Re: Close Orbit Support (COS) a.k.a. CSS (Close Space Support)

--- Glenn M Wilson <triphibious@juno.com> wrote:

> In my simple mind I think the Air Force priorities
> should be (with
> flexibility for tactical situations) Reconaissance
> (including space,) Air
> Superiority, Transportation, CAS and then
> Interdiction.  I am sure I left
> out a mission or two in the above but I'm doing this
> without notes...

I like CAS more than I like Transportation, but then
I'm heavy.  If I fly to war, it's in a charter
airliner to meet up with a prepositioned set of
equipment.
 
> I see this as primarily a FT Fighter (optimized for
> space) versus fighter
> (optimised for air and lacking all the weioght
> needed for space gear)

Would be an interesting matchup--although to achieve
the speeds they'd have to be going in space, those FT
fighters are going to have whopping big engine and a
big edge in speed.  Aerospace fighters will have to
make up for it in maneuverability--and pray that they
don't have to deal with OTH missles.  Because if you
think an AWACs airplane make air combat too easy, just
wait until you can put it in space and have it cover a
whole hemisphere.

> You think the USAF guys don't like attacking into
> the teeth of ground defenses?  The guys in Space 
> would be even less prone to get down into
> the land forces dirty little world.  

Urm. . . True.	I imagine supressing planetary
defenses would be the first step of any invasion--just
like plinking coastal defenses would be step of an
amphibious operation (at least those coastal defenses
capable of sinking an LST).  This is the realm of
those cloaked destroyers armed with SLMs with
land-attack warheads that I was advocating yesterday.

John

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Send your FREE holiday greetings online!
http://greetings.yahoo.com