Clark Griswold

So this guy wrote a paper about an idea I had but expressed it about 369% than I could: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Mills-Deterring-Dragon/ Had this same idea too, if everything you're doing is not working, try doing the opposite like Costanza did for a while and it worked out (sorta) So instead of them instigating provocation after provocation and thus driving the direction of changing the facts on the ground to their favor, we take the initiative and return the favor driving it to at least maintain the status quo Obviously the risk is there but not as high as letting the situation deteriorate further to their favor where we will not be able to meaningfully respond if they decide to take swift decisive action and initiate aggression against Taiwan and preemptive military strikes to keep the US out of theater or capable of using our in theater forces for likely for a month or more. Thoughts?

Thread restart: RB-8 proposal: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship New Russian jet: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41618/russias-checkmate-light-tactical-fighter-is-officially-unveiled

Make that 2 weeks No one ever wanted to admit what we were fighting after the initial defeat of the Taliban and in country elements of AQ / HN, the hyper conservative Islamic central Asian culture of Afghanistan that we found repulsive and wanted to eliminate and replace with something that practiced amenable values to Western societies (the treatment of women, minorities of various types, the ending offensive cultural practices, etc…) The majority of the country does not want what we want them to be, sure Kabul and some other urban areas might be ok with a much less restrictive interpretation of an Islamic society but they will always be the minority and always under siege The end will be ugly but inevitable, let’s get it over with. Whose values are practiced at the end of a conflict in a given territory are the ultimate form of victory and we will have to accept that ours will not be practiced there not because we didn’t try but that what would be required to implant them we were and are not willing to do, nor do I think we should, namely to absolutely obliterate the country even more than it already is and purposely target the fighting age male population for near severe culling. This is the only way you could then remake them as you willed, not advocating this just is so. Germany, Japan and South Korea worked out as they did because we had a clean slate to work from. My guess is that this is the last nation building attempt we will see for 20 or more years, maybe we’ll get sucked into another impossible situation like a post collapse Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwea, etc… I hope not. If so, I hope whoever is POTUS then is honest enough to say this will take several decades, cost billions and may not work but I think it is that important enough for these reasons to commit the USA to it on my watch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In related news, the Tiger and Dragon are getting into more aggressive postures towards each other India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move | Financial Post

Could be both simultaneously, they’re not mutually exclusive What was and is really bad about CRT at the USMA and mil in general is that it is indoctrination being presented falsely or defended as by leadership as education When you walk into a briefing, presentation, class etc and are told you are this because of this with no objective examination of said theory it’s political / cultural indoctrination Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41142/an-air-cushion-patrol-seaplane-was-once-in-the-works-with-the-u-s-and-japan Air cushion seaplanes

Culturally the democratization of fires is the last thing the CAF will ever support, just said for context and discussion but I agree the targeting problem forced on the enemy, the potential introduction of new long range weapons when the platform options expands and what I think would be good for the Air Force, every platform a potential shooter This is isn't that revolutionary, the Navy is seriously looking at distributing fires to traditionally non-combatant platforms https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/07/12/desperate-for-more-war-fighting-capacity-congress-asks-about-armed-logistics-ships/?sh=6d47408a1384 and the USMC are already adapting the Herc for short range fires ala Harvest Hawk No, not a flaw just a risk. Like most things in life if used properly it is a benefit if not a hazard. Probably a mix of the two ideas at some appropriate ratio is the right answer and adjusted as conditions change is least bad solution.

Would that lead to or how would you prevent hoarding?

True We’re in a business / operations model likely to not work in the cyber environment we’re seeing develop now with also the threat of long range non nuclear (fingers crossed) ballistic and cruise missile capes Also to your point of the leadership being selected for process efficiency optimization skills vs strategic & operational military judgement I concur 25+ years of steady state operations in CENTCOM have put us into a cultural rut that is not easy to escape Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with that but so do our enemies so they will and are planning for ways to deny us them in the way we plan to use them now so we probably need to plan to do them differently to make it harder for them to destroy that critical support and primary mission capability. Looking at us now (the AF specifically), we are primarily OT&E'd to deliver the range of Air Mobility missions thru large and manned platforms, making the targeting problem relatively simple for the enemy to plan to eliminate it, maybe not execute it but plan to and threaten that force thereby affecting our planning and training to use that force. Changing what we have and how we intend to bring those missions to the fight(s) will make the adversary's targeting and denial strategies / tactics more difficult and or more costly, ideally bolstering our deterrence against aggression or if a fight starts a more survivable force for him to contend with. If we are serious about delivering Air Mobility into contested environments with growth in capes our two likely and capable opponents have now and likely in the future we need to increase the number of mobility platforms to complicate the targeting problem, introduce and field unmanned mobility platforms for some of the high risk and conversely for some of the low risk routine/repetitive missions, develop multi-mission capable manned Air Mobility platforms similar in some ways to tactical platforms now if we want the capability to deliver Air Mobility into some contested environments and for the mass movements of people and cargo into relatively safe MOBs as a contingency happens we probably should rely on CRAF, contractors and military versions of civilian air freighters for maximum efficiency & reliability. That's a big change from how we do things now but if we don't realize that our enemies pay attention too, they have watched how we do business for the last 25+ years and will never allow us the advantages our last few enemies we actually fought could not threaten, we will regret it.

Concur Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about. MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max. Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression. It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process. From the interwebs so caveat emptor: Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess. Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it.

Single engine F-23 concept http://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/tenji/tenjif25.html