|
Thwomp posted:I believe it flops back and forth with O'Hare depending on how hosed United/American's scheduling is in a given year. No, ATL has had the most passengers since '98 by good yearly margins, and has been the busiest by movement since '05. Personally I don't care about the latter as a leading metric that much, it skews towards regional/continental hubs. Wiki documents the gently caress out this stuff btw.
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
vulturesrow posted:Leg restraints are pretty standard on ejection seats, The sudden switch from posts about Deltalina to a post about leg restraints is breaking my brain.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 15:10
|
|
|
MrChips posted:But Kelly Johnson designed the F-104! Yeah, and intended it for a single sole solitary purpose: a point defense interceptor intended to be as light as possible with as powerful an engine as possible in order to fly high and fast. The fact that Lockheed bastardized the design into the -G and got people to buy it for multi-role ground attack (which led to the problems you lay out) just proves the point further. gently caress LockMart. Nebakenezzer posted:I do know that the F-14A that flew in the 70s and 80s had a terrible, terrible engine in it; literally described in a senate hearing as "the worst engine ever put into a Navy aircraft." It got that thanks to the fact that it was begotten due to the F-111B being stillborn...one of the many things that the F-111B passed down to its replacement was lovely engines. That would be the same F-111B that VAMD Tom Connolly (then Deputy CNO for Air Warfare) made his infamous comment when asked if more powerful engines would fix the F-111B..."Senator, there is not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make that into the airplane we want." Cocoa Crispies posted:As far as I know, ATL is the only big airport that nails this: you can get between any two domestic flights with at most a train ride and a long walk, no matter if you're changing airlines or not. Not sure if SeaTac counts as a big airport, but it's the same way, minus the long walk part. Well, technically two train rides depending on which terminal you're going to/from but even in a worst case neither one is very long and like I said, the walk is always pretty short. Advent Horizon posted:You guys are making me glad the worst I usually have to deal with is SeaTac. The only problem there is that every goddamn flight arrives after the last flight to wherever you want to go has already left, necessitating an overnight wherever you can get the furthest away from the news TVs. Well when you're flying to the rear end end of nowhere, AK, then yes, that's what happens.  vulturesrow posted:Leg restraints are pretty standard on ejection seats, they've been on every type of ejection seat I've sat on. Also the F-14 stuff was covered pretty well except for one thing: the F-14D turned out to be a pretty good bomber. I'll try to write more tomorrow but I'm up way late (as usual) and need to hit the hay! Shockingly, two pairs of eyes are better than one when doing CAS (especially when you're using a targeting pod), also low level interdiction is much more effective when you can divide labor. I never responded to you over in the thread in GiP, but the basics of my issues with Naval Aviation is that by centering on an all SH fleet they have given up long range strike as something that is easily feasible, which (IMHO) is one of the core reasons the Air Wing exists. I'm not saying that a CSG should be able to sustain an AF-like throughput while doing continuous long range strike, but being range limited in your ability to project power is a pretty serious constraint on the carrier's raison d'être. I fully understand the lovely place NAVAIR was in after the Flying Dorito and NATF programs simultaneously imploded in the early '90s (imploded is probably too strong a word for NATF since it was really just vaporware anyway), I just wish they had thought far enough ahead/had the necessary political clout to push for keeping an upgraded Tomcat of some sort around as a fill-in long range strike aircraft that could at least reach out further than the Super Bug. poo poo, if we're playing what if games, I feel like there's a lot of people in NAVAIR who would probably like to go back to about 1987 and choose to develop the A-6F Intruder II instead of sticking with the A-12.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:12
