Originally Posted by
Gnadenburg
fdr
What about upgrading Super Hornets for a hi-lo mix? I'm sure they'd do a good enough job until we get a new generation helicopter / drone mix for the CAS role.
Flying over the South China Sea most working days and the escalation is dramatic. The cussing on 121.5 with the Japanese and Chinese having a particular ferocity; the Koreans don't mind a crack too. What a shame war in Asia and all its horror features in neither's school text books. There's another generation of aggrieved hawks emerging.
Gnads; expect that there is lots of merit in holding onto the Super Hornets, however the CAS task is not the right task for that aircraft. The SBS following round 2 was intended to show how great the contribution of 3.5mT of HE had been in achieving the outcome, however the evidence really never supported that contention. Viet Nam showed that there is no easy long range solution using air power alone to bend the will of a committed adversary, while also showing that the group think of the strategists as to how the other side would respond remains a problem. In the end, conflict involves people vs people on the ground, and CAS is effective where the right tool is used. Neither the F-18E/F or the F-35 is an ideal CAS aircraft without target designation/illumination. Now that is still a conventional view of conflict, one where another identifiable force enters an area and is engaged. Asymmetric warfare will as often as not confound planning efforts and make the discussion on airframe selections moot, however, Von Moltke's observation that No plan of operation reaches with any certainty beyond the first encounter with the enemy's main force (restated as no plan survives contact with the enemy) led to Ike's addition that however the effort of planning was everything. Ike indicated that the plan (D-Day) fell apart promptly, but the effort of the planning had given insight to the staff and leaders that permitted the maintenance of momentum with the situational awareness that existed from the planning process. Hopefully that puts some value into review of such weighty decisions as how a nation spends its treasure in maintaining sovereign integrity.
The SCS has been a flashpoint for a long time, and is certainly a spot where a mis-step could end up in tears. In the event of even an accidental commencement of hostilities the $64 question is would national pride "trump" national interest/common sense. China appears strong economically, but it has been entirely due to the external demand until recent times. Getting into a tiff with your customers won't help maintain the growth that has supported the rise of the military capacity. China remains a bubble economy, and has been since the 90's, with a growing socio-economic imbalance between the rural and city populations. The latter have developed wealth from arbitrage with their foreign customers. Entering into hostilities that suspend export would give a pretty interesting internal problem for the leaders, while potentially giving the justification for the return to national manufacture in EU, US and other countries. The real concern is that there is still more rationality in Beijing than in the WH, where Woodward indicated today that in early 2017, Trump asked for a plan for pre-emptive strikes on NK.