Interestingly, Heinlein's _Starship Troopers_ is the only book, other than _The Bible_ to be on the reading lists of _all_ the U.S. Service Academies.
That said, while the Marines dream about powered armor and self-deploying troops, the reality is nowhere near that yet.
As noted, one needs to have control of the LZ --- if that weren't critical, then Spec. Ops. would have actually done something with the idea of putting pods containing soldiers under the wings of Harrier jump jets, and the V-22 Osprey would have a forward-firing weapon --- keeping control of an airfield is hard, which is why AF Sec. Police train to fight against Spetsnaz and the U.S. had RoK Marines guarding their bases during Vietnam.
What does a supply chain look like in a time of drone warfare? How does one control a perimeter and maintain the surface of a runway against an opponent which is well-equipped? (For an example of how critical that can be, see AF-4590)
Starship Troopers is on the reading list because of politics of the books, not technical warfighting side. There is also interesting passage in there about how Service Academies are insane idea since books has chapters on officers in infantry are enlisted personnel who go to OCS and training period with much higher washout rate.
I would say it's more about the discussion of morality and specifically the morality of actions in war and not the politics of war, though they are linked.
The lesson of the Skinnies is quite jarring for someone that didn't go through WW2. Earth outright terrorizes the Skinnies into submission.
You have no idea what you’re talking about. An Osprey doesn’t have a “forward firing weapon” because Direct Action Penetrators followed by -47s from the 160th are better suited to such a scenario.
On the topic of USAF security forces training to fight Spetsnaz…lol.
SpaceX is reusing spaceships, landing them, catching rockets in chopstick contraptions. But a spaceship that lands near its launchpad can also land anywhere in the world. In an hour. Loaded with military might.
No - no they can't. Referencing Starship Troopers is appropriate because this is fiction.
It's an old military dream; Ithacus [0] was a 1966 concept for a vertical take-off, vertical landing troop transport rocket that could put 1200 soldiers plus materiel anywhere in the world in an hour. Issues that others have brought up here (like the vehicle being mistaken for a nuclear missile) were brought up then, and the obvious flaws killed the project.
As [0] points out, and as I vividly recall from the antiquated books of my childhood, a similar concept was prominent in the 1979 Usborne Book of the Future. The idea of being able to put boots on the ground anywhere within an hour is probably still a military dream somewhere, although I don't think US doctrine has a place for that right now, since achieving air supremacy over the theater, a prerequisite to boots on the ground, would probably take longer than an hour.
Don’t need air supremacy if the boots are attached to ground drones. We’re not far off from a starship equivalent deploying a cloud of ground and air drones, some of which could help effect the air supremacy required. Like rapid dragon but more variations of deployed materiel and…a lot more rapid.
Why would you try to land the rocket at the destination rather than re entering a pod and parachuting its contents past critical burn independently? We already do high speed spy plane HALO since the 1960’s, this would be more controlled and the rocket could bring massive payloads like tanks.
It would be more useful for the launch vehicle to return to its original pad for relaunch. It’s not like you’re going to refuel and refit it on the battlefield.
I don't see why a drop ship needs to be all that sophisticated. A parachute and some shipping crates and send the rocket home from orbit, don't risk it.
I think the author significantly underestimates the supply consumption of land forces in combat. You’ve got food, ammunition, spare parts, medicine, tents, shovels, uniforms, fuel, the list goes on. US military planners in 1943 estimated that infantry units in combat consume roughly 4.4 tons of supplies per person per month (13.1 tons for armored units). In modern combat that is probably an underestimate. That means to support a single infantry brigade combat team (4,413 people, last I checked) you would need a starship flight about every 6 hours! And that’s about the smallest unit you could deploy on its own.
Yeah, it’s about as much as a C-5 galaxy. But air-based sustainment is also largely impractical at scale. Sustainment is still firmly in the realm of ships. Airplanes (and space ships) can deliver with very low latency, but nothing matches the bandwidth of ships and rail
I see two major problems just from a surface reading:
1. Sending multiple large rockets on a ballistic trajectory might look like a nuclear attack.
2. Landing a rocket on a flat concrete pad in clear weather is vastly different from trying to land something on terrain while dodging surface to air missiles.
I also think the surprise factor is overrated. Any nation state with satellites would be able to spot you moving a lot of equipment around.
Readit News
That said, while the Marines dream about powered armor and self-deploying troops, the reality is nowhere near that yet.
As noted, one needs to have control of the LZ --- if that weren't critical, then Spec. Ops. would have actually done something with the idea of putting pods containing soldiers under the wings of Harrier jump jets, and the V-22 Osprey would have a forward-firing weapon --- keeping control of an airfield is hard, which is why AF Sec. Police train to fight against Spetsnaz and the U.S. had RoK Marines guarding their bases during Vietnam.
What does a supply chain look like in a time of drone warfare? How does one control a perimeter and maintain the surface of a runway against an opponent which is well-equipped? (For an example of how critical that can be, see AF-4590)
The lesson of the Skinnies is quite jarring for someone that didn't go through WW2. Earth outright terrorizes the Skinnies into submission.
On the topic of USAF security forces training to fight Spetsnaz…lol.
https://youtu.be/Kn9iznJZ9Do?si=3a_LALC2Yx0KEE1z
No - no they can't. Referencing Starship Troopers is appropriate because this is fiction.
As [0] points out, and as I vividly recall from the antiquated books of my childhood, a similar concept was prominent in the 1979 Usborne Book of the Future. The idea of being able to put boots on the ground anywhere within an hour is probably still a military dream somewhere, although I don't think US doctrine has a place for that right now, since achieving air supremacy over the theater, a prerequisite to boots on the ground, would probably take longer than an hour.
[0] https://blog.firedrake.org/archive/2015/12/Ithacus_and_SUSTA...
It would be more useful for the launch vehicle to return to its original pad for relaunch. It’s not like you’re going to refuel and refit it on the battlefield.
Deleted Comment
> Why not instead point your Starships at their capital city?
Can’t think of a single thing that could possibly go wrong with sending a few dozen ballistic projectiles toward the enemy’s capital.
> Why would you do any of that if you could deliver 300,000 pounds on a Starship anywhere in the world in an hour?
How much does it cost to destroy that vehicle and its 300,000 pounds of cargo before it lands?
Dead Comment
Yeah, it’s about as much as a C-5 galaxy. But air-based sustainment is also largely impractical at scale. Sustainment is still firmly in the realm of ships. Airplanes (and space ships) can deliver with very low latency, but nothing matches the bandwidth of ships and rail
1. Sending multiple large rockets on a ballistic trajectory might look like a nuclear attack.
2. Landing a rocket on a flat concrete pad in clear weather is vastly different from trying to land something on terrain while dodging surface to air missiles.
I also think the surprise factor is overrated. Any nation state with satellites would be able to spot you moving a lot of equipment around.
I'm sure no one has ever thought of that! O:-)
The concept is great, I don’t see it surviving that first “punch to the mouth”.