Jump to content

Burncycle360

Members
  • Posts

    1,868
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

531 profile views

Burncycle360's Achievements

Crew

Crew (2/3)

0

Reputation

  1. At this point perhaps the best thing we could do is let Boeing go under, have their assets sold off to a different management team and negotiate with them...
  2. E-7 has L-Band radar, E-3 has S-Band radar, E-2D has C-Band radar. While mid air refueling can help with the 737, during a notional high optempo conflict (like a conflict over Taiwan) I'd really rather not have to add additional burden on the tanker fleet when it's trivial to avoid it by giving such things consideration at this stage. I think the decision is being driven by expediency and expectation of a budget squeeze, but that always comes at a cost - they're going to be stuck with their interim solution for the long haul for better or worse. Things like replacing aging AWACS are an annoying distraction to funding sexier projects. Personally, I would like to have seen a family of medium support aircraft based on the Boeing 787.
  3. Seems trivial to grab a couple of examples, install pressure sensors and a gopro inside, and give them the works. Then you can dispel rumors amongst crews (recall some in Restrepo doc believed a near miss with a .50 BMG would sear flesh. There is no reason for this sort of mentality to persist, particularly if incorrect assumptions has the potential to affect morale and behavior under fire)
  4. We had over 100 carriers in various guises (fleet and escort) by the end of the war, so that was covered. I think the rest is lingering sentiment and institutional inertia.
  5. pour encourager les autres https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/1432371405727977472
  6. The punchline is that it was performative. The Taliban could do absolutely anything at this point, it's not like we're going to stay. They could even blow up an airplane, and our state department would just say it's ISIS-K and make another symbolic bomb run.
  7. Yep. It's far easier to stand back, see who emerges as a more or less competent warlord, and then support them than it is to install a puppet and try to get a bunch of tribes to do something counter to their nature and culture. The alternative successful strategies would be extermination or permanent colonization, both of which are unpalatable non-starters for modern times. We chose quagmire consciously because sometimes we insist on relearning the lessons of the past the hard way, and a lot of people called it for what it was going to be early on. The Northern Alliance, who struggled to counter the Taliban only needed 2 months to push them out of Kabul once they got SOF support, most fled to Pakistan before the end of the year. It's been 20 years, we have a whole generation of people who don't remember Taliban rule and it's going to be absolutely miserable for those who survive it. It doesn't have to be. We needed to end nation building, but we could have done the next best thing and done right by the people who helped us. There are apparently resistance groups forming as we speak, and if left unmolested natural leaders will emerge and carve out some territory for themselves, they'd be brutal and corrupt as hell (they'd have to be) but could also probably relatively "progressive" so supporting them could be spun as a win for women, etc. All they'd need then are some motivated volunteers with a radio and some air support. Unfortunately, the Taliban are now business partners with major countries who are invested in their success so we're not going to do that. So dark ages it is, for those who helped us at great risk to themselves.
  8. Sort of. The Taliban did lose -- they were on their heels and defeated at every turn by the Northern Alliance + SOF, so much so that they melted away, avoided pitched battles, and lost control of key areas like Kabul. The quagmire came after, and was largely a result of the decision to nation build, including large scale occupation to provide security and presence for a country nearly the size of Texas, and along with it strict ROE that doesn't involve letting a warlord take known fighters out back and making sure they're not going to be a problem, along with Pakistan providing support and a safe harbor from which the Taliban could conduct operations from. I'm saying we can do the first part for as long as it's useful to keep the Taliban inwardly focused, while skipping the second part. Don't try to turn Afghanistan into some model democracy, it's not necessary to accomplish the goal of denying the Taliban control, and requires far fewer resources.
  9. All it took was SOCOM + air support embedded with the Northern Alliance. We could have picked our favorite warlord and kept the Taliban on their heels indefinitely if we were worried about their harboring terrorists. Unfortunately, at this point there are now business interests in keeping the Taliban in charge, which again would have been awkward had the ANA actually fought and managed to fend them off.
×
×
  • Create New...