![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as
an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has not been plausibly explained. While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their job. Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to spend any money on a new frontier of warfare. At present, the USAF can beat the top three or four air forces in the world in an air war all by itself. With just a little help from the USN and USMC, it can beat all the world's air forces combined. Is there any need for capability expansion? But for the most part, the USAF is a lost service, still wandering around after over 60 years of existence trying to define a separate mission for itself. And going to space is just another attempt to do that. But is control of space relevant? Its clearly based on an expansion of the idea that control of enemy airspace wins wars. But control of enemy airspace has not brought victory to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, where its completely unchallenged, and did not bring victory in Viet Nam or Korea. Nothing has really changed since the day Winston Churchill wrote that even if all German cities were rendered largely unhabitable, it did not follow that Hitler's control of them would be lessened. Even in the nuclear age, simulations at the war college showed that distructive nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR did not cause either side to quit. Yet the USAF has squandered our money for over six decades trying to disprove this, and is now doing it again over the control of space, with the additional devious twist that they're not working on a potential weapons system. Large manned bombers have been obsolete since the development of ICBMs, yet the USAF still has hundreds. In conjuction with the USN and USMC, there is enough air power to beat all of our enimies and friends combined. While George Bush turned many from the friends to foes column, not everyone hates us. Not yet, anyway. The USAF has ample advanced aircraft to fulfill any actual mission within the capability of air power. Those missions are air cover and ground support for the people doing the real work, the US Army and USMC , and defense of what is actually the US. And, considering the poor job the USAF has done on a mission it can actually accomplish, ground support, those aircraft should be placed under US Army control. Its time to hand most of the boys in blue their pink slips. If they want to do something militarily useful, they can learn how to dig foxholes. And while we're at it, let's scrap about half of the USNs carriers. Because if the locals won't provide us with airfields on the ground, they don't like us well enough we ought to be fighting there in the first place. We don't need miltiary control of space. Control of enemy air space is proven not to win wars. And we don't need enough aircraft for a situation where every country in the world hates us. Unless we're going to elect Sarah Palin as President. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 4/23/2010 4:21 PM, edward ohare wrote:
Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has not been plausibly explained. While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their job. No, transport is a routine military function. So is surveillance. Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to spend any money on a new frontier of warfare. Dual purpose tech. War WILL be escalated to space. Also, the new platform might present an opportunity for a brilliant pebble missile defense that works. It looks a lot like a way for a conventional aircraft to put something kinetic above the ICBM boost phase altitude range on short notice. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 5:21*pm, edward ohare
wrote: Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as an attempt to move warfare to space. *The USAF denies the X37 is a weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a potential weapon. *Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has not been plausibly explained. The military has a lot of trucks. The X-37 is a truck. Trucks can carry a pretty wide variety of different things. Mike |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "edward ohare" wrote in message ... Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to spend any money on a new frontier of warfare. Reality check. The first role for the nascent air forces of the world was reconnaissance. This remains a major role of the USAF today. Those spy satellites don't launch themselves. Keith |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Apr 23, 3:16*pm, "Keith Willshaw"
wrote: "edward ohare" wrote in message ... Of course, it is a weapon. *No one in the USAF is stupid enough to spend money on non-weapons. *Which brings up the question of why to spend any money on a new frontier of warfare. Reality check. The first role for the nascent air forces of the world was reconnaissance.. This remains a major role of the USAF today. Those spy satellites don't launch themselves. Keith This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe orbit - making it hard to shoot down! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
edward ohare wrote:
Long time no hear from, Ed. Recent media reports have characterized the USAF's X37 spaceplane as an attempt to move warfare to space. The USAF denies the X37 is a weapon, and USAF supporters have gone further stating its not even a potential weapon. Meanwhile, the USAF's view of its true purpose has not been plausibly explained. I see it as a testbed for other things that were put on the back burner during the Nixon Days. USAF was told to get on the NASA bandwagon and stay there. NASA is having a going out of business sale soon and much of those back burnered programs will surface once again. Including Transcontinental High Altitude Bomber that was nixed in the 70s along with a fighter design. While the average American may be reassured that his Air Force isn't escallating war to space, the first thing he really ought to be asking himself is does he want his military spending his money on things that aren't weapons. If the X37 isn't a weapon or potential weapon, then everyone involved ought to be run out of the USAF for not doing their job. It's a testbed. It can go many different directions. Of course, it is a weapon. No one in the USAF is stupid enough to spend money on non-weapons. Which brings up the question of why to spend any money on a new frontier of warfare. Because, the US should never be behind the power curve. At present, the USAF can beat the top three or four air forces in the world in an air war all by itself. With just a little help from the USN and USMC, it can beat all the world's air forces combined. Is there any need for capability expansion? If the enemy has suborbital bombers and fighters that can be on station in 20 to 30 minutes then you ARE behind the power curve. But for the most part, the USAF is a lost service, still wandering around after over 60 years of existence trying to define a separate mission for itself. And going to space is just another attempt to do that. USAF does it's job. One that no one else in the world can do. The EU wouldn't be able to operate thier own military without USAF. But is control of space relevant? Its clearly based on an expansion of the idea that control of enemy airspace wins wars. But control of enemy airspace has not brought victory to the US in Iraq and Afghanistan, where its completely unchallenged, and did not bring victory in Viet Nam or Korea. Did you read about the new missile that is launched in the USA and hits a precision target anywhere in the world with enough accuracy to nail a single person. It's a new class of weapon that does the damage of a Nuke without the lasting fallout. Although it is intercontinental, it doesn't need to go out of the atmosphere. It can skirt space. The problem is, the Russians will have trouble telling from a Nuke. These are problems that have yet to be worked out before it comes online. Nothing has really changed since the day Winston Churchill wrote that even if all German cities were rendered largely unhabitable, it did not follow that Hitler's control of them would be lessened. Even in the nuclear age, simulations at the war college showed that distructive nuclear exchanges between the US and USSR did not cause either side to quit. Yet the USAF has squandered our money for over six decades trying to disprove this, and is now doing it again over the control of space, with the additional devious twist that they're not working on a potential weapons system. Lets see. How have they squandered. The old 10 Warhead of the Minutement was in the 10 MT range per reentry vehicle. Now, they are down to somewhere around 125KT. Plus, there a dramatically fewer missiles sitting in the silos in both the US and Russia. If the talks go well, there will be even fewer in the Silos and even the Nuke Capable Bombers will have to be reduced. Sounds to me that this is quite a cost saving plus making it a safer world. Large manned bombers have been obsolete since the development of ICBMs, yet the USAF still has hundreds. In conjuction with the USN and USMC, there is enough air power to beat all of our enimies and friends combined. While George Bush turned many from the friends to foes column, not everyone hates us. Not yet, anyway. You can't recall a missile once it reaches a certain point. You can a bomber. Plus, the whatifs says that if you put your eggs into one basket, it's easier to counter your eggs hatching. It costs a lot less for a decent ABM system than it does trying to stop the Tridents, MM and the Bombers. The USAF has ample advanced aircraft to fulfill any actual mission within the capability of air power. Those missions are air cover and ground support for the people doing the real work, the US Army and USMC , and defense of what is actually the US. And, considering the poor job the USAF has done on a mission it can actually accomplish, ground support, those aircraft should be placed under US Army control. Funny, you need to ask the Germans that tried to surrender to the P-47's that were pounding them. And you need to ask the Iraqi Solders that were trying to surrender to anyone that even resembled a Caucasion. The bunch that surrender to the News People is case in point. If done right, the heavies saves countless lives on both sides. Its time to hand most of the boys in blue their pink slips. If they want to do something militarily useful, they can learn how to dig foxholes. That same argument was exactly the reason USAF was created. You want a Marine join the Marines. You want heavy lifting, Air Superiority and heavy bombers, joint the USAF. The leaders came to that decision in 1942 as well. And while we're at it, let's scrap about half of the USNs carriers. Because if the locals won't provide us with airfields on the ground, they don't like us well enough we ought to be fighting there in the first place. Ed, Ed. Now you done did it. You will have the Squid Wrath upon you. Those carriers are closest to the battle without actually being in it. During WWII the Battleship was obsolete since a carrier group could take out a BB group and did many times. If you take away the Carrier, you would be require to speak only Japanese and be a second or third class citizen. Actually, you wouldn't be a citizen since on a Japanese would be considered a Citizen. Ask the Koreans and the Chinese on that one. We don't need miltiary control of space. Control of enemy air space is proven not to win wars. And we don't need enough aircraft for a situation where every country in the world hates us. Unless we're going to elect Sarah Palin as President. So, your agenda comes through. Glad you cleared that up. Oh, and nice to hear from you, Ed. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir
wrote: This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe orbit - making it hard to shoot down! .. I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems. If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient. DeGaulle was right about that. This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be missions that don't benefit us. I think the USAF should quit inventing missions and learn how to do ground support. That's their only real mission, other than possibly shooting down hijacked airliners. They don't need high tech for that. Even a worn out F86 would work. Pride in high tech but useless military equipment is the last gasp of collapsing empires. Consider Spain, UK, and USSR. History repeats. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On 4/24/2010 12:00 PM, edward ohare wrote:
On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe orbit - making it hard to shoot down! . I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems. If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient. DeGaulle was right about that. This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be missions that don't benefit us. Which ones don't benefit us? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Mon, 26 Apr 2010 11:28:05 -0500, Ouroboros Rex
wrote: On 4/24/2010 12:00 PM, edward ohare wrote: On Fri, 23 Apr 2010 17:49:19 -0700 (PDT), chatnoir wrote: This can be used as a platform for high resolution photos. Especially where say China would attack Taiwan and knock down our satelites before the attack. This could be a mobile platform that could changwe orbit - making it hard to shoot down! . I think China and Taiwan should handle their own problems. If Taiwan thinks their safety is an issue, let them buy enough missiles from us to have their own deterrent to a Chiinese attack. As long as they have enough to tear off an arm, that's sufficient. DeGaulle was right about that. This is most interesting, the combination of responses saying its not a weapon, and those saying it is and justifying it with could be missions that don't benefit us. Which ones don't benefit us? I described one above. If you want to spend the money (you obviously do) then you show me the benefit. And if you don't want to do that, then you're saying that anything the military wants to do is OK with you, that we work for them, not the other way around. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
University of Tokyo spaceplane to launch from space station | [email protected] | Piloting | 0 | January 24th 08 09:55 PM |
University of Tokyo spaceplane to launch from space station | Gig 601XL Builder[_2_] | Piloting | 0 | January 24th 08 08:45 PM |
FAA EEO SCAM | FAA EEO | General Aviation | 0 | October 6th 07 04:43 PM |
SCAM | [email protected] | Soaring | 0 | August 26th 05 12:26 AM |
Scam Y/N ? | Stuart King | Instrument Flight Rules | 6 | November 13th 03 10:52 PM |