The wars are so complex systems that there is no magical wining strategy. When I propose a strategy, I address the root first and come up with ideas to strengthen it. It can be seen on my latest fighter jet idea.
I personally thought of some performance criteria to measure the effectiveness of a military strategy. It is the effective presence on the battlefield. Let me explain it on an example:
There is a fighter plane on the battlefield that carries 10 missiles. The plane has a combat radius of 1000 km and is a conventional take-off and landing (CTOL) plane. The military airport is 200 km from the battlefield. This plane has to travel at least 400km for every sortie.
On the other hand, there is another plane that carries 12 missiles with a combat radius of 1200 km and is a vertical take-off and landing (VTOL) type. Because of plane’s VTOL capability the plane has to travel at least 50km for every sortie.
The later plane can stay longer at the battlefield than the first one for every sortie. Therefore, would be more effective.
For example, if you want to achieve a military goal, you may calculate the minimum presence requirement at a certain location.
With these measures, more mobile units are more advantageous while they can be relocated fast. In that sense, aerial units are superior to the land units. The biggest weakness of most aerial units is their requirement of a large airport. Stationary locations are the weakest points of an army. The more flexible the army is the more difficult to offend against it.
By looking at these criteria, I concluded that fuel-efficient low-cost VTOL bombers would play a key role on a modern army. VTOL’s would carry short range missiles to the close proximity of the target, negating the need for more expensive long range missiles.
No comments :
Post a Comment