Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.
Herald12345    6/28/2009 2:53:01 PM
Study results follows in next post. Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT
warpig       7/1/2009 9:46:38 PM
 
"And what of the Taiwanese civilians who would be murdered in a PRC bandit attack?"
 
You tell me, what of them?  What would they have to do with anything?
 
 
 
"Seriously you need to get some perspective and reality here."
 
Well, now we are agreeing on something, sort of:  We each think the other needs to get some perspective and reality.
 
 
 
"We cannot guarantee anything. We couldn't in Iraq.TODAY. That is the nature of air power and WAR. We miss. How many civilians did we kill in that Taliban leader's funeral last week when we bombed it, 80? Just to kill four alleged "leaders"?
 
Of course, collateral damage can happen, and when the enemy knowingly puts its military targets among civilians, the civilians can loose their legally-protected status.  That doesn't mean we won't still weigh their potential loss in the overall equation and may even still decide not to attack that target, but at least that initial legal block is no longer in effect.
 
I strongly suspect an intentional breach of the Three Gorges Dam would be viewed by pretty much everyone, including on our side, in a different light than merely, "C'est la guerre, sucks to be you, shoulda moved to high ground last week when the war started and before we decided to flood 100,000 square miles of China."
 
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer       7/1/2009 9:49:58 PM
As this discussion progresses Im getting the impression (possibly incorrectly) that folks are of the opinion that our Ground Forces are "Defensless" in the face of an enemy who is able to contest the Airspace and may actually be able to get strike packages over our forces in the absence of our ability to have "Absolute Air Dominance".  I think thats quite a disservice to an entire brach of service,  you may have heard of them, they are known as the Air Defence Artillery and last I heard were equipped with some rather nice gear of their own  ;) 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are a truck driver    7/1/2009 10:03:33 PM
And you don't know physics or AIRPOWER. How many F-22s would I need to guard the bombers to their launch points?
 
Depends. If I have to launch Pegasus style boosters or SCRAMDARTS  I would need a twenty bomber strike package about oh, say 4500 kilometers out from the impact points. I would need to supply two fighters per bomber and one tanker per bomber as well?
 
 
 
   

 I can do that from Guam. Then I bound forward after I finish that bombardment for the close fight. That is where I need the other 120+ F-22s and ALL the other PACAF aurcraft we ncan scrape up. The PRC bandits have a huge target set to smash.
 
It, the battlespace,  covers an area bigger than the US East of the Mississippi River, you ruben. We used over 1200 aircraft on a country the size of California the last time we attacked!  
.
You have nothing to say of note on THIS topic. Been that way for over two months but dig that hole and make yourself look ignorant. I will be glad to bury you in cold FACT and on logic. You see, what others don't know, is that I know you don't know what you are talking about. The others want to respect your "veteran" status. Well, you work for me and I don't respect your opinion  veteran or not, and I don't have too.
 
Your lack of knowledge is very plain to me. And no matter how much you claim your military experience qualifies you, your  repeated inaccuracies and gross incompetence on what you say when you talk air power or MILITARY matters in general makes it plain to ME that you just don't know beyond the platoon level .You just DON'T know.
 
If you don't know, don't pretend you do. Simple. You can't hide your ignorance. Don't you understand this?
 
Sheesh.
 
Herald

 
   
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 10:03:54 PM
Anyone still "confused" about how seriously the DoD takes collateral damage and civilian deaths as a result of Air Strikes.



-DA
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/1/2009 10:06:25 PM
 
"My concerns
about the Raptor are more along the lines of sheer numbers. Clearly
superior technology is often decisive, but only to a point. When you
are out of missiles you are out of missiles. Two F-22s will be
winchester(out of ammo) before 4 F-15s, simple as that. So at some
point quantity has a quality all its own. Our national warfighting
policy places total air superiority as our first objective so that no
US ground force needs to worry about an enemy air force.
The question
is are 185 F-22s enough to obtain this prime objective. I dont know the
answer to that."
 
 
My response to your friend would be to ask a few questions, like 1) so what happens when 4 F-15s run out of ammo, 2) why would we send 4 F-15s into that battle but only 2 F-22, 3) what do we do now if there aren't enough F-15 around but we still need to shoot down more bad guys, 4) why wouldn't we do the same thing as in 3) if there aren't enough F-22 around, 5) what possible scenario in the world today is going to run out of enough F-22/F-35/F-15/F-16/F-18, and how does more F-22 change that scenario, and 6) is the cost of more F-22 solely in order to alleviate that scenario worth it (factor in the likelihood of its occurance, and not just the danger of its occurance, and also factor in the missed opportunity cost if the money could have been spent elsewhere)?
 
 
 
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are a truck driver    7/1/2009 10:10:12 PM
Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)
 
Herald
 
 
.    
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       7/1/2009 10:12:57 PM
Again, Herald, stop with the stupidity. All you are doing is embarrassing yourself and it's actually quite entertaining to watch you implode as people start to realize and/or openly acknowledge that you really don't know what you are talking about. I'm qualified to drive almost every wheeled and tracked vehicle in the US Army inventory. Why on Earth you think that is an insult is beyond comprehension but it you want to further demonstrate how much of a fool you are be my guest. The issue isn't knowledge of Physics or Airpower. Its knowledge of War and obviously you are SEVERELY lacking.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    KISS   7/1/2009 10:14:45 PM

Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)


Herald


 
 
You're an idiot.
 
-DA
 

.    


 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    EDIT   7/1/2009 10:26:20 PM




Three Gorges burst asunder will not provoke a nuclear response.

The PRC Bamdits  don't want to die over one dam . Don't exaggerate things. You have historic flooding data to show an outcome of a dam failure outcome  I supplied that, use it to make a valid damage and casualty assessment  and stop being an incompetent hystericist who uses emotion instead of his BRAINS. (SARCASM)

Herald


You're an idiot.

 

-DA

 
Let me put the word idiot into context. You openly acknowledge that breaking that damn could kill 1000's and would certainly cause damage to civilian property that has nothing to do with PRC vs RoC. You further acknowledge the dam represents a strategic risk that has the potential to set China back "100 Years".  Yet somehow in your mind, this isn't a trigger for world condemnation and possible PRC nuclear response?

You are out of your mind.

-DA 


.    







 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    CASE CLOSED...   7/1/2009 10:57:21 PM
...WE WONT ATTACK THAT DAM OVER TAIWAN... 


 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.
Part IV : Civilian population #Section I -- General protection against effects of hostilities #Chapter III -- Civilian objects
Article 56Database 'IHL - Treaties & Comments', View 'COMART' -- Protection of works and installations containing dangerous forces

    1. Works or installations containing dangerous forces, namely dams, dykes and nuclear electrical generating stations, shall not be made the object of attack, even where these objects are military objectives, if such attack may cause the release of dangerous forces and consequent severe losses among the civilian population. Other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations shall not be made the object of attack if such attack may cause the
    release of dangerous forces from the works or installations and consequent severe losses among
    the civilian population.

    2. The special protection against attack provided by paragraph 1 shall cease:

    (a) for a dam or a dyke only if it is used for other than its normal function and in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

    (b) for a nuclear electrical generating station only if it provides electric power in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support;

    (c) for other military objectives located at or in the vicinity of these works or installations only if they are used in regular, significant and direct support of military operations and if such attack is the only feasible way to terminate such support.

 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy