Slashdot Mirror

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

Not sure why this is on Slashdot, but its certainly something that I have been interested in for a while. There is a large body of government, DoD and think-tank level research about this already, and a good source for it comes from the Center of Strategic and Budget Assessments" (I'm not affiliated). For example, they have a writeup on AirSea Battle that describes some of the tactics and vulnerabilities of carrier based operations in a joint forces framework. They also discuss the vulnerabilities of carriers in some of the possible operating environments of the future, namely the Western Pacific and the Strait of Hormuz . This question is also at the heart of the big debate about how China would optimally compose its growing navy (carriers vs. subs), and the practical US military response to such behavior.

Oh you mean like GPS that was created and tested in the 70's? First aid has been used in the military since the American Revolution and the founding of the red cross, and the Internet was conceived in the 60's and has been evolving out of the military's hands for many many years. You are referencing things that were created or crafted well before the current bloated defense budget was put in place. The current budget of $712 billion for the Department of Defense could easily have the $53 Billion taken from it to allocate towards high speed rails. There will still be plenty of guns and missiles to appease the trigger happy, gun-toting, xenophobes.

BTW, the anonymous cowards who post things about living in basements are more often than not the ones in the basement themselves, denying reality. Pretending like you know someone hiding behind the Internet is about as stupid as your position on my comments. Thanks for playing.

Here's a little light reading for you. It takes more than a quick scan of the numbers - that is a shallow analysis. Unless you had your head in the sand you'd know that it was a bipartisan effort in cutting the military back. I know that doesn't make a good zinger, sorry.

http://www.csbaonline.org/4Publications/Archive/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe/H.20000831.Post-Cold_War_Defe.htm

Ah yes, the classic protectionist defense argument. How can you make this claim when, whatever difficulties U.S. ground troops may have, U.S. naval and air domination is absolutely overwhelming? According to this, the U.S. navy is the world's largest navy with a tonnage greater than 17 of the next largest world navies combined! Shipping lanes are thus guaranteed to remain open in the event of a war, and there will certainly remain enough allies to provide the necessary production.

This argument also underestimates the capability of countries to very rapidly switch their focus of production in the event of a war, which has been seen several times in history.

Let's get NASA out of the business of basic space access and back into the basic research without economic incentive that wouldn't be done otherwise.

Ferrying people and objects to space should be a commercial or military activity, instead of NASA trying to be all things to all people

Perhaps I made an error placing the decimal point ... but $60 billion is probably not far off for total costs of the Persian Gulf conflict:

"During Operation Desert Storm U.S. Air Force aircraft flew about 70,000 sorties (i.e., round-trip missions by individual aircraft) and incurred incremental costs (i.e., costs above and beyond those incurred as part of normal peacetime operations) of $14-15 billion (FY 1999 dollars)." from CSBA

The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA) estimates that the U.S. portion of the just-concluded NATO air campaign against Yugoslavia cost some $1.8 billion to $3.0 billion.

- Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments (CSBA)

Ah. Did some research (LOVE the Internet!) and found out what you were talking about on the B-2. Apparently, there was a coating applied to the radar absorptive material on the skin of the aircraft that deteriorated rapidly in the rain, increasing the aircraft's radar cross section. (No, Virginia, this didn't cause the airplane to fall out of the sky. Unless you hit it with a big radar guided SAM.) However, the problem with the coating has been found and fixed, along with a lot of other teething problems which are to be expected in an engineering feat of this magnitude. Click here for the link I found. Note that when I did a search on B-2 and rain, I came up with several other (less supportive) opinions on the B-2's performance, but none I read mentioned this new Block 30 upgrade to the fleet, so I suspect that a lot of the old objections are obsolete. As far as whether the B-2 has a mission or not, anybody who doesn't think that China is at least a potential strategic threat hasn't been paying any attention to history. I would much rather live in a country everybody (sane) is scared to mess with (like America) than a country that is commonly used as an invasion route (like Belgium).