NationStates Jolt Archive

Well, I hear the US Air Force would have to pay 200 billion USD for those new F-35s :D

as for the military restructure, I do hope the military will began changing their plans for urban warfare.

Air Force officials are warning that unless their budget is increased dramatically, and soon, the military's high-flying branch won't dominate the skies as it has for decades.

After more than seven years of war in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Air Force's aging jet fighters, bombers, cargo aircraft and gunships are at the breaking point, they say, and expensive, ultramodern replacements are needed fast.

...

An extra $20 billion each year over the next five -- beginning with an Air Force budget of about $137 billion in 2009 instead of the $117 billion proposed by the Bush administration -- would solve that problem, according to Selva and other senior Air Force officers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/18/airforce.wornout.ap/index.html

I'm going to say it once and only once...Bush's war is making America less safe.

I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

We've also got to tailor the armed forces to fight the low-intensity, urban, insurgency based fighting that is already shaping up to be the new way of warfare in the 21st century. We've got enough nukes to ensure that conventional threats such as Russia and China either have to fold or call when they decide to bluff. We should focus on maintaining a technological edge while scaling back in numbers and focusing on the ability to shift to wartime production IF NECESSARY.

Most of all we've GOT to start playing hardball with the MI complex and start eliminating the vast amounts of waste that go on daily in the Department of Defense.

Thoughts?

*didn't see any previous thread...was kinda suprised, but maybe I missed it

USAF needs more money like an alcoholic needs a drink. Iraq should be a wakeup call that we have fucked up big time by not including comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis in defense policy.

Bake sales FTW! :)

I can already see the girl scouts selling a gazillion cookies just to buy a single new aircraft! :p

Bake sales FTW! :)

I wonder...how much chocolate would it take to bake twenty billion dollars worth of cookies?

I wonder...how much chocolate would it take to bake twenty billion dollars worth of cookies?

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/235465.jpg

:)

maybe corporate sponsorship could be an idea?

chocolate picture SNIP

how did one man lay an egg that huge? :p

They could always sell rides in their fancy jets at carnivals.

They could always sell rides in their fancy jets at carnivals.

or follow the Russian example and have rides of something entirely different...

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/235465.jpg

:)

Hotdamn...I dont want to meet the bird who squirted out that egg ;)

http://www.ananova.com/images/web/235465.jpg

:)
Summertime... and the living is FULL OF MELTED CHOCOLATE!

maybe corporate sponsorship could be an idea?


That would be amusing. Especially since sponsorship usually means advertising