China Thread

#3,876
#3,876
Orangeburst said:
$22B program, not even including upgrade costs and installation of several key features that have been omitted, for 3 ships searching for a mission. A whopping 36 missiles that could be fired from islands or even longer range weapons from further out.

Might as well get some use out of the hulls. Between this, $36B LCS, $15B MQ25, $13B carrier, years of procurement budgets, say $86B, with little to show for it and marginal value.

I’ll quit my beeching
Click to expand...
You have to do something with Zumwalts & LCS. Might as well turn them into missile platforms and get some utility out of them.

The Ford is expensive, and took forever. But it is a very good platform.

I’m not understanding your deep seated hatred for MQ-25 lol.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#3,877
#3,877
Orangeburst said:
$22B program, not even including upgrade costs and installation of several key features that have been omitted, for 3 ships searching for a mission. A whopping 36 missiles that could be fired from islands or even longer range weapons from further out.

Might as well get some use out of the hulls. Between this, $36B LCS, $15B MQ25, $13B carrier, years of procurement budgets, say $86B, with little to show for it and marginal value.

I’ll quit my beeching
Click to expand...
And I’m really not understanding your classification of the re-purposed Zumwalts as “36 missiles that could be fired from islands”.

The 36 Prompt Strike hypersonics are in addition to the 80 VLS cells that are already in place.

A moving missile platform at Sea is much more valuable than a stationary platform in a Pacific campaign.
 
#3,878
#3,878
85SugarVol said:
And I’m really not understanding your classification of the re-purposed Zumwalts as “36 missiles that could be fired from islands”.

The 36 Prompt Strike hypersonics are in addition to the 80 VLS cells that are already in place.

A moving missile platform at Sea is much more valuable than a stationary platform in a Pacific campaign.
Click to expand...
just put these 36 missiles on land somewhere or use longer range missiles
the current vls cells are too small for these missiles
These are obviously some sort of mobile missile as it is an Army missile.
 
#3,879
#3,879
Orangeburst said:
just put these 36 missiles on land somewhere or use longer range missiles
the current vls cells are too small for these missiles
These are obviously some sort of mobile missile as it is an Army missile.
Click to expand...
If we could field portable hypersonics with longer range, I’m sure we would. 2000 miles is the range (actually less).

The current 80 VLS on Zumwalt aren’t for the hypersonics. They’re for your conventional assortment of Tomahawks, ESSM, and such.

The hypersonics are getting their own launch silos where the useless gun batteries were placed.

You can’t put US Army mobile launchers out in the middle of the Pacific…
(Unless they’re on the deck of a ship)
 
#3,880
#3,880
85SugarVol said:
If we could field portable hypersonics with longer range, I’m sure we would. 2000 miles is the range (actually less).

The current 80 VLS on Zumwalt aren’t for the hypersonics. They’re for your conventional assortment of Tomahawks, ESSM, and such.

The hypersonics are getting their own launch silos where the useless gun batteries were placed.

You can’t put US Army mobile launchers out in the middle of the Pacific…
(Unless they’re on the deck of a ship)
Click to expand...

the naval missile is a mobile Army missile that could be deployed anywhere
not to mention it is a failure so far

www.popularmechanics.com

America's Hypersonic Missile Has Failed to Launch. Again.

The Dark Eagle remains stuck on the ground. Is time running out?
www.popularmechanics.com www.popularmechanics.com
 
#3,881
#3,881
  • Like
Reactions: StarRaider
#3,882
#3,882
85SugarVol said:
The CPS is a shared weapon. Yes.

But a mobile platform at sea is better than platform stuck on an island. Yes?
Click to expand...
i disagree..not even including the upgrade costs to the Zumwalts.. All for a whopping 36 missile load, which incidentally have to be reloaded. You could conceal hundreds of these on any island of thousands, or just conceal them on Guam or wherever. Even Philippines, SK or Japan, which will invariably be a part of the conflict.
The Army seems to think land based is ok.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,883
#3,883
Orangeburst said:
i disagree..not even including the upgrade costs to the Zumwalts.. All for a whopping 36 missile load, which incidentally have to be reloaded. You could conceal hundreds of these on any island of thousands, or just conceal them on Guam or wherever. Even Philippines, SK or Japan, which will invariably be a part of the conflict.
The Army seems to think land based is ok.
Click to expand...
It seems like you’re just being argumentative at this point. We’re discussing naval warfare in the vast expanse of the Pacific, and you’re arguing against ships.

Put them on an island where they are fixed targets themselves?
Guam is 2000 miles from China.

