I think I destroyed the point of Black Ops 3's story

[Sn1p3r187]

Directed Energy Air Defense becomes a thing by 2065. But there's a big question. Why is ground superiority the thing now instead of Air defense? Well because of DEAD, but I think the defeated the whole point of DEAD. If any military put forth spending into Stealth aircraft post-2025 then I think that entirely beats the purpose of even having DEADs put onto the fields when stealth aircraft can't be detected by radar and they'd likely sneak their way onto the battlefield and drop forth a bomb or guided missile and destroy a DEAD platform. And any military can do this if it's correct that such a device would need to rely on radar internal or external. And if it's invisible to radar then there's simply no guidance for the device. What are your thoughts on this?

 

[ZigzagPX4]

The standard technology for detecting stealth aircraft at the time could be far ahead of how much stealth capabilities aircraft can actually possess. And that the cost of developing the stealth tech even further might not be worth it compared to the costs of using ground units.

Seems to me like the level of technology in that game suggests that the use of expendable infantry and low-altitude drones seems to not be very costly. In comparison with trying to further stealth tech in the air, most nations will probably have decided not to waste any resources on doing so.

Black Ops 3 does appear to be quite coherent logic-wise compared to most Call of Duty games. It's just that the way they present information on the world is in such a quick and vague way that it's impossible to grab the idea of it completely. So this is my best assumption - ground superiority is cheaper, and costs less.

 

[Hassknecht]

Stealth technology is not infallible, and it's a constant race between detection technology and stealth capability. All stealth aircraft can be detected one way or another. Direct energy weaponry could then be useful as a close-in weapon system undeterred by chaff and other countermeasures. Wasting a huge SA missile on a small drone isn't exactly cost effective, so DE weaponry could make sense. Now in real life such weapons have a multitude of problems, but I guess many of those problems could be solved by 2065... I mean, fiber lasers achieve 40% wall-plug-efficiency right now and are available in 10kW+ power ranges...
However it may be, physics will always limit stealth capabilities.
Ground superiority is also a thing because BlOps 3 is a first person shooter and not a flight sim or Missile Command. Most military SciFi doesn't make any sense until you remember Burnside's Zeroth Law of Space Combat: "Science fiction fans relate more to human beings than to silicon chips."

 

[Sn1p3r187]

The standard technology for detecting stealth aircraft at the time could be far ahead of how much stealth capabilities aircraft can actually possess. And that the cost of developing the stealth tech even further might not be worth it compared to the costs of using ground units.

Seems to me like the level of technology in that game suggests that the use of expendable infantry and low-altitude drones seems to not be very costly. In comparison with trying to further stealth tech in the air, most nations will probably have decided not to waste any resources on doing so.

Black Ops 3 does appear to be quite coherent logic-wise compared to most Call of Duty games. It's just that the way they present information on the world is in such a quick and vague way that it's impossible to grab the idea of it completely. So this is my best assumption - ground superiority is cheaper, and costs less.

Yeah, but knowing that tech has kept developing past 2025 and most first world countries have the funds to keep forth a stable stealth program. I simply wouldn't see why they wouldn't invest their budget towards such a program if it helps to regain air superiority and support ground troops.

 

[D Borous]

I think someone's reading too much into the story of a Call of Duty campaign, which are hardly the very model of a true reflection of reality.

 

[Sn1p3r187]

I think someone's reading too much into the story of a Call of Duty campaign, which are hardly the very model of a true reflection of reality.

I'm sorry. I know Call of Duty ain't a good reflection of reality but when a logic error like this comes up I just have to address it because obviously Mark Lamia and Treyarch didn't.

 

[Irwin John Finster]

I think someone's reading too much into the story of a Call of Duty campaign, which are hardly the very model of a true reflection of reality.

Yea, finding a plot hole in Call of Duty is not really an accomplishment.

Getting Black Ops 3 to run on the computer, however, IS apparently an accomplishment based on the reviews I read.