Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

D. J. Trump Administration Geopolitics Pt. 3

For discussions of events and conditions not necessarily related to Peak Oil.

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 15:30:51

As with all things, who is going to pay for that? Or what will be sacrificed to make that happen?
It's easy to toss out an idea that says "let's do X".

It's a very different kettle of fish to get backing, funding, resources, and actually make it happen.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9210
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 16:03:11

If one service is established with clear responsibility for space, then one result, and one motivation for establishing such a force, would be the possible economies and saving of resources that result.

If you think that the present organizations relating to space are efficient, think again. The Air Force of course has ICBMs and launch facilities such as Vandenburg AFB. But did you know that US Navy aircraft carriers have orbital launch capabilities and even anti-satellite weapons? Did you know that NASA and the NSA have capabilities that overlap and parallel the USAF and the USN and the US Army?

YES, there will now be five services sharing the Pentagon instead of four. Aside from that "administrative overhead", there is likely to be a net overall savings of resources and a synergy of new capabilities that result from combining the disparate space capabilities of the existing military space groups and the NRO (National Reconnaissance Office).
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Cog » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 16:43:29

Outcast_Searcher wrote:As with all things, who is going to pay for that? Or what will be sacrificed to make that happen?
It's easy to toss out an idea that says "let's do X".

It's a very different kettle of fish to get backing, funding, resources, and actually make it happen.


Let's not let the matter of a few trillion dollars stop us from confronting the aliens in deep space. Imagine how much tail a guy could pull in a Space Force uniform. Something in black with silver trim and medals is what I have in mind here. The contracts to build our new multi-mission fleet with lasers, particle beams, anti-matter torpedoes will make our defense industries rich.

Image

Image
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13420
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 19:27:10

Cog wrote:
Outcast_Searcher wrote:As with all things, who is going to pay for that? Or what will be sacrificed to make that happen?
It's easy to toss out an idea that says "let's do X".

It's a very different kettle of fish to get backing, funding, resources, and actually make it happen.


Let's not let the matter of a few trillion dollars stop us from confronting the aliens in deep space. Imagine how much tail a guy could pull in a Space Force uniform. Something in black with silver trim and medals is what I have in mind here. The contracts to build our new multi-mission fleet with lasers, particle beams, anti-matter torpedoes will make our defense industries rich.

Well, that's certainly a point re the uniforms. I thought our defense industries were already rich, but I suppose there's never too much profit from government programs. :)

If we weren't $20 trillion in debt (on the books) and counting, I'd be all for it IF other less than great spending were reduced to compensate. One example: weapon systems the Pentagon DOESN'T EVEN WANT, but certain folks inside the beltway insist on spending the money on, so their state "get's their share" of the defense business.

...

FWIW, my "how do we pay for that?" question applies to ALL new government program proposals from either side of the aisle. Even stuff I really like, like the various telescope programs -- cool and informative as that is, the money for it doesn't grow on trees.
Last edited by Outcast_Searcher on Wed 20 Jun 2018, 20:22:54, edited 1 time in total.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9210
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby yellowcanoe » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 19:43:07

My understanding is that the Space Force would take over existing space related operations that are currently being managed by the Air Force, Navy and other agencies. It's not going to result in a whole bunch of new activities in space as some reports would have you believe.
yellowcanoe
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 688
Joined: Fri 15 Nov 2013, 14:42:27
Location: Ottawa, Canada

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Outcast_Searcher » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 20:27:18

yellowcanoe wrote:My understanding is that the Space Force would take over existing space related operations that are currently being managed by the Air Force, Navy and other agencies. It's not going to result in a whole bunch of new activities in space as some reports would have you believe.

If that's the case, then we're just talking about labels and organization structure, I guess.

So that's fine UNTIL some yahoo wants to spend manymany$billions on new programs for the "space force", without reducing any other Pentagon spending.

OTOH, if it's just a reorg/naming thing, it hardly seems to be news worth reporting on, much less having the POTUS tweet about it, unless I'm missing something.
Given the track record of the perma-doomer blogs, I wouldn't bet a fast crash doomer's money on their predictions.
User avatar
Outcast_Searcher
COB
COB
 
Posts: 9210
Joined: Sat 27 Jun 2009, 21:26:42

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Cog » Wed 20 Jun 2018, 21:40:58

If its a space (ship) it needs to be ran by the Navy. And of course if you intend to do planetary assaults and cool stuff like that you will need Marines. Now right now we can't actually travel to other planets to assault them or aliens to shoot once we get there, but that is a minor detail.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13420
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 01:44:39

The whole point is to save money by reducing the redundant functionality in multiple services. The Navy for example does not need to run the GPS satellite network even though they invented it. Duplicate functions exist in NRO and military spy satellites. The idea would be to transfer all space related activities to one service, then allow it to consolidate and lay off the redundant people. This happens in civilian life all the time as corporations merge.

All of the present applications with military significance are near Earth orbit hardware that is unmanned. Pure science and deep space missions are done by NASA as a civilian activities.

If there is any present "Star Wars" anti-ICBM tech, it will be a black program at the new Space Service.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Cog » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 07:58:54

SpaceX will get the job done. The USA is going to have manned spaceflight again by next year. Then we can tell the Russians to piss off.
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13420
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Cog » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 12:13:02

Not everything has to be run by the government Gasmon. SpaceX is on track to be the launcher of choice for not only the US government but governments around the world. Private enterprise will take us into the solar system not a bloated government bureaucracy like NASA. SpaceX launches undercut any other private companies already.

Your Trump hate is noted and irrelevant.

Image
User avatar
Cog
Fusion
Fusion
 
Posts: 13420
Joined: Sat 17 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Northern Kekistan

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 15:52:16

It actually looks in the chart above that the Russian space program is in rapid collapse.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Thu 21 Jun 2018, 18:48:26

Being a historian by inclination and training I can tell you KaiserJeep that the 1947 reorganization was not nearly what some hoped it would be. At the time the Army Air Corp was a branch of the US Army in the same way the US Marine Corp is a branch of the US Navy. The Air Corp saw the division away from the Army as being of maximum benefit because all of their purchasing and design plans had to go through the US Army bureaucracy and they frequently complained of being stifled by ground minded staff officers who did not know, or care, about the best choices for the Air Corp in equipment and training.

In the initial plan as formulated by Congress the proposed Air Force and existing Army officer corps agreed that the US Navy needed to be gutted. All Navy (and Marine) aircraft, ground crews and air crews would be forcibly merged into the USAF while all USMC personnel and equipment not involved with air operations would be merged into the US Army. The US Navy would have been reduced to convoy escort vessels and submarines with all carriers and large gun ships mothballed or scrapped to save funding. The 'revolt of the Admirals' lead Congress to understand a lot of constituents would be losing out under the complete reorganization because redundant Naval Air Stations and Marine Corp bases would have all been absorbed and closed as excess to needs of the USAF and Army. Congress did the politically expedient thing and made lateral transfers from the Marines and Navy to the Army and Air Force voluntary rather than mandatory (with a one time rank promotion for those who took the transfers). the Navy which became extremely air oriented as a result of Pearl Harbor spent the next decade building alliances with the Air Force by promising things like fight support of long range bombers in places they could reach but USAF fighters from the mainland could not. Still the USAF and USN had major conflict of interest in weapon procurement because the USAF wanted the biggest nukes they could carry in a B-29/B-50 bomber while the USN wanted nuclear depth charges and tactical size nukes they could carry on navy carrier launched tactical bombers to hit enemy ships or ports.

For good or ill one aircraft carrier under construction was scrapped and almost all large ships of the US Navy were either mothballed or scrapped with the exception of the Aircraft carrier fleet. Even there the WW II built fleet of 28 aircraft carriers was reduced to 18 over the next two decades and has continued to shrink now being down to a dozen.

