So the US now has space marines?
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory DoctorowI don't think Biden is up for that.
I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.Hey, not everyone wants their taxes to go to the navy's army's space force.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)Which means it should belong to the Air Force, then.
Jokes aside, though, should the U.S. ever decides to really have a space armed forces, it would naturally recruit a lot of fighter jet pilots and obviously, USAF have the most of them.
I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.I'm willing to bet money that the Army will still end up doing the majority of the combat drops.
Regarding the gunships, one interesting thing I've seen develop recently is the addition of wing hardpoints for guided munitions, which has appeared both on newer AC-130s and also newer KC-130s in Marine Corps service. The Marines opted for a setup on the KC-130J where all of the airframes would have the hardpoints, but none of them had integrated targeting systems. Instead the targeting systems would be mounted on one of the hardpoints as-needed, which let them go cheap and buy fewer targeting rigs than they did airplanes, with the idea being that they could just swap them out onto whichever airframe wasn't in maintenance.
Also probably gives them options for easier upgrades or replacements over time.
Still, something amusing about the idea of the Marines taking an air-refueling tanker and being like "This would be so much cooler if it cold kill somebody."
Edit: Regarding the Chinese coming up with new strategies/plans, yeah, everyone does that, the US does it too. Developing a plan doesn't necessarily mean you intend/hope to use the plan either, sometimes it's just a good nice-to-have or a way for your officers and intel folks to flex their muscles and get some experience. Between WWI and WWII, the US developed plans for war with, among other foes, the British Empire and the Canadians.
Edited by AFP on Nov 15th 2020 at 3:11:04 AM
China still hasn't fully pivoted off of the "quantity has a quality all it's own" mindset. The worst-case scenario is sinking to the lowest level of training in a crisis - even if said training is outdated.
China has field grade officers and NCO's who still came up in the old way of doing things. So they have to practice and practice some more to drill this into their operations.
And AFP is right, they are spit-balling battle plans against various countries to test their doctrine and be Crazy-Prepared.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48Although it's possible Xi's increasing demands for ideological purity, will also sabotage reform attempts by making an even more politicised leadership that values it's survival more than competence.
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleXi is demanding ideological purity? To which ideology?
Xi Jinping Thought as per the Chinese Communist Party constitution. Or just the usual "do as I say or else".
Edited by TerminusEst on Nov 15th 2020 at 12:27:00 PM
Si Vis Pacem, Para PerkeleHmm, got a reference, I would like to know more about that.
US Army weapon systems - for all your geeky needs.
All night at the computer, cuz people ain't that great. I keep to myself so I won't be on The First 48SEALs, Green Berets join large defense drill in Sweden
This sounds like a job for the Vasa.
Also, speaking of the Swedes:
Suga says broad agreement reached on military pact with Australia
The developments further strengthen the defense ties between the two U.S. allies at a time when China is asserting its role in the region and the United States is going through a leadership transition.
The pact, called the Reciprocal Access Agreement, is a legal framework to allow their troops to visit each other's countries and conduct training and joint operations.
Crossposted from the sky-high aircraft and aviation thread:
A Taiwanese F-16 jet disappeared shortly after taking off from Hualien, on the eastern coast of Taiwan. A search mission is underway.
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory DoctorowYou think something funny is going on or just a random accident?
Without any further info, I presume it's an accident. If so, Taiwan might need to upgrade its jets.
Edited by minseok42 on Nov 18th 2020 at 1:48:01 AM
"Enshittification truly is how platforms die"-Cory DoctorowIt's still typhoon season over the Western Pacific, innit? Could be climate change claiming its due.
Edit: Nevermind, looks like Taiwan is doing fine weather-wise.
Edited by eagleoftheninth on Nov 17th 2020 at 8:44:43 AM
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)Could easily be pilot error or mechanical failure. F-16 ain't a new platform after all, and accidents happen.
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Planes crash, like they just kind of do as a fact of life, all machines fail occasionally...
Unless further evidence is provided, its best to assume that it was just mechanical failure, since that even claims aircraft in the throws of combat.
Yeah, I'm throwing my money on the safe bet of either pilot error or mechanical failure. Cars don't usually crash due to enemy action, and interestingly enough the same is true of military planes.
Funnily enough that's true enough even in a war, more vehicles are generally lost to other things then to enemy destruction.... I think the figure was some where of 60% of the tanks lost in WWII were due to environmental and mechanical failure, rather then being shot.
Which is either a testimant to how resistant they are to being shot at, how abused they are during wartime, or how poor the quality control was then....
And I am not sure which it is.
That depends mostly on what you're looking at. Generally speaking, the bigger the tank was, the more subject it was to mechanical failure. In addition, you have things like poor quality control or even just the expected terrain quality to consider.
It's part of the reason why the US Army tested everything to absolute destruction every time they built a new tank, with the exception of Pershing...which ended up suffering from mechanical failures and frequently broke down.
Something like a T-34? Yeah, I can see that. Those things weren't built to last, they were built to get enough mileage out of to be worth building more.
Still not embarrassing enough to stan billionaires or tech companies.Clausewitz said: "Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult." The more things are in motion, the more there are to break.
I think one aspect of this that we often forget is how diseases were historically the biggest killer in war, peaking with WWI and the Spanish Flu. When the American Civil War and Spanish-American War broke out, masses of volunteer recruits signed up to bolster the ranks of the US Army. Which sounded romantic at first... until those ad-hoc volunteers, under-trained and with too few experienced regulars to teach them how to survive outdoors, fell back to the kind of sanitation practices that would make any scout leader scream and started dropping dead from waterborne illnesses.
Echoing hymn of my fellow passerine | Art blog (under construction)
@AFP - Huh. I always thought the Army was the oldest branch. Didn't know that. Having a (cursory) knowledge on US history, though, it makes sense.
Edited by dRoy on Nov 15th 2020 at 2:04:27 AM
I'm a (socialist) professional writer serializing a WWII alternate history webnovel.