Future Naval Air contribution to "small wars"

[Entropy]

It is the "function" that is obsolete...carrying the "Strike" aircraft... that can fly anywhere in the world on it's own.

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

[Steve Blair]

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.

[Fuchs]

Rule of thumb:

If you want to fight a war beyond the range of strike aircraft based on your or allied soil, DON'T.

[Entropy]

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,

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."

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?

Standoff weapons have their uses, but they can't do everything. There are always tradeoffs.

[Steve Blair]

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?

Standoff weapons have their uses, but they can't do everything. There are always tradeoffs.

Good points, Entropy. Missiles seem to hold a certain fascination without acknowledgement of their limitations, military and otherwise. How quickly people forget mocking Clinton for "lobbing cruise missiles."

[slapout9]

Good points, Entropy. Missiles seem to hold a certain fascination without acknowledgement of their limitations, military and otherwise. How quickly people forget mocking Clinton for "lobbing cruise missiles."

It was "lobbing cruise missiles" at empty targets. Bill Clinton also thought we had special Ninja forces in the Military to.

[slapout9]

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?

If it is only true for fixed targets then how does an anti-aircraft missile work? Isn't the target moving? Dosen't the missile HOE(Home On Energy) or home on Radar. Things will go wrong it is not a perfect system but pretty good.

[Steve Blair]

If it is only true for fixed targets then how does an anti-aircraft missile work? Isn't the target moving? Dosen't the missile HOE(Home On Energy) or home on Radar. Things will go wrong it is not a perfect system but pretty good.

Pretty good isn't really acceptable these days, what with the level of media coverage (traditional and web-based). The pure missile age isn't upon us yet, and until it is you really need the flexibility that CVs provide.

[gute]

Here are some thoughts and ideas from William Lind:

http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/...seMeltdown.pdf

If the link does not take you to Chapter 6, then go to page 144 of 271.

[slapout9]

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

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 have

[slapout9]

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.

[Entropy]

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?

[slapout9]

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?

1-I thought the Marines had their own F-18 Air Defense Aircraft that deployed with them? The Navy should be supplying the Fire Support.

2-Offshore Raiding and Rescues is a mission the Marines do well. With the budget cutbacks Offshore basing and amphibious attacks/operations are likely to be in demand in a lot of places and not just one at a time but maybe several at once.

[Steve Blair]

1-I thought the Marines had their own F-18 Air Defense Aircraft that deployed with them? The Navy should be supplying the Fire Support.

2-Offshore Raiding and Rescues is a mission the Marines do well. With the budget cutbacks Offshore basing and amphibious attacks/operations are likely to be in demand in a lot of places and not just one at a time but maybe several at once.

Slap...most of those Marine F-18s launch from carriers. So you have to have the carriers to deliver the air support.

[pvebber]

If it is only true for fixed targets then how does an anti-aircraft missile work? Isn't the target moving? Dosen't the missile HOE(Home On Energy) or home on Radar. Things will go wrong it is not a perfect system but pretty good.

Aircraft are unique signatures against an uncluttered background.

Mobile ground targets, as we are finding in Libya look pretty much alike signature wise makig them needle in a haystack problems. Technology to sort the ground picture out is improving, but go to a major city and look up at the planes coming into the airport and shoot the one down you want.

Now look at the interstate and try to pick out the one semi-truck you want to hit.

See the difference?

The problem of the future of CVs is wrapped up to a large degree in the issue of what sortie generation capability can they provide in places they are acceptably vulnerable, and what constitutes circumstances when they are too vulnerable.

The arguement of some critics is that it doesn't matte rif they have effectivenes in low threat environments if they are not effective in AL threat environments. That logic, applied to every military system we have, would result in them al lbeing considered "obsolete" because there are situations they are not survivable.

The problem is one of resource allocation to get capability across the largest par of the risk spectrum, at acceptable risk and investment cost.

Apprciate the perspectives shared here. Keep em coming!