What we support and defend

[wm]

I still like my idea but yours would be much better for protecting the tanker orbits, specific spots. The ocean is rather large so it may be to big to establish a really long BAR-CAP kind of thing. I like my idea for protecting the cargo airplanes though because you could fly them in groups, convoys sort of, and change the routing around to make it harder for the bad guys. A big missileer kind of plane could stay with them and only fly when escort was needed. That would complicate the enemy's task a lot.

The British did the sort of thing you suggest in the Falklands I believe and more recently the Malaysian Navy bought some container ships and armed them for anti-piracy work. 20,000 to 40 or 50,000 tons container ships with reasonable speed might be just the ticket. My displacement estimate was just a guess. What kind of speed would be useful, around 20 knots?

Not sure that speed is all that important as I viewed the ships as being relatively fixed. You might want to consider the following map with regard to AIR LOC. The physical geography hasn't changed much since the 1940s so these are probably the same routes to be used in a future West Pacific centered conflict.

BTW, I think your approach would require an AWACS or equivalent to provide your 787 with early warning and targeting vectors. Mine might be able to benefit from OTHR sites or something like the Cobra Judy to provide the early warning for targeting air threats. Costs a bunch to fly/maintain those AWACS, not so much for land or sea-based long range detection systems

[carl]

Not sure that speed is all that important as I viewed the ships as being relatively fixed. You might want to consider the following map...with regard to AIR LOC. The physical geography hasn't changed much since the 1940s so these are probably the same routes to be used in a future West Pacific centered conflict.

BTW, I think your approach would require an AWACS or equivalent to provide your 787 with early warning and targeting vectors. Mine might be able to benefit from OTHR sites or something like the Cobra Judy to provide the early warning for targeting air threats. Costs a bunch to fly/maintain those AWACS, not so much for land or sea-based long range detection systems

WM:

That is a first class map. Nowadays you would have to add routes to and from Japan and Taiwan.

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.

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.

This kind of brainstorming is great fun, though I suspect people who actually know about these things are crossing their eyes in frustration at my ignorance.

This is turning into a heck of a discussion. We have WWII, high performance fighter tech, tank guns, Canadian Indians vis a vis the Canadian gov, French and British patterns of colonial administration, Dr. Strangelove, the changing political views of the Constitution and Declaration of Independence plus other things I forgot.

Good luck, David, with untangling this.

[wm]

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.

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.

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.

[carl]

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.