem interesting/worth exploring/doing, but for a pilot, that would he detrimental, I'd think.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#62

Post by pc86 »

raducu wrote: post #61
pc86 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a huge difference between making something available to someone in a prolonged combat situation, or where a drop in situational awareness could get them and others killed, and needing that substance during comparatively "easy" civilian life. Not defending that viewpoint or assertion but that's very likely the justification that would be used. Needing it for HS or college is disqualifying while choosing to use…

Modafinil especially with coffee absolutely feels like a clasic stimulant IF I've taken a long enough tollerance break. I see only benefits -- maybe I'm a little bit too talkative and too many things seem interesting/worth exploring/doing, but for a pilot, that would he detrimental, I'd think.

It's disqualifying by the FAA for general aviation as well, the argument being that you need to be able to quickly react to changes and not get "locked in" to monitoring/doing one thing.

I've never taken Modafinil so I have no idea how much that jives with the actual effects, but there have been some people who have gotten waivers if the usage was long enough in the past. Personally I don't see why it can't be like alcohol (if you haven't had it in the last n hours/days, you're good to go).

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#63

Post by juanani »

vagrantJin wrote: post #48
skhr0680 wrote: post #44

1. Fighter jets in battle-ready condition are rare to start, even more so one flying in the right spot at the right time to shoot down a hostile jet 2. No one is dumb enough to even try fighting US jets with their own. US have the best aircraft, missiles, and more flying hours than anyone else

> US have the best aircraft, missiles, and more flying hours than anyone else Well said. That arrogance must come in handy for bombing goat herders in the desert.

[dead]

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#64

Post by raducu »

ericbarrett wrote: post #58
twobitshifter wrote: post #54

I think fighter jets will go extinct some time in the near future. The maneuvering, speed and stealth of drones will soon outdo any manned fighter because they’ll push beyond the limits of human physiology. Even more, the cost of the drones will be cheaper.

Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how ineffective they are. If there was such a conflict—and it somehow avoided going nuclear—who would win, the side that can make a few hundred fighters and trained pilots a year, or the side that can crank out 10,000+ drones in a month?

We could go a step further and think robot infantry soldiers, but airplanes are easier to automate.

I'm sure that if the same effort was put into self-driving self-shooting tanks as in teslas, the result would be more than adequate vs humans.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#65

Post by lillecarl »

This reads like a political advert from the US weapons industry to convince people that 20% of national spending on warfare is perfectly reasonable in peace times.

I'm doubtful they're(the F-whatever) technologically superior to our little Swedish beast the "Jas-Gripen"[0].

The US just has more military than anyone they're messing with.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#66

Post by raducu »

ho_schi wrote: post #47

This is true. And this holds up until enemy forces have advanced electronic warfare capabilities. Radar and radio jammers are usual in modern warfare. And the worst case is an EMP. The Russians considered elctronic warfare already in the Russo-Japanese War. During WWII the British jammed the German radio navigation. Technology isn't making you automatically superior - you need to able to able apply it. And if not, a…

I'm sure at some point there were soldiers who could have used a sword or bayonet, but eventually those were not needed anymore.

The same with cannons in fighter planes.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#67

Post by ericbarrett »

raducu wrote: post #64
ericbarrett wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed; in fact I think we're already there and the only reason the human pilot hasn't shaken out of the equation is lack of a large-scale war to prove how ineffective they are. If there was such a conflict—and it somehow avoided going nuclear—who would win, the side that can make a few hundred fighters and trained pilots a year, or the side that can crank out 10,000+ drones in a month?

We could go a step further and think robot infantry soldiers, but airplanes are easier to automate. I'm sure that if the same effort was put into self-driving self-shooting tanks as in teslas, the result would be more than adequate vs humans.

Not robot infantry (we're a long way from that) nor automated tanks (too expensive and bulky) but rather small, cheap, mass-produced hunter-killer drones. Flood an area with them and you could zone out human infantry, without causing the massive damage that artillery or rocket strikes do.

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#68

Post by josephkern »

ARandomerDude wrote: post #60
josephkern wrote: post #11

Why are we discussing an article from 2017 with no real information besides, USA number 1? Asymmetry is the key to airpower, if you don't have it you won't have it. Look-first shoot-first is only one kind of asymmetric advantage.

> Asymmetry is the key to airpower No -- it can't be possible! I always hear people say "flexibility is the key to airpower." I feel so lost.

John Boyd and Ben Rich would both disagree with the concept of "flexibility".

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#69

Post by defaultprimate »

jzellis wrote: post #3

Because you're trying to shoot something flying at 500 miles an hour, piloted by a tiny lunatic who actually thought this sort of thing was a good career move and is probably on military-issued meth, with a projectile the size of your thumb, while also being the exact same sort of lunatic? :-D

Missiles and 20mm are a lil bigger than than your thumb, but your point still stands lol

Re: Why are air combat kills so rare? (2017)

#70

Post by P_I_Staker »

Retric wrote: post #25
boppo1 wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Iirc comparing modafinil and meth is like comparing budweiser and everclear.

So basically the same drug at different douses?

No, OP(s) premise is also deeply flawed. I'm not an expert, but while there's similarities, these are profoundly different substances. Whereas alcohol only differs by concentration (maybe the release is slightly different, especially if it's eaten, instead of liquid), these stimulants are fundamentally very different.

On the other hand while Amphetamine can be compared to substances like meth or coke (it might actually be closer to cocaine as far as user experience goes), it's also has key differences. Cocaine is generally taken all at once, and the methyl family of amphetamine has specific, more drastic effects. Basically, meth's special, and shoots through barriers in the brain, that normally slow down other substances.

Amphetamine, on the other hand, has a more medium potential for abuse. Also, it's thought that people can generally keep up with therapeutic doses. In other words, while there may be some effect on the brain, you'll eventually reach a point where you're not constantly being drained of neurochemicals. This isn't possible with meth/coke, which is why they prescribe adderall fairly readily, but not meth.

I researched this recently after being prescribed adderall. I've heard that slow release cocaine is a better metaphor than meth, but I think there's probably issues with that too.

Post reply on HN