- Joined
- Jun 15, 2014
- Messages
- 28,762
- Reaction score
- 9,443
- Location
- Florida The Armband State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
So you were wrong about China's concerns.
You are wrong of course.
Hit and run drive-by wrong.
So you were wrong about China's concerns.
The CCP economy cannot sustain its military buildup.
You are wrong of course.
Hit and run drive-by wrong.
My comment to which your comment ostensibly responds was about aircraft design & capability."Generally, the purpose in Naval VSTOL aircraft is to provide close air support to Marine forces, and providing a CAP over their amphibious transport ships." Of #774
and America can with it's £20 trillion debt and it's reliance on the dollar remaining reserve currency
You do not need to reinforce anything. They can (and have) already landed V-22s on them, and were designed to handle any of the VSTOL jets in the US inventory (Harrier, F-35B).
Personally, I doubt that Japan will buy any F-35Bs, no more than they will buy Harriers. There is still a lot of baggage there when it comes to WWII, and I do not want they want to bring up the memories at home and in other nations by having "true aircraft carriers" again.
But can these handle VSTOL fighters? Without a doubt, as they sit right this minute. The biggest possible problem might be the logistical support they can provide. Since it is a helicopter ship designed for ASW, I am not sure how big the magazines on board are, and how much ordinance they can carry. Ultimately I suspect that may be the biggest problem in their operating as more then a pit stop for VSTOL aircraft.
Beg to differ. Even the article Tanmgo provided discusses the mods needed to really prep the carrier for regular use of F-35B type aircraft. Temporary/Emergency use should not need any mods.
That is why I stated limited V/STOL capabilities.
Even with the Belleau Wood (LHA-3) saw few vertical launches with the Harriers on board. Usually it was a roll and go launch and a "two bounces then roll" landing. (I know, my bunk was about 36 inches from the deck).
T #755
Excellent.
I don't try to keep up with it, don't read the trade journals, etc.
But I like aviation, and have a completely groundless affection for the F-16.
And yes. Ironic that the B-52's in our inventory tend to be older than the pilots that fly them.
I just tried to post a pic of a Sukhoi I thought you might enjoy.
But the image was rejected for being too large (though I think it's smaller than #2001 in post #755).
So what of tactical or strategic consequence and application do you say to the four-star Chief of Naval Operations when he visits your ship to ask you individually for your input.
Beyond of course relocating your bunk closer to the coffee deck.
If you'd rather not have to deal with the CNO, then what perhaps might you say to the retired Japanese admiral I quoted above.
Or perhaps you'd just rather not say anything to anyone about it...the strong silent type. Man of few words.
You are much better served regurgitating things you do not understand than you are trying to discuss that which you do not understand.
And what is a "coffee deck"? Somewhere imaginary Lieutenants go to sleep it off?
Manner of speaking of course, not literal. But you knew that ne c'est pas.
One could say there's nothing to see in the posts. However, anecdotal stuff has its value so speaking for myself I look forward to more of the 'being there' documentary presentations and accounts. Where the bunk wuz and the official nco coffee mess, er, dining room wuz too. (Make a movie of being there if someone hadn't though of it already and done it some time ago.)
I'd bet btw the Japanese win their next war.
USAF and USN will certainly win America's next war. Ground wars are shall we say passe'. Even Beijing knows this much. In fact Beijing knew it before the Pentagon knew it. In fact the mantra in Beijing for thousands of years continues to be don't fight don't win.
Just sayin.
Even with the Belleau Wood (LHA-3) saw few vertical launches with the Harriers on board. Usually it was a roll and go launch and a "two bounces then roll" landing. (I know, my bunk was about 36 inches from the deck).
I never served on the Tarawa class, but I remember my time on the USS Iwo Jima all to well. God we all hated that thing, being packed in like sardines.
Well, I had a reprieve of sorts. One was being a Gunnery Sergent - Chiefs Mess was well kitted out. And two, I owned the Air Armory as the senior enlisted for the air element. But God how the ship rolled in a storm.
I was an 0311 Supercargo. Shoved down in the quad stacked stretchers tied onto poles they called "beds".
Ground wars are passe?
No.
Just no.
Any fresh butter bar could tell you that, much less the JCS.
Say what the following wars have in common, okay Gunny...
Korean Conflict
Vietnam War
Afghanistan
Iraq
Four land wars in Asia Gunny.
