|
mlmp08 posted:Sure, but I think you could argue that of almost every branch right now?
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
The real issue with this CAS poo poo is that the US military had been in constant enemy context for almost 20 years. Given that it makes sense to find a more economical way to bomb dirt but the real answer isn’t to find ways to repurpose cheaper aircraft. It’s to not spend 20 years bombing dirt.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:53
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Sure, but when you get that TIC call, do you just say “oops we didn’t task a capable aircraft, so I guess you guys are just gonna have to deal with that alone. We’ll be up here watching on the targeting pod. Good luck!”
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Cyrano4747 posted:The real issue with this CAS poo poo is that the US military had been in constant enemy context for almost 20 years. Given that it makes sense to find a more economical way to bomb dirt but the real answer isn’t to find ways to repurpose cheaper aircraft.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
You really think defending Taiwan is still a realistic part of our strategic posture? This is not a snark post, genuine question
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:54
|
|
|
Alternatively if you’re dead set on bombing dirt long enough for the war to be able to buy a beer then commit to the bit and throw even more gobs of money at the military so you can actually sustainably conduct combat operations for two loving decades. Or, you know, don’t bomb dirt for 20 years. But I’m just a simple country forums admin not a fancy big city military strategist.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 16:55
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You really think defending Taiwan is still a realistic part of our strategic posture? It's a good question. I think a lot of the answer depends on how dependent we want to be on China in perpetuity? If we are okay with it, then Taiwan can fend for itself. If we want to take the next 20 years to work with the EU/PacRim and etc... to shift global dependence to more sources then, well, I think it's going to be important.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:01
|
|
|
If the political leadership decides bombing the dirt isn't useless, then it's the job of military planners to figure out how to do that most effectively and economically. To a certain extent you can't just abstract up to "should we be doing this in the first place" if it's foreordained that we will be doing it.Arglebargle III posted:You really think defending Taiwan is still a realistic part of our strategic posture? Without getting too political, I don't know exactly what our response would be if China invaded Taiwan tomorrow. I do know what we would like the Chinese to think our response would be. I hope that our response would be to defend Taiwan, and ostensibly, that's our posture. Amphibious assaults are challenging enough that I think we could realistically prevent a Chinese invasion right now with enough warning. Mortabis fucked around with this message at 17:17 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:14
|
|
|
Mortabis posted:If the political leadership decides bombing the dirt isn't useless, then it's the job of military planners to figure out how to do that most effectively and economically. To a certain extent you can't just abstract up to "should we be doing this in the first place" if it's foreordained that we will be doing it. If that’s the case then you have to be honest about the costs and pay the bill. Did you wear out all your F15 airframes bombing dirt? Then buy more attack aircraft airframes. Yes this will cost lots of money.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:20
|
|
|
Mostly I’m just saying that trying to find a more economical way to bomb poo poo in the most permissive of airspace conceivable is a dumb, false economy. Bomb poo poo or don’t bomb poo poo but trying to find a way to bomb poo poo cheaply in a very narrow set of circumstances is just going to mean wasted money down the road.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:21
|
|
|
Does anyone think F35s are for something other than killing Russian or russian-equivalent SAM platforms and living through it? Whether it can actually accomplish that is another matter, but it's not just a pgm truck, it's a sneaky pgm truck.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:34
|
|
|
standard.deviant posted:I’m not sure how you think things work, but TICs aren’t a randomly generated event where the Taliban (or whoever) suddenly has SA-20s. I mean responding to the situation evolving on the ground. You don’t know when you’re going to need a gun run, or a JDAM, or a maverick, so your CAS platform is sent with a mix of the above. You might just need a show of force, which an F-35 or A-10 is a hell of a lot more capable of than a 737. All that said, the real answer is right in front of us: Cyrano4747 posted:It’s to not spend 20 years bombing dirt.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 17:39
|
|
|
I think in the long run a peaceful reunification is probably more likely than the PLA executing Overlord 2: Pacific Rim
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 18:10
|
|
|
Last time I checked our posture on Taiwan was deliberate ambiguity, but far be it from me to contradict Mortabis.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 18:19
