Leaderboard

Flight is freedom in its purest form, To dance with the clouds which follow a storm; To roll and glide, to wheel and spin, To feel the joy that swells within; To leave the earth with its troubles and fly, And know the warmth of a clear spring sky; Then back to earth at the end of a day, Released from the tensions which melted away. Should my end come while I am in flight, Whether brightest day or darkest night; Spare me your pity and shrug off the pain, Secure in the knowledge that I’d do it again; For each of us is created to die, And within me I know, I was born to fly. — Gary Claude Stoker (copied from another site)

I'm never going to advocate targeting civilians. The moral case on that has been established for decades. You can hate that if you want but it doesn't bother me in the slightest. No point in winning a war if doing so only upholds an immoral state. War is fought to preserve culture and values and if our culture and values support the massacre of innocents in the name of convenience then perhaps we deserve to be wiped out. But I don't think that's the case. Hope none of y'all are in the Ukraine thread bitching about apartment buildings being targeted and such..... Cause you know that would be a bad look.

In reference to side looking radar, the B-1 has the ability to turn the radar antenna 55 degrees left or right. With the ILST upgrade, we could track up to 120 degrees off the nose. The B-1 isn’t the platform you want for this application, but the ability to get off boresight radar tracks in a fast moving platform is not a new capability.

Epic, thanks!

Referencing that document proves my point that merchant vessels can be valid targets if they meet the rules (Paragraph 41). Skipping over the arguments that we could have from paragraph 46 and going to the meat and potatoes of Paragraph 60, specifically section (g) but just for good measure in my Malacca scenario (e). In a true wartime scenario, we shut the straits down and say anyone coming to point x will be stopped and inspected and if they don’t, they’ll be attacked (e). If we know they are providing war materiel to China, they’re already legitimate targets (g). I hope I didn’t come across as not just schwacking any Chinese civilian vessel or civilians in general because I don’t agree with that. But when a country is as dependent on imports as they are, we’d be idiotic to not attack that in a true war. Regarding your comments about never targeting civilians, how do you feel about attacking critical infrastructure? Basically strategic attack? That will have a massive impact on a civilian populace. For history’s sake, how did you feel about the Christmas bombings and the mining of Haiphong harbor?

also

Flying B-17s were already on legal palliative care due to insurance unavailability. Even this being the fault of the cobra pilot, it might put the final nail in the coffin of a lot of these larger experimental-exhibition-carve out relics. Just like Kobe and the 737 max, when it comes to insurance for GA, we all get to wear diapers when one shits their pants. The second debris landed on a public high-throughput freeway, that's when I knew this wasn't going to be just another seasonal black eye for the sector. This one might be worse in the aggregate than the Collings one, mainly due to the crash footprint, time will tell.

Not so sure anymore. I would have *never* thought the West would support Ukraine the way they have. Nor did I expect the Ukrainians to mount such a strong defense. And I know I'm not alone. Perhaps the human spirit is a bit more robust than the age of social media would have us believe. It is also entirely possible that 20 years of war in the Middle East has conditioned us to think about warfare in a certain, apathetic way. But that changes a lot when the target looks like you, both physically and culturally. At least that's what Ukraine seems to indicate.

He said he's in CA. That's like the precursor "with all due respect." Californians do this kinda stuff all the time!

None of the above will ever happen unless we have leadership with the balls to do it, and a national will that what's them to.

You did come across as schwacking any and all vessels which is why I got a bit defensive. I agree that targeting merchant marine vessels is legal under certain stipulations, mainly the same doctrine of distinction applicable to targeting law elsewhere. To your second part, necessity and proportionality. These are concepts that are well defined. Anytime I strike a civilian structure, I should be able to 1.) clearly articulate why destroying that structure provided a concrete military benefit by either denying, degrading, or disrupting part of the enemy war machine and 2.) demonstrate that I could not create a similar effect in any other manner that did not involve civilian casualties. If I can do both those--then need to show that the associated effect was so valuable that the overall benefit of destroying the target outweighed the harm I brought to civilians in doing so. The last 20 years has really contorted our scale and perspective of warfare, destruction and targeting. Its one of the reasons Im hesitant to jump into a shooting match with Russia or China until we've had a decade or so to recalibrate our expectations for success and for casualty. The vast majority of Americans are going to be horrified to see what the cost will be to help hold Taiwan. The political reaction to that could be so knee jerk and violent that it withdrawals the American populace from its global position.

The RF-4 would be a good inspiration for a revitalized capability in that mission set, that mission is different now but still present me thinks... Anyway, for info and to stir the pot... https://www.mcara.us/RF-4B.html https://flying-eyes.fandom.com/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_RF-4_Phantom_II RF-4s with upgrades under Project SURE. Inspiration but not necessarily a design starting point, this is just a theoretical requirement I would still prioritize altitude, endurance over speed so a larger, straighter (sts i guess) wing but maybe a delta for whatever fuselage form would be selected. Sensors over weapons but the capacity to weaponize as a must have.

Flea, your concerns and logic are why the USA no longer wins wars. If we want to win, we must stop thinking about what we can’t do and stop pitting our lawyers against our tacticians.

ACE! Duh!

Apply to Lockheed Martin and you won’t have to worry about it. 5 years differential pay for all orders. No length or type requirements. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network mobile app

Subordinate isn't the right wording. They were reliant on western supplied equipment and munitions. They've got lots of equipment now...munitions will continue to be a challenge. It doesn't make them a puppet for us, and doesn't mean we can tell them "go do this" and expect them to salute smartly and follow marching orders. They are compelled to consider (arguably, strongly consider) our recommendations....and then, it still is their decision. The situation has changed enough that the Ukrainians may be inspired enough by battlefield victories to think they have more rope to play with - they can do whatever they want with that rope. It's for us to try to advise, so they don't end up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. We are certainly leveraging political tools to do so. If we stopped handing over equipment and munitions today - it isn't a guarantee that the Ukrainians would lose (in the near term). However, they (and we) understand the importance of both building & rebuilding a western supplied military for them. They're playing the politics side of it pretty smartly as well...they aren't subservient, realize that US would suffer political blowback if we just walked away right now, and know that we can help them behind the scenes as well. This doesn't just easily simplify to "we are a big country and you are a little one" power plays (nor should it).

If it comes down to fighting their military like Vietnam and an actual war against the Chinese state, I hope it is a straight up war. Reason being is in a real war against the nation of China, we park our navy in some strategic straits and use the AF to help massacre their merchant fleets. Give it 9 months to a year of that and China ceases to exist due to their reliance on imports. We decide to muck around in the SCS and the island chains by fighting militaries, that will end horribly for all parties and not make a lasting difference (in my opinion).

Please expand. Not sure if I’m going to argue for or against you yet.

The culture of the US is ever changing, especially in the last 20-30 years…I don’t think it’s for the overall better when it’s all said and done, but it’s changing none the less. Likewise, this will affect how the US responds and how successful it would be against such attack. When is the last time that the US was attacked? 9-11…and it’s not like it took a lot of new ingenuity/innovation to defeat the Taliban and go after terrorist camps. And last I checked, the Taliban is still in control, trillions of dollars later. The time before then…WW2, and we’re not even close to the same America as we were back then. China could attack an American base, and I don’t believe I would see an American combat troop in mainland China because no one wants to see that for the reasons already listed above.

Two crowds in here talking past each other: First: We can't beat china right now because of lots of reasons. This is true. Second: The American way of war is to get kicked in the balls and then fight our way to victory through overwhelming superiority of innovation, ingenuity, and inherent individual initiative (oh the alliteration!). Also true.

I am not advocating for it to be armed, instead I would like to see a host of sensors, comms and edge processing parked in a HVAA cap.

I agree. Doesn't change the fact that Ukraine, despite whatever their desires may be, is subordinate to us in this war. There is no Ukraine victory without our weapons. I don't have to like it, but that's politics. Saying "it's their decision" implies they can do whatever they want. False. If their choice is to lose, then yeah I guess they can do whatever. But they can't win without us, which means their choices are limited to those they can get the US to agree to. Politics and power.

I mean, escalating incentives / threats has been the trend, right? Speaking from the civilian side: - You should get a Covid shot! - If you get a Covid shot, you'll get a free donut! - A free gift card! - Your job may require a shot, you should just get it now! - No entry without a vaccine card! - Get a shot or lose your job!

It’s a trend item for me, why would you drive anything else!?

...while cruising around in your "free candy" van!

G6500 can easily do it, and does.

This is an interesting discussion of the bozosphere and how military capes can be expanded at these altitudes. At maximum takeoff weights, inherent to the mission sets described, a heavy BizJetJobs can initially climb to FL410; step climbs are advantageously slow in their development. Sure, a manufacturer Opslimit of Fl510 or even FL550 would increase the envisioned capability. Hello, these Flight Levels are achievable 10+ hours after takeoff and not realistic until only 2 hours of fuel remaining. That is why ADS-B doesn’t find these jets above FL470. Hang some hard points and blisters, maybe a device or two, lower the altitudes by 2000-4000’ in their overall operational envelope.

If you actually understood their culture and found out what makes them tick, it would be much easier to get approvals to your requests. But we do not teach that before arriving on station and expecting "our way" to be their way as well.

I’ll post the alternative thoughts here, because, while I’d like to believe that, I’m starting to think that mentality is actually doing more harm than good. That’s like saying my family could be rich if my mid-30s wife, who was an EMT for one year when she was 21, would only get her MD and complete her residency. Yup, it could happen. But it would take a ridiculous amount of work, it would be super hard, it would cost us both money, require sacrifices in time and quality of life from everyone, and if she only half asses it and doesn’t finish we’re gonna be in a worse spot than when we started. First, you can create a list entirely from unclassified sources of shortfalls in our military: The NDS, Kill Chain by Brose, The Long Game by Doshi, etc. In a conflict, the tyranny of distance combined with ineffective and, frankly, outdated platforms and concepts aren’t going to help… we have to fundamentally reshape our military if we actually want to compete. China is well into fundamentally reshaping their’s literally to defeat the US in a home game. I agree with Chailen and Roper - we are currently in a bad spot that’s only looking worse. Further, I think the chances you get the general public to realize the magnitude of change required, when you still have folks in the military that think we would smoke China in a conflict, is pretty damn close to 0. Yeah, we’ll get serious when we start losing a war. But cutting edge tech nowadays is no longer a bomb gunsight like it was back in WWII. Science and Technology timelines take longer, and our current strategy and messaging commits us to starting at a disadvantage.

They are the Keepers of the Two Holy Mosques. You are an infidel. That's how it works. They are strategic partners, apparently. Questions?