Jump to content
Baseops Forums

Clark Griswold

Supreme User
  • Content Count

    2,329
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    38

Everything posted by Clark Griswold

  1. But I don't think our presence in Afghanistan influences them in anyway and building it up to a potential that could would be difficult to say the least. Iran to the West, Pakistan to the South and Russia to the North and last but not least China to the East, all while inside of Afghanistan where the Taliban and other VEOs will be forces either to be reckoned with or the government of Afghanistan. Pakistan is getting closer and closer to China and could be pursued to close air routes into country as China has the means to immediately fill the void that estrangement with the US would leave them. All places in the world we have made a stand and kept a long term mission to deter aggression and keep watch on the other side were defensible and connected to allies via land or sea routes with air access available. Guantanamo Bay and West Berlin being obvious enclave exceptions to that but you get my drift. No disagreement giving China a problem on it's Western border would be beneficial to us, I just don't think Afghanistan is the place to do it. Reasonably courting a better relationship with India and the nations of SE Asia who have legitimate concerns of intimidation by China is a better place IMHO along with getting the Islamic nations to finally push back on their genocidal treatment of the Uighurs.
  2. Understand your point but in this case the juice is not worth the squeeze No enduring / residual presence in the amounts being suggested could either generate offensive combat power to keep China out or intimidate them. It would just be a liability to us that gives our enemies a tempting target to harass, embarrass and distract us if they choose to. Iā€™m more familiar with Chess than Go so does one pawn moved well forward with no pieces behind it and in an exposed portion of the board really do anything other than provide a convent point of attack for your opponent? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  3. True POTUS could choose more conventional means of major policy announcements but so be it No matter which way it goes Nov 3 just end it POTUS Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  4. No I think they know it is wishful thinking at best but no one wants to be there and then get the blame and scorn of history put on them, unfairly I might add but those are the breaks. I also think there is a reluctance on the CJCS as he is an Army GO and the withdrawal from the Stan will lead to a loss of funding for the Army and to some degree operational prestige as the large scale ground operations in the ME are wrapped up. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  5. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/12/world/asia/trump-milley-afghanistan.html I get that no one wants to be in the seat when the fall of Kabul happens and seeing the last helicopter get the hell out with the last group as the inevitable happens but the CJCS has got to realize this is going to happen, America is no longer interested in continuing this operation and that we are leaving come hell or high water. He doesn't have to like it but don't drag your feet.
  6. Yeah but the time is now to take "them" on, the MIC-Swamp-Deep State-Globalists-Illuminati-yada yada yada who want the US everywhere and never pulling out sts while telling us its our solemn duty to fight everywhere for nebulous reasons of late. I think we are underestimating the damage to the Republic by endless, pointless wars. Preaching to the choir likely but if we don't stop "them" we are nothing more than slaves of a sort. What the hell can our working and middle classes think when the leadership and chattering classes of this country think nothing of keeping a 50-70 billion dollar gravy train going to fight half-way around the world for people who hate us, their neighbors, have no intention of changing their ways and their is no definable end state or one that is realistically feasible when those said working and middle classes are losing ground. You'll spend money into oblivion in Afghanistan but f you little people if you want to secure the borders, remove violent illegal aliens and fix infrastructure. Rant finished. Concur on reducing the European footprint, the countries of Central and Eastern Europe are the only ones who truly need a deployed US force to deter Russia. Keeping some air/naval basing in the Med for access is fine but only sparingly IMHO.
  7. Hell yes https://warontherocks.com/2020/10/defund-centcom/
  8. Yeah, ultimately this is a class war being disguised as a reaction to racism. The use of race as a canard to to distract these useful idiots as the corporates/globalists/etc... obliterate the working and middle classes with open borders and abusive work visa schemes while simultaneously allowing unlimited amounts of cheap goods into our country made by slave labor in China is one of our main ailments. If we had throughout our government people who realized internet monopolies, bad trade deals and massive conglomerates using media arms, lobbying firms and disinformation factories were actually the ones killing our country and crafted economic policies to combat those negative trends, those disaffected idiots would have two nickels to rub together, a decent job and a material reason to keep their shit straight, but they don't and we don't have many leaders who actually like the country they purport to represent and here we are.
  9. Because these people living their lives quietly really are the problem... /s https://www.theblaze.com/news/blm-riots-wauwatosa-wisconsin-alvin-cole
  10. Noted comrade šŸ˜‰ Just a modern concept of what I think could be if the mind of the DoD switched to having some portion of the manned air platform force being good enough rather than gold plated. Good enough to buy in numbers with confidence you will be able to afford the entire projected buy to avoid the only 195 Raptors built/bought problem. Not to derail the thread (too much) but a resurrection of the delta winged interceptor inspired by the 102/106 could fit the bill, if it is to be paid at all. Delta wing for fuel capacity, high speed high altitude performance - this platform would spend (IMO) most of its vul time in the mid 40s looking from the high ground to shoot from a favorable position when cued by an LO asset or finding its own target. Signature management vs LO for cost and developmental risk mitigation, range and speed valued over maneuverability, reliability valued over exquisite technical capabilities. All of those trades are to a point, it would need to be relevant, useful and not a liability to the team in combat. Interceptor, arsenal, sensor, jammer, etc... at an affordable cost and with a unique difference from the other team members, exceptional range, to minimally tap AR resources those platforms will require more of. Conceptually, this platform is behind the LO on ingress, can provide info via link, fire the first volleys or decoy launches then retrograde to DCA for the HVAAs. Less costly to develop than the unmanned loyal wingman and to compliment that platform.
  11. An American MiG? Thought some more about this (mass) returning to the AF and the same idea is being discussed for the Russian AF to get cheaper fighters by going back to single engine light(er) fighters so continuing that idea, even with our higher design/production costs, propose building: Low Cost, Modest Capability and Coverage should be what this platform would be designed for. Cost to buy in numbers, capability to assist the 5th gens and defend themselves in the high end fight and coverage to bring weapons/sensors to meet long distances/large areas and large enemy numbers. - Single engine jet, cheaper to buy and maintain. - Fuel fraction of at least 45%, range is paramount for this platform. - Preferred internally carried weapons (min of six AIM-260s) but semi-recessed conformally carried could work, range again. Simplify and lighten when possible with no growth in weight / cost in initial design allowed like the A-4 was when being built. Modest radar/avionics but capable. An approximation of what I think could be designed, built and operated in high numbers (500+) relatively inexpensively:
  12. Because we need an updated F-106...
  13. Capisce? Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  14. Alrighty then.... ****** MSG ENDS ****** Not to drop into the weeds on this idea but I'll just drop into the weeds... could the US / DoD build a family of systems (just thinking Air but applicable to Naval assets as well) to provide mass at a large discount compared to the frontline systems now and coming online? A US built long range fighter / interceptor for $30-40 million per tail and FH cost under 7k? An arsenal platform under $75 mil per tail and not overly complicated and years behind schedule, etc... as examples. Mass to engage the enemy mass, mass to complicate the enemy's targeting problem and mass to stretch thin the defense of the enemy. That is just my off the cuff concept of why we would look to this, which leads in my mind to an inexpensive (relatively) long range manned and unmanned platform team primarily for the China / Taiwan type fight but applicable elsewhere.
  15. Disagree. Threatening to use special weapons in defense of the territorial sovereignty of allies or other non-existential interest is not a realistic threat / deterrent. Our foes who also possess special weapons with the capability to strike with them intercontinentally know this, that we will not use them against them unless they already have or we truly believe they will use them on us our own homeland. We will have to use conventional means to deter or defeat them in potential conflicts against allies, control of global commons or other vital national interests, hence the percolating idea that we need a force that can take hits and come back on Night 2, 3, etc... I've heard smart folks say resources don't drive requirements, ok maybe but they do shape the answers to those requirements or even if that requirement can be met. So in answer to the requirement (assuming it's valid for this discussion) we might need to first start with a dollar amount or X percentage of the AF appropriation and work backwards from there on what it is we want and for what purpose.
  16. Possibly. Mass could be more of X-tens bigger platforms or capabilities with range versus X-hundreds of smaller platforms without long range capability. I think we conceptualize mass as being always the small, cheap and limited capability when it could be a bit more than that. Seems contradictory I know but it's a trade-off with a sweet spot somewhere. Could even be different for different threats (Russia, China, Iran, NK, etc...) - China is deterred with a big wing arsenal platforms for stand off weapons barrage with range for the Pacific theatre, Russia by an expanded Cyber capability ref @nunya and Iran / NK kept in check with a drone / manned platform capability. That is all in addition to what we have or already planning on acquiring. I asked at the beginning if we had XX billions extra, with future budgets likely being flat or slightly higher what would we be willing to trade to bulk up?
  17. From WOR: BENDING THE PRINCIPLE OF MASS: WHY THAT APPROACH NO LONGER WORKS FOR AIRPOWER Worth a read IMO; if you accept the article's premise that facing potential foes, China namely, that will soon likely combine mass with peer / near peer capabilities that will inevitably attrite and confound asymmetric capabilities used in lieu of actual mass, we will have to add mass to offset this. We have the quality per platform / person covered now we have to have more. Groking a bit on this, does this mean mass in platforms, weapons, weapons/sensors delivered/carried per platform, etc...? Probably some combination not in equal proportions and likely a platform/system(s) different than we have been gearing towards. The exquisite and the few to the adequate and many. That can give some cushion but then what mission(s) do we wish to add mass for? Air Superiority or Attack? ISR or Mobility? Everything costs money to design, build, operate, maintain and train with but could we or should we look for a new family of systems and the people to operate, fix and protect them that are: Inexpensive enough in total ownership cost to buy in mass, Tasked with missions/roles that keep training costs reasonable, Distributed across multiple mission sets to augment with mass the entire AF effort in Joint Operations and Relevant to peer / near peer contingencies. If we were given another XX billions in appropriation to buy more iron, people, improve existing iron or infrastructure, what to choose?
  18. Whoops http://alert5.com/2020/09/23/russian-su-30sm-crashes-said-to-have-been-shot-down-by-su-35-during-dogfight-training/ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  19. This is going to bite us in the ass sooner rather than later, the loss of the strategic tanker capability. I know limited funds and choices but if we really wanna power project this was one of the systems that enabled that / still does in ways that take a disproportionate amount of other resources to fulfill otherwise. Just two cents from the cheap seats not having to spread the peanut butter and deal with CODELs Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  20. Persons under duress are often are forced to give propaganda messages
  21. There go enlisted volunteers Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
×
×
  • Create New...