Results 1 to 20 of 339

Thread: What we support and defend

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member wm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    On the Lunatic Fringe
    Posts
    1,237

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    That is a first class map. Nowadays you would have to add routes to and from Japan and Taiwan.
    Generally I worry about the use of an air bridge as the primary means of supplying a major conflict. Additionally, the air routes to Korea (which you didn't mention), Taiwan/Formosa and the Japanese Archipelago could be threatened by potential opposition land-and sea-based IADS. So without having first won the SEAD campaign, I'd worry about aerial strategic resupply that far forward.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    Why would an airborne missileer type airplane not be able to use cueing from ground based long range radars? I am not being argumentative (for once), I just don't see why they couldn't benefit. The AWACS planes are going to be flying all the time all over anyway so I don't see that as something extra that would be needed. Maybe a big missileer could provide escort for that as well. It wouldn't need the tanker support fighters would require.
    Didn't say they couldn't, but they would still need a controller (Airborne Warning and Control System, remember), the other function that the AWACS provides to airborne assets.

    Quote Originally Posted by carl View Post
    I think you might be able to get 20 knots in a container ship for free. The cursory reading I did on those ships seems to indicate that is around the base speed for those things. It wouldn't have to go that fast all the time but the speed would be very useful at times.
    I don't see speed for such a platform as a key performance parameter, more as a nice to have.
    Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
    The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

  2. #2
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by wm View Post
    Generally I worry about the use of an air bridge as the primary means of supplying a major conflict. Additionally, the air routes to Korea (which you didn't mention), Taiwan/Formosa and the Japanese Archipelago could be threatened by potential opposition land-and sea-based IADS. So without having first won the SEAD campaign, I'd worry about aerial strategic resupply that far forward.
    Good point about the various air routes. It is an intrinsic part of our way of working which is one reason I think those big planes are so critical.

    You reminded me of something. We don't have very many shipyards. If something like this ever got started, please God don't let it, a lot of ships would be sunk and need to be replaced. They may be able to do that more easily than we.

    I thought about mentioning Korea but let it go for the reason you said, airplanes might be too easy to stop and you would be better off with lots of small ships making the passage.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Similar Threads

  1. Should we destroy Al Qaeda?
    By MikeF in forum Global Issues & Threats
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 03-14-2011, 02:50 AM
  2. Great COIN discussion over at AM
    By Entropy in forum Blog Watch
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 01-27-2009, 06:19 PM
  3. Vietnam's Forgotten Lessons
    By SWJED in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 04-26-2006, 11:50 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •