Clark Griswold

I hear ya but they’ve got different goals Them - Acquire wealth and power without giving a shit about anything else or how Us - Fix everything and make everyone nice immediately We’re kinda at a disadvantage Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup They lead with soft power then gradually get harder (sts) - first sample by the dealer is always free Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just a guess but I think it’s possible they may propose a pipeline thru Afghanistan to link Iranian petroleum exports to the PRC Throw in further potential rare earth minerals mining, weapons, utilities, telecom sales and funding them as a useful proxy to harass, disrupt, attack Western / US interests / forces when beneficial to the overall interest of the PRC you can see the utility of the PRC’s efforts to court the Taliban. Belt-n-Road may get another partner Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Blow it up as the last helicopter flies clear Start planning the B-2 round the world strike now Enjoy your rubble… Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ha - I wish they would admit that and get with the program

Negative Ghostrider They (PRC) would just then give them to Iran as a retort to our move and runs counter to the overall strategy of non-proliferation. They could arm or deploy nukes just to threaten us to piss us off other areas also, Cuban Missile Crisis 2.0 would be my choice if I were the PRC, you've nuclearly armed Taiwan, I just put 100 hypersonic nuclear tipped missiles on Cuba, enjoy. That might be a pipe dream (non-proliferation) but we are trying to stick with it so conventional deterrence it is.

True - they have numbers but the going is not the best for them assuming a somewhat conventional amphibious invasion of Taiwan Articles on the subject / conjecture of how the PLA et al would carry out an invasion, one article is a bit dated considering the growth in the size and capabilities of the PRC but the fundamental points (terrain, a phased operation, limited windows of opportunity) remain relevant. https://thediplomat.com/2021/05/why-a-taiwan-invasion-would-look-nothing-like-d-day/ https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2535&context=nwc-review Reading the second article I found this particularly interesting since we both agree that timing is the secret sauce if you wanted to carry out this aggression: The Chinese would also have to contend with two monsoon seasons, from August to September and from November to April; it would be restricted to two “windows” of attack, from May to July and the month of October. The month of October particularly towards the end of the month would be intriguing to me if I were a PLA military strategist to begin as the US would be going into a major electoral period every two to four years and the political competition would likely become another impediment to quick resolve and decisive action to intervene and assist the Taiwanese.

Legitimate points, I would further contextualize my sober assessment of our odds at 50/50 with further growth in their direct military capabilities and indirect capabilities (cyber, info, diplomatic, financial, etc) - give it 3 years on this trajectory and they would be foolish not to try particularly with the cowardly and weak kneed responses to their recent major provocations and outrages (Uighurs, Hong Kong, COVID, etc..). They know the world is intimidated by them and the US is hamstrung by it's own business community that sold the farm to China years ago and would likely try to pull back the government of the US from a forceful response. Hence my belief that breaking the current situation of strategic ambiguity is actually short term provocative and risky to be fair but long term actually stabilizing. Rip the Band-Aid off, hurts like hell initially but settles the problem quickly and permanently. But what do the Taiwanese think or want? Doesn't look like they want Mill's (Deterring the Dragon article author) proposal but if they really really start to believe the PLA is coming this time, they might change their tunes. https://www.chinausfocus.com/peace-security/returning-american-troops-to-taiwan-will-only-entrap-the-us-20514 https://www.taiwannews.com.tw/en/news/4015784 By then I think unless we are on the island hopefully to deter thru some serious pucker factor brinksmanship, I don't know how we stop them once they establish a naval blockade, have CAPs over the island and have taken the small islands of Penghu just west of Formosa, massing troops and ships for invasion. They would insist we are aggressing and escalating as we started our response, my bet is the rest of the world would navel gaze and we would keep assets at the ready and near but not engage while the financial markets go into cardiac arrest. Our CAPs and surface fleets at least would stay outside of whatever quarantine zone they would declare while the cyber, financial, diplomatic and information war would start. Just my uneducated yet to finish AWC guess but if we didn't respond kinetically within 72 hours of their first actions, we would not fire a shot ever. They would have shifted environment, the chatter would move to acceptance and de-escalation. At some point, the free market, rule of law, representative democracies will have to defend the "red lines" they have said exist that the autocracies are pushing and crossing, weakness encourages aggression and they smell weakness with our inability to decisively end conflicts in our favor morality aside, with our tepid responses to cyber attack and disinformation, our cultural self-immolation and our reckless debt accumulation. This to me is way to say no further.

