dark light

thobbes

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 2,012 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: General Petraeus v General Hostage: Could the USAF be wrong? #2232713
    thobbes
    Participant

    There is a simple solution, let SOCOM and the Marines have their own budget and let them buy the stuff they see fit for COIN. It would be faster cheaper and more efficient.

    I think SOCOM needs to become it’s separate branch.

    I suspect there are massive efficiencies there given large overlaps across the board (e.g. ODA, SEAL, Delta, DEVGRU, CIA’s SOG etc etc, and then USAF/USAR/USN flying units etc etc).

    And Special Operations is far more relevant these days than mechanised combined arms ops etc so a single combined branch might result in a better structured force.

    in reply to: General Petraeus v General Hostage: Could the USAF be wrong? #2233310
    thobbes
    Participant

    Issue with LRS-B nuclear capability is actually legal – arms limitiated treaty requirements. Until B-52 is pretty much out of service, you can’t hang nukes of an LRS-B.

    As for need, the strategic nuclear triad is the most important defence capability of any major power.

    Hence one would expect sheckels flowing to get an LGM-30 replacement instead of waiting for them to fall apart as they have been doing – I’ve posted anothe topic on this but no-ones interested in ICBMs! :p

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233333
    thobbes
    Participant

    I agree and you can add Japan to the list. As I don’t see them investing billions and taking decades to develop a New Stealth Fighter on there own……

    Only problem is Japanese have appeared to embrace incompetence in their aircraft procurement hence only 10 AH-64s out of 60+ planned, somewhat botched F-2 program and lots of indigenous programs that seem to chew up the Yen whilst not delivering much (C-2 and P-1 – meanwhile JASDF is topping up its transport fleet with ancient ex-USN C-130s) and F-15 upgrades delivered in dribs and drabs instead of a concerted effort.

    For a country that pretty much invented Total Quality Management, their air forces don’t seem to embrace it too much.

    in reply to: Chinese Air Power Thread 17 #2233336
    thobbes
    Participant

    Deino I agree 100%

    Nice pic – I always forget how long the J-10 looks. In some ways a prettier bird than the Eurofighter or Rafale but then it’s got those classic Teen series/Mirage 2000 curves.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233347
    thobbes
    Participant

    The F-35 will be much like the F-16 in the sense it will be ordered in batches. So, while South Korea may order 40, 50, or 60 initially. Yet, in the end will likely have many many more. Especially, considering modern fighters are produced over many decades.

    Especially if KFX is delayed or enters a cost death spiral, which given low numbers involved is a risk.

    Given current Korean AF, I wouldn’t be surprised if they turned out to be a major F-35 user and one of the few operating more than 100 airframes (and possibly 200+ to replace F-4 by 2020, F-16 by 2030 and then F-15K).

    I think Turkey will go the same way – $33 billion for 200 TFX sounds insane. Instead I expect up to 250 F-35s.

    in reply to: General Petraeus v General Hostage: Could the USAF be wrong? #2233349
    thobbes
    Participant

    There’s conspiracy theories LRS-B is a a sacfiricial lamb project so that USAF can look like it’s cutting something major. Who knows – they might be a grain of truth somewhere.

    At least one prominent Marine General has questioned need for LRS-B. Marines are outspoken so imagine what the other services think.

    And remember USAF was mentioning cutting B-1Bs as well as A-10s. That leaves about 76 odd B-52s that need replacing.

    As for nuclear mission, the core USAF deterrent, the LGM-30 ICBM fleet is in desparate need of replacement and there’s delays with B61 integration with F-35 and potential threats to upgrade program in terms of funding (currently estimated at $10 b and that’s apparently insufficient).

    But LRSB isn’t even meant to be nuclear capable at start.

    So despite refocus on high end, USAF nuclear missions seems somewhat ignored or at best moving along slowly.

    In fact if it came down to ICBM or bombers for nuke mission, the ICBM is a far better and more effective option. This is why strategic bomber fleets dwindled from the 1960s on.

    Delivering a nuclear payload in 30 minutes is far better than flying a subsonic bomber for many hours and risking it being shot down.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233354
    thobbes
    Participant

    You plan to field capability that give you options..You have your regular POUNDING BOMB truck fleets with the F-15K’s and Vipers that do all the carpet bombing or take out whatever targets you may see fit. While the capability of discreetly targeting Noko is not available. With a nut in control of the NOKO, you could hardly blame the ROKAF for demanding such a capability in case the idiot ups his capability in the coming years/decades and decides to attack SOKO and place launchers on stand by tipped with nuclear warheads…To take those sort of targets out, you really need to go in quietly and bring in an element of surprise so that the idiot does not launch them in panic. The ROKAF have increasingly become aggressive when it comes to the North koreans and they are within their right to seek a comprehensive ability to neutralize nuclear or conventional threats originating from north korea (Be it bombing artillery or taking out nuclear missiles or surgical strikes on key nuclear establishments)..We can hardly predict what a maniac would do in a decade or 2..ROKAF wants to prepare for all eventualities…

    I agree, though in any case it’s a lose-lose situation for South Korea.

