Sorry my typing from my iPhone offended you. You are correct Alfred Thayer Mahan. A theorist I spent a long time studying and that guy obviously hasn't. The point still stands.

Ead.

The contract he linked was for a radar that would be part of the sensor package for PGSS.

You are the expert on this stuff, what are the fundamental differences between the two systems

I am a dumb infantryman.  blimp is blimp.

So my iphone correction aside. And I do enjoy your tactic of deflection. How about you discuss the two gentlemen. There differences in strategy and their importance to this thread.

Let me guess. You won't. Why. Because what you can learn on Wikipedia won't suffice. Every world leading power thinks strategically. Only the US gets screwed with for doing it. I love these threads.

Ead.

Cheers.

You're the air power expert and former ADA guy whose service let this contract.

No time today to look it up.  Gotta walk over to my meeting so I can sit in the back row for 2 hours.

Yep, two hits for sure

Hell all he really has to do is make a valid argument.  He won't even do that. I enjoy his troll ass. It makes me and everyone I read his stuff too laugh.

Eh.
Corbitt is better.
Mahan was more influential.

Mahan articulated the need for a strong navy.  And in this he was fundamentally correct.  His operational concepts were disproved by Corbitt and certainly in WW2.

The idea is to get the decisive ground combat power where it needs to be and keep the logisitics running is the ultimate objective (or denying it if the defensive antagonist)
Completely destroying the enemy's navy briefs well, and would be an optimal solution, but proves difficult to put into practice without both sides agreeing to the naval schwerpunkt.
As demonstrated there are alternate means to both deliver the power and deny it without one big giant naval battle.

Yeah, my contractors put me at the head of the table and enjoy it when I quietly turn for "clarification"
Enjoy.

I really like you.. you you gave him a answer. Let's see how he ties it in to a2ad and congressional maneuvering.

Did I mention I heart this thread.

He totally reminds me of the gavin guy!  
 

There are other benefits to a strong Navy and far-reaching Naval support network, outside of war. The economic and trade benefits are incredible and overlooked.

Access to markets is an obvious example. But the unseen hand involved is that merchants will favor nations that they can trust to protect them.

When I said logisitcs I meant more than simply operational support.

You may have obviously done some reading

And think strategically.

No one is laughing at your post.


ETA: beat again that was for the Texas rifleman

Good point.  A lot of the ambhibs get used for humanitarian aid pretty often,  While the cost may not reap monetary benefits, doing the right thing is never wrong IMHO and is what sets us apart.



 

And when a container-ship has a problem... Let's say illness suddenly incapacitates much of the crew or something... Who do you think they want to be nearby... The (Insert US Navy/Coast Guard vessel here), or the RFS Ivan Rapenov?

This is reflected in the daily business of merchants. Given the choice (and they often have choices), they will favor trade routes that keep them near powers they trust, all else being equal.

Problem:  today i am the clarifier. I did get to walk down the Army hallway though, right past their big display board of fixed wing ISR platforms

Go walk 4th floor (I think) E wing sometime.  And count the number of missiles and missileers in the 100s of AF paintings.

Not even close.

What he is saying is that we do not have an anti ship missile that can match theirs.

JLENS wasn't cancelled, it still got 160 MIL this year. What'll happen next FY with funding is anybodies guess. I am a 14A, and know that the JLENS units are being stood up right now...

It was cancelled.
You just don't know.

But maybe you can answer the question what the difference is between JLENs and the other system in this thread.

It pains me say I have agreed with shoeh8tr on a couple of points.

My last shop I had an E7 named Corbitt so thats where that comes from.

spelling isn't my fort, you nkow.

If by a clumsy accidental troll looking to get a rise out of people, then yea I'd agree with you.



 

Sparky still haunts me...

Sparky at least set out a problem and soloution, even if it was retarded, vice just a blanket statement. \





Shoe's got a problem with things and wants to be critical... lets see his "flying gavin" answer.  Not just links to janes and defence journals and telling people to figure it out.





Hell, even I can fix everything with battleships that shoot skyraiders that drop super taco's...



Being critical without offering solutions is just whining.
 
 

I think he's trolling for intel.

Dudes like that make me wonder how much you can assault someone before it's a felony.



 

when shoh8ter has a website with an airborne tab over it, maybe I'll worry about it.

assholes being assholes and disagreeing with people is a business model I am comfortable with.

LOL not that it takes much.  





*primorsky* Russian_____ better than American______ *primorsky*



followed by 50 pages of super technical discussion of strengths and weaknesses...



 

Bring em back!*  
*Skyraiders that is.... taco's are dumb and not American!



 

Ummmm.....





I know you meant that as sarcasm....   but...  



 

Plus there seems to have be an awful lot of fuel on that derelict. Both strikes seem have been aft yet the whole ship sparked up. Stem to stern.



 

I thought shoe might be your troll account given his dislike for F-35, V-22, and hus embrace of USAF missileiers

Most of what passes as "offering solutions" here is just mental masturbation and fantasy.

My understanding is that JLENS production got zeroed out in 12. I think that there is one (maybe two) systems. Not sure if they are developmental or production representative and that one system is/was deployed to DC for LACM defense. I don't do much with or have visibility into Army programs though and if you have additional info re:  JLENS i'd like to hear it. It's a very capable system.

Yea... I know I double fist that shit...



 

to steal from Abraham Lincoln, if I had a troll account, would I post the shit I do?

In other news:  YJ-12

No you didn't. You offered google, and shit like Janes. Big deal. I asked you to go get specifics, and you didn't. Any credibility you think you have here is non-existent, especially among the vets who are telling you that you're full of shit. It funny that you're STILL trying to convince people you know what the hell you're talking about when it's so painfully obvious you don't.

Although, I doubt you have actually read what you claim, I will address your question.

Mahan discussed the importance of overseas territories as coaling stations. Think about how that applies to the ineptitude of the United States Navy. Territories as coaling stations is passé in a world with precision ballistic missiles. Oilers, ammunition ships, repair ships would be much more survivable and just as necessary. What types of ships does the United States Navy lack in sufficient quantity?

Corbett effectively refuted Mahan’s obsession with a decisive naval battle at sea. Yes, decisive naval battles can happen (e.g. Trafalgar, Midway, etc.). However, navies are expensive to build. Thus decisive naval battles will be exceedingly rare compared to smaller scale engagements or no engagements at all, i.e. the fleet in being concept. This again, demonstrates the ineptitude of the United States Navy. Small naval engagements are more likely and the opportunity to bring an adversary’s navy under fire will be fleeting. Logic then would dictate that as many platforms as possible should have the ability to engage the enemy, not just the very expensive and not likely to be risked aircraft carriers or the handful of submarines.  United States Navy armed surface ships outnumber submarines two to one. That means an surface ship is at least twice as likely to be in position to engage an adversary navy’s ship. Yet, the United States Navy has only outfitted approximately half of its surface ships with anti-ship cruise missiles, bringing surface ships and submarines to parity. Matters are worse when you realize the United States Navy is relying on a forty year-old anti-ship cruise missile. A missile that is outranged, is less lethal, and is slower than the missiles of potential adversaries.

If you expect the U.S. Navy submarine force to engage adversary navies at range with Harpoons then you expect them to engage with the same out-dated, outmoded missile, while at the same time giving away their position and surrendering their greatest advantage, stealth. Otherwise, to be lethal, they must close range and engage with a torpedo. That means they cannot effectively cover as much area as a surface ship, and are therefore less likely to bring an adversary’s navy under fire, even with the parity brought by the paucity of anti-ship cruise missile equipped surface ships.