Four of 'em. Land wars in Asia. Not just one and not just the same mistake twice. Four of 'em. Four ****ups, four times.
And we're still in Afghanistan -- of a necessity perhaps but still it's the last place we want our guys to be. Still screwing around in Iraq, Syria also.
ISIL needs to be dealt with so that's of a necessity too. Assad and Putin yes, got to do it there too. On a small scale.
So Gunny next time we do a Desert Storm you let us know. Cause the only thing that can happen to any such large scale military operation, from Korea (1950-53) and Vietnam to the ME are Viet Cong waiting for you to order a cold one at a sidewalk cafe, or IE roadside bombs everywhere you go, another wedding party getting blasted, and some idiot SecDef doing his asshole shock and awe show while ordinary people pray in cellars or in their living rooms.
Next time we do a major ground operation involving large unit maneuver forces such as divisions you be sure to let us know, okay Gunny. Rather, as current policy we'll be moving nothing on land that's bigger than a brigade size force...as a policy. One-third the size of a division (typically).
It's comforting to know btw the people from top to bottom who brought us the past 50 years of major military operations are either fully discredited or blessedly retired. Cause a new leaf has been turned over at long last. No more large unit maneuver ground forces as in the past half-century post WW II.
So Gunny next time we do a Desert Storm you let us know. Cause the only thing that can happen to any such large scale military operation, from Korea (1950-53) and Vietnam to the ME are Viet Cong
I never served on the Tarawa class, but I remember my time on the USS Iwo Jima all to well. God we all hated that thing, being packed in like sardines.
A lot of this has to do with objective.
What is the objective in the conflict itself?
Well, in pretty much all of the conflicts you listed, the objective was met. The Taliban are no longer in control of Afghanistan. Iraq no longer controls Kuwait. The Ba'ath Party is no longer in control of Iraq. So tell me, where did the military loose?
Anything beyond the achievement of the mission is not military, it is politics. And that is a completely different subject all together.
And BTW, I even include Vietnam in that.
In 1973, the Paris Peace Accords were signed. Part of that agreement was that the US would leave South Vietnam, and that North Vietnam would never again attack their Southern neighbor.
In other words, war won.
The fact that the North was dishonest and attacked anyways was political, and the fact that the US failed to respond to their ally as promised criminal. But the war was in fact won, it was the politicians that blew it.
You do not seem to be able to differentiate the difference between military goals and objectives, and political ones. Do not confuse the two, they are very different.
Like in WWII, what were the objectives? To defeat the Axis powers, or to completely destroy their governments and replace them with democracies?
Because guess what? In 1 of the 3, we failed. Japan is still a Monarchy, in fact it is the oldest Monarchy on the planet. But the military goal was met, their military power was largely destroyed and they capitulated. The rest is simply politics.
Myself, I think the most boneheaded thing we did was to insist that both nations become Democracies. Democracies are by nature the most unstable governments there are. Placing an unstable government in charge of an unstable region is a recipe for disaster.
I have been saying for over 15 years that a Constitutional Parliamentarian Monarchy would have bene the best choice in both nations. But idiots for some reason love "Democracy", even though most really have no idea what that means.
Noticed a long time ago at different internet discussion boards that retired career military personnel who are active posters have a lot in common with the retired LTG Michael Flynn.
I'm talking from before Flynn came along only recently. Just presently referencing Flynn as a person of a certain attitude and beliefs that are inconsistent with the Constitution they've sword to respect, honor, protect and defend.
Flynn was for instance a wild man at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, to the point the retired Admiral Mike Mullen who's former chairman of JCS wrote against it in the NYT. Admiral Mullen said Flynn's "lock her up" stuff wuz waaay out of line for a retired flag officer. Flynn's whole shtick not only the one particular moment.
Admiral Mullen is testimony however that not all retired career military lifer types arrived in pods from deep space. Rather, almost all are of the ones we read at a given web forum and over time. The retired career lifer NCO types especially and in particular. A can of assorted nuts, to put it mildly, the retired lifer NCOs. Which is why the consumer invariably picks and chooses. Then washes his hands.
In short, the post is bizarre enough but then the final sentence is really final. Unhinged extreme final. Finding U.S. military victories post 1945 does indeed constitute a flying trapeze series of stunts and breathtaking arcs that can only be executed in a direct defiance of gravity. Which means it can't be done nohow.