    The amount of artillery situated on DMZ is huge – literally tens of thousands of tubes. I read an article that stated if every single artillery and rocket tube fired just one salvo, the result woild be devastating. Throw in numerous ballistic missile batteries and it’s a nasty picture.

    Though in reality those WWII and 1950s vintage guns are expected to fire a lot more than just 1 salvo and even the missile launchers will probably get more than 1 launch before SoKo/US forces can neutralise them.

    I also don’t think South Korean intel is too good at predicting what the Hermit Kingdom is going to do next. That’s a very hard task and getting right HUMINT on the ground difficult.

    South Korea’s best option is diplomacy.

    I also don’t see the South Korean people supporting any pre-emptive strikes unless threat of military engagement is well and truly upon them.

    The reason is they know having to reabsorb North Korea will set them back decades (look at issues of reintegrating Eastern Europe including East Germany back into the European fold – now imagine that with North Korea).

    As stated lose-lose situation even if they won the war.

    To be honest I think the F-35s are actually a better deterrent against China than they are against North Korea.

    Apologies for mostly off topic discussion.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233357
    thobbes
    Participant

    you mean south korea. well they have been building factories left and right in China. so cheap labor and huge market. very unreliable way of money.
    I dont think they can afford 60 F-35 thats why they have to restart the competition and will buy the planes at much slower pace.
    otherwise no need to put artificial price caps.

    Budgets are budgets though and very few countries have billions just lying around collecting interesting. Pulling an extra $2 billion dollars or so means something else got scrapped or delayed.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233416
    thobbes
    Participant

    I just want to know how they can just pull the extra billions out of their butts.

    Surely that has ramifications somewhere.

    Here in Oz even we were rich we couldn’t just pull that kind of money out of our butts unless it was pork barrelling to minority seats in an election year. And the result of that is deficit budgets and diverting tax payer dollars to interest payments.

    And then it was never funded properly anyway – Oz Commonwealth funding is a poison chalice. Tis why yours truly has a $1 million structural deficit on one $13 million dollar budget and had a $2 million structural deficit in another $12 million dollar unit (which thankfully got taken away from me when we went through our 4th restructure in 5 years).

    And when you tell the big bosses (Departmental Secretaries and Ministers) “if you want me to come in on budget, either give me more money or let me cutback some services or even give me the legislative power to raise revenue,” the big bosses just freak out and look away.

    Western fiscal responsibility and democratic decision making at it’s best.

    thobbes
    Participant

    Thanks Blitzo.

    Any data on actual combat doctrine i.e. more Western or Russian or something else?

    in reply to: The conclusion appears to be: we need another big war. #2233440
    thobbes
    Participant

    But it’s all based on shiny brochures, DSI, Scooterisms, Goldustisms and nothing on reality.

    That makes me a sad panda. 🙁

    Though I’m sure families of soldiers who’d be fighting and dying would be quite happy pandas. :eagerness:

    in reply to: General Petraeus v General Hostage: Could the USAF be wrong? #2233443
    thobbes
    Participant

    I can understand USA repositioning to China.

    Unfortunately as history up to now has proven, you can’t pick your wars even though the USAF wants to pretend it can.

    in reply to: F-35 News, Multimedia & Discussion thread (2) #2233446
    thobbes
    Participant

    Those advocating for it, want its ability to silently go out and conduct surgical strike…Stealth here is more to bring an element of surprise rather than to defeat A2AD threat of NOKO.

    Fair enough but I just can’t see SoKo ever doing a preemptive strike on NoKo.

    It’s a great way of having 10s of thousands of artillery, rocket and missile rounds pepper cities around the DMZ including chunks of Seoul. And no amount of Western tech is going to stop that kind of brute force.

    North Korea is far more willing to do beligerent acts than South Korea and any “surgical strike” would bring down a massive response from a regime scarred for it’s own survival.

    Not saying they shouldn’t buy F-35s, just looking at political/military ramifications of any pre-emptive South Korean strike.

    I think F-35 is ideal choice for South Korea. No doubt they will buy more when they figure out KFX will blow a massive hole in the budget for little capability.

    in reply to: The conclusion appears to be: we need another big war. #2233501
    thobbes
    Participant

    War is war. You do what you can to win. (And I was shot at by a Serb sniper as a kid and had my house hit by a mortar shell back in 1991 – even saw a J-21/22 do a rocket strike).

    As military nerds, we all condone killing in a way. Without killing and war, who needs jet fighters, tanks or warships? This very forum glorifies war and slaughter.

    I have no qualms with this but I ain’t going to pretend it doesn’t so I can feel good.

    And not much else beats watching a Slayer clip featuring tanks and planes and explosions and things that go boom whilst enjoying a nice cold one!

    Check it out at the 1:50 minute mark- gets your blood pumping.

    in reply to: Military Aviation News-2013 #2233506
    thobbes
    Participant
Viewing 15 posts - 121 through 135 (of 2,012 total)