What? You mean giant overpriced carriers aren't that useful in a real war?
It's almost like they're a scheme to funnel money into some industry
Milsums are known to be rather shitty.
It's essentially using all of the bogus Russian/Chinese claims of their "super missiles that can shoot down planes anywhere" and running their military at 120% efficiency non-stop and can exploit every single advantage possible in an effort to find areas that need to be improved on.
Which translates down to "we need more funding".
I did frequently hear claims however that in joint exercises US troops regularly can't act like their enemies aren't underequipped insurgents and constantly fail to maintain things like radio silence.
Not to be ‘that guy’ but the British (underfunded, undermanned) regulars dick on you guys in every exercise. I’m open to the idea that you rely too heavily on technology as opposed to actual strategy.
I've heard fantastic anecdotes (anecdotes emphatic, mind) of how US soldiers used to be warned not to play UK or other Commonwealth troops at cards because they'd had a spate of soldiers ending up straight up bankrupt as a result. Said person telling me this anecdote deadass told me he didn't listen and ended up losing about $150 to some Brits.
They're actually rather useful, and a long-term investment. Compared to a conventional airbase you don't automatically know it's location and thus can't just throw munitions at it and expect to hit. Removing a carrier just cuts into the number available - putting more strain on the already understrength for the roles they want to fill fleet.
It would be a false economy to 'save' the money that way, and would come back to bite later on when you need to pay the full price of a modern carrier sooner just because you didn't want to pay less to keep an older one running.
Aren't war games rather biased towards America too?
That's true The article mentions the F35s vulnerability to attack while on the ground and advantages of mobile or ad-hoc airbases utilising its VTOL capability. Carriers are obviously one such case.
I'm gonna disagree with you.
Carriers are in their essence mobile airfields, providing stroke craft,bombers,helicopters, and other small aircraft the ability to strike fueler and deeper instead of being limited on having to get to their air base. It's one the reasons why we have such amazing force projections compared to any other nation. That and carrier battle groups being supplemented by Arleigh Burkes which run one a damned good counter-battery suite that is interlaced with F-35s and F-22s. You have mobile bases that are capable of extending the range of air craft by hundreds and hundreds of miles while always being on the move.
The point was that the planes and ships aren't sufficiently protected against bombs and missiles. It's suggested the US has skimped on anti-air and anti-missile because they've not properly considered that such technology is now available in abundance among adversaries, and are now suffering from it. That's not really a stupid statement.
So the US has trouble stopping a combined effort of two major military powers from orverruning a poorly defended ally that neighbors one of said enemy powers? All of which is on the other side of the globe from the US?
Reality check: it isn't worth it. Those allies cannot be saved.
Which is all a moot point. If the Russians and Chinese decide to start invading by force, it is time to end it. Drop a nuke on troop buildups. Start with one. On a military target. If they decide to escalate to full scale nuclear war, then let's be honest, it was ALWAYS going to end that way. They were going to keep taking g territory until nuclear was the only option. If they don't, and instead retreat, then we can stop their military escapades fullstop. Save millions of lives in the process and draw a line in the sand.
We aren't going to have direct military conflict with Russia and China on the scale described here.
I mean we run a counter-battery suite that links with F-35s in the air and with the ships. This isn't classified knowledge FYI.
But the F-35s can run sorties and using what ever electronic warfare systems they have, combined with our AWACS planes(We have a lot of these). We can essentially crate dummy plane,ship and interceptor signals(our counter battery) to fool the enemy missile into detonating early or missing their mark entirely, while having to launch less of our own missiles that will actually intercept the ones they didn't get fooled by the fake signals. F-35s also act as an advanced OTH radar, which our carriers and Burke AEGIS systems can utilize and prepare counter battery fire.
If China and Russia team up to start invading countries, by force, that are allied with the US. The end has already happened.
It isn't a suggestion I make lightly. When I started the post, I hadn't even considered it, but quickly realized how fucked things are if it happens.
Please, if you see another valid option, share it, I'm certainly not happy or sold on this one. It just seems like the best of shit options.
If they start invading, we have a limited number of responses that I can see:
1.) Do nothing. This will, undoubtedly, embolden them. They will continue to push the limit. They will continue to invade nation's by force. Millions will die.
2.) Do what these war games suggest. Attempt to win a situation that is strategically unwinnable. We will be fighting a real modernized military on the far side of the globe. We will fail and possibly collapse economically. Again, more invasions will happen. Millions dead. Literally near global tyranny.
3.) Don't protect the invaded nations, but instead launch conventional long range attacks with strategic bombers and cruise missiles against mainland China or Russia. This will, inevitably, escalate into full scale war. Again. Millions dead.
4.) Full nuclear. Target Moscow, Beijing, etc. Billions dead. Apocalypse.
Which brings us to the cold war option and the reason tactical nuclear warheads were built.
Hit a military target, preferably a major buildup of an invasion force, with a low yield nuclear weapon and fucking HOPE that it is enough to establish that we aren't fucking around, but that we don't want full scale nuclear war. It seems like the only option where the invading forces suffer the bulk of the casualties and has an option where millions don't die.
I recognize that it is a gamble, a shit one too, but frankly all of them lead to wide scale global destabilization with a high potential for billions to die.
While the Air Force and Navy took most of the flak today at this afternoon’s Center for a New American Security panel on the need for “A New American Way of War.” the Army doesn’t look too great, either. Its huge supply bases go up in smoke as well, Work and Ochmanek said. Its tank brigades get shot up by cruise missiles, drones, and helicopters because the Army largely got rid of its mobile anti-aircraft troops, a shortfall it’s now hastening to correct. And its missile defense units get overwhelmed by the sheer volume of incoming fire.
this seems like the most ridiculous flaw, the army has had a mobile AA issue since ww2, they just can't find a mobile gun they're happy with
Yeah just build a 100% undetectable stealth missile guys. Perhaps support them with some invincible tanks as well.
SPEND MORE MONEY ON THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX OR YOU AND YOUR FAMILY WILL DIE IN HELLFIRE
ARE YOU SCARED YET?
VOTE TO SPEND MORE MONEY ON THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX
https://www.armytimes.com/resizer/4Q-hBnBilyLr-TlK7_enK3S2Ltk=/1200x0/filters:quality(100)/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-mco.s3.amazonaws.com/public/REXGA2KHG5AO3G3TWJAZFD7BDU.JPG
its not like they aren't thinking about it. sure nothing is ever going to be undetectable but tactical nukes are not the answer either
The moment you fully automate war is the moment we're fucked anyway.
lol hello Douglas MacArthur
Have you considered the possibility that you don't understand application of force nor military tactics to a depth great enough to make claims about initializing a nuclear exchange?
Have you considered the possibility that you grossly underestimate the gravity of a close military alliance between China and Russia where they decide to start invading sovereign territory openly?
Red Flag isn't as biased as war games, even though it's kind of a big war game. It lets all of our allies bring their best shit and simulate a big ass air war to the best of everyone's abilities. And with the F-35 and F-22 in the air, it's clear that our asses would not be handed to us, at least not in the air. And if you control the air, you control the battlefield
The article makes a point of stating that the money can be found already within the budget set for the military, it doesn't need to be increased at all.
Realistically speaking, you never know how the flow of a war will ever turn out. However I'm US military and super extremely biased when I say this claim.
I do not believe Russia or China would ever be able to outclass the US in a traditional war. Combined they have a significantly greater chance at doing such, through if we factor US allies in, then they still lose.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