One would think but history has examples where trading partners eschew their economic relations to try to change the geo-political landscape to their advantage, ref the trading relations of pre-WW1 Europe https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/chimera-economic-interdependence Beating them to the punch is becoming more and more likely to me the best COA to avoid a shooting war with at best a 50/50 chance we prevent the conquest of Taiwan. I would lean extremely hard on others to participate also, UK-Aussies-SK-Indians-Germans-French-etc... but if necessary we go it alone There is risk, it won't be cheap and convincing the American public will take time but you stand up to Biff or you do his homework forever.

So this guy wrote a paper about an idea I had but expressed it about 369% than I could: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Journals/Military-Review/English-Edition-Archives/September-October-2020/Mills-Deterring-Dragon/ Had this same idea too, if everything you're doing is not working, try doing the opposite like Costanza did for a while and it worked out (sorta) So instead of them instigating provocation after provocation and thus driving the direction of changing the facts on the ground to their favor, we take the initiative and return the favor driving it to at least maintain the status quo Obviously the risk is there but not as high as letting the situation deteriorate further to their favor where we will not be able to meaningfully respond if they decide to take swift decisive action and initiate aggression against Taiwan and preemptive military strikes to keep the US out of theater or capable of using our in theater forces for likely for a month or more. Thoughts?

Thread restart: RB-8 proposal: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/40859/the-case-for-stripping-the-p-8-poseidon-down-into-an-rb-8-multi-role-arsenal-ship New Russian jet: https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41618/russias-checkmate-light-tactical-fighter-is-officially-unveiled

Make that 2 weeks No one ever wanted to admit what we were fighting after the initial defeat of the Taliban and in country elements of AQ / HN, the hyper conservative Islamic central Asian culture of Afghanistan that we found repulsive and wanted to eliminate and replace with something that practiced amenable values to Western societies (the treatment of women, minorities of various types, the ending offensive cultural practices, etc…) The majority of the country does not want what we want them to be, sure Kabul and some other urban areas might be ok with a much less restrictive interpretation of an Islamic society but they will always be the minority and always under siege The end will be ugly but inevitable, let’s get it over with. Whose values are practiced at the end of a conflict in a given territory are the ultimate form of victory and we will have to accept that ours will not be practiced there not because we didn’t try but that what would be required to implant them we were and are not willing to do, nor do I think we should, namely to absolutely obliterate the country even more than it already is and purposely target the fighting age male population for near severe culling. This is the only way you could then remake them as you willed, not advocating this just is so. Germany, Japan and South Korea worked out as they did because we had a clean slate to work from. My guess is that this is the last nation building attempt we will see for 20 or more years, maybe we’ll get sucked into another impossible situation like a post collapse Venezuela, North Korea, Zimbabwea, etc… I hope not. If so, I hope whoever is POTUS then is honest enough to say this will take several decades, cost billions and may not work but I think it is that important enough for these reasons to commit the USA to it on my watch Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In related news, the Tiger and Dragon are getting into more aggressive postures towards each other India Shifts 50,000 Troops to China Border in Historic Move | Financial Post

Could be both simultaneously, they’re not mutually exclusive What was and is really bad about CRT at the USMA and mil in general is that it is indoctrination being presented falsely or defended as by leadership as education When you walk into a briefing, presentation, class etc and are told you are this because of this with no objective examination of said theory it’s political / cultural indoctrination Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/41142/an-air-cushion-patrol-seaplane-was-once-in-the-works-with-the-u-s-and-japan Air cushion seaplanes

Culturally the democratization of fires is the last thing the CAF will ever support, just said for context and discussion but I agree the targeting problem forced on the enemy, the potential introduction of new long range weapons when the platform options expands and what I think would be good for the Air Force, every platform a potential shooter This is isn't that revolutionary, the Navy is seriously looking at distributing fires to traditionally non-combatant platforms https://www.forbes.com/sites/craighooper/2020/07/12/desperate-for-more-war-fighting-capacity-congress-asks-about-armed-logistics-ships/?sh=6d47408a1384 and the USMC are already adapting the Herc for short range fires ala Harvest Hawk No, not a flaw just a risk. Like most things in life if used properly it is a benefit if not a hazard. Probably a mix of the two ideas at some appropriate ratio is the right answer and adjusted as conditions change is least bad solution.

Would that lead to or how would you prevent hoarding?

True We’re in a business / operations model likely to not work in the cyber environment we’re seeing develop now with also the threat of long range non nuclear (fingers crossed) ballistic and cruise missile capes Also to your point of the leadership being selected for process efficiency optimization skills vs strategic & operational military judgement I concur 25+ years of steady state operations in CENTCOM have put us into a cultural rut that is not easy to escape Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Concur with that but so do our enemies so they will and are planning for ways to deny us them in the way we plan to use them now so we probably need to plan to do them differently to make it harder for them to destroy that critical support and primary mission capability. Looking at us now (the AF specifically), we are primarily OT&E'd to deliver the range of Air Mobility missions thru large and manned platforms, making the targeting problem relatively simple for the enemy to plan to eliminate it, maybe not execute it but plan to and threaten that force thereby affecting our planning and training to use that force. Changing what we have and how we intend to bring those missions to the fight(s) will make the adversary's targeting and denial strategies / tactics more difficult and or more costly, ideally bolstering our deterrence against aggression or if a fight starts a more survivable force for him to contend with. If we are serious about delivering Air Mobility into contested environments with growth in capes our two likely and capable opponents have now and likely in the future we need to increase the number of mobility platforms to complicate the targeting problem, introduce and field unmanned mobility platforms for some of the high risk and conversely for some of the low risk routine/repetitive missions, develop multi-mission capable manned Air Mobility platforms similar in some ways to tactical platforms now if we want the capability to deliver Air Mobility into some contested environments and for the mass movements of people and cargo into relatively safe MOBs as a contingency happens we probably should rely on CRAF, contractors and military versions of civilian air freighters for maximum efficiency & reliability. That's a big change from how we do things now but if we don't realize that our enemies pay attention too, they have watched how we do business for the last 25+ years and will never allow us the advantages our last few enemies we actually fought could not threaten, we will regret it.

Concur Gripen turn around video, bit older but illustrates I think what you're talking about. MX for effective dispersed basing and expeditionary recovery would need to be contained to what could be hauled / towed in a 5 ton or smaller vehicle, tools and equipment mostly one man carry and only need to be lifted to about 4-5 feet max. Everything designed to quickly turn and scoot before being targeted while on the ground and static.

Yeah, that is / was my initial impression. It's a dressed rendering of one of the original early designs that apparently had some advantages but lost out in the design process. From the interwebs so caveat emptor: Maybe the LERXs on this design deflected turbulent but available additional air for the intakes to ingest, slow down and straighten out and send to the engine but that is just my not an aero engineer guess. Just another guess but I suspect the in-field servicing issues with the high mounted engine might have been a bit costly in quick turn around and dispersed operations costs as that is a central concept with the Gripen so the Swedes took a pass on it.

Single engine F-23 concept https://www2.tbb.t-com.ne.jp/imaginary-wings/tenji/tenjif25.html

Gripen with F-107 influence