I've been trying to find the genesis of the idea behind Air-Sea Battle. Well it seems like CSBA has been working toward this idea for at least 10 years. Below is just one example of the "priming" that has been done which has led to where we're at now.
B.20051110.LRSSNavy
Let me get this straight:
ReplyDeleteYou're upset, because a think tank has come to the utterly unbelievable conclusion that the US Navy needs a long range strike aircraft?
Is that the case?
Come on, the F-35 has a range of around 600 - 800 nm, depending upon what source. An anti ship ballistic missile has a range of around 1200 (?) nm. Clearly, if you want to bomb someone with those extremely long ranged weapons, you need long range strike aircraft.
Unless, Solomon, you're idea of naval strategy is to get nice and close. (And, in this day and age, dead)
i'm not upset. i'm stating that these guys are playing the same game that the Project for a New American Century played.
ReplyDeletei'm saying that this is a money grab for the USAF and a confused USN.
i'm saying that they're about to orient our forces toward an over reliance on air and naval power and in the process we will develop a hollow ground force.
i'm saying that a little Google search revealed that these guys get money from the DoD but the department that funds them is undisclosed.
i'm saying that your defense of these clowns is curious.
i'm saying that i've taken up position that should have gotten your dandruff up alot more than this one.
i'm saying that you should explain yourself.
i'm saying that a little Google search revealed that these guys get money from the DoD but the department that funds them is undisclosed.
ReplyDelete++++++++
Wow, I didn't know this...suspicious.
to be honest it is rather curious.
ReplyDeletei know that the Rand Corporation's Project Air Force got a bit nicked up because they're an Air Force think tank and it lessened there effectiveness.
i think the same thinking can be applied to CSBA. but even more damning is the fact that until the current administration came to power, they were just one in the chorus.
they're front and center now. even the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is singing their song and the Navy and Air Force are fully aboard a concept that mirrors Air-Land Battle that was deemed insufficient for modern combat.
i'm just saying.
CBSA exists. How they're funded, we don't know, nor do I particularly care. I'm interested in what they put out. And they're putting out interesting and necessary analysis of the potential Pacific theater.
ReplyDeleteWhy was Air-Land Battle deemed insufficient? I think that Air-Land Battle would have been justified in the first Gulf War.
The CBSA's report is a very limited look at how to fight in the Pacific against China. That is all their report is talking about. It isn't discussing counter insurgency warfare, it isn't discussing Iran, North Korea, or Russia. The report is solely focused on China. Now, you seem to be upset because the report is focused on China. That is understandable.
But, you aren't judging their analysis of a potential conflict with China. You're judging their existence and the necessity to worry about China. That is different.
I still haven't heard, what you disagree with in their particular analysis about a conflict with China.
Basically my question is this:
Do you disagree with CBSA's analysis, or the fact that they made the paper?