To call that statement "extravagant" would be a generosity. It is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven in advance.
As for fewer breakdowns meaning less reliance on supply chains, you have it exactly backwards: to achieve fewer breakdowns requires a GREATER reliance on a (superior) supply chain.
To call that statement "extravagant" would be a generosity. It is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven in advance.
As for fewer breakdowns meaning less reliance on supply chains, you have it exactly backwards: to achieve fewer breakdowns requires a GREATER reliance on a (superior) supply chain.
There is no air defense system that can counter hypersonic missiles and their ranges are longer than an aircraft carrier’s fighters. How can that not mean that every ship is a sitting duck?
I see what you mean on the supply chain. Maybe the increased operational tempo means that there are more spare parts, repair equipment, personnel closer to the front lines which would mean more logistics not less.
Every ship from the US would be a sitting duck?
To call that statement "extravagant" would be a generosity. It is an assumption that cannot possibly be proven in advance.
As for fewer breakdowns meaning less reliance on supply chains, you have it exactly backwards: to achieve fewer breakdowns requires a GREATER reliance on a (superior) supply chain.
There is no air defense system that can counter hypersonic missiles and their ranges are longer than an aircraft carrier’s fighters. How can that not mean that every ship is a sitting duck?
I see what you mean on the supply chain. Maybe the increased operational tempo means that there are more spare parts, repair equipment, personnel closer to the front lines which would mean more logistics not less.