I still don't consider that convincing evidence that they are obsolete. And our use of unmanned vehicles (including cruise missiles) to attack targets is just a provoking. I'd argue that in some ways it's more provoking, as it's "easier" to launch unmanned vehicles and standoff ordnance at targets. The easier it is to use, the more likely (it seems) the political leadership is to use said systems, creating more provocation.Originally Posted by slapout9
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Since most consider them obsolete becasue of their vulnerability, i take it you think that hte idea of a mobile airfiled (which is what a CV is) is what is obsolete? Is it the mobility is no longer of value? Or is it the idea Forward (inside an adversary strike envelope) airbases now replaced by distant ones? Would a unseen SSGN not be obsolete because it is unseen and less provacative?It's not so much that they are vulnerable, it is that they are obsolete!
Is the time constraint associated with great distance not as important as it once was?
Trying to understand what you mean seperating vulnerability and obsolesence? I know you can't mean the airplanes are obsolete
"All models are wrong, but some are useful"
-George E.P. Box
It is the "function" that is obsolete...carrying the "Strike" aircraft... that can fly anywhere in the world on it's own.Since most consider them obsolete becasue of their vulnerability, i take it you think that hte idea of a mobile airfiled (which is what a CV is) is what is obsolete? Is it the mobility is no longer of value? Or is it the idea Forward (inside an adversary strike envelope) airbases now replaced by distant ones? Would a unseen SSGN not be obsolete because it is unseen and less provocative?
Is the time constraint associated with great distance not as important as it once was?
Trying to understand what you mean separating vulnerability and obsolescence? I know you can't mean the airplanes are obsolete
Valid point.
However, I don't think we're there yet -- nor will we be for another ten years or more, probably about two to three times that period. So, in the meantime...
That has been true for many decades though - since the 1950's if not before.
The problem with long-range strike aircraft, though, is flight time. A long flight time works ok for static targets (fixed facilities), but becomes problematic for moving targets. Secondly, a long flight time means there is a decreased response time. Third, a long flight time means you need more aircraft to generate an equivalent number of sorties.
Finally, you still need other aircraft besides strike aircraft and many of those are, by necessity, short range.
Added: The range/response problem is why conventionally-armed ICBM's (called "prompt global strike") were considered for a time - of course those come with a lot of baggage
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
What he said
Agree with Entropy's response. Just look at the planning issues generated by one B-2 strike and you see how complicated that "strike aircraft ranging across the globe" model actually is...and how unresponsive it can be.
"On the plains and mountains of the American West, the United States Army had once learned everything there was to learn about hit-and-run tactics and guerrilla warfare."
T.R. Fehrenbach This Kind of War
Rule of thumb:
If you want to fight a war beyond the range of strike aircraft based on your or allied soil, DON'T.
That ROT doesn't make a lot of sense.
Slap,
That's just not true except for fixed targets. What is your target? Is your target going to move in the 5-10 minutes it takes the weapon to reach the target? If your target does move then what? What if the target needs to be destroyed in 2 minutes?No baggage just vested interest......but of all people it was Jimmie Carter that spoke the truth "All you need is a platfrom to launch a missile."
Standoff weapons have their uses, but they can't do everything. There are always tradeoffs.
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
No baggage just vested interest......but of all people it was Jimmie Carter that spoke the truth "All you need is a platfrom to launch a missile." 747's with a rotary launcher would do the air platform part. Do not send/risk any high cost platform when all you need to do is get the "Warhead" to the target. The Pershing II won the cold war and Pershing I caused Russia to blink during the Cuban Missile crisis along with all the Army anti-aircraft missiles we used to haveAdded: The range/response problem is why conventionally-armed ICBM's (called "prompt global strike") were considered for a time - of course those come with a lot of baggage
All the big aircraft carriers should be converted to Marine Force Carriers....weld a couple of them together and amke really big platforms and protect them with guided missile destroyers. Parallel Amphibious operations carried out simultaneously all around the world, all at once is going to become more important not less important.
How are you going to carry out those amphibious operations without any air defense? Something has got to protect the helos and landing craft and then something has to provide fire support and interdiction once the force is on land. Something else to consider is that we haven't seen a lot of amphib ops over the past several decades. Why should we increase a capability that doesn't get used much?
Supporting "time-limited, scope limited military actions" for 20 years.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks