Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

US Space Force...

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • US Space Force...

    President Donald Trump has ordered the US military to establish a sixth branch of its armed forces - a "space force".

    The US president said on Monday it would bolster national security and the economy with the creation of jobs.

    "It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space," Mr Trump said at the White House.

    He also promised that the US would "return Americans to the Moon" and would eventually send people to Mars.

    "I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Mr Trump announced, moments after he discussed US and German approaches to immigration .
    https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44527672

    It was just a matter of time before space defense forces were created, I for one welcome the inception of the USSF...
    Credo quia absurdum.


    Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

  • #2
    Would going back to the moon serve any purpose?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
      President Donald Trump has ordered the US military to establish a sixth branch of its armed forces - a "space force".

      The US president said on Monday it would bolster national security and the economy with the creation of jobs.

      "It is not enough to merely have an American presence in space. We must have American dominance in space," Mr Trump said at the White House.

      He also promised that the US would "return Americans to the Moon" and would eventually send people to Mars.

      "I'm hereby directing the Department of Defense and Pentagon to immediately begin the process necessary to establish a space force as the sixth branch of the armed forces," Mr Trump announced, moments after he discussed US and German approaches to immigration .
      https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44527672

      It was just a matter of time before space defense forces were created, I for one welcome the inception of the USSF...
      Let's see if you will welcome the tax bill too...If this i an actual plan, and if the new branch is going to be "separate and equal" then the budget will eventually reflect that too. So take the current AF budget, multiply it by two, and tell us how to pay for it.

      http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/8...-15-165307-390

      Budget: The Air Force “Blue” budget are the funds directly controlled by Air Force management. The enacted FY 2017 blue budget totaled $136.7 billion
      THis is 136 BILLIONS ANNUALLY....

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by pamak View Post

        Let's see if you will welcome the tax bill too...If this i an actual plan, and if the new branch is going to be "separate and equal" then the budget will eventually reflect that too. So take the current AF budget, multiply it by two, and tell us how to pay for it.

        http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/8...-15-165307-390



        THis is 136 BILLIONS ANNUALLY....
        That is the real danger. I personally don't believe it's much of an actual plan to it's fullest extant. More of a ploy of policy, ie Reagan spending the USSR into submission. The biggest difference I see is Reagan understood we needed to rebuild our Armed Forces after the gutting in the 70's. I recall the SNL parody add for the Navy in the late 70's. Build up was necessary on our part. Difference was, we could afford it, he knew they couldn't.

        Plus, I feel our military/aerospace infrastructure necessary to even begin thinking about implementing actual hardware or force projection is far more developed and relatively stable compared to Russian/Chinese systems. We can advertise all the big fancy projects we have "in development" while only spending a few million here and there on research, basically twiddling our thumbs so to speak, while Russia and China would be forced to spend billions catching up to our existing levels of action. Reagan's tactic without the need for spending. Bonus!

        The danger you called out is miscalculating Trump's true motive. Taking the liberal viewpoint...if this is Trump backpocketing the MIC to garner support, it is indeed detrimental to the country's financial situation and sleazy politics as usual, if not nefarious. My gut tells me that's not the case, and so far his track record bears that out. We shall see. Trump has been shown to use diversion with hot button issues to keep his detractors busy while quietly getting things done outside the microscope of the msm. Study his pattern of tweets in relation to events following for more insight.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by pamak View Post

          Let's see if you will welcome the tax bill too...If this i an actual plan, and if the new branch is going to be "separate and equal" then the budget will eventually reflect that too. So take the current AF budget, multiply it by two, and tell us how to pay for it.

          http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/8...-15-165307-390



          THis is 136 BILLIONS ANNUALLY....
          There shouldn't be much of an increase in military spending with the Space Force it's just shifting money and resources from the USAF to the USSF who'll now be in charge of operating the 62 satellites under control of the USAF.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Snowshoveler View Post

            There shouldn't be much of an increase in military spending with the Space Force it's just shifting money and resources from the USAF to the USSF who'll now be in charge of operating the 62 satellites under control of the USAF.
            It is one possible scenario, but I have my reservations about it because Trump's quotes show that he is not content with the level of presence that the US has in space right now. Another problem is that I cannot see how the AF can be happy with a system that lowers the prestige and value of the branch. Taking a single strong branch like the AF is today and create two smaller ones out of it does not seem to be a good idea for either the AF or the leaders of the new Space branch. So, I would not be surprised if the compromise comes in the form of giving away more money to keep everybody happy. In a way, it is the same with every government handout. It is very difficult to reduce them in order to finance new handouts. Most of the times additional programs come through additional spending and an overall increase of the federal government. And although it is true that there are political forces who oppose and occasionally even succeed in reducing funds for certain departments, such commitment requires a certain ideological background. I can see how conservative politicians may be willing to reduce EPA and show a desire to clash with environmentalists, but I do not see them risk their political capital by clashing with the AF guys.

            Comment


            • #7
              I see it as having the high ground. If you can control what even gets into orbit you minimize the chance of a bad actor fielding a FOB system.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracti...ardment_System
              Credo quia absurdum.


              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by pamak View Post

                It is one possible scenario, but I have my reservations about it because Trump's quotes show that he is not content with the level of presence that the US has in space right now. Another problem is that I cannot see how the AF can be happy with a system that lowers the prestige and value of the branch. Taking a single strong branch like the AF is today and create two smaller ones out of it does not seem to be a good idea for either the AF or the leaders of the new Space branch. So, I would not be surprised if the compromise comes in the form of giving away more money to keep everybody happy. In a way, it is the same with every government handout. It is very difficult to reduce them in order to finance new handouts. Most of the times additional programs come through additional spending and an overall increase of the federal government. And although it is true that there are political forces who oppose and occasionally even succeed in reducing funds for certain departments, such commitment requires a certain ideological background. I can see how conservative politicians may be willing to reduce EPA and show a desire to clash with environmentalists, but I do not see them risk their political capital by clashing with the AF guys.
                I think the USAF should return to being part of the US Army, particularly if we do get a "Space Force." The USAF has little role outside supporting US Army operations, even on the strategic level.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                  I think the USAF should return to being part of the US Army, particularly if we do get a "Space Force." The USAF has little role outside supporting US Army operations, even on the strategic level.

                  As a Zoomie Enlisted I present a one figure salute.
                  Credo quia absurdum.


                  Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by pamak View Post

                    It is one possible scenario, but I have my reservations about it because Trump's quotes show that he is not content with the level of presence that the US has in space right now. Another problem is that I cannot see how the AF can be happy with a system that lowers the prestige and value of the branch. Taking a single strong branch like the AF is today and create two smaller ones out of it does not seem to be a good idea for either the AF or the leaders of the new Space branch. So, I would not be surprised if the compromise comes in the form of giving away more money to keep everybody happy. In a way, it is the same with every government handout. It is very difficult to reduce them in order to finance new handouts. Most of the times additional programs come through additional spending and an overall increase of the federal government. And although it is true that there are political forces who oppose and occasionally even succeed in reducing funds for certain departments, such commitment requires a certain ideological background. I can see how conservative politicians may be willing to reduce EPA and show a desire to clash with environmentalists, but I do not see them risk their political capital by clashing with the AF guys.
                    Very true. The Pentagon is more likely to desire a completely seperate entity unto itself, rather than a subset or fracturing of forces. That in turn gets expensive, and as you said, almost always does that mean it's own budget regardless of necessary cut backs. I still see this as a strategic move more than actual implementation. Spend smaller amounts to develop future technology for preparedness purposes (thinking long term outlook) while watching our opponents dig deep now in necessity to keep up. (immediate short term results)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                      I think the USAF should return to being part of the US Army, particularly if we do get a "Space Force." The USAF has little role outside supporting US Army operations, even on the strategic level.
                      At first glance you would appear to be right. However, history shows us why they were seperated into seperate independent branches after WW2. Ideological strategic outlooks in each branch makes advancements cumbersome. I don't believe our AF would be the same effective world dominator force that it is today had it stayed tied under the direction of the army since WW2. Boots on the ground Generals could usually give two sh*ts about flyboys. They think in terms of tanks and divisions. That's where their passion and allegiance lies first. They needed to be seperate to develop to their full potential. Better overlap and interaction could definitely improve, but each have different tactical needs in their development chain. Besides, along with our carrier groups, they - not the army are our true first response force projection. Boots on the ground in large scale is a last resort in today's politically charged battlefield.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Bwaha View Post
                        I see it as having the high ground. If you can control what even gets into orbit you minimize the chance of a bad actor fielding a FOB system.