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Last time I checked our posture on Taiwan was deliberate ambiguity, but far be it from me to contradict Mortabis. It is this, although this one line in the Taiwan Relations Act is fairly clear: "...the United States shall provide Taiwan with arms of a defensive character and shall maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan." Take "resist" in that sentence however you see fit. Really, the whole idea is to prevent China from invading Taiwan militarily and to prevent Taiwan from declaring independence. I am reminded of that one scene in Karate Kid for some reason.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 18:28
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Sure, but when you get that TIC call, do you just say “oops we didn’t task a capable aircraft, so I guess you guys are just gonna have to deal with that alone. We’ll be up here watching on the targeting pod. Good luck!” it sounds callous but actually, yes, sometimes the CAS request needs to get denied if the capability isn't available. the army had a big come-to-jesus moment realizing the extreme over-dependence on on-call CAS, to the point where units were risk-mitigating operations around it that otherwise would have required much more robust planning and organic capabilities. 20 years of OBUD impacted a terrible mindset in the way light infantry fights because they always expect to be bailed out by aircraft, and it shows in the atrophy of artillery as you mentioned. in literally any other environment other than "total air dominance and fully permissive," this isn't going to be true, so that's why you see the army (and, to an extent, the marines) modernizing heavily towards extended range surface-to-surface capabilities. i get that US doctrine is extreme overmatch, but expecting 10 planes in the stack for every ground maneuver bred some really terrible planning habits. brains fucked around with this message at 18:34 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 18:31
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:I mean responding to the situation evolving on the ground. You don’t know when you’re going to need a gun run, or a JDAM, or a maverick, so your CAS platform is sent with a mix of the above. You might just need a show of force, which an F-35 or A-10 is a hell of a lot more capable of than a 737. The only aircraft that can do effective gun runs are the A10, MC130 and helicopters - none of which the airforce is excited about. The P8 can or would easily be able to deploy all other useful weapons more effectively than the other aircraft flying at 30,000 feet with a few "interface with army" mods - after all it was designed as a high use long loiter search and deploy precision weapon platform with minimal compromise for threat environment. The point of its economy is not the cost of doing war, but how ineffectual that fighting proved to be when instead of getting in fighting the fight, F15s got involved to pretend flying mach 1.5 at 100ft agl achieves anything, B52s got to pretend that a 1950s jet is still useful for something other than airfreighting tomahawks to the delivery point, B2s because everyone else was in the party and he got all FOMO. WIKI posted:On 18 January 2017, two B-2s attacked an ISIS training camp 19 miles (30 km) southwest of Sirte, Libya, killing around 85 militants. The B-2s together dropped 108 500-pound precision-guided Joint Direct Attack Munition (JDAM) bombs. These strikes were followed by an MQ-9 Reaper unmanned aerial vehicle firing Hellfire missiles. Each B-2 flew a 34-hour, round-trip mission from Whiteman Air Force Base, Missouri with 15 refuelings during the trip.[140][141 hahahaha, yeah gotta make sure that you have all the options of gun run, fend off SA20s, follow up attack and high speed re-deploy to another mission at short notice when air freighting bombs. Sometimes the tools you provide your workers shape their thinking to the job at hand. You give them a crane one time, next time they will refuse to lift something on the back of a truck like they did every time up until the one time you had a spare crane. You give them a really high quality laser alignment tool, they will take care and be precise way more than if you gave them a dial gauge just as capable of doing the job. You give them a F15, they think the fight is about the high speed low drag air to ground mission, you give them an air freighter with excellent search and collaboration capacity, those same aircrew will treat the job as an every day methodical search and collaboration mission.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 19:24
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you don't have good runways, the fuel load for a vertical takeoff is going to be too low to actually do anything useful (like engage hostile air/sea threats beyond the range of their standoff weapons). Random uninformed question - if you're short of space for a runway, what stops you adding a ski jump like on the Queen Elizabeth, but on land?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 20:35
|
|
|
Money, mostly to test it for every aircraft that would use it and construct it. Here’s a 1991 article about that very idea where they ended up with an estimated 50% reduction of takeoff roll for F-15s and F-16s. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a237265.pdf
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 20:48
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:Random uninformed question - if you're short of space for a runway, what stops you adding a ski jump like on the Queen Elizabeth, but on land? Nothing, they exist for testing naval ski-jumps, and for training naval aviators to use them. In practice, it is probably going to be easier and cheaper to find more land to build flat runway on than it is going to be to engineer and construct ski-jumps.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 20:50
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:Nothing, they exist for testing naval ski-jumps, and for training naval aviators to use them. Yeah, at the point you have enough dirt to build a ski-jump you'd just build more land. See Hong Kong, see Madeira/Funchal, and I'm sure there are more.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 20:54
|
|
|
Godholio posted:I have recently changed my opinion on the whole situation to blame much of this debacle on the desire for exports, rather than blaming the Marines. standard.deviant posted:Not to drag Marines into the discussion, but somehow they have their HARVEST HAWK crews trained in CAS, air refueling, mobility, and ISR all at the same time. bewbies posted:A forced entry operation from a sea base wherein the rest of joint air is either pushed back out of PGM range or otherwise tied up in whatever it is air forces do that isn't supporting amphibious operations. Mortabis posted:Defending Taiwan; F-35s operate from pre-prepared reinforced highway strips along the east coast of the island. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:21 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
I don’t know if the Marines plan to or not, but I know the Taiwanese do.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:22
|
|
|
brains posted:it sounds callous but actually, yes, sometimes the CAS request needs to get denied if the capability isn't available. the army had a big come-to-jesus moment realizing the extreme over-dependence on on-call CAS, to the point where units were risk-mitigating operations around it that otherwise would have required much more robust planning and organic capabilities. 20 years of OBUD impacted a terrible mindset in the way light infantry fights because they always expect to be bailed out by aircraft, and it shows in the atrophy of artillery as you mentioned. in literally any other environment other than "total air dominance and fully permissive," this isn't going to be true, so that's why you see the army (and, to an extent, the marines) modernizing heavily towards extended range surface-to-surface capabilities. poo poo just look at those green berets trying to invade loving venezuela for how our reliance on both CAS and complete air superiority have shaped our outlook
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:All due respect, but if there had not been a domestic "need" for VTOL, we would not have incorporated it for the purpose of getting foreign sales. You should apply for a job with the Joint Planning department at the Pentagon. Your skills are clearly wasted on the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:30
|
|
|
poo poo we were basically just bait for the taliban in order to get them to ambush us in order to respond with air
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
When I saw 40 new posts I quickly checked the news, expecting a war to have broken out.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
I served in a rear echelon supporting role in the posting wars of 2020
aphid_licker fucked around with this message at 21:44 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:42
|
|
|
Someone should tell Taiwan to move the island, I guess? 
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:45
|
|
|
Oberndorf posted:I don’t know if the Marines plan to or not, but I know the Taiwanese do. Yeah I mean is it consensus that Taiwan just shouldn't have an air force? Look I'm just some guy on the internet but my intuition is Taiwan is a big island, and you can stick fuel and parts and things on trucks, and the main reason that stuff is relatively easy to blow up with missiles normally is it's sitting in big tanks on an airfield that you know the location of from google maps.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
Captain Log posted:When I saw 40 new posts I quickly checked the news, expecting a war to have broken out. didn't one?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:04
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:didn't one? I don't know anymore.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
brains posted:it sounds callous but actually, yes, sometimes the CAS request needs to get denied if the capability isn't available. the army had a big come-to-jesus moment realizing the extreme over-dependence on on-call CAS, to the point where units were risk-mitigating operations around it that otherwise would have required much more robust planning and organic capabilities. 20 years of OBUD impacted a terrible mindset in the way light infantry fights because they always expect to be bailed out by aircraft, and it shows in the atrophy of artillery as you mentioned. in literally any other environment other than "total air dominance and fully permissive," this isn't going to be true, so that's why you see the army (and, to an extent, the marines) modernizing heavily towards extended range surface-to-surface capabilities.  -Bernard Fall, 1963 Oberndorf posted:I don’t know if the Marines plan to or not, but I know the Taiwanese do. mlmp08 posted:Someone should tell Taiwan to move the island, I guess? Murgos posted:You should apply for a job with the Joint Planning department at the Pentagon. Your skills are clearly wasted on the internet.  if "the Pentagon must have good reasons for what they're doing, who are you to question" is now conventional wisdom ITT. Mortabis posted:Yeah I mean is it consensus that Taiwan just shouldn't have an air force?
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:28
|
|
|
Yeah, the vulnerability of airfields builds a really solid case for having a longish range stealthy asset that can refuel on the way to targets or maybe can take off from a mobile platform that keeps moving around while carrying aircraft in order to vastly complicate long range targeting. It also builds a case for maybe the military as a whole to invest in sensors and shooters that can mitigate aerial attacks or maybe long range precision fires systems so friendly forces don’t just eat enemy fires uncontested.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:36
|
|
|
Running jets off of highways is a pipe dream. Imagine the FOD danger alone. Taiwan will sortie 0-1 times.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:38
|
|
|
Is that true be DR? I seem to recall reading that the British set up effective FARPs in the Falklands for Harriers.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:39
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:"gently caress up the F-35 in case we decide to sell it to Taiwan for use in their extremely questionable 'high tempo pointy nose sortie generation out of a highway rest stop' conop that they're only in to because the alternative is not having an air force at all" is an even worse argument than "Marines need VTOL" You keep just building up things no one said so you can knock it down condescendingly. We were simply pointing out that your argument logically leads to the argument that Taiwan shouldn’t even have fighters due to their geographical limitations. There are plenty of reasons to have fighters outside of a total existential threat type war. Hell, I don’t even know which type of F-35 Taiwan wants if they get approval to buy. Presumably the A or B as there is no scenario where the C makes sense.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 22:59
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the idea here is that the Marines need to be able to do a forcible entry operation when the JFACC doesn't have sufficient resources to support such an operation and PGM threats haven't been mitigated? I have a sneaking suspicion that the JFACC's support might be necessary for things like tanker, ISR, and logistics support that aren't found on the LHA but are necessary to keep your forcible entry against a near peer from turning into a disaster. If the forcible entry is actually necessary for the JFC's plan, rather than being something the MAGTF Commander wants to do, s/he can direct the JFACC to prioritize supporting it over whatever else s/he has the JFACC doing. everyone here who has been in the military has been in lots of meetings with this guy
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:05
|
|
|
wiegieman posted:Running jets off of highways is a pipe dream. https://images.app.goo.gl/UXKvcfcFeht1QVkFA Not if you don't fly American  https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bas_60 https://twitter.com/FortVast/status/980882688474275840?s=19 ThisIsJohnWayne fucked around with this message at 23:18 on May 26, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 00:27 |
|
|
Hauldren Collider posted:Is that true be DR? I seem to recall reading that the British set up effective FARPs in the Falklands for Harriers. mlmp08 posted:While the Marine line of “sixty days on our own” is indeed largely bullshit because drat near no one does anything on their own, the Marine line was NEVER sixty days in a war on our own vs one of the most powerful nations on Earth. Except maybe in the sense of “yeah, if we get totally hung out to dry like that, we’ll hold out as well as we can” If the MAGTF can't operate independently against a peer competitor, their is absolutely no reason they can't rely on the other services for fighter support the way they rely on them for innumerable other essential missions. It is the heart of why separate Marine air is a dumb idea. Let's say we have 72 fighters in the AOR, and they all belong to the JFACC. The Marines come to the JFC and say, "we want to do a forcible entry, we need air to support it." The JFC decides that it sounds, for whatever reason, like a good idea asks the JFACC to support it. The JFACC says, "we already are doing X, Y, and Z, so we don't have the resources." At this point, the JFC would decide whether the forcible entry is more important than X, Y, and Z, and either scraps it or directs the JFACC to support it instead of X, Y, or Z. This is a normal and sane organizational structure. The idea behind the Marine ACE is that you have 72 fighters in the AOR, but 12 belong to the Marines. The Marines come to the JFC and say, "we want to do a forcible entry, we need air to support it." The JFC decides that it sounds, for whatever reason, like a good idea asks the JFACC to support it. The JFACC says, "we already are doing X, Y, and Z, so we don't have the resources." At this point the Marines say, "hah, 12 of those are Marine fighters! We will take them away from you, the person who manages air assets at the direction of the JFC, so that we can do the thing we want to do. Organic support! (Also we will need the JFACC to devote tanking and ISR resources for our forcible entry.)" Why anyone thinks this sort of feudal allocation of resources is a good idea is beyond me. mlmp08 posted:Yeah, the vulnerability of airfields builds a really solid case for having a longish range stealthy asset that can refuel on the way to targets or maybe can take off from a mobile platform that keeps moving around while carrying aircraft in order to vastly complicate long range targeting.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2020 23:26
|
|