Americans are really harsh with their jokes, they don't hold back. I would think they would avoid making fun of their military, which they supposedly actually quite admire. But I guess the "为尊者隐" behavior is more of Chinese/East-Asian thing. Americans are more about "burn them hard and bad" to their loved ones.
US Military News, Reports, Data, etc.
- Thread starter tphuang
- Start date
You do realize that most of those American comments are actually mixed with a hint of glee and sarcasm, right. They kind of attitude most of those American comments can't be seriously interpreted as a serious sense of victory. For example like: "Against the F-22, that balloon stands no chance!", these are jesting language, with a clear sense of derision. If they really think this is a worthy victory, they would have a totally different attitude.
Besides, American people are pretty down-to-earth honorable people, you CAN NOT serious think politicians can just sell this farce as a serious victory to the people and believe that the people would just buy it.
MwRYum
Major
Like I've said, it's all victory lap for them lot.
Well, knowing what was happening in Ohio in the same timeframe, they really need it...
RT is reporting the USAF tankers are grounded for inspection, the title is kinda click-baity though since in the body it also states the airframes that passed inspection were ok to fly:
The United States Air Force has grounded hundreds of its decades-old KC-135 tankers, over concerns that a critical flaw could lead to their tails becoming separated from the fuselage mid-flight. Inspections have revealed that two dozen aircraft have so far been found to be affected by the fault.
Washington ordered a widespread inspection of the fleet of tankers on Tuesday for a “non-conforming part in the vertical tail assembly.” The part pins an aircraft’s tail fin – its vertical stabilizer – to the rest of the fuselage.
“We’re taking this action out of an abundance of caution, after consulting with our engineering experts,” Col. Michael Kovalcheck of the US Air Force’s Life Cycle Management division said this week.
A memo leaked earlier this month first revealed that the aircraft may have faulty pins installed. This followed an analysis conducted in January, which found that several discrepancies had been detected in pins installed in the aircraft’s tail during routine repairs.
“Should one pin fail, the other would not be able to carry the remaining load and the vertical stabilizer would depart the aircraft,” the memo said.
As of last Sunday, 24 aircraft were found to have faulty pins installed, following inspections of 90 planes. More than 200 KC-135 aircraft are thought to be impacted by the issue. Planes which passed the examination have been cleared to fly.
Air Force Materiel Command will also conduct inspections into RC-135 reconnaissance planes and WC-135 Constant Phoenix radiation-sensing jets for similar tail-pin flaws.
The US Air Force has been attempting to replace the KC-135 for at least two decades, although the size of the fleet has meant that they have had to do so gradually. The refuelling aircraft was first issued in the 1950s and was used extensively in the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm in Iraq to extend the range of US bombers.
Active duty KC-135s are currently stationed at numerous bases in the United States, as well as abroad at RAF Mildenhall in England and Kadena Air Base in Japan.
‘Falling tail’ issue grounds entire fleet of US Air Force tankers
A faulty component has led to concerns that the refueling aircraft can sustain damage mid-flightThe United States Air Force has grounded hundreds of its decades-old KC-135 tankers, over concerns that a critical flaw could lead to their tails becoming separated from the fuselage mid-flight. Inspections have revealed that two dozen aircraft have so far been found to be affected by the fault.
Washington ordered a widespread inspection of the fleet of tankers on Tuesday for a “non-conforming part in the vertical tail assembly.” The part pins an aircraft’s tail fin – its vertical stabilizer – to the rest of the fuselage.
“We’re taking this action out of an abundance of caution, after consulting with our engineering experts,” Col. Michael Kovalcheck of the US Air Force’s Life Cycle Management division said this week.
A memo leaked earlier this month first revealed that the aircraft may have faulty pins installed. This followed an analysis conducted in January, which found that several discrepancies had been detected in pins installed in the aircraft’s tail during routine repairs.
“Should one pin fail, the other would not be able to carry the remaining load and the vertical stabilizer would depart the aircraft,” the memo said.
As of last Sunday, 24 aircraft were found to have faulty pins installed, following inspections of 90 planes. More than 200 KC-135 aircraft are thought to be impacted by the issue. Planes which passed the examination have been cleared to fly.
Air Force Materiel Command will also conduct inspections into RC-135 reconnaissance planes and WC-135 Constant Phoenix radiation-sensing jets for similar tail-pin flaws.
The US Air Force has been attempting to replace the KC-135 for at least two decades, although the size of the fleet has meant that they have had to do so gradually. The refuelling aircraft was first issued in the 1950s and was used extensively in the Vietnam War and Operation Desert Storm in Iraq to extend the range of US bombers.