Personally I think reorganization is very long overdue, but I expect this round to be just like the 1947 debacle driven but political interests instead of the national future. For a long time Space Command and the missile regiments of the USAF have had the same kind of procurement arguments with the upper levels of the USAF that believe in manned planes uber alles instead of unmanned satellites and missile delivered warheads.

I think a space force would be an excellent alternative to manned bombers and the ground support for laser guided weapons, but who cares what I think? With GPS targeting we can now launch a GPS guided reentry vehicle from North Dakota and target bridges or buildings in Afghanistan and hit the target dead center within 20 minutes of the go order. That is fast enough to hit a target of opportunity like the chief enemy leader without warning and before they can move away from the target. Instead of doing this however we focus on sending manned bombers with laser guided munitions that require someone to point a laser at the target and that can take anywhere from 30 minutes to several days to launch depending on circumstances. Sadly this technology now makes Aircraft Carriers as obsolete as the USAF claimed they were in 1947. Anyone who believes the Russians, Chinese and likely UK/France/India can not put a GPS package on a reentry vehicle and target aircraft carriers parked at the dock is fooling themselves. On top of that even if they just go for the underway replenishment ships that deliver food, fuel and ordinance at sea they can effectively end the threat of carrier air attack in pretty short order.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16142
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 07:13:33

pstarr wrote:
With GPS targeting we can now launch a GPS guided reentry vehicle from North Dakota and target bridges or buildings in Afghanistan and hit the target dead center within 20 minutes of the go order.

The point being what?


Other than the top of your skull the point is manned bombers are an obsolete waste of resources and have been for decades. Since the 1960's the USAF has pushed the 'nuclear triad' theory that submarine ballistic missiles and land based ballistic missiles both need to be backed up with manned bombers. The idea made very little sense in 1965 and by 1985 was completely useless, but the USAF and USN have clung on to manned bomber aircraft, with all hands. Fighters are still useful for defending helicopters from enemy fighters, and helicopters are vital for scouting, search and rescue, and airborne delivery of ground forces. Fighters can also help protect your cargo planes delivering logistic support to forward areas, so having manned fighter aircraft has sound logic behind it. Bombers on the other hand are wasted resources. They were barely effective in WW II when we would send a thousand to take out a single factory in enemy territory. Bombers were shown to be ineffective in Vietnam and barely effective in the last 20 years with laser guided munitions where a ground squad shines a laser on the target for them to home in on. Lose that laser lock on and they are no more effective than they were in Vietnam. Cruise missiles and ballistic missiles have rendered manned bombers a useless waste of resources.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16142
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby KaiserJeep » Fri 22 Jun 2018, 12:27:08

Tanada, please allow for other scenarios of warfare than "final nuclear apocalypse". Those manned bombers you have disparaged for example are extremely usefull in conventional warfare. The Stealth bombers based in Missouri were used in both Gulf Wars. The B-52's based in Diego Garcia and Guam have seen use every few years since Vietnam, and dropped more cumulative ordinance than in WW2. The B-1's offer fast attack options and are 300mph faster than the B-52's. They are extremely effective, and today are targeted via satellite and a B-52 can launch 24 cruise missiles per plane, and a B-1 can launch 14. Although laser guided ordinance still exists, GPS guided munitions see more use. As the saying goes "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

The two parts of the ground forces that are vulnerable today are surface armor (tanks and APCs) and helicopters, both of which can be destroyed by infantry forces using shoulder-launched missiles. So helicopters are being replaced with tilt-rotor aircraft with longer range and higher speeds.

Also, don't mistake "obsolete" with "ineffective". Infantry for example has been obsolete since WW1 when machine guns and tanks came into use. But infantry is the only way to occupy territory and has options unavailable to heavy weapon systems - as Heinlein noted "If somebody was so foolish as to order us to enter a city and capture all the left-handed redheads, the Mobile Infantry could do it." So we have helicopters, tilt-rotors, APCs, amphibious landing craft, and hovercraft to deliver obsolete but necessary troops to battle.