We have missiles on Japan. Lots of them. We’ll have hypersonics there too.

But we need missiles at sea.

Else why even have ships? We can just put all our guns and missiles on islands.
 
#3,884
#3,884

EXCLUSIVE - Chinese Spy Threat To U.S. CONGRESS: Capitol Hill Warned to be on High Alert after suspected Beijing Espionage Plot was Uncovered in British Parliament​

Congress has been warned to be on high alert for Chinese spies after a suspected Beijing espionage plot was uncovered in British parliament.

Earlier this week, a parliamentary researcher with links to MPs with classified information was arrested for 'spying for China.'

The suspect is thought to be linked to numerous Conservative members of Parliament - including Security Minister Tom Tugendhat and Foreign Affairs Committee Chair Alicia Kearns.

According to reports, several of the members with links to the suspected spy are 'privy to classified or highly sensitive information', however none have been accused of wrongdoing.

The suspected breach sparked a Metropolitan Police investigation and led to MI5 warning more operatives could be working in the highest levels of British democracy. Now the United States has been warned it could be a target.

1695003940363.png
A Chinese national named Fang Fang or Christine Fang, targeted up-and-coming local politicians in the Bay Area and across the country who had the potential to make it big on the national stage, including Rep. Eric Swalwell

Rep. Mike Gallagher, who chairs the House Select Committee on the Communist Party, told DailyMail.com that educating members of Congress about the threat of infiltration is critical - especially in light of the recent UK incident.


www.dailymail.co.uk

EXCLUSIVE: Chinese spy threat to U.S. Congress amplified

Congress has been warned to be on high alert for Chinese spies after a suspected Beijing espionage plot was uncovered in British parliament.
www.dailymail.co.uk www.dailymail.co.uk
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol and StarRaider
#3,885
#3,885
Makes one wonder what is going on in China with the leadership purge. They say corruption, but may be divide on timing for Taiwan blockade. I think this will be their strategy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: norrislakevol
#3,886
#3,886
www.heritage.org

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Air Force John Venable The mission of the U.S. Air Force has expanded significantly since 1947 when the USAF became a separate service. Initially, operations were divided among four major components—Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, Air Defense Command, and Military Air Transport...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,887
#3,887
Orangeburst said:
www.heritage.org

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Air Force John Venable The mission of the U.S. Air Force has expanded significantly since 1947 when the USAF became a separate service. Initially, operations were divided among four major components—Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, Air Defense Command, and Military Air Transport...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
Click to expand...

That's comforting, welp I guess we need to keep sending Ukraine money and material.
 
#3,889
#3,889
hog88 said:
That's comforting, welp I guess we need to keep sending Ukraine money and material.
Click to expand...
“In other words, the service could muster just 768 fighters (480 Active and 288 Guard and Reserve) for a peer-level fight.”

I don’t get it. I was looking at active fighter and squadrons and at like 32-48 ACC squadrons depending on what I found, the number of F-16, F-15, F-22, and F-35 in inventory (say 2,000) just don’t add up even accounting for Reserve, Training, ANG, Aggressor and Spare aircraft. Say 20 aircraft per squadron.

www.defensenews.com

Fighter fleet is strained — and bill is coming due, ACC chief says

Air Combat Command head Gen. Mark Kelly said the 2018 Air Force We Need study, which called for 62 fighter squadrons, was on the money.
www.defensenews.com www.defensenews.com

“It’s like a bill that comes to your house … for 60 multirole fighter squadrons,” Kelly told reporters in a roundtable later that day. “I’m trying to pay that bill with 48 fighter squadrons and nine attack squadrons [consisting of A-10 Thunderbolt II planes].”

Of the 55 operational fighter squadrons on the Air Force roster, 32 are Active and 23 are Guard or Reserve Units. (See Figure 3.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,890
#3,890
Orangeburst said:
www.heritage.org

U.S. Air Force

U.S. Air Force John Venable The mission of the U.S. Air Force has expanded significantly since 1947 when the USAF became a separate service. Initially, operations were divided among four major components—Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command, Air Defense Command, and Military Air Transport...
www.heritage.org www.heritage.org
Click to expand...

The problematic part is the mission capable charts. Airplanes like the F-15C (fighter rather than the family version -E and -EX) are like 40 years old and availability rate suffers due to age. Those are replaced by more complex planes like the F-35 that have no better availability rates because of complexity. Further the chart shows a significant drop in F-35 availability within a single year. A complex fighter sitting on the ground is less a weapon than more of a simpler variety in the air. Pilot training is an issue; T-38s are old airplanes now and suffer from availability problems.

