If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600 miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from a foreign government? Trust Henry to jump in a day late, a dollar short, and with his skivvies on fire. We do have one such base in Okinawa, looks to be close to the five to six hundred mile range. Of course, the PI are a possibility, and they have no great affection for the PRC, either. See the bit above about permission slip. What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their F/A-22s couldn't reach it? While I sympathize with your position here (and indeed believe the USAF fighters would likely be a minor contributor in this particular scenario), you seem to have forgotten some platforms that do indeed have the range to ensure that the "US Air Force shows up"--B-1, B-2, B-52, Global Hawk, KC-135/10 (which your USN folks *do* appreciate when they can get them), etc. And how far was it from the Gulf states to Afghanistan? How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing China and turning a minor conflict into a general war? Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it? But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships, which will still be enroute after it is over... Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may well end up that way. Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy where it can be put to some use. -HJC |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Can you please list all of the air bases the US Air Force has within 600 miles of Taiwan that they can use without needing a permission slip from a foreign government? Trust Henry to jump in a day late, a dollar short, and with his skivvies on fire. We do have one such base in Okinawa, looks to be close to the five to six hundred mile range. Of course, the PI are a possibility, and they have no great affection for the PRC, either. See the bit above about permission slip. How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't operate as we choose out of them. What if we had a war and the US Air Force didn't show up because their F/A-22s couldn't reach it? While I sympathize with your position here (and indeed believe the USAF fighters would likely be a minor contributor in this particular scenario), you seem to have forgotten some platforms that do indeed have the range to ensure that the "US Air Force shows up"--B-1, B-2, B-52, Global Hawk, KC-135/10 (which your USN folks *do* appreciate when they can get them), etc. And how far was it from the Gulf states to Afghanistan? How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing China and turning a minor conflict into a general war? Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC (like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict, we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary across the 12-mile limit. Better yet, what if we didn't have a war because the US Navy deterred it? But how, Henry? By your estimate, we'll only have 20 knot capable ships, which will still be enroute after it is over... Given the slow rate the Bush regime is building big deck carriers we may well end up that way. Pity we can't cancel those F/A-22s and put the money back in the Navy where it can be put to some use. Ah, good ol' Henry, firmly convinced he is the only one with a clue--those danged folks who actually wear the uniform being rather stupid and all, of course. Go back to SMN and tell everbody again how the LCS has to be able to change out mission modules at sea, and anything over what, 20 knots is wasted effort? And how it should have an armament suite that would make an Iowa BB blush and run in fear, of course. While operating a vertiable fleet of helos from each one... Brooks -HJC |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... See the bit above about permission slip. How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't operate as we choose out of them. How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF? How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing China and turning a minor conflict into a general war? Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC (like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict, we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary across the 12-mile limit. Like the Korean war? -HJC |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Today that is the case. Nothing stays the same forever and China has already tried to get real AWACS capability from Israel. True they didn't get it this time but even 80's technology AWACS is nothing to dismiss. They have one heck of a learning curve to master. Okay lets take AWACS out of the picture for the sake of arguement. In the China/Taiwan scenario we'd STILL have to take out a lot of ground based radar if we don't want to get shot at my SAMs or have interceptors directed at our aircraft. Until those radars are down we need something that can cope with Flankers and SA-10s. Again, hoping China doesn't figure it out isn't the best way to go IMO. But neither does committing a larger chunk of resources than is justified by that particular threat scenario. Firstly, as much as I believe in honoring a threat (we have to address both the most likely and most dangerous threats, but not to the *same* degree in terms of resource allocation), China is in reality a decreasing threat for us, and the more their populace gets plugged into capitalism and the information age, coupled with their ever increasing economic ties to Taiwan, the likelihood of this scenario ever playing out grows ever more dim. As long as they keep the hardliners and cranks out of power I'd agree. Right now you still have those in power who would like to get Taiwan back under their thumb and then start looking ar other terrain they claim is theirs. Even *if* it were to happen as you are positing here (China overcomes all of its training and doctrinal shortcomings, buys a bunch of AWACS and learns how to integrate them into the battle in record time, etc.), then IMO there is still no real justification for buying more than 200 or so F-22's. We pretty much agree on the number of F-22s though I hope they get the full 277. The thing is the F-22 will be our top of the line aircraft for 25-30 years assuming it gets purchased. A lot can happen in that time. If you take the change in China's military over the last ten years and then extrapolate it out another 20 or 30. . . That would be what, maybe seven squadrons worth plus attrition spares and training birds? Worst case it and you surge up to four squadrons of F-22's into the AO--maybe they are going to fly long range operations out of Okinawa and the PI. The F-22 is supposedly so much better than all comers (including your PLAAF Su-30's) that we don't have to plan to acheive anything close to a 1:1 parity in terms of raw numbers; plus you have to toss in the USN contribution (figure a couple of CAW's minimum, with their Super Bugs and later F-35C's), and you can't forget the Taiwanese contribution of both F-16's and Mirage 2000's. Those combined forces alone are enough to swat the PLAAF a rather nasty blow--coupled with the *fact* that the PLAN/PLA are just not capable of executing and supporting the required assault operation into Taiwan, I don't see this a very concrete example of why we need to buy umpteen *more* F-22's for the air dominance role. We're pretty much agreed on the numbers though I'd add that when they've finally got the couple hundred they want that they keep the line open and trickle them out to account for attrition and to keep the line running at reduced capacity so we don't end up screwed if we end up wanting more of them. The USAF has been kicking around the idea of buying more Strike Eagles and the reason they can do that is because the line has stayed open. The Navy couldn't by any Tomcat 21s if they had the money because the production line and tooling no longer exists. Every conflict that occurs drives home