Active duty KC-135s are currently stationed at numerous bases in the United States, as well as abroad at RAF Mildenhall in England and Kadena Air Base in Japan.
Nice that they found it in inspection before causing a crash.
So is USMC entering anti-shipping and LRPF business? The USMC of 2023 is such a weird organization. When will they enter USW and space-based recon business? Those are the only things that are left.
They can always start up DHAs to get ahead of the other services
It's not. Battle Force 2030 brings USMC closer to its roots and the general idea of what a "marine" formation should be. It's everything that came before that was an aberration.
First of all USMC is distinct from the Army not just in terms of doctrine but also in terms of legal rules under which it historically operated.
Department of the Army was created in 1947 along with Department of Defense. Before then only the Department of the Navy existed as a cabinet position and Department of War was created only for the express purpose of waging a war under authorization provided by a declaration of war by Congress. US Army was legally subordinated to the Department of War but USMC was part of the Department of the Navy - a permanent department, authorized by the US Constitution - and as such operated within the purview of the President without the need for authorization from the Congress. This is why USMC could be sent into combat without declaration of war, as in legal terms it was part of the Navy. This is also why USMC serves as guard at the White House. They're "Presidents army" as opposed to "Congress' army".
USMC therefore served as "rapid reaction army" for majority of US history but during that time it mostly served as light intervention force with emphasis on capturing port infrastructure which would be then used for naval operations. The modern doctrine of amphibious landings was created as a more efficient way of performing their primary mission. Instead of capturing heavily defended ports by direct assault from the sea, marines would land at a distance and capture the target attacking from land.
Once deployed they would also be used as primary intervention force. But that never assumed large operations because before WW2 the distinction between "war" and "not war" was observed. As soon as "not war" began to look like "war" political forces in Washington pushed for de-escalation or declaration of war.
Tanks and aviation came as consequence of expanding of the scale of operations. During WW2 USMC was expected to fight a larger land campaign over longer period of time on its own, without Army's support. Because of the scale of war in the Pacific they were capturing and holding not just port facilities but entire islands and archipelagos. For that tanks, heavy artillery and aviation was necessary and USMC grew into a parallel army, not just an amphibious rapid reaction corps.
After WW2 that full-spectrum capability of the Corps became very convenient considering that the legal authorization for the use of Army and Marines remained unchanged.
Compare the size historically:
- 1939: Army - 190 thousand, Navy - 125 thousand, Marines - 20 thousand
- 1945: Army - 8,26 million, Navy - 3,38 million, Marines - 0,47 million
- 1954: Army - 1,4 million, Navy - 0,7 million, Marines - 0,23 million
- 1972: Army - 0,8 million, Navy - 0,6 million, Marines - 0,2 million
- 2001: Army - 480 thousand, Navy - 380 thousand, Marines - 170 thousand
China gave Marines the excuse to turn back to their roots and to present itself as an unique solution to a problem which the Army is poorly prepared to handle by design. In political terms it was a masterstroke because it allowed USMC to double its budget. It was 23 billion in 2017 and 49 billion in 2022. If the purpose was just to get more money then it is a spectacular success.
Tactically and strategically it's also the correct decision and the general idea behind BF30 is sound. People have trouble understanding it because they don't understand operations and logistics and are too accustomed to the idea that a marine is just a cooler army grunt because that's what they've been in entertainment.
Per Battle Force 2030 US Marines are a land force for enabling of naval operations. They will do whatever is necessary for that purpose so I'm half-expecting ASW-enabling operations as well over time. Whenever USN needs to use an island or a strip of land as USN asset they send the Marines.
Fundamentally USMC became a second army because during WW2 they fought an army - the Japanese Imperial Army. Now USMC is supposed to fight Chinese navy and everyone is confused that their new equipment is a long list of assets for striking infrastructure supporting enemy naval operations or sinking transport ships.
This change in USMC structure and doctrine is so far the only smart thing Pentagon has done since they began to shifting their strategy to WestPac. And considering the role of Indonesian and Philippine archipelagos as potential theaters of operations it is a very smart thing indeed.
And this is what PLAN should do with their marine corps as well. It's better to have dedicated PLAGF brigade doing the heavy fighting on land, and keep PLAN marines as a beachhead force and instead focus on becoming BF30-like and counter-BF30 formation. It will simply become a necessity with USMC adopting this posture. You can't chase off a small mobile missile unit with an amphibious mechanized battalion.
Why when you can just send in GJ-11s and bomb the marine force on an island once they are discovered?
I am guessing because missiles and bombs are not really persistent and they can always come back at a later date?