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fracti...ardment_System
                        Excellent point, though an awfully expensive one in practice and implementation. Do you believe after an honest threat assessment is done that the real world situation warrants such a massive expenditure? I'm usually the first on board with preparedness and forward thinking, but I'm still prudent about weighing it against actual need.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Blackhat View Post

                          At first glance you would appear to be right. However, history shows us why they were seperated into seperate independent branches after WW2. Ideological strategic outlooks in each branch makes advancements cumbersome. I don't believe our AF would be the same effective world dominator force that it is today had it stayed tied under the direction of the army since WW2. Boots on the ground Generals could usually give two sh*ts about flyboys. They think in terms of tanks and divisions. That's where their passion and allegiance lies first. They needed to be seperate to develop to their full potential. Better overlap and interaction could definitely improve, but each have different tactical needs in their development chain. Besides, along with our carrier groups, they - not the army are our true first response force projection. Boots on the ground in large scale is a last resort in today's politically charged battlefield.
                          Since WW 2, the one truly air force mission has been strategic bombardment. Outside of that, they have supported ground operations tactically and operationally. That is, 90% of their mission has been supporting the Army in wars by providing air cover / superiority over the battlefield, destruction of the enemy's rear as what amounts to long range precision artillery, and providing tactical air support to ground operations.

                          As it stands, the single mission the USAF has where they would be operating as a separate service is the mass destruction of some nation in an all-out war with nuclear weapons. The USAF is neither equipped or particularly well trained in missions such as anti-ship operations or maritime surveillance. That is, they don't Navy stuff.

                          So, if their actual operations amount to nothing more than supporting Army ground operations 90% of the time why shouldn't they be part of the Army so things are coordinated better? The small amount of independent stuff they do could easily be handed over and covered by the Army as well. Having ICBM crews as say, in the Army's artillery branch would give those crews a far greater set of advancement options than the USAF offers as but one example.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post

                            Since WW 2, the one truly air force mission has been strategic bombardment. Outside of that, they have supported ground operations tactically and operationally. That is, 90% of their mission has been supporting the Army in wars by providing air cover / superiority over the battlefield, destruction of the enemy's rear as what amounts to long range precision artillery, and providing tactical air support to ground operations.

                            As it stands, the single mission the USAF has where they would be operating as a separate service is the mass destruction of some nation in an all-out war with nuclear weapons. The USAF is neither equipped or particularly well trained in missions such as anti-ship operations or maritime surveillance. That is, they don't Navy stuff.

                            So, if their actual operations amount to nothing more than supporting Army ground operations 90% of the time why shouldn't they be part of the Army so things are coordinated better? The small amount of independent stuff they do could easily be handed over and covered by the Army as well. Having ICBM crews as say, in the Army's artillery branch would give those crews a far greater set of advancement options than the USAF offers as but one example.
                            Good points, all. I tend to think in terms of big picture first and that can sometimes make me overlook the smaller realities. You may have changed my opinion. Still though, as covered here earlier, getting any branch to relinquish autonomy is going to be difficult at best. It may be the most sensible, but good luck pulling it off.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Maybe we should consider remodeling our Air Force and Missile Commands along the same lines as the old Soviet Union, since they should be serving different goals in warfare.

                              Ground support is the role of the Air Force, since it seems unlikely that bombers will play much part n an actual nuclear war, being far to vulnerable to interception and destruct by any umber of means.

                              Projecting power if a naval role, but maritime operations even for something as ordinary as securing our national borders should be a major capability of the Air Force, and yet it is only really the fighter bombers that have much of that capability and they lack the range of the heavies.

                              Meanwhile, without many people even noticing, the cost of those "smart weapons" has risen to the point where it is literally more cost effective and cheaper by far to drop a crate full of money on the target...or a big box of rocks. Much of that, of course, is based on our own psychotic need to employ weapons of massive destruction without actually killing anybody.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X