that mass isn't the answer and that good pilots willing to use initiative and having the skills to use it is the way to go. Eventually China will figure it out, it's just a matter of time. During which time the PRC as an offensive military threat will continue to diminish (while the PRC as an economic competitor continues to grow). Possibly. It's definitely going to become an economic competitor and if they keep in mind that keeping good relations with the US makes economic sense then I'd agrre about the thret diminishing. Look what the USN did with Top Gun during the Vietnam war. I don't doubt that in the end we'd still win, but at what cost? We want it to stay as close to zero loses as possible. The USN had one heck of a foundation to start out with--the PLAAF does not. Not on hand. How hard would it be to invite in some Israeli pilots to get advice on how China ought to train it's airforce? Or from somewhere else. The talent is out there and if China ever does put the pieces together they will be a force to rekon with. Just because they don't today doesn't mean they never will. It takes more than just a few trainers. It will take the PLAAF developing an entirely new paradigm regarding how they operate, from the individual pilot level all the way up through their air division's and beyond. And that is going to take some serious time to come together. They've got time. I'm not trying to say they could do it over night. I'm saying that if they're smart they'll get there eventually. Or, is it worth buying *more* F-22's than we really need to ensure against a rather remote threat set, while other critical needs go unfilled? No. That's not what I'm saying. They've got the cap in place and whatever they can buy with it would likely be sufficient to deal with the China scenario. I only mention China, not so much because I think that it's going to happen, but that it's the biggest threat on the horizon from an air to air perspective. As I pointed out in another thread, in Desert Storm there were suprisingly few F-15Cs tasked for patroling air to air in comparison to how many the USAF has. Even the 180 number that has been kicked around would likely be enough. The fact is though it's apparently been decided that the cost cap that has been given to the F-22 program is affordable. They should just let the USAF do with it what they can rather than cancelling the program. To sum up I don't think MORE is what we need but we do need SOME. You must have misunderstood my earlier comments--I have not advocated cancellation of the F-22. Indeed, I believe in the "silver bullet" approach to their inclusion in the force structure; that 180-200 figure sounds plenty sufficient to me. Yeah somewhere lines got crossed. I don't think transformation is directed at merely killing heavy armor. In fact, a lot of the Army's initial transformational effort has been directed at the light and medium fighters (i.e., improving personal communications, battlespace awareness, and individual weapons for the light guys, and of course the new Stryker BCT's in the medium weight arena). In fact, IMO we have (rightfully) moved further away from the Cold War focus on armor killing, as witnessed by the deaths of so many anti-armor systems over the past few years (SADARM, MLRS with scatterable AT mines, etc.). Brooks I meant killing heavy armor as in there was talk going around of doing away with it in the future. When the time comes to retire the M-1 it won't be replaced by a heavily armored vehicle. They want to go with "active defenses" and cut way back on the armor for speedier deployment. Dumb idea in my opinion. Armor isn't going to go tits up at inopportune times and isn't going to get spoofed or overwhelmed by numbers. Anyway, that's another rant. |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... Kevin Brooks wrote: "Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... See the bit above about permission slip. How much of a permission slip do we need for Okinawa? We are not in the habit of creating large bases, and keeping them in place, if we can't operate as we choose out of them. How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF? Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep the base there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our being essentially a visitor in SA. How is a B-2 going to keep the PLAAF away from Taiwan without bombing China and turning a minor conflict into a general war? Duh. You use the B-2, etc., to hammer the crap out of the targets in the PRC (like maybe their airbases, huh?). It goes to the level of armed conflict, we are not going to be ditzing around with them while giving them sanctuary across the 12-mile limit. Like the Korean war? That would be the place where we learned NOT to do that again. Sorry, Henry, but you are about fifty years out of date. Brooks -HJC |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Kevin Brooks wrote:
"Henry J Cobb" wrote in message ... How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF? More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to have flown from their, though not actual strikers. Very different situation. We *gave* Okinawa back to the Japanese after kicking their butts in WWII--with the understanding we get to keep the base there (and use it as we see fit). A bit different from our being essentially a visitor in SA. More importantly, Japan has a similar relationship to Taiwan as the United States does. Officially it discourages independance, but it has quietly developed defense ties and would very likely assist in the defense of Taiwan. They might not actually thrown in combat forces, but Japanese ports and bases would almost certainly be available, and they might even provide logistical support. -- Tom Schoene Replace "invalid" with "net" to e-mail "If brave men and women never died, there would be nothing special about bravery." -- Andy Rooney (attributed) |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF?
More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to have flown from their, though not actual strikers. Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too. Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" wrote in message ... How many sorties did the Air Force fly out of Saudi Arabia for OIF? More than either party will admit, I believe. AWACS, tankers, etc. seem to have flown from their, though not actual strikers. Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too. It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi Desert. |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways
as to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too. It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi Desert. I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan. Ron Tanker 65, C-54E (DC-4) |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
"Ron" wrote in message ... Dont be so sure on that last one. They were finding quite inventive ways as to what could be classified as a "support" aircraft. It will probably be some time before it is fully declassified as to what aircraft flew from where, but a certain country east of Iraq that begins with a J was utilized too. It is no secret that the US flew over Israel and Jordan to strike Iraq. The aircraft carrier parked of Isreal in the Med was a hint. Overflying Saudi only became an issue after USN kept crashing cruise missiles in the Saudi Desert. I was hinting at the fact that we did fly aircraft from Jordan. It is a different thing to fly from Jordan, than to fly from Saudi. The comparison of Jordan supporting the democratization of Iraq is a little different from Saudi doing so. There is also the issue of the US staying too long on Moslem Holy Land and the need to get out of Saudi. If the previous Administration had made some move to get out of Saudi, there would not have been so much co-operation with America's enemies by other Nations. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|