Article

2005-04-04 Home Front: Tech

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Steve 2005-04-04 9:22:29 AM|| || Front Page|| [11130 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 I thought the Key West Treaty was not to arm anything with wings....

Posted by Shipman 2005-04-04 11:56:57 AM|| 2005-04-04 11:56:57 AM|| Front Page Top

#2 The Key West Agreement of 1948, served as the basis for defining the functional boundaries of each service. The key points of the Key West Agreement were:

- the Navy retained the Marine Corps (and the Corps'aviation arm for close air support), its own naval air arm to support sea battles, its own aircraft for air transportation, control of antisubmarine warfare, and the sealift support for the Army

- the Army maintained responsibility for operations on land including ground-based air defense but gave up ownership of close air support as well as both strategic and tactical airlift and sealift

- the Air Force gained responsibility for the Army's close air support, as well as strategic and tactical airlift, and maintained primary responsibility for strategic aerial warfare and defense of the United States against air attack

Posted by Steve 2005-04-04 12:13:01 PM|| 2005-04-04 12:13:01 PM|| Front Page Top

#3 The trend has been moving this way for years. The Air Force is moving into an Air and Space force. It started with the Air Force taking over space command and the advent of cruise missles. The Navy and Air Force still control the cruise missles, but they were a forshadowing of the UAV to come. Now that the grunts can control the UAVs, the roll of the jet as an air-to-ground attack aircraft is lessening. There will be a need for the A2G for a while yet, as fixed and hardend emplacements are still beyond the ability of the UAVs at this time (that WILL change). With UAVs and the attack helos, the Army pretty much has tactical air strikes wrapped up. The Air Force will still be around in the Tactical air buisness for a long time, but its days are numbered. I see them getting into strategic attacks using long range bombers that have a low earth orbit capability and all space based weapons. Maybe even using low earth orbit lifters to carry an armored striker division to do a combat drop on an enemy position. w00t!

Posted by mmurray821 2005-04-04 12:13:39 PM|| 2005-04-04 12:13:39 PM|| Front Page Top

#4 . . . da-da-dum, da-da-dum, da-da-dum, da-da-dum, nobody stops the Army Air Corps!

Posted by Mike 2005-04-04 1:41:09 PM|| 2005-04-04 1:41:09 PM|| Front Page Top

#5 I think mmurray821 has read "Starship Troopers" a few times to many...

"Blind drunk an' assaultin' the guard!"

Posted by mojo 2005-04-04 1:50:34 PM|| 2005-04-04 1:50:34 PM|| Front Page Top

#6 The Air Force never did make much sense.

Posted by Robert Crawford 2005-04-04 2:06:17 PM|| [http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-04-04 2:06:17 PM|| Front Page Top

#7 ummm .... USAF funded most of the UAV development for the last 2 decades.

Posted by anon 2005-04-04 2:22:28 PM|| 2005-04-04 2:22:28 PM|| Front Page Top

#8 Actually, I have never read starship troopers. The low earth orbit delivery system is something that military planners are thinking about now. No need for bases in other countries, cheaper to operate, can drop a combat division anywere in the world in 8 hours, no long transit times or attacks from subs on ships... It gives me and most other military planners the giddies just thinking about it.

(I am actually really into BattleTech as Sci-Fi, since the vast majority of stuff they have can be made now. Only fusion engines, FLL drives and low-orbit vehicles are things we can't make right now.)

Posted by mmurray821 2005-04-04 2:59:50 PM|| 2005-04-04 2:59:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#9 It's an interesting idea - for other people to try.

;)

"Watch that first step..."

Posted by mojo 2005-04-04 3:30:38 PM|| 2005-04-04 3:30:38 PM|| Front Page Top

#10 cheaper to operate

Certainly cheaper to operate than my plan for lifting the USS New Jersey into LaGrange 1 and using it to dominate the Earth Moon trade routes.

Posted by Shipman 2005-04-04 4:22:21 PM|| 2005-04-04 4:22:21 PM|| Front Page Top

#11 ...lifting the USS New Jersey into LaGrange 1 and using it to dominate the Earth Moon trade routes.

Watch out for Space Battleship Yamato trying to run The Slot.

Posted by Steve 2005-04-04 4:48:50 PM|| 2005-04-04 4:48:50 PM|| Front Page Top

#12 That's crazy Steve, The Yamato was sunk! It would take of years of effort to restore it enough to launch into a battle orbit.

Posted by Shipman 2005-04-04 6:22:25 PM|| 2005-04-04 6:22:25 PM|| Front Page Top

#13 Good point. Wasn't the Musashi sunk in shallower water?

Posted by Matt 2005-04-04 7:09:27 PM|| 2005-04-04 7:09:27 PM|| Front Page Top

#14 I belive it was. A better candiate for an orbital battle platform for sure.

Posted by Shipman 2005-04-04 8:00:03 PM|| 2005-04-04 8:00:03 PM|| Front Page Top

#15 Can't we just throw rocks from our base on the Moon?

Posted by SteveS 2005-04-04 10:22:33 PM|| 2005-04-04 10:22:33 PM|| Front Page Top

01:13 .com
01:13 .com
01:11 .com
01:11 .com
23:59 Phil Fraering
23:58 anon
23:58 thibaud (aka lex)
23:28 Vlad
23:02 Spemble
23:02 mom
22:54 .com
22:45 Frank G
22:39 mom
22:39 Mike Kozlowski
22:28 Mike Kozlowski
22:27 Slomorong Slomoger5393
22:27 PantslessYoda1
22:24 mom
22:22 SteveS
22:22 Frank G
22:20 RWV
22:17 SteveS
22:14 RWV
22:10 True German Ally