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:It got that thanks to the fact that it was begotten due to the F-111B being stillborn...one of the many things that the F-111B passed down to its replacement was lovely engines. That would be the same F-111B that VAMD Tom Connolly (then Deputy CNO for Air Warfare) made his infamous comment when asked if more powerful engines would fix the F-111B..."Senator, there is not enough thrust in all of Christendom to make that into the airplane we want." I had to look it up, holy poo poo: Empty weight: 46,100 lb (20,910 kg) Loaded weight: 79,000 lb (35,800 kg) Max. takeoff weight: 88,000 lb (39,900 kg) Powerplant: 2 × Pratt & Whitney TF30-P-3 turbofans Dry thrust: 10,750 lbf (47.8 kN) each Thrust with afterburner: 18,500 lbf (82.3 kN) each loving regional jets have better thrust to weight ratios. edit: Seriously. CRJ 700: MTOW: 72,750 lb TO Thrust: 12,670 lbf hobbesmaster fucked around with this message at 16:38 on Aug 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:I had to look it up, holy poo poo: All I could visualize was grey CRJ-200s with tailhooks and Pheonixes on the rails. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:02
|
|
|
MrYenko posted:All I could visualize was grey CRJ-200s with tailhooks and Pheonixes on the rails. Eh, close enough
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:28
|
|
|
They installed 50% more powerful engines for something lighter than a RJ2.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 17:33
|
|
|
Nebakenezzer posted:OK but the first step in the project is usually me spending a month building a plastic model so it may take awhile Let's not forget Les Aspin's contribution to the process: the Tomcat was never designed to use the TF30, but Grumman and the navy were pressured into accepting it for cost reasons. Then, four years after the -A was eventually forced to work (surviving only because of a loan to Grumman from the Shah of Iran), Aspin charged that the Navy had "bought a Turkey, not a Tomcat," despite the fact he'd managed to kill off the Pratt and Whitney 401 program to replace the TF30.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:02
|
|
|
A bone crashed in Montana  good news: all the crew are OK.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 20:08
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Yeah, and intended it for a single sole solitary purpose: a point defense interceptor intended to be as light as possible with as powerful an engine as possible in order to fly high and fast. The fact that Lockheed bastardized the design into the -G and got people to buy it for multi-role ground attack (which led to the problems you lay out) just proves the point further. gently caress LockMart. Again, I would disagree with that. The characteristics that gave the F-104 its performance at high altitude also gave it incredible performance at low altitude as well. The tiny wing made it capable of truly eye-watering speed at very low altitude, all while making it a very stable gun platform. RCAF Starfighter crews would wipe the floor with just about everybody else in bombing competitions all over Europe for a very long time; at least, until the Starfighter wasn't horribly outmoded by other more modern aircraft. Also, you have to consider that when the F-104 was bought by NATO there was a real (though somewhat unjustified) fear that the Warsaw Pact was fielding large numbers of supersonic fighter aircraft, as well as huge amounts of armour too. It was felt that the existing fleet of F-86s (which by then was pretty much the standard Western fighter aircraft) was no longer suitable for the missions it was tasked with. NATO held a competition to replace the Sabre with another aircraft to be used as a day fighter and ground attack aircraft (with us Canadians adding another role for ourselves; that of low-level nuclear strike). These are the aircraft that were considered: -Fiat G.91: Not a bad aircraft inherently, but it can be thought of as little more than a slightly uprated Sabre. Although it was cheap, it just wasn't enough aircraft for the mission. -Dassault Mirage III: A very good aircraft, but frosty relations between France and NATO at the time (remember, France withdrew from NATO in the 1960s) meant it was a non-starter. -Blackburn Buccaneer: Good for low-level attack, but seriously hampered as a day fighter. No aircraft before or since has had so much thrust installed yet been so incapable of supersonic flight. -Northrop N-156: Another good, cheap aircraft, but it was so cheap that it was looked on as not being enough aircraft for anyone but developing nations. -Grumman F11F-1F: Probably the best, most capable aircraft of the group, but the lack of a US Navy order essentially sealed its fate. Other aircraft were considered in the competition (Breguet Taon, Republic F-105, EE Lightning), but were dismissed due to lack of performance, cost and lack of range respectively. As such, the F-104G was pretty much the best aircraft of a not very good lot, even with its rather serious compromises. The ironic thing is that the F-104G would likely have won a majority of the orders at stake standing on merit alone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 21:44
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:A bone crashed in Montana http://www.af.mil/News/ArticleDisplay/tabid/223/Article/466899/b-1-lancer-crashes-in-montana.aspx Wonder what tail number it was. That is also not a plane I'd want to have to eject from...especially in the back seat.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 21:47
|
|
|
Flying MDT-PHL. Dash-8-100, I poo poo you not. I guess flying Horizon all the time, I forgot that other airlines (US Air in this case) kept ancient-rear end turboprops on like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 19, 2013 23:43
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Flying MDT-PHL. Dash-8-100, I poo poo you not. I guess flying Horizon all the time, I forgot that other airlines (US Air in this case) kept ancient-rear end turboprops on like this. Dash-8 100s were built until 2005. Its not like hopping on a Delta DC-9-50 or anything.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:03
|
|
|
N930HA It's got ash trays and engraved plastic signs denoting seat rows. According to the tail number, first flight was '88.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
hobbesmaster posted:Its not like hopping on a Delta DC-9-50 or anything. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:06
|
|
|
ctishman posted:N930HA 88 is new. I routinely flew 707's that were mid-70's built. They were also the best AWACS. The early 80's models sucked.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
grover posted:Couldn't believe it when I boarded one of these flying fossils last year They're in shockingly good shape for the most part. I bet non-anoraks can't even tell.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:27
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:They're in shockingly good shape for the most part. I bet non-anoraks can't even tell. Mostly 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 01:45
|
|
|
grover posted:Couldn't believe it when I boarded one of these flying fossils last year To be honest they really don't feel much different from a MD-88.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:27
|
|
|
Personally, I'm not comfortable flying in anything that doesn't have fabric covered wings  At least with those, there isn't the illusion of not dying, it makes the landings much more satisfying.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:30
|
|
|
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad posted:A bone crashed in Montana Aww man, that sucks. I live a mile from the runway at Ellsworth so I've certainly had my house shaken over and over by that plane, whichever it was. Glad everyone survived though, hopefully the injuries aren't too bad. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 02:42
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Flying MDT-PHL. Dash-8-100, I poo poo you not. I guess flying Horizon all the time, I forgot that other airlines (US Air in this case) kept ancient-rear end turboprops on like this. That's probably one of Piedmont's birds. There's a better than even chance that I've had my hands in its guts at some point in the past, the last MRO I worked for did a lot of their heavy maintenance. Those things are built like tanks. Flying tanks with 40 seats, and somewhat arguably faster than the Greyhound buses they look and smell like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 03:04
|
|
|
Am I alone in loving Dash 8's? I don't think I've ever really had a lovely flight in one, and being from Prince Edward Island just about every flight I've ever taken out of there had at least one leg in one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 04:21
|
|
|
Q400s are nice. Q100s however...
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 04:33
|
|
|
DoesNotCompute posted:Am I alone in loving Dash 8's? I don't think I've ever really had a lovely flight in one, and being from Prince Edward Island just about every flight I've ever taken out of there had at least one leg in one.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 10:56
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Flying MDT-PHL. Dash-8-100, I poo poo you not. I guess flying Horizon all the time, I forgot that other airlines (US Air in this case) kept ancient-rear end turboprops on like this. I flew N930HA when it was on interchange with Allegheny back in the mid-90's. It was a "legacy" Dash back then so I can't imagine what it's like now - though Piedmont has mastered keeping those old beasts running. The Dash turned out to be a great performer in the Northeast, though it's short field performance rarely came into play - just the occasional landing on 33R at KBOS.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 11:35
|
|
|
grover posted:No real complaints, I just want to get to my destination faster than a turboprop can fly. 5 minutes sooner = 5 less minutes in a miserable cramped airline seat. CRJs have pretty much taken over all the Dash-8 routes in my area, and I'm 100% happy with that. The crj is only faster than the dash 8 on stages longer than about 300 mi.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 11:47
|
|
|
ctishman posted:Flying MDT-PHL. Dash-8-100, I poo poo you not. I guess flying Horizon all the time, I forgot that other airlines (US Air in this case) kept ancient-rear end turboprops on like this. Every single time that I fly out of SBY or return to SBY (and this is where I fly out of 95% of the time) it is on either a Dash-8-100 or -300. Usually Piedmont or sometimes Air Wisconsin. Piedmont is head quartered out of SBY. The only aircraft that Piedmont owns are Dash-8-100s and -300s.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:40
|
|
|
KYOON GRIFFEY JR posted:The crj is only faster than the dash 8 on stages longer than about 300 mi. And SBY to PHL definitely is under that. I don't mind the rather short (~30 mins) flights myself. It's the SBY to CLT on a Dash 8 that I try to avoid. I also had one of my most fun flights on a Dash 8 from PHL to SBY. We were flying lower than normal and steering around thunderstorms. Some pretty heavy banking compared to normal flights. I was sitting next to a Dash 8 pilot that was dead heading back to SBY and he explained they liked flying lower in order to see around the thunderstorms better. Sounded good to me. I was just glad to get home that evening and not get stuck in PHL.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 12:44
|
|
|
When I spent a couple of months in Kenya the budget airline I used to fly to Nairobi used dash-8's, it was pretty cool cruising over the rift valley in them. Better service then Ryanair too
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 13:59
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:gently caress F-14's are awesome. I wish some developer would create a full-on flight sim to the extent that DCS A-10 is but for the Tomcat. I'd play that forever. It's not DCS levels, but still pretty decent: https://store.thirdwire.com/project_sf2na.htm
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
iyaayas01 posted:Shockingly, two pairs of eyes are better than one when doing CAS (especially when you're using a targeting pod), also low level interdiction is much more effective when you can divide labor. I never responded to you over in the thread in GiP, but the basics of my issues with Naval Aviation is that by centering on an all SH fleet they have given up long range strike as something that is easily feasible, which (IMHO) is one of the core reasons the Air Wing exists. I'm not saying that a CSG should be able to sustain an AF-like throughput while doing continuous long range strike, but being range limited in your ability to project power is a pretty serious constraint on the carrier's raison d'être. I fully understand the lovely place NAVAIR was in after the Flying Dorito and NATF programs simultaneously imploded in the early '90s (imploded is probably too strong a word for NATF since it was really just vaporware anyway), I just wish they had thought far enough ahead/had the necessary political clout to push for keeping an upgraded Tomcat of some sort around as a fill-in long range strike aircraft that could at least reach out further than the Super Bug. Its not just CAS, in straight up bombing the F-14 was better than the legacy Hornet. The major issue was with LGBs and the Nitehawk targeting pod that the Hornet carried. The D model Tomcats used ATFLIR which was a much better pod. The problem was discovered when the Hornets were doing a pretty lovely job with LGBs in OIF/OEF. My Air Wing at the time was one of the first, if not the first, to discover the issue. It was bad enough that we started flying all ATO missions with mixed sections, F-14+F/A-18 so the Tomcats could buddy lase for the Hornets. Anyhow, as many problems as the D model "fixed" they were really just putting lipstick on a pig. The underlying avionics and airframe were dated and were badly in need of an upgrade. Hell, one of the RIO's primary jobs was circuit break monitor/resetter. The Tomcat had an obscene number of circuit breakers, the vast majority of which were in the back where only the RIO could reach them. When I was in an Air Wing that had two Tomcat squadrons the maintenance hour per flight hour metric for the Tomcats was astronomical (the next worst was the EA-6B  ) I worked with a lot of Tomcat pilots and RIOs at my first shore duty and even the most "Tomcats Forever!" diehard admitted they were ready to fly something that as a baseline was more capable and less prone to breaking. It was a great airframe but it's time had come. As for your long range strike stuff on the CSG, you are actually wrong about that at least from the intended strategic purpose. I know the statistics are somewhere but I'm being lazy at the moment (always) but a large portion of the worlds population lives within about 200km of the shoreline, which is roughly about 110nm or so. The FAS gives the Superhornet combat radius as 400nm, more than sufficient to strike targets in that region, especially with a little bit of yo-yo tanking from the boat on launch and recovery. The CSG is designed for power projection, but it was never intended to do long range strikes, although I suppose we should clarify what we mean by "long range". That is the core of my contention that people arent really putting USN airpower in the proper context when criticizing acquisition decisions in the case of the Super Hornet. Now the legacy Hornet is pretty atrocious in terms of combat radius, I can't really argue that fact. The Super more or less solves that problem or at least goes a long way at doing so. Again I'd point out that in this day and age relying on joint tanker support shouldn't be a point of critcism unless there is no redundancy, which we do have in the form of the "5 wet" Super Hornet. Obviously its not perfectly redundant but it's a more than workable back-up. So making design decisions with that in mind isn't necessarily wrong. As for NAVAIR being a clusterfuck, I have no contention with that claim, especially in the timeframe you were mentioned. Some of the hangars in Whidbey were built with the A-12 in mind. And yes an A6F would've probably been amazing. In fact, when the USN was doing the AoA on the new electronic attack platform, one of the options they analyzed was reopening/retooling the EA-6B line and building a new Prowler using modern materials and avionics. This obviously lost out to the G variant of the Super but it was an interesting idea and had its share of supporters.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
holocaust bloopers posted:88 is new. I routinely flew 707's that were mid-70's built. They were also the best AWACS. The early 80's models sucked. Worst jet in the fleet was the newest, 83-0009. When we heard about the Nellis crash (we were in the desert) we all hoped it was that jet...turned out to be 0008 though. So close.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
vulturesrow posted:
If we're using CSGs for power projection, why is it wrong to pretend they're going to operate in a vaccuum without KC-135/10 support? Almost everything is analyzed with a view of "if we were fighting China..." so let's just that. We're probably going to lose most or all of the convenient airfields. If they Navy can't provide a significant amounts of it's own fuel in the tactical environment, CSGs are not going to project poo poo and they become defensive points. If all we want to do is smash Libya and completely permissive environments like Afghanistan, then it's all good. The problem is that 2/3 of the military thinkers/spenders in this country are counting on that.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Godholio posted:If we're using CSGs for power projection, why is it wrong to pretend they're going to operate in a vaccuum without KC-135/10 support? Almost everything is analyzed with a view of "if we were fighting China..." so let's just that. We're probably going to lose most or all of the convenient airfields. If they Navy can't provide a significant amounts of it's own fuel in the tactical environment, CSGs are not going to project poo poo and they become defensive points. If all we want to do is smash Libya and completely permissive environments like Afghanistan, then it's all good. The problem is that 2/3 of the military thinkers/spenders in this country are counting on that. I am totally on side with the 2/3rds. How often does the US go to war with a major trading partner/super power with an unlimited army (lets not talk about airforce)? How often to they go to war with some little country that is either all one big desert or jungle? More to the point, would they ever go to war with China? I think not. And if so, that's not a war you're going to win with CSG's, you might win it with either ICBM's or some well placed computer hacks. Personally, I think a war with China wouldn't be won with bombs and shells at all, it would be won with factories and research labs, the same way that the war with USSR was won. Outproduce them and bankrupt them. Except, well, the USA is fighting and losing that war right now as we speak. I would have thought that the only thing a CSG would be good for in a war with China is stopping shipping, and that would be better done with SSN's and cruise missiles, surely. Captain Postal fucked around with this message at 22:53 on Aug 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2013 22:47
|
|
|
This is a pretty big rabbit hole we're heading for, so I'll just make a couple of statements.Captain Postal posted:I am totally on side with the 2/3rds. How often does the US go to war with a major trading partner/super power with an unlimited army (lets not talk about airforce)? How often to they go to war with some little country that is either all one big desert or jungle? How often do we need to? If you look at how we perform in the opening months of conflicts where it's not grossly one-sided (Grenada), we generally don't do well in any measurable way - on land, at sea, or in the air. We lose a lot of people, we lose a lot of equipment, and what we learn EVERY time is that we had all the information we needed to make intelligent preparatory/preventative decisions years in advance. quote:More to the point, would they ever go to war with China? I think not. And if so, that's not a war you're going to win with CSG's, you might win it with either ICBM's or some well placed computer hacks. Personally, I think a war with China wouldn't be won with bombs and shells at all, it would be won with factories and research labs, the same way that the war with USSR was won. Outproduce them and bankrupt them. Except, well, the USA is fighting and losing that war right now as we speak. No, probably not. But who do you pick to rate yourself against? Afghanistan? That's a loving terrible idea...but that's what we're doing. We're not going to fight that war anywhere else in the world. It's fundamentally different from a generic large-scale conventional war, from total war, or from guerrilla wars we've seen everywhere else. No, you pick the closest thing you've got to a peer, or the next step up if there is one. And that's China. The mistake you're making is in your definition of winning. I think you're going much further than the US will be willing to go...there's almost no situation that would call for the complete military suppression of China. quote:I would have thought that the only thing a CSG would be good for in a war with China is stopping shipping, and that would be better done with SSN's and cruise missiles, surely. And what if we're defending our probably-soon-to-be allies, the Vietnamese against another Chinese invasion? CSGs are going to be pretty helpful. See? Victory can take many shapes. It doesn't take WWI/WWII domination and occupation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:02
|
|
|
Godholio posted:This is a pretty big rabbit hole we're heading for, so I'll just make a couple of statements. Godholio posted:If you look at how we perform in the opening months of conflicts where it's not grossly one-sided (Grenada) Godholio posted:No, probably not. But who do you pick to rate yourself against? Afghanistan? That's a loving terrible idea...but that's what we're doing. We're not going to fight that war anywhere else in the world. It's fundamentally different from a generic large-scale conventional war, from total war, or from guerrilla wars we've seen everywhere else. You've fought Afghanistan at least 3 times now: Once in Vietnam, once in Iraq III, and once in Afghanistan. Each time the US was unready for it. Asymmetric warfare is what the US is most likely to face because the groups who would attack you can't do so symmetrically. How does Afghanistan differ from other guerrilla wars? (Serious question, not rhetorical.) I agree 100% that you can't plan the next war based on the last, but carriers striking 1000's of miles from any land base stinks of WWII to me, and the only reason I can see why any Admiral would suggest it as a real option is to justify their massive budgets so as to confirm their self-importance in Washington. Although I'm not in "the industry". Godholio posted:And what if we're defending our probably-soon-to-be allies, the Vietnamese against another Chinese invasion? CSGs are going to be pretty helpful. See? Victory can take many shapes. It doesn't take WWI/WWII domination and occupation. I don't question the value of having CSG's, only in expecting them to operate beyond support from land-based aircraft/tankers in an environment where the threat of anti-shipping attacks is so great they must stand-off 400NM from the coast. To me, the USN expecting to have to fight against such an enemy without USAF support is a bit like the USMC expecting to have to fight without USN support. So you end up with the F-35B and other monstrosities. (And I do have an infantry-trained bias, but boots-on-the-ground is what wins a war. Sometimes. I can't think of any exceptions off-hand, except maybe Libya.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:55
|
|
|
I'm not gonna get mixed up in this, but wanted to mention the book "The Pentagon's New Map". It's a really fascinating read about how we're Doing It Wrong (tm) re: strategic planning.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 00:56
|
|
|
Boots on the ground wins the occupation. Dismantling the opponents air and anti-air in a blitzkrieg, then a decade of low intensity softening, followed up by another blitzkrieg is what wins the war. Of course, sometimes both win neither.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 20:53 |
|
|
VikingSkull posted:Boots on the ground wins the occupation. Dismantling the opponents air and anti-air in a blitzkrieg, then a decade of low intensity softening, followed up by another blitzkrieg is what wins the war. I think you have to add "decades of rebuilding industry and infrastructure, spending trillions of dollars" to that. But the idea of airpower winning a war died when they finally booted LeMay
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2013 01:37
|
|