Does airpower, likes archives, prefers cockpits over lounge seats. - Associate at Freeman Air and Space Institute, King's College London. - Official Partner of USNIP and Mortons Books.
Exclusive discounts / coupons / vouchers: Naval Institute Press: 25% off with "MILAVHIS" at www.usni.org/press/books Mortons: 10% off with "MAH10" at www.mortonsbooks.co.uk/
It's an excellent approach. For example, akin to the investment the UK put in their NCO's, the middle managers of the forces. When it all goes to sh!t, and it will, you want hardened common sense in place to be able to carry on.
it’s funny how people just accept that america has all these huge bases all over the world. everyone goes ballistic if china so much as sends a warship somewhere while the americans just build airbases everywhere in the region.
During the cold war Sweden developed a cult of mission tactics to the extent that old officers now think Swedens younger officers last decades with thing like involment in Afghanistan has lost some of its way with more rigid and low initiative US and NATO structures. Maybe not often you hear US militray called rigid and low on initiative, but that is the cult of mission tactics for you.
ACE: When USAF finally admits support for decentralized austere airfield operations like Grippen, A-10, and Soviet airframes have was the objectively correct doctrine all along, because centralized airfields are just cruise missile magnets, just like everyone else in the world said it was.
The A-10 stopped production in 1984 and the company that made it went out of business 20 years ago. It got worn down in the GWOT. It can't fight another war.
Multi capable airman doesn't mean to overburden those airmen but of course it does. Luckily the solution is simple, reduce their duty time on their regular job to train in other roles rather than expecting them to add it on top. It just costs money and requires more airmen per role but if you want actual redundancy you need that anyways.
Karen US Empire should protect its own borders first. Plus the Chinese on Taiwan won't show up to defend the island when the time comes. Taiwan is army is drafted. Shocker for white people. Taiwan is full of Chinese.
China🇨🇳 wants Taiwan🇹🇼 TSMC chips to control the world. Unification is just sugar coated liar to the world. Taiwan🇹🇼Republic of China(ROC) was established in 1912, never being part of Communist China🇨🇳, China should backoff & leave Taiwan alone.
There is no "Problem". China reverse engineers our stuff and yet it is still junk. Their pilots are levels below our pilots. Just one of our Carrier Task Groups could take out most of their Navy and at least half of their air force. Take it from someone who has been there and done that. China is like that guy we all grew up knowing. Talks a lot shit but really can't fight. The only time to be concerned about China is when they go quiet.
Your content is excellent, as is your grammar. But please, please, work on your very thick German accent. If you are going to broadcast in English, then aim for a clear, recognised version of the language from the Anglosphere - with North American, British or Antipodean pronunciation. Otherwise, beautifully researched and presented.
China will probably engage with U.S. navy superhornets, not AF jets. As far as bases in Tiawan, i am aure Tiawan would let the U.S. stash a few f-22s on sime of their bases.
ACE is literally the doctrine the Soviets had with the Mig-29 / Su-17 / Mig-27 squadrons .... In fact Mig-23 was designed specifically to take advantage of this.
All of the US islands in the Pacific should be upgraded with infrastructure to potentially support military operations. There are a lot of them. These are mostly a long distance away from China however they could serve useful purposes to support a conflict in Asia. Most of them could be unmanned and open to the public during peace time. This keeps ongoing costs low and keeps potential adversaries guessing about where you might place your mobile assets. They should each have an airstrip, E berm parking spots, a perimeter berm near the shore, a dock, semi hardened primitive shelters, storage facilities, and remote security with solar powered cameras and satellite communications. These could be used by tourists for day trips and primitive camping. Many of these islands are already designated as parks. But if the threat of war is high, then military assets could be moved in quickly. Some potential uses are as safety airstrips for potential emergency landings, temporary bases for Marines to practice amphibious invasion and defense, supply caches to support operations in the Western Pacific from beyond the reach of most missiles, emergency repair and rearming points for the Navy, sensor outposts to monitor the air and sea around them, air defense networks to monitor and potentially engage threats as they cross the Pacific, and forward staging areas for large scale air operations. They also provide a defense in depth to mitigate against the potential of damage to West Pacific US and ally bases. Furthermore they provide at least a minimally defensible prepared fighting position constellation to potentially defend against an invasion attempt. The Aleutian islands in particular are worth fortifying because they are the gateway to the Arctic and are under the likely flight paths of hostile aircraft that would approach the West Coast. But the Hawaiian islands and the mid and South Pacific islands should not be neglected either. If all of the islands are improved up to a level ready for military use, it would significantly complicate the planning of adversaries and can provide outposts to monitor and constrain the movements of adversary forces.
Lolno. The Aussies & every European partner with investments/technical dependencies in Taiwan would also get involved. So... pretty much all of NATO excluding the Baltics & Poland. And if it did? Well, assuming a diplomatic failure that huge (because the strength of the US is its friends more than its muscle) the US has set itself up for prolonged, long range power projection. China hasn't. I mean, the PLA/N literally uses fishing boats as part of its strategy, & thus claims them as part of its active hull count. It's kinda silly.
One mistake that I believe the US has made over the last several decades, is that they have sacrificed some ruggednes of their aircraft for technology. I dont know about China, but US aircraft need an extremely smooth and clean runway in order to take off. This is about to cause an issue in Ukraine because the new F16s being provided will have very few airbases from which to oprerate, which makes them easier to be targeted, while Ukraine's older Russian equipment is making use of less clean runways and even some highways as scattered launching locations. It will be difficult for the US to spread a lot of airpower to older airbases, without a LOT of upgrades. Even then, it wont take much damage to render the runways useless.
Hub and spoke I heard from my logistics course. More in the scope of passenger aviation. I think there's a few things worth saying, repeating, reinforcing. So give me a moment to chew through this. I think it swung too far in the COIN/low intensity side of things. Assumptions that were never tested become accepted thought and people didn't seem to remember they were assumptions in the first place. I'd also make the point that a proactive, defended/resilient and stable chain of command should be able to trust the people on the field to do their part of the mission, the job, the act of fighting. Resource management is always a problem and always needs to be watched and managed. Who, where, how and why changes the question and changes the outcome. So more planning, less assumptions, more games to test and check it, all of that sounds good. And all the better if it's tested before, used before. Engines still need to be checked and fuel gotten there, whether it's a prop or turbojet doesn't really change the question on some level.
Let China have Taiwan, it is historically part of China and spend the billions saved building airfields on the homeless American people. It is about time governments focussed on their people and not on the business of war - Revolution UK
Military strategy should not be based on the world’s state many years ago, but now. If China took Taiwan as it is today the consequences for western economies would be devastating. Defending Taiwan is defending the people of the US and Europe
@@Formula1st sounds like you Watch a lot of CNN, their good with words just like the Nazis but at the end of the day the USA only cares about capitalism not human lives.
the book in the background is the topic of next week? How long can the carrier fleet realistically sustain itself before Air Force bases in a reasonable vicinity have to be up and running? Logistics and combat wise another interesting aspect would be to which extend each base should have electronical warfare capabilities and how they should be implemented
China is the paper Tiger. Like Russia, they will struggle to maintain the war of attrition NATO and it's allies will push. China is just as deceptive and fake as Russia is too. Most of their crap won't even work.
The quality of the Chinese military forces must also be taken into account. They are not believed to be exactly excellent. There was some wargame performed on some RU-vid channel, and the condition for China being able to take a part of Taiwan was that US never defended Taiwan with its air force.
I'm pretty sure that the people saying the PLA is shit are American nationalists. The PLA isn't known to exaggerate their capabilities like the Russians and are orders of magnitudes more threatening. The CPC is known to downplay the capabilities of the PLA significantly. The official stance of the CPC is that the PLA is not a modern force, despite having one of the most advanced navy and air forces in the world. Chinese war games routinely simulate tactical nuclear strikes from the US as a conservative simulation in a war against Taiwan.
the USAF will have to greatly expand some unit types--comms squadrons, log squadrons, engineers (Red Horse), and BASEOPS units. I suspect this will also require considerably more jointness with the Army, Navy, and Marines. These bases will all have to be multi-service in nature.
just in terms of POL storage, this is a huge undertaking...port facilities, roads, warehouses, bunkers...not to mention, can the US Def industrial Base support it?
As a Swede in active service, it's interesting and encouraging to see the mighty USAF start pivoting more towards how we've always been doing things. Not just with the dispersion etc, but also the more independent operations working "in the spirit of higher command", as well as the Multi-Capable Airmen concept which is the standard-by-necessity for all of Swedish Armed Forces. USAF definitely knows their game, and them adopting a mindset that more resembles that of the Swedes and Finns feels like a nice stamp of approval. We certainly feel very welcome in NATO, and that we have good things to contribute with.
Interesting how people seem to act like M.A.D. still isn't a thing. How do you big military experts imagine a direct conflict between superpowers would play out without escalating into nukes?
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate on their plunder.
I mean, is that so surprising? Military draw downs always erode capacity, & that erodes capability, & that erodes the hard won peace from the last kerfuffle. But try telling that to blinkered idealists & disconnected billionaires looking for a lower tax rate.
Good to see you after a long break. In first grade, my favorite planes were the Hellcat, because of a newsreel piece about the new plane that could face up to the zero. Also, the B-25, because of a small plastic toy that i loved but lost. A few years ago i had to make a 1/75 scale plastic model to replace it. I never heard of a B-25 with a tank gun, but did see footage of strafing operations of the B-25, maybe in New Guinea. You may remember me. I’m the one who painted a PBY with military markings for the movie, Midway ( 1976 ). I remember your dream of getting one of the last PBYs to live and travel in. I’m still ‘praying’ for you.
Haven't heard the term "ACE" since I retired last year. Your description of it is spot on. Some people were also kinda referring to it as a Whack a Mole concept using the Army's FARP technique on steroids.
Could China attack Taiwan? Sure. Not a big stretch to say so. Would China then attack a number of U.S. air bases scattered throughout the region? Short of all out war between the two nations, no way. It would be unprecedented and immediately escalate to nuclear conflict.
I agree China may not attack U.S. airbases in a surprise strike. Although they should prepare for it. This is because the U.S. may just fold. If there's even a 5% chance the U.S. would decline to intervene militarily, I think China would be dumb to do so. However, America could also respond by sinking a Chinese carrier and troopship or 12. Then it would make sense. But I think China would be better off to try and avoid direct conflict with the U.S. Now if China wants to attack Japan . Yeah they are going to want to Surprise strike U.S. bases. I think it's not guaranteed to go nuclear. If the U.S. and China hold off on attacking each other's mainland (Alaska/Hawaii included) it might not, which means either side might risk it. That said the bases can't move. The U.S. sends a grain shipment to an interdicted Taiwan. China fires at or near it. A single person decides to fire back. It escalates from there. In fact a declared interdiction might be a planassault. ttempt at a straight asdault.
The ‘pearl harbor’ strategy has two major downsides for china- 1. it will bring in countries beyond just Japan and Australia. 2. It will cause a ‘day of infamy speech’ and assure a long war which China will almost certainly lose. I don’t see any president or political party pulling a denethor if 10s of thousands of Americans die in one day.
@@matt.willoughby Because at that point, assuming an undeclared first strike on a US military asset, the US would pursue a unilateral & unconditional surrender of the CCP. At least, so history suggests. The current government in Beijing would, at that point, be in a position in trying to preserve its very existence. They would be, at least according to doctrine, obliged to eventually escalate to nuclear deterrents. Which would, in turn, provoke a similar & overwhelming response by the US.
No it won't. I would bet that even if china bomb US bases US will not retaliate. If US fights China, it would no longer be world's number one. It would be just another south america splite between rich states and poor states. For you logical thinking do not apply but for anyone else have common sense knows that, US going to cross the pacific ocean, fighting world's biggest manpower, and world biggest industry. Let's say it won't end well for US fighting in a conventional war. Nuclear, they may not have as many openly claimed nuclear stock but they never disclosed how much they have. It is like you own a corvette and your boss drive a econobox, it does jot mean he is poor than you until you discover his garage when you actually race him. @@matt.willoughby
There was a big kerfuffle about how the base raw material used to make a magnet used in a part used in plane had originated in China. Zero part of US military hardware is allowed to be or is sourced from China, that you would think electronic chips would be is banana level uninformed ignorance.
China has been paying British pilots to train their pilots in US and British tactics and flying styles . This gives china a small edge in engagement with the US .
Only if their doctrine allows more command authority at lower echelons. Authoritarian counties are historically bad at distribution of command authority. It takes trust to allow pilots and other mid lvl officers to take a non-preapproved approach. These are the same groups they watch like crazy for suspicions of conspiracy and coups.
There is a book, I used to have it but I think I gave it to my brother-in-law, about Pappy Gunn. Name of book maybe undaunted or something like that. He was such an astounding affect on the war in the sw Pacific besides basically inventing the gunship. He stole some B-25s from the Dutch air force. General Kenney just let pappy do his thing really no interference. Pappy had legends made up about him. My brother -in law is related to him by marriage (he's an Owen). His family has passed down the legend that pappy baled out of a stricken plane landed on a nap zero, overpowered the pilot and flew the zero back to base. This DID NOT happen but the legend lives on. He was such a an interesting character. He was seriously wounded when the US was taking back Manila but one of the Owen family got to go into the civilian prison and rescue pappy's family. Great book, I need to read it again.
well what is a tank? The most armoured thing today? 60+ tons? A tank is kind of an outdated word since by definition an IFV is a tank, so is probbably an armoured bulldoser with a gun on it.
