This UFO crap is getting old. You can debunk all of this "proof" with a simple google search.
FAKE NEWS
-
This 'UFO' is just a jet exhaust.
-
This 'UFO' is just a missile.
-
This 'UFO' is just an airplane or a helicopter viewed through night vision goggles..
All of this information is readily available. But the mainstream news media ignores it and keeps pushing the "UFO" narrative because it gets them more clicks. That should tell you everything you need to know about the mainstream news media.
LOL why approach the ship with drones carrying all your eggs in one basket? Why not just launch the missiles from a distance? Are you getting this nonsense from Ace Combat or something? And why do they need to be "drones"? Why can't a manned aircraft do that?
No, they aren't You don't know what you're talking about. For all your "drone" talk, the bottom line is munitions approaching the ship and the ship's ability to intercept them. And that is exactly what those ships are built to do.
Ok, now I know for sure you're taking out your ass based on "Ace Combat" experience.
Manned aircraft are absolutely still relevant. That's why virtually every tactical aircraft on earth today is manned. Humans will only be replaced when autonomous AI can do the job as well as or better than humans. Right now AI can't even tell the difference between a potato and motorcycle consistently. That's why those "Click all the boxes containing a motorcycle" captcha things are effective at filtering out bots.
As for remotely piloted drones (i.e. a human at the wheel controlling the aircraft via datalink), if you knew anything about drones, you'd know that these are only good against poor dirt farmers in Afghanistan. If fighting an enemy that has destoreys and other advanced technology, you would be operating in a jamming environment, meaning severed datalinks. That's why drones haven't replaced manned planes yet. In a peer vs peer fight, the drones will have to operate without help from the humans, and that level of AI doesn't exist.
There's nothing about the presence or absence of a human on board that makes an aircraft harder or easier to track or shoot down. It's not the human being inside that the radar detects, it's the aircraft. There are stealth drones and stealth manned aircraft just as there are non-stealth drones and non-stealth manned aircraft. The only way you might be able to argue that drones can be stealthier is by being smaller, but that's moot when you're talking about a drone big enough to carry multiple anti-ship missiles.
A dorne does not perform any differently than a manned aircraft does. There's nothing any currently serving drone can do that a manned aircraft can't. Manned aircraft, for example, fly below radar all the time. Again, where the fuck are you getting your info?
WTF kind of drone are you talking about that can (according to you) outmaneuver any manned aircraft, is stealthier than any manned aircraft, can carry and deploy multiple anti-ship missiles autonomously, and is CHEAPER than a manned aircraft?
It's war. Nobody has any problem risking human life. Not when there's no viable alternative (for the reason I listed above).
...says some computer nerd with zero military knowledge and zero experience in the tactical aviation field.
If the fighter jet era has passed, why is nobody phasing out their fighter fleet? Why are there still thousands of manned fighter aircraft in service?
But more importantly, what does any of this have to do with your retarded claim that modern warships can only handle one air threat at a time?
Why are you even trying to argue when you clearly have zero knowledge or insight into this matter?