Jump to content
News Ticker
  • IPB version 4.2 installed!
    Chatbox

    Load More
    You don't have permission to chat.
  • Announcements

    • Commander RayCav

      CRITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT - THE FATE OF ASVS IS EFFECTED BY THIS DEVELOPMENT   03/02/2018

      The Orville >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ad infinium >>>>>>> ST: Discovery (aka Star Trek: PTSD) and Tilly is still a meme character. Carry on.
    • Commander RayCav

      Memorial Announcement for Gear of Troll Kingdom   04/02/2018

      As far as I'm aware he wasn't a member but some members of this board crossed over. Khas has told me he died of cancer, and regardless what community he will be missed.
    • Commander RayCav

      PLEASE READ - tagging me on Facebook and my retirement   04/09/2018

      It has come to my attention that I'm being tagged on Facebook posts by members of ASVS including the administration and moderatorship here. As I use that Facebook profile strictly for professional development...I have to request that you guys stop. I'm not kidding when I say it might become a serious liability, especially since I work in an industry extremely sensitive to things we joke about here. And with that, it has also come to my attention that the entire Commander RayCav persona has also become a liability towards my continued professional development - and so as of this moment I've decided to permanently retire it. I'm shutting this account down and I'm surrendering all moderatorship and administratorship responsibilities and privileges. I'll reregister under a new name as a regular member.

Recommended Posts

First of all I agree with Brian's fundamental premise that one needs only have the tools available that can do the job that needs to be done.  Extras are just nice to have.  Nonetheless I do take issue with some of the statements he makes in his efforts to support this fundamentally sound theorem.

 

1) Having something is always better than nothing.

 

Provided the "something" in question is capable of fulfilling the tasks it is set this is true.  If it isn't, then there are circumstances in which it can be worse than useless.  The Husnok attack on Rana IV was one such situation - a Miranda close enough to reach the planet while the attack was in progress would have done nothing but get another two hundred people killed, just as the "live bait squadron" should never have been sent to patrol the Broad Fourteens in September 1914.

 

2) Lots of average ships/planes are better than a few great ones.

 

This depends on the definition of "average".  The TIE example works, because TIEs are clearly capable of engaging and defeating X-wings, and indeed have a far superior kill/loss ratio (partially because of the circumstances of the Death Star runs).  The Mustang example does not because it looks at one narrow situation, and fails to consider the range of threats the NORAD area has to be concerned about.  Yes, a swarm of Mustangs would have been more effective against AQ's method of attack than half a dozen modern fast jets.  Against Bears, Backfires, Blackjacks, Flankers and Fulcrums they would be useless, and the damage they are capable of inflicting is vastly greater than that inflicted on New York and Washington.

 

3) Speed vs manoeuvrability.

 

Brian is correct that speed kills, and is wrong to assert that a defensive mission changes that.  Forcing fighters to remain at low speed and within a certain distance of whatever they're defending is stupid, because it robs them of the initiative and leaves them sitting ducks.  It's ironic that he uses the US bomber offensive against Germany to support this point, because until early 1944 VIII Bomber Command used precisely the tactics he describes and was getting the shit kicked out of it as a result.  It wasn't until Jimmy Doolittle took command, took the fighters off close escort duty and ordered them to go and find the Luftwaffe and destroy it that the air war swung in favour of the 8th Air Force.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DSG2k    4

Curiously, I find myself in general agreement. I'll be checking myself into the ER after this post. ;-)

 

I made a point not to read the thread before watching the video. The Mustang bit really threw me, as well. In a world of less-finite resources (including payroll) an armed Mustang wing of the Civil Air Patrol might be a nifty idea, but then so would air defense cannons around every town and an EMP-hardened grid and yadda-yadda-yadda. For that matter, why not build a thousand Constitution Class ships (here referring to copies of the wooden one) as a coast guard in addition to what we have now, so you have the same rationale.

 

Put simply, I am not completely clear on what exactly he was trying to argue, other than the general notion of applying modern combined (naval) arms to Trek so as to be able to claim deficiencies. The flipside would be to note that we hardly have any fighters anymore, opting instead for multi-role aircraft (e.g. the conversion of F-14s to bombers back in the day). By his apparent logic, I don't think he would accept multi-role starships as a viable 'strategery'.

 

I presume he was also trying to make excuses for some franchise's weak smaller vessels, but I'm not clear on whether he thought he was defending B5 (his favorite storyline) or Star Wars (his favorite military & tech). It was just sorta pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ted C    12

1) Having something is always better than nothing.

 

Provided the "something" in question is capable of fulfilling the tasks it is set this is true.  If it isn't, then there are circumstances in which it can be worse than useless.  The Husnok attack on Rana IV was one such situation - a Miranda close enough to reach the planet while the attack was in progress would have done nothing but get another two hundred people killed, just as the "live bait squadron" should never have been sent to patrol the Broad Fourteens in September 1914.

 

2) Lots of average ships/planes are better than a few great ones.

 

This depends on the definition of "average".  The TIE example works, because TIEs are clearly capable of engaging and defeating X-wings, and indeed have a far superior kill/loss ratio (partially because of the circumstances of the Death Star runs).  The Mustang example does not because it looks at one narrow situation, and fails to consider the range of threats the NORAD area has to be concerned about.  Yes, a swarm of Mustangs would have been more effective against AQ's method of attack than half a dozen modern fast jets.  Against Bears, Backfires, Blackjacks, Flankers and Fulcrums they would be useless, and the damage they are capable of inflicting is vastly greater than that inflicted on New York and Washington.

 

I'm with you on 1: if all you can do by showing up is to just become an additional loss, you might as well not show up at all. Brian did argue, however, that a government that makes no effort to protect it's citizens, even if it's unlikely to succeed, is going to quickly lose favor with the populace.

 

2 deals with effective use of resources. In WW2, Germany kept trying to design and build newer and better tanks and planes, while the Allies concentrated on cranking out more of the tanks and planes they already had (making occasional tweaks where they could, such as figuring out how to up-gun the Sherman). It worked out for the Allies, obviously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2 deals with effective use of resources. In WW2, Germany kept trying to design and build newer and better tanks and planes, while the Allies concentrated on cranking out more of the tanks and planes they already had (making occasional tweaks where they could, such as figuring out how to up-gun the Sherman). It worked out for the Allies, obviously.

 

Indeed, because the Sherman, despite its numerous uncomplimentary nicknames, was good enough to get the job done, especially once the Firefly was available in large enough numbers to provide one per troop.  Brian uses the example of P-51s being better that F15/16s because you can produce far more of them, and they're just as effective against hijacked airliners.  That's the equivalent of building Bren gun carriers instead of Shermans because you can build far more of them and they're almost as effective against riflemen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ted C    12

Indeed, because the Sherman, despite its numerous uncomplimentary nicknames, was good enough to get the job done, especially once the Firefly was available in large enough numbers to provide one per troop.  Brian uses the example of P-51s being better that F15/16s because you can produce far more of them, and they're just as effective against hijacked airliners.  That's the equivalent of building Bren gun carriers instead of Shermans because you can build far more of them and they're almost as effective against riflemen.

 

I think his point was more that having the best (and most expensive) equipment is not always in your favor situationally. On 9/11, having a dozen or more P-51s in the air would have been more useful than a few F-16s on the ground, because on that day, the P-51s could have intercepted the hijacked planes and shot them down.

 

It goes without saying that modern jets would obliterate P-51s in a fight.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think his point was more that having the best (and most expensive) equipment is not always in your favor situationally. On 9/11, having a dozen or more P-51s in the air would have been more useful than a few F-16s on the ground, because on that day, the P-51s could have intercepted the hijacked planes and shot them down.

 

It goes without saying that modern jets would obliterate P-51s in a fight.

 

I understand what his point was, and I agree with it to a certain extent.  The problem is that the example he used to try and illustrate the point is idiotic, to the extent of being counter-productive. Yes, having thousands of P-51s would be superior to a few F16s in dealing with that precise situation, but to do all the other jobs a modern air force has to do, and either do far more frequently, or for which the consequences of failure make 9/11 look trivial, P-51s are utterly useless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ted C    12

I understand what his point was, and I agree with it to a certain extent.  The problem is that the example he used to try and illustrate the point is idiotic, to the extent of being counter-productive. Yes, having thousands of P-51s would be superior to a few F16s in dealing with that precise situation, but to do all the other jobs a modern air force has to do, and either do far more frequently, or for which the consequences of failure make 9/11 look trivial, P-51s are utterly useless.

 

Fair enough, but is it really all that unusual to see an extreme example used to illustrate a point?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Young    11,994

Howdy Captain, I stumbled in looking for a quote, and saw that you had some questions.

The example is not that complicated. I never said that using 70 year old planes was a good thing for NORAD to do in countering modern fighter jets. That's crazy. I said it would have been better on 9/11.

The point is effective for these reasons:

*It is an effective demonstration of how numbers and location are even more important than technology. It wouldn't matter if those 2 armed planes were X-Wings instead of F-15s, if they were too far away to help *in any way whatsoever*. An old plane that can accomplish the task (somehow you missed this), in greater numbers would be better in such a situation.

*P-51s are about 70 years old, which is very much like Excelsior Class ships or Miranda Class ships in the TNG era. Defending the use of those older ships in the Dominion War was part of the point in the video.

*As I said, in this situation, the plane could get the job done. You seem to have grown the argument a third arm to make it seem as if I was promoting the use of numbers of *anything*, over *anything*, and in *any* scenario. I said at least twice that the plane could accomplish the task, and of course that is key. I've ALSO said in the past that even the Red Barron couldn't defeat Maverick and Goose in an F-14, because the plane is too far outclassed.

*As Ted said, it is *meant* to be an extreme example, in hopes of making a point.

*It also sets the proper mindset to discuss TIE fighters, which immediately follows.

 

So, I'm sorry if the point was confusing. All the people who previewed it seemed to understand and approve.

 

Great to see you guys are still on here and still conversing. I'm terribly busy, and I don't know when I'd be able to participate regularly. I do miss you guys. I'm working 10-12 hours a day, and have even supplemented on weekends some. As I've mentioned before, I only get a few hours a week to myself, when the babies aren't here, and have to use it to the greatest effect.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Young    11,994
On 11/6/2017 at 10:13 PM, Commander RayCav said:

I'm way too super lazy to go back and actually read the original passage or the video or whatever the hell,

 

Gosh, you could have watched the video in question in the amount of time it took to type that wall of text. Then you would have understood what it was about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Young    11,994

Because nothing you said had anything to do with the video, which you yourself admitted right out of the gate you haven’t even seen.

Since you still haven’t seen it, I’ll sum up the point. On 9/11/2001, terrorits attacked the United States. They used 4 passenger planes. The mighty US Air Force only managed to get 4 planes in the air, and didn’t intercept any of the terrorist planes.

This is not a technology problem. It is not a capability problem. They were F15’s and F16’s. But they couldn’t get the job done. It is a logistics problem.

Case in point, a P51 could shoot down an *unarmed passenger plane*.

for the price of 4 modern jets, they could have used 4,000 P51’s, which could have defended the eastern seaboard. Because it flies as fast and as high as *an unarmed passenger plane*.

what that has to do with pitting the P51 against modern fighter jets is beyond me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IkaikaKekai    10,518

Chiming in here.  I also don't know what the original subject was about but I see some flaws in your thinking.

While P51s COULD have shot down a passenger jet on 9/11 there's more to it than that.  Top speed of a Mustang was around 440MPH, cruising speed of a jetliner is around 540. though they can go much faster.  Not only would they have needed to be in the air and actively patrolling, they would need to have orders to shoot down anything that looks suspicious.  Not something that would be likely in peacetime.  Let's say that the alarm did go out and a couple P51s did move to intercept, they would have only a minute or two to shoot down the plane once they got within range (assuming they are armed only with their .50s and not 'modernized' with a payload of Sparrows or Sidewinders).   You mention the problem of logistics, sure you could have 4,000 P51s in inventory, but how many qualified pilots do you think we had back then?  Today we're having problems with the airforce and navy having enough pilots for the more capable (and expensive) aircraft we have.

Now I do agree that older tech should not just be thrown away.  Some of our Spec Ops are using Aircraft that are currently on loan from the civilian programs they were 'retired' to to see if slower prop planes would make better ground attack/support craft than F15s and those super expensive F35s.  One of the 'replacement/not replacement candidates for the A10 is a turboprop that's used in pilot training with some helfires slung under the wings.  I myself often wonder how a Sailing Ship like the Constitution or Cutter rigged Sloop would do in a coast guard role (a pair of 76mm cannons and a torpedo/missile launcher on each side of the gun deck, M2s and Mk19s in place of swivel guns, ect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brian Young    11,994

So you haven’t seen the video either?

http://www.scifights.net/usefulstarships.mp4

It’s all about logistics. The P51, which actually comes up twice in the video, is but one example I used to demonstrate that, in a lot of situations, having a less capable craft which is ON SITE is far better than having a more capable craft which isn’t.

Location, location, location.

The Mighty US Air Force, the most advanced in the world, didn’t intercept a single plane.

The argument is that even a P51 could shoot down a passenger plane, let alone an F15, assuming it was on site. There are lots of situations where an older or less capable craft can improve the logistical situation. There are lots and lots of things in warfare to do other than taking on the enemy’s most powerful craft head to head. In fact, unarmed freighters did more to win WWII than all the battleships combined.

it all leads up to defending older starships used by the Federation in DS9. Sure, Excelsiors and Mirandas can’t handle Jem’Hadar ships head to head, but there are hundreds of things they CAN do just as well as a Galaxy. Like rescue survivors. Like transport troops or supplies. They can be effective in making war, even if not in making combat.

Also, there are situations where different capabilities can make a craft superior, and I talk about Starfuries for defending convoys. It doesn’t make it a superior craft OVERALL, but it can certainly be useful, and even better at a thing or two here and there, simply because the capabilities are different.

It seems that most discussions revolve around direct head to head comparisons, when that is actually fairly rare in warfare. An awful lot of things happen in a war, and improving one’s logistical situation is usually a good idea. This seems to me a reasonable standpoint, and a reasonably clear commentary in the video. It is probably worth watching, at least as much as it is worth a critique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IkaikaKekai    10,518

Still watching the video and I do have to agree with you, just nitpicking the one example you used (more in that the hijackers had a heavy element of surprise).  Probably a better example to use would be say using F14s for patrols and escorts instead of the extremely expensive and probably overpowered F35 for the same role, you don't need Stealth and VTOL for a patrol.  As you mentioned with the A10, it's a good ground attack craft because it can go slower and loiter for a long time.  P51s would be well suited for a modern day ground attack role as opposed to an Air Superiority/intercepter role that you suggested.  They can get in fast, strafe soft/medium targets with it's .50s, launch modern munitions against hard targets, linger for a while then get out fast.  They can land on improvised airstrips that could be made with a bulldozer out in the desert instead of needing to launch/land from a carrier or air base with a runway that took days to build.

Putting older equipment into new/other roles is often used, like your NX01 example.  As a warship (which it was never intended to be) it'd be toasted by probably even a modern bird of prey.  Now if it's used as a hospital ship or a transport it'll do well.  M3 Lee tanks became outclassed early in WW2, so when they started producing Shermans, they used the Lee design with modifications to make Self Propelled Guns, Tank Destroyers, and Armored Recovery Vehicles, and as Lees were taken out of service they were either used in rear echelon role, parts, or converted to the new purposes.  In Star Wars the rebellion uses pretty much whatever they can get their hands on, sometimes they can get top of the line purpose built new stuff like Xwings, Bwings, Mon Cal Cruisers, but the majority of their equipment is usually surplus equipment or converted civilian equipment.  A stolen Yacht becomes a hospital ship, a container cargo vessel with a heavy gun welded to the hull becomes a destroyer, a 'air tugboat' gets a couple cannons mounted on it and it takes down something as heavily armored as a AT-AT (with its original tow hook, not the cannons that were added to it)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
IkaikaKekai    10,518

Speaking of 'Older Equipment', the US Military is now thinking about bringing back the F14 (with upgrades) for its original design/purpose, Air Superiority, as opposed to using more expensive and slower Multirole Craft like the F22 and F35 (although the F22 comes WAY closer to the F14's top speed, around 100 mph slower, opposed to the 4,000 mph slower with the F35)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×