User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:11:34 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. I don’t see how China could currently take full control over the first island chain. It’s too big and they would be fighting us, Japan, Philippines, Australia and most likely South Korea. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: Originally Posted By HIMARS13A: I'm aware of that. But tell me with a straight face that the USN could lose sea control and those bases could be supported. Or that the Army and Marines could, together, prevent the PLAN from leaving the first island chain. There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. I don’t see how China could currently take full control over the first island chain. It’s too big and they would be fighting us, Japan, Philippines, Australia and most likely South Korea. What’s funny is I was about to post that we weren’t going to be preparing for ground combat there, the Army was going to provide logistics and ADA to support the dispersal of USAF aircraft. There isn’t going to be an island hopping campaign while the Navy tries to build replacement destroyers. |
|
|
|
FL, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:12:27 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By xd341: Xi said be ready by 2027. Not in 2027. Everything between now and 27 would fit that requirement. I'm not sure what the details of the air defense are, but how can we not deploy patriot and thaad faster than that? How much have we spent/sent to Ukraine? There is partially your answer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:13:11 AM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By whiskerz: A diverse manning with single digit avsab scores will do great. Take a look at Canada’s decision on standards ooof Should be in any search engine article is maybe 2 months old |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:13:35 AM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Not at all, that's my understanding and indicative of what I stated. You are just incapable of thinking outside of absolutes and immediately devolve into a black or white thought process. On that we will agree to disagree. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:15:30 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: There is a reason the Air force is mainly in charge of rebuilding these islands. It’s to keep the Air Force in the game along side the USN. The Army’s main role will be sustainment and logistics of those bases. Along with their defense which primarily will be through the use of ADA. The Army and Marines are not going to be fighting alone on these islands. I don’t see how China could currently take full control over the first island chain. It’s too big and they would be fighting us, Japan, Philippines, Australia and most likely South Korea. I can't imagine the amounts of jet fuel that would need to be stored on those islands. I also can't imagine how to protect it given todays technology. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:16:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#6]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: What’s funny is I was about to post that we weren’t going to be preparing for ground combat there, the Army was going to provide logistics and ADA to support the dispersal of USAF aircraft. There isn’t going to be an island hopping campaign while the Navy tries to build replacement destroyers. You do realize the air force isn't going to initially get anywhere near Taiwan or China right? That's the whole purpose of this. Like I said, establish ground based fires to push back Chinese A2AD and allow the fight to move forward. Those fires assets are going to have to move forward with aircraft. More islands will have to be taken. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:16:06 AM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: I know a guy that never served a single day In his life, but leverages outdated third hand info and questionable personal relationships to try and be a subject matter expert in literally every military topic posted on an internet message board. No, you don’t. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:17:23 AM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: No, you don’t. Sure I do. You do as well |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:20:04 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: You do realize the air force isn't going to initially get anywhere near Taiwan or China right? That's the whole purpose of this. Like I said, establish ground based fires to push back Chinese A2AD and allow the fight to move forward. Those fires assets are going to have to move forward with aircraft. More islands will have to be taken. The Chinese have thousands of missiles that outrange ours, their strategy is to keep us at arms length while they move on Taiwan. That's an issue for the USAF as their airfields will be within ballistic missile range of the Chinese. Which is, itself, justification for the B21. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:20:12 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I didn't mean the Army. I'll ask you the same question. If a Chinese strike takes down half of our Navy and our island forces are for the most part cut off and destroyed, how far could they go? What's at stake? Grand hegemony over the Pacific? In your mind is a Chinese invasion of the US Science Fiction? Is that laughable? At what point is it worth it to break the dam? They want a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere with Chinese characteristics. For their purposes simply replacing us will do in most cases, except that they want direct and continuing control of the SCS and the unification of Taiwan with China. Note that I don’t say reunification, there is a reason for that. Pop the dam in a nuclear confrontation. No other. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:22:53 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: The Chinese have thousands of missiles that outrange ours, their strategy is to keep us at arms length while they move on Taiwan. That's an issue for the USAF as their airfields will be within ballistic missile range of the Chinese. Which is, itself, justification for the B21. Neat, I'm not aware of any ground based air force ADA resources in existence. You learn something new every day. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:27:12 AM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: You do realize the air force isn't going to initially get anywhere near Taiwan or China right? That's the whole purpose of this. Like I said, establish ground based fires to push back Chinese A2AD and allow the fight to move forward. Those fires assets are going to have to move forward with aircraft. Nothing that was sent to Ukraine has the range to support the fight you’re talking about. Most of the first island chain is hundreds of kilometers from Chinese land targets. The weapons to reach that far aren’t available in sufficient quantity any time soon. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:27:25 AM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: I'll butt in (though the question wasn't towards me) and say that the Chinese goal here is to bring countries into their orbit. Finlandization, if you will. They don't have to fight a war to do that, and if they fight and win countries like South Korea and possibly the Philippines will likely come to some sort of terms. The Japanese likely will not, but a prolonged naval blockade against them would cripple them into irrelevance... or force nuclear proliferation and confrontation. In your opinion is this Finlandization the act of a declining power lashing out at a dying paradigm or that of a rising power? Their population is going to fall off the cliff. There could be technological advances yet unforeseen that make their industrial capacity irrelevant in 15-20 years, i.e cheap labor isn't going to fucking matter.....Robots. Probably they see this, I just don't know which path they believe. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:31:16 AM EDT
[#14]
I know you asked the other guy but I’ll butt in. I don’t think Xi accepts the truth from his subordinates and he believes they are a rising power. Still, it’s likely he knows their demographics are changing and they need to make their move soon. However, nothing is more dangerous than a China in trouble. They use nationalism as a unifying tool and are likely to start foreign conflicts to stave off internal threats. Their economy has major cracks right now and that makes them more dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:32:59 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Nothing that was sent to Ukraine has the range to support the fight you’re talking about. Most of the first island chain is hundreds of kilometers from Chinese land targets. The weapons to reach that far aren’t available in sufficient quantity any time soon. Air defense resources to protect airfields don't exist and we havent been giving it away? News to me. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:37:12 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Nothing that was sent to Ukraine has the range to support the fight you’re talking about. Most of the first island chain is hundreds of kilometers from Chinese land targets. The weapons to reach that far aren’t available in sufficient quantity any time soon. You are seriously wrong here. All the air defense we sent would be very helpful in the pacific guarding our airfields. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:46:49 AM EDT
[#17]
Agree with both above that ADA assets are critical and we've given a bunch away, FWIW.
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:47:06 AM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I know you asked the other guy but I’ll butt in. I don’t think Xi accepts the truth from his subordinates and he believes they are a rising power. Still, it’s likely he knows their demographics are changing and they need to make their move soon. However, nothing is more dangerous than a China in trouble. They use nationalism as a unifying tool and are likely to start foreign conflicts to stave off internal threats. Their economy has major cracks right now and that makes them more dangerous. I appreciate both of you giving your opinions out of turn lol. Thanks to the both of you. I wonder about their food supply and dependence on imports of soy beans and the like. We could put a fucking hurting on that, I think. They would seem to be vulnerable to a food blockade, yes or maybe? I wonder about their reliance on us buying all of our shit from them, and the countries that will be under their dominion. If we are no longer their largest consumer who is going to consume their shit? Cracks in the economy indeed. |
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:48:01 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I know you asked the other guy but I’ll butt in. I don’t think Xi accepts the truth from his subordinates and he believes they are a rising power. Still, it’s likely he knows their demographics are changing and they need to make their move soon. However, nothing is more dangerous than a China in trouble. They use nationalism as a unifying tool and are likely to start foreign conflicts to stave off internal threats. Their economy has major cracks right now and that makes them more dangerous. They don't really seem to be a rising power in many ways, do they? |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:48:21 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Neat, I'm not aware of any ground based air force ADA resources in existence. You learn something new every day. USAF is looking to survive against the ballistic missile threat by dispersing first, ADA last. They aren't going to post up and hope that ADA can solve the problem for them, because it likely can't, things still get through. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:50:02 AM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I appreciate both of you giving your opinions out of turn lol. Thanks to the both of you. I wonder about their food supply and dependence on imports of soy beans and the like. We could put a fucking hurting on that, I think. They would seem to be vulnerable to a food blockade, yes or maybe? I wonder about their reliance on us buying all of our shit from them, and the countries that will be under their dominion. If we are no longer their largest consumer who is going to consume their shit? Cracks in the economy indeed. They will have to move to a war footing that means reduced caloric intake and a greatly reduced standard of living. Look at the Russians right now. It's no fun, but they don't have to worry about getting voted out. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:51:07 AM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: You are seriously wrong here. All the air defense we sent would be very helpful in the pacific guarding our airfields. Stretching fires to include artillery is probably technically correct but is misleading. The ADA we sent would be useful, but the Army hasn’t cared enough to purchase LTAMDS at max rate, and went years without buying PAC-3 at max rate. FWIW the max range of PAC-3 can’t be more than 150km. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:51:38 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: In your opinion is this Finlandization the act of a declining power lashing out at a dying paradigm or that of a rising power? Their population is going to fall off the cliff. There could be technological advances yet unforeseen that make their industrial capacity irrelevant in 15-20 years, i.e cheap labor isn't going to fucking matter.....Robots. Probably they see this, I just don't know which path they believe. I think they are declining. They want to lock in their gains before their position deteriorates. They'll never get another shot after the 2020s. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:54:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: GoldenMead]
[#24]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I appreciate both of you giving your opinions out of turn lol. Thanks to the both of you. I wonder about their food supply and dependence on imports of soy beans and the like. We could put a fucking hurting on that, I think. They would seem to be vulnerable to a food blockade, yes or maybe? I wonder about their reliance on us buying all of our shit from them, and the countries that will be under their dominion. If we are no longer their largest consumer who is going to consume their shit? Cracks in the economy indeed. They have about a two year supply of grain. Brazil exports more corn and soybeans to them than we do and they get a lot from other South American countries. Russia has the ability to supply them with a lot of wheat and other grain. Russia is also building new massive pipelines to China to feed it more oil and gas. Lastly when was the last time China cared if there people starved or not? There mindset is different from the wests. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:55:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: They want a Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere with Chinese characteristics. For their purposes simply replacing us will do in most cases, except that they want direct and continuing control of the SCS and the unification of Taiwan with China. Note that I don’t say reunification, there is a reason for that. Pop the dam in a nuclear confrontation. No other. I'll ask you this. China has some red flags looming before them......ta dat da! Why do they want to take on Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Maylasia, Korea if they may not be able to feed themselves? Unless, that's it is..for the rice? I don't know enough about where their food comes from to understand. But, in reality they need and import food, yes? And a lot of their soybeans come from us? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:56:08 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I appreciate both of you giving your opinions out of turn lol. Thanks to the both of you. I wonder about their food supply and dependence on imports of soy beans and the like. We could put a fucking hurting on that, I think. They would seem to be vulnerable to a food blockade, yes or maybe? I wonder about their reliance on us buying all of our shit from them, and the countries that will be under their dominion. If we are no longer their largest consumer who is going to consume their shit? Cracks in the economy indeed. They’ll switch to Russian wheat in a pinch. They are about to peak. If they can assume a stronger position in the region they can do a lot to improve their position. Like cut down on competition. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:58:23 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Stretching fires to include artillery is probably technically correct but is misleading. The ADA we sent would be useful, but the Army hasn’t cared enough to purchase LTAMDS at max rate, and went years without buying PAC-3 at max rate. FWIW the max range of PAC-3 can’t be more than 150km. Yep we sent shit we can’t replace or are not replacing fast enough. That’s the problem. Also why does a patriot interceptor have to travel far when it’s defending the airfield is sitting on? I don’t see how brining up its range is relovent. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 1:07:00 AM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: Yep we sent shit we can’t replace or are not replacing fast enough. That’s the problem. Also why does a patriot interceptor have to travel far when it’s defending the airfield is sitting on? I don’t see how brining up its range is relovent. Since Daemon is planning an island hopping campaign without the Navy the problem is that Army air defense can’t protect the ships or landing sites since the islands are farther apart than can be supported by ADA. Also that the Army hasn’t been taking air defense seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 1:08:56 AM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Neat, I'm not aware of any ground based air force ADA resources in existence. You learn something new every day. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Originally Posted By HIMARS13A: The Chinese have thousands of missiles that outrange ours, their strategy is to keep us at arms length while they move on Taiwan. That's an issue for the USAF as their airfields will be within ballistic missile range of the Chinese. Which is, itself, justification for the B21. Neat, I'm not aware of any ground based air force ADA resources in existence. You learn something new every day. The B-21 is an aircraft that combines better stealth than the B-2 with lower weight, smaller size, greater range and technical advancements that allow it to operate from dispersed fields that are outside the range of most Chinese missiles. And now you know. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 1:13:54 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: Since Daemon is planning an island hopping campaign without the Navy the problem is that Army air defense can’t protect the ships or landing sites since the islands are farther apart than can be supported by ADA. Also that the Army hasn’t been taking air defense seriously. I am not involved in your guys thing. I am just stating facts. Fact is we are short on interceptors that are needed to protect the air fields the US military plans on using. Any hypothetical from you or anyone else on island hoping is irrelevant to that fact. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 1:18:26 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By GoldenMead: I am not involved in your guys thing. I am just stating facts. Fact is we are short on interceptors that are needed to protect the air fields the US military plans on using. Any hypothetical from you or anyone else on island hoping is irrelevant to that fact. I completely agree, except that I think the solution isn’t to save 400 or whatever by not supporting Ukraine, it’s to increase production. China is making missiles faster than we are building interceptors. No amount of saving ammunition will make up for it. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 7:57:54 AM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: https://breakingdefense.com/2024/03/topping-navys-2-2b-unfunded-list-sub-industrial-base-guam-infrastructure-repairs/ You can’t pay to warehouse Democrat voters and fund the military at the same time. Something has to take a back seat. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:13:44 AM EDT
[Last Edit: daemon734]
[#33]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The B-21 is an aircraft that combines better stealth than the B-2 with lower weight, smaller size, greater range and technical advancements that allow it to operate from dispersed fields that are outside the range of most Chinese missiles. And now you know. Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The B-21 is an aircraft that combines better stealth than the B-2 with lower weight, smaller size, greater range and technical advancements that allow it to operate from dispersed fields that are outside the range of most Chinese missiles. And now you know. Oh cool, all 20 we have in existence should totally handle this war for us. Originally Posted By HIMARS13A: USAF is looking to survive against the ballistic missile threat by dispersing first, ADA last. They aren't going to post up and hope that ADA can solve the problem for them, because it likely can't, things still get through. That sounds strangely like the Army's strategy too. You do know that as long as those airfields are within missile range, it doesn't matter how much you disperse them? They were all identified as targets ten years ago when we started building them. You can't hide them. |
|
|
|
TX, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:19:47 AM EDT
[#34]
https://www.newsweek.com/china-migrants-flooding-us-island-raises-alarms-1883550
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:20:40 AM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Oh cool, all 20 we have in existence should totally handle this war for us. That sounds strangely like the Army's strategy too. You do know that as long as those airfields are within missile range, it doesn't matter how much you disperse them? They were all identified as targets ten years ago when we started building them. You can't hide them. You don't hide them, you hide the people and equipment on them and move them fast enough that they are hard to target. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 9:26:10 AM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: You don't hide them, you hide the people and equipment on them and move them fast enough that they are hard to target. You don't move fixed wing runways and every single one we have built has been identified. Welcome to MDO and a space-capable adversary. |
|
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 10:41:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: You don't move fixed wing runways and every single one we have built has been identified. Welcome to MDO and a space-capable adversary. USAF is talking about three kinds of airfields. One is well defended and designed for continuous operation, one is lighter, and the last is more like a FARP than an actual airfield. Obviously I don't know which airfields are which. But the concept is fairly straightforward. As for space, I expect ASAT attacks will turn LEO into a scrapyard for 75 years. That will be fun. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 10:54:44 AM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By daemon734: Oh cool, all 20 we have in existence should totally handle this war for us. That sounds strangely like the Army's strategy too. You do know that as long as those airfields are within missile range, it doesn't matter how much you disperse them? They were all identified as targets ten years ago when we started building them. You can't hide them. I’d jump for joy if we even get 20 by GO time, I have a feeling we’ll only have 12 in operation {pure speculation on my part otherwise I wouldn’t post specific numbers} |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 10:55:36 AM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By AA717driver: You can’t pay to warehouse Democrat voters and fund the military at the same time. Something has to take a back seat. Fundamentally agree with you |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 10:58:25 AM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The B-21 is an aircraft that combines better stealth than the B-2 with lower weight, smaller size, greater range and technical advancements that allow it to operate from dispersed fields that are outside the range of most Chinese missiles. And now you know. We have some amazing stuff. China will absolutely get rocked and lose A LOT of personnel and equipment of that I have no doubts. But our quantity of good stuff is very limited and the Pacific theater is enormous. Take an overlay of Ukraine and superimpose it on China and the first and second island chains |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:01:10 AM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: We have some amazing stuff. China will absolutely get rocked and lose A LOT of personnel and equipment of that I have no doubts. But our quantity of good stuff is very limited and the Pacific theater is enormous. Take an overlay of Ukraine and superimpose it on China and the first and second island chains Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By CarmelBytheSea: Originally Posted By Ryan_Scott: The B-21 is an aircraft that combines better stealth than the B-2 with lower weight, smaller size, greater range and technical advancements that allow it to operate from dispersed fields that are outside the range of most Chinese missiles. And now you know. We have some amazing stuff. China will absolutely get rocked and lose A LOT of personnel and equipment of that I have no doubts. But our quantity of good stuff is very limited and the Pacific theater is enormous. Take an overlay of Ukraine and superimpose it on China and the first and second island chains The US does have some good capabilities, but what I see is many people assume the fully funded, aspriation capability was bought instead of a lot of it was part of the trade space and lost to keep the projects within time, scope and cost. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:03:27 AM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I'll ask you this. China has some red flags looming before them......ta dat da! Why do they want to take on Southeast Asia, Indonesia, Maylasia, Korea if they may not be able to feed themselves? Unless, that's it is..for the rice? I don't know enough about where their food comes from to understand. But, in reality they need and import food, yes? And a lot of their soybeans come from us? GD please stop being stuck in 1999. We are no longer China’s rubber dog shit go to https://farmdocdaily.illinois.edu/2024/02/the-united-states-brazil-and-china-soybean-triangle-a-20-year-analysis.html#:~:text=The%20United%20States%20and%20Brazil,the%20United%20States%20and%20Brazil  Attached File |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:05:28 AM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tacosis: I appreciate both of you giving your opinions out of turn lol. Thanks to the both of you. I wonder about their food supply and dependence on imports of soy beans and the like. We could put a fucking hurting on that, I think. They would seem to be vulnerable to a food blockade, yes or maybe? I wonder about their reliance on us buying all of our shit from them, and the countries that will be under their dominion. If we are no longer their largest consumer who is going to consume their shit? Cracks in the economy indeed. Europe |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:07:12 AM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Ryan_Scott: I know you asked the other guy but I’ll butt in. I don’t think Xi accepts the truth from his subordinates and he believes they are a rising power. Still, it’s likely he knows their demographics are changing and they need to make their move soon. However, nothing is more dangerous than a China in trouble. They use nationalism as a unifying tool and are likely to start foreign conflicts to stave off internal threats. Their economy has major cracks right now and that makes them more dangerous. China state news is characterizing the situation as WE WERE supposed to be #1 but jealous USA has conspired to take our chance at #1 away. USA our enemy now |
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:09:39 AM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: This part I get. No country has ever destroyed enemy manufacturing capacity with conventional bombing of any kind. It's never happened. You can strangle SLOCs to keep them from getting raw materials, which makes sense, but isn't a panacea here. Counter point is its only really been tried twice in a systematic way, and the technology of 2024 is very different than that of 1945. And the point isn't to completely destroy it, but do enough damage to drop its output down below the level of the US and allies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:11:09 AM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By R0N: The US does have some good capabilities, but what I see is many people assume the fully funded, aspriation capability was bought instead of a lot of it was part of the trade space and lost to keep the projects within time, scope and cost. If you look at post Trump era DOD budgets while there are some gems overall a lot of programs are in dog shit territory. Look at the hypersonic programs holy shit what a shit show |
|
|
|
USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:15:44 AM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By DC2FA5: The fact that the politicians and brass discuss war with China as a foregone conclusion should enrage the American populace. It should in the sense that American politicians, corporations, and bankers are what turned China into a viable enemy by shipping them our jobs, technology, and wealth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:19:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Nobody reads history apparently. The US Military always devolves into a disorganized clown show…then a war kicks off and we play from behind for a year or two.
|
|
|
|
OR, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 11:41:43 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By HIMARS13A: When I run the things you say past other people in the other services, they think it's a bad joke, and they start talking about things like the amount of lift required. It would take something like every C17 in service to deploy a single MDTF from JBLM to Japan. Or you could do it with watercraft but it would take weeks and nothing else would move, which means forward deployed forces would be on their own. For weeks. Considering a the old style independent light infantry brigades take about 140 C-17s to move, and a MDTF has a lot less equipment then that, I'm pretty skeptical of your claims. |
|
|
AZ, USA
|
Posted: 3/27/2024 12:29:00 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryOriginally Posted By Tyvar: Considering a the old style independent light infantry brigades take about 140 C-17s to move, and a MDTF has a lot less equipment then that, I'm pretty skeptical of your claims. I got that from a C-17 guy, in reviewing it RAND claims that moving just the fires BN takes 36 C-17s and highlights the need to prepo or forward deploy as early as possible. IBCTs have something like 1,000 vehicles but they are mostly HMMWV/JLTV sized vs the FMTV and HEMTT based MDTF. It's probably pretty close to the number of available C-17s (not the total fleet). Or maybe he was wrong. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