It offends my libertarian soul that the USA uses ground troops and aircraft carrier task forces and heavy bombers to project power upon other countries. However, I think there would be a lot more brushfire wars and petty dictators in the world if all we had for arms were strategic nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the only use for strategic nuclear weapons is to discourage 9 other countries from using their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs and missiles seem to fit the definition of "useless" when we are confronted by the other 186 countries that don't have nukes.
KaiserJeep 2.0, Neural Subnode 0010 0000 0001 0110 - 1001 0011 0011, Tertiary Adjunct to Unimatrix 0000 0000 0001

Resistance is Futile, YOU will be Assimilated.

Warning: Messages timestamped before April 1, 2016, 06:00 PST were posted by the unmodified human KaiserJeep 1.0
KaiserJeep
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 6094
Joined: Tue 06 Aug 2013, 17:16:32
Location: Wisconsin's Dreamland

Re: Trump: "We are going to have the Space Force"

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 23 Jun 2018, 20:08:15

KaiserJeep wrote:Tanada, please allow for other scenarios of warfare than "final nuclear apocalypse". Those manned bombers you have disparaged for example are extremely usefull in conventional warfare. The Stealth bombers based in Missouri were used in both Gulf Wars. The B-52's based in Diego Garcia and Guam have seen use every few years since Vietnam, and dropped more cumulative ordinance than in WW2. The B-1's offer fast attack options and are 300mph faster than the B-52's. They are extremely effective, and today are targeted via satellite and a B-52 can launch 24 cruise missiles per plane, and a B-1 can launch 14. Although laser guided ordinance still exists, GPS guided munitions see more use. As the saying goes "Fighter pilots make movies, bomber pilots make history."

The two parts of the ground forces that are vulnerable today are surface armor (tanks and APCs) and helicopters, both of which can be destroyed by infantry forces using shoulder-launched missiles. So helicopters are being replaced with tilt-rotor aircraft with longer range and higher speeds.

Also, don't mistake "obsolete" with "ineffective". Infantry for example has been obsolete since WW1 when machine guns and tanks came into use. But infantry is the only way to occupy territory and has options unavailable to heavy weapon systems - as Heinlein noted "If somebody was so foolish as to order us to enter a city and capture all the left-handed redheads, the Mobile Infantry could do it." So we have helicopters, tilt-rotors, APCs, amphibious landing craft, and hovercraft to deliver obsolete but necessary troops to battle.

It offends my libertarian soul that the USA uses ground troops and aircraft carrier task forces and heavy bombers to project power upon other countries. However, I think there would be a lot more brushfire wars and petty dictators in the world if all we had for arms were strategic nuclear weapons. It seems to me that the only use for strategic nuclear weapons is to discourage 9 other countries from using their own nuclear weapons. Nuclear bombs and missiles seem to fit the definition of "useless" when we are confronted by the other 186 countries that don't have nukes.



I wrote a long answer to this but it appears the internet ate it without it ever showing up on the board, which is excessively frustrating.

The gist of the other message is simple.

I am not talking about a ballistically launched nuclear warhead.

I am referring to a ballistically launched kinetic energy kill vehicle hitting one of our large vessels at 4 km/second velocity and making it useless for military purposes even if not sunk outright.

I put in a bunch of stuff about your other objections as well which I also disagree with, but the above is the key point. A GPS guided ballistic reentry kinetic kill vehicle impacting with a velocity of 4 kilometers a second or greater renders your 5 billion dollar ship militarily useless without resorting to nuclear weapons and without the capacity for anyone to intercept. Especially if you use an ICBM with MIRV capability and scatter shot 3, 5 or even 10 KKRV at the carrier sitting alongside the dock. The cost of one ICBM and 1 MIRV KKRV is peanuts compared to the cost of the USS Nimitz, and in a real shooting war our carriers are as useless as the steamship USN Monitor would have been in World War I.
I should be able to change a diaper, plan an invasion, butcher a hog, design a building, write, balance accounts, build a wall, comfort the dying, take orders, give orders, cooperate, act alone, solve equations, pitch manure, program a computer, cook, fight efficiently, die gallantly. Specialization is for insects.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 16142
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Geopolitics & Global Economics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests