Never has to date. Why should that change?
Remember the P-3 collision? Same stuff still going on. In fact if talk to the Chinese one of their great concerns is how aggressive and confrontational US Aircraft and Warships tend to be.
Printable View
Sorry this took so long to get back to. I've been rather distracted lately with getting fat and buying obscene amounts of gear for Ranger School *sighs*.
If I had to say anything, I would say there would be a greater emphasis on pursuit simply because you're going to be more mobile and because you'd have less opportunity to use fire support. I don't think the emphasis would change much, since so far as I can tell, pursuit ATM is largely based on the situation and the commander: if they think they can successfully pursue, then they do so. Ambush, would still be the primary form of attack and if the ambush goes well, there shouldn't be anything left worth pursuing.
I haven't read the load thread yet (will definitely check it out). The two main ways that the load is lightened and therefor pursuit capability increased is through removing the standard protective equipment and relying more upon caches and such, thus less sustainment required.
Agree re shedding protection as a means of enhancing mobility - the other area in which weight savings could be made is in shucking a good amount of the technology we rely on, same weight directly through having less to carry and indirectly in reducing the log burden on supplying the batteries etc for these systems. BUT like shedding protection, the key would be in determining the balance where less actually stops being more and starts to be really less in terms of overall capability and effectiveness.
Caching doesn't so much reduce the log burden as shift it elsewhere - someone still has to plant the caches, periodically check and maintain them and also ensure that the pursued adversary runs to where caches are...
NKorea seizes SKorean fishing boat amid tension
Got to hand to to these guys. They know how to play the game "two steps forward, one step back".
since 1953. With 57 years of practice, one should be fairly adept... :D
Note the US does not have 57 years of practice, we only have 14 Administration terms and each has to learn anew...:eek:
Which reminds me, we're overdue for another incident on land. No casualties since 1999 until the torpedoing of the Cheonan. That's an unusually long dry spell... LINK :rolleyes:
Yup, Korea has been a constant source of trouble, even before Ken was born, which can be seen by clicking here.
Now we add this to the cooking pot and see if this helps to tip these guys over the edge.
N.Korea Reports Heavy Damage from Floods
Too true. From out here in the colonies the lack of long term continuity in US foreign policy does not contribute long term stable relationships with allies and potential allies. Just about every player in every country realises that when the next batch of America's brightest gets into the White House they are likely to be left holding the baby. Little wonder that the Swiss bank account is the best fall back position for most US allies and that the US's last best friend is young David in No.10. The solution is quite simple... but the implementation is near impossible.
And now another attempt at attention seeking by the North...
North Korea Fires Artillery Near Disputed Waters