The numbers say the AF has a money and a vision problem. Equipment is too expensive to replace and too expensive to keep operating ... so we make newer stuff more complex and expensive. That doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst
#3,891
#3,891
This is a new and interesting article about how to replace the A-10 by an A-10 pilot. It also points out a major problem within the AF - which is a realistic way to replace obsolete (or elderly) aircraft with something actually workable.

The common misconception between USAF leadership and we, the A-10C community, is that we are ready to die on the hill to keep the A-10 alive forever.
The reality is quite the opposite.
What we care about most is keeping the corporate knowledge of counter-land tactics, techniques, and procedures (TTPs) alive regardless of the airframe. Presently, the threat of that knowledge dying off is very real given that the A-10C is being divested with no plan for follow on aircraft.
Click to expand...

A-10 Pilot's Compelling Case For Replacing Warthogs With Super Hornets
 
  • Like
Reactions: newokie03 and EasternVol
#3,892
#3,892

“Beneath the more visible threshold of these well-known, modern tank-transporting platforms and technologies, the Army is fast-expanding its own maritime expeditionary capability in the form of new watercraft. These new composite watercraft are intended to support the joint force with equipment and troop transport, weapons and platforms for the Army, Navy and Air Force.”

1695353886711.png

Cool. Now find a way to mount a quad pack of Naval Strike Missiles on the roof and go.
 
#3,893
#3,893
85SugarVol said:

“Beneath the more visible threshold of these well-known, modern tank-transporting platforms and technologies, the Army is fast-expanding its own maritime expeditionary capability in the form of new watercraft. These new composite watercraft are intended to support the joint force with equipment and troop transport, weapons and platforms for the Army, Navy and Air Force.”

View attachment 581249

Cool. Now find a way to mount a quad pack of Naval Strike Missiles on the roof and go.
Click to expand...
So the USMC is wanting to divest from big Gators, and the USA wants landing craft. Total sense.
 
#3,894
#3,894
Orangeburst said:
So the USMC is wanting to divest from big Gators, and the USA wants landing craft. Total sense.
Click to expand...

Well, the Army did develop their own version of the LST apparently without Navy drivers. The interesting part is how they plan to get them from Point A to the beach without the Navy providing cover. Some of this stuff just gets stranger and stranger especially if you factor in the Navy wants to get rid of a class of ships that they just had to have a few years ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orangeburst and EasternVol
#3,895
#3,895
AM64 said:
Well, the Army did develop their own version of the LST apparently without Navy drivers. The interesting part is how they plan to get them from Point A to the beach without the Navy providing cover. Some of this stuff just gets stranger and stranger especially if you factor in the Navy wants to get rid of a class of ships that they just had to have a few years ago.
Click to expand...
Which class?
 
#3,896
#3,896
#3,897
#3,897
AM64 said:
The littoral combat ships. I admit to not keeping up with Navy matters that much, but this one seems like a major blunder either on the concept, the construction, or both. I've read some real horror stories about even trying to keep them functioning.

Lessons from the Littoral Combat Ship - War on the Rocks

https://news.usni.org/2023/06/12/ha...d-littoral-combat-ships-moves-to-abolish-cape
Click to expand...
Oh yea. The LCS is a clown show all around.

Poor mission design
Poor ship design

Major design flaws with the hulls and transmissions. They came off the line completely toothless. Just bad all around.

Trying to salvage them as missile platforms now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#3,898
#3,898
85SugarVol said:
Oh yea. The LCS is a clown show all around.

Poor mission design
Poor ship design

Major design flaws with the hulls and transmissions. They came off the line completely toothless. Just bad all around.

Trying to salvage them as missile platforms now.
Click to expand...

The military looks to have a common problem across the board. There's a desire for hardware as exotic and advanced as a F1 race car but capable of being maintained in a barn like old farm equipment, and that just isn't possible. This quote about Norway and Finland landing F-35s on a highway really puts it into perspective especially the last sentence.

The jets were also "hot pit" refueled as part of the training, which means their engines remained running while they had fuel uploaded. This reduces the time required to get them back up in the air afterward and can further reduce vulnerability, as well as increase sortie rates during surges in operations. Sometimes crew changes can also occur. Just shutting down complex fighter aircraft can increase the chances that they will have serviceability issues starting up again.
Click to expand...

F-35A Has Flown From A Highway For The First Time
 
  • Like
Reactions: 85SugarVol
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top