Why 183 Raptors is NOT enough.

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

DarthAmerica 6/29/2009 10:35:11 PM

Ground Forces Best: Mattis

link style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; padding-top: 0px; padding-right: 0px; padding-bottom: 0px; padding-left: 0px; border-top-style: none; border-right-style: none; border-bottom-style: none; border-left-style: none; border-width: initial; border-color: initial; " />

By Greg Grant Tuesday, June 2nd, 2009 3:31 pm
Posted in Land..., Policy...

Some people are willing to forgive the defense establishment for its zeal in pursuing high-tech solutions. Gen. James Mattis, commander of Joint Forces Command, is most definitely not one.

In a wide ranging critique of defense planning over the past decade, Mattis blasted the ?wrongheaded thinking? of recent years that led military planners to seek technological solutions to solve war?s fundamental challenges and naively dismiss war?s unchanging reality. ?We embraced some wishful thinking, we espoused some untested concepts and we ignored history,? he said yesterday at CSIS in Washington.

Mattis didn?t mention the previous Pentagon leadership by name. But it was former SecDef Rumsfeld who turned ?transformation? into the catch-all buzzword signaling the military?s embrace of a Toefler-certified digital future. Phrases such as ?information dominance? and ?Effects Based Operations? filtered into doctrine manuals. In the new American way of war, near-perfect intelligence gathered from unblinking electronic eyes would replace the fog of war that causes confusion, casualties and uncertain outcomes with predictability in American military operations.

Mattis is determined to bury that notion. ?Defense planners will not be allowed to adopt a single preclusive view of war,? he said. ?War cannot

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica 6/29/2009 10:41:37 PM

Now, none of this is intended to discount the huge role our air and naval forces play on the battlefield. Their missions are essential to preferred methods of warfare. However, it is the ground component that will ultimately have to go in and finish the deal. Our ground components and the infrastructure that supports them have been in constant war for a decade or more in some cases. Our enemies are increasingly choosing their domain to seek battle because it is an area that is less technologically dependent and easier to hide from our smart and brilliant weapons. It requires a willingness to pay a price in blood. So when we purchase F-22's in the absence of a legitimate need while at the same time not providing for things that will directly address events that are actually happening, we are hurting our national security.

-DA

Quote Reply

mustang22 6/29/2009 11:42:47 PM

...Somewhere in that Bazaar is an enemy stealth bomber. Except it doesn't fly and it wasn't made at a LM Plant. It's an imported White Toyota truck with a young man holding a detonator in his pocket...

Could an F-22 with proper ISR sensors pickup on that detonator and transmit the information to a ground team or even disable it? The Raptor is far from the one dimensional Cold War relic critics make it out to be. They have barely scratched the surface on the value it will bring to all battlefields in the future. If the answer was as clear cut as you are implying, then more than a few high ranking officers should be considering a new career, but you being a soldier would likely be biased on what you have seen firsthand, while airmen take a different point of view. There are many different roads that will inevitably affect an outcome, trying to guess the right direction to take is the hardest part.

Quote Reply

warpig 6/30/2009 12:25:20 AM

So when we purchase F-22's in the absence of a legitimate need while at the same time not providing for things that will directly address events that are actually happening, we are hurting our national security.

Well, yes, when that happens I will agree with you. Until then, setting up a "either it's F-22s or grunts" argument is a false dilemma falacy. I'd still love to see what were the next few budgetary line items in priority order above and below buying some more F-22, and see just what actually is considered by Gates to be more vital to national security that more F-22s.

Quote Reply

mabie 6/30/2009 12:38:15 AM

Limiting ourselves to a USAF response to a Taiwan scenario, I can't see US ground troops getting involved and fighting off the communist hordes at the beaches. So in this scenario, having air suppremacy courtesy of sufficient Raptors would provide a powerful deterrent and give serious pause to any hostile plans. My problem is still the basing issue.. its a long way to Guam and increaing the number of Raptors would allow continuous coverage over the strait but how long could it be sustained given projected numbers?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/30/2009 12:45:16 AM

It uses Kadena as the example, but it could just as easily be Andersen, you Ruben!

Except that not even the DF-21 will reach Andersen AFB. Also, they assumed Kadena could be covered by "SRBMs", presumably DF-15s. Frankly, that's what they have to assume, since the PRCs don't appear to have enough conventional DF-21s to laydown their proposed scenario of blanketing the Kadena ramps with submunitions even once. Unfortunately for that theory, I think we'll find most/all sources for DF-15 ranges fall a bit short of reaching Kadena. However, I for one would not rule them out since there are tradeoffs that can be made to throw less weight further, and the PRCs might be able to find a way to do something like that.

I use DF-21s (a mobile SAM that can be massed and I said there weren't enough uet.) for the Kadena example. I alo used slugs as I thought their bomblet example was a crockful . Bomblet follow up would be SLCM. Guam needs a pire SLCM solution.and you know this.

That is what I said. Remember?

Quote Reply

Herald12345 6/30/2009 1:08:59 AM

Herald,

The premise of your thread has been completely negated. You posted a flawed analysis in support of your case. The POTUS, OSD, USAF CoS, USAF Sec and most other Def Professionals that matter agree that 180 something will do, so go on ahead and get indignant and yet again fill another thread with a flurry of personal nonsense. All it shows is that

Appeal to authority is no answer. You don;'t have your own answer to negate so you fall back on it,. That proves that YOU have nothing. At least WP tries with rocket ranges and I show him that a DF-15 is not the preferred vehicle. The DF-21 is and it can cover Kadena as I described with the exact catastrophic results I showed. You really have no idea what a one tonne object arriving at 11,000 kilometers per hour can do?

a. you didn't do your homework

No you are just too ignorant to understand what I said. (I simplified an example for you so that you can visualize what the numbers show amateur.)..

b. you are incapable of being objective

You are too ignorant to objectively read data or undertstand what I say. That's a slam ON YOU by the way, because its obvious high school math and physics I use to deliberately keep it simple and clear so that everyone can follow..

you are incapable of admitting error

I make mistakes and admit them (I made one about a class called the Majestic on the Australia board a week ago and I said so) . You make mistakes and LIE when uou are caught (as you just did here, about me.).

d. you do not have the professionalism, composure or common sense to debate this as may others here do

I have facts and a short temper. You have what/ Oh that's right.......NOTHING..

I'll leave you to stew on that. See ya sucker.

Except the behavior of a child.

YCGTHWMC^1, amateur.

Herald

^1 Figure it out. Your brain needs the exercise.

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica To Herald 6/30/2009 1:21:13 AM

Get a life. I've given my response to the foolishness that spawned this thread and if you disagree then thats fine. Wouldn't be the first or last time and I have no time for your flamer behavior. When you actually learn how to debate instead of acting like an ___ I'll entertain a dialogue. Otherwise I'll not waste my time on you.

-DA

Quote Reply

DarthAmerica Warpig Reply 6/30/2009 1:26:21 AM

I'm not saying it's grunts of else. Just want to make that clear. What I am saying is that of all the things the DoD is in dire need of, F-22's isn't one of them all things considered.

-DA

Quote Reply

Herald12345 GTHWMC 6/30/2009 1:27:12 AM

-DA

Since your response was meaningless noise tagged with an insult last time (See ya sucka, the drop line that only a PUNK would use) . I accept this CONCESSION that you really have nothing on point to say.

You get exactly what you deserve, Darth.

You earn it.

Herald

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