The pollution would be horrendous, imagine breathing in the air of all those burning Chinese factories, and the oil slick from their sunk ships.and so on… Highly unpleasant.
Yes, in general. The context is clearly taking a combat asset out of fleet to be fitted with limited refueling capabilities in the absence of a dedicated tanker (so much for plenty of tankers).
How many tankers is enough? How many planes can one tanker refuel an hour? How many hours can a tanker stay aloft on an active roll. What other capabilities capabilities the tanker have?
As an operator/ ground crew you are not wrong in your assessment. But the actual roll of assets isn’t always one dimensional like an operator/ ground crew roll can be.
There is, of course, no one answer to how many tankers is enough or how many planes can be refueled per hour - totally mission and aircraft dependent. I don’t know max times, but I’ve been on a tanker 10+ hours. That sucks. Most tankers are single purpose, but some have some additional capabilities; the KC-130J RORO capabilities are pretty cool.
Don’t even know where you’re going with the operator / ground crew statement.
"Strafing
Less commonly, the term is used by extension to describe high-speed firing runs by any land or naval craft such as fast boats,"
MUCH less commonly, but OK, Wikipedia can’t be wrong. though the “guns” in “strafing guns” seems a bit redundant,
So, if I understand your suggested tactic, you are talking about self propelled guns or tanks firing on the move.
I would have described that as "self propelled guns or tanks firing on the move"though it doesn’t sound so innovative put like that.
Gunners don’t like doing that much because they have this hangup about hitting what they are shooting at. Tankies, who generally have line of sight to the target, do it sometimes, but they don’t like it much either for the same reason, plus they have this hangup about being hit by the people they are shooting at. Hull-down positions are favoured.
The snag with guns is they are expected to be used more than once, and the rounds are trackable to source by radar. Keeping moving constrained by mountain roads may not be enough to avoid counter battery fire, possibly by guided weapons.
A better (as in more survivable) option might be dispersed fire-and-forget weapons, which would usually be rockets, or, I suppose, drones. (Autonomous ground vehicles may not be QUITE good enough yet )If these are fired remotely counter-battery fire is much less of a worry. .
Guerrilla forces have used Katyusha type rockets on time delay to attack fixed positions for a long time. I assume there’ll be guided equivalents fired remotely, but havn’t been keeping up with developments in the last few decades.
Well, its an old and relatively cheap aircraft, so perhaps it gets the less-good pilots who are likely to crash more.
Over Tainan fighters (mostly F-16 I think) seem to fly in very close formation, which I guessed was due to short scramble times because of PRC proximity.
If they maintain that at altitude it would seem to make collisions more likely. I’d have thought tight formations were tactically a poor choice though, unless it makes it harder to count the planes on a PRC radar screen.
If you mean pilots from F5’s are more likely to die if they come down in the sea, I’d be surprised, since I’d have thought the survival gear was pretty standard for all aircraft unless they have a crew capsule. It could be it has a more punishing ejection though.
Yes that’s what I’ve heard.
Apparently the ejection system on the F5 is only safe if used when the aircraft is in a certain position. Which seems odd as they are usually used when crashing
The best use of strafing technique would be to have multiple units and switch between them. Allowing short bursts and then moving to a new spot while another unit replaces them for a short burst at a different location.
As for missiles Taiwan has something like 650 PAC-3 missiles already. No doubt many of them are loaded with optional payloads. They can also be used as intercept missiles. There’s also the Tien Fung and Hsiung Feng missiles made in Taiwan. They are continuing to be made and positioned.
Modern warfare with up to date track and trace technology makes an invasion of Taiwan by China extremely difficult. That’s why it will be a war in the skies. Who knows where the roughly 3000 missiles China has aimed at Taiwan will really land or get through the missile defense systems currently in place. Most locations (military bases, airports, government offices, armories, harbours) would have already been GPS coded and wouldn’t even need anyone on the ground. So then it comes down to whether or not China’s targeting systems are reliable. Otherwise it’s just a crapshoot.
As above, I don’t think"strafing technique" is a term that is usually used to describe what you are describing (mobile artillery) at least not in English.
I think you made it up, or possibly are translating from some other language usage. I believe the origin is German
Also as above, mobile rtillery is not novel nor is it invulnerable, so it isn’'t plausibly some special war-winning ting on its own
The China threat is not one of the top reasons I’m leaving Taiwan soon but I have thought about how hard the Taiwanese will fight for their country and I just don’t see it. Outside of a few old timers who are waaaay too old to fight I haven’t met really any Taiwanese who think highly of the military. Definitely haven’t met any people of military age who want to join.
I compare my experience here to Israel. I was in Israel in 2014 when there were a bunch of rocket attacks and even though it was unnerving my time in Israel taught me just how badass the Israelis are when it comes to defending their country. If I had to be stuck in a country that was under attack I’d want to be in Israel. If I died at least I know I died in a place where the people were prepared to fight and went out hard.
It’s a dumb exercise they did in Infantry Training School in the 80s. Misplaced mortar fire was the best. It’s raining earth, yay.
And they’re mostly supporting the other side.
[quote] I haven’t met really any Taiwanese who think highly of the military. Definitely haven’t met any people of military age who want to join.[/quote].
That’s why the shift to an all-volunteer force is not going well- nobody is volunteering.
Chinese better be under 2%. Forced sterilization doesnt sound fun. it was officially probably 0.9% or so not long ago haha. They wouldnt allow stats to reflect something other than what those that do their bidding make them seem.
But immigrants are bad, remember. The US is just lucky the Bible bangers are banging enough to keep it up to a decent level, but I expect it to drop steadily this century as people flock to cities. Hopefully the anti immigration crowd will reconsider. Keeping it around 2.1 is ideal.
Why is an increasing population a good idea? The earth’s resources are finite. Surely it is better to find ways to keep the elderly more healthy and productive nearer to the end of their lifespans than just relying on increasing the population?
Populations tend to stabilize, even decrease, as they advance in wealth and opportunities for woman, demographic transition, and past fears of overpopulation have been unfounded. I tend to view an increasing knowledge base as a greater benefit and increased pressure on resources as a small problem easily overcome.
So why push to increase them ?
I accidentally hit the reply button before I finished.
Oh ok, fair enough. It was a genuine question , not just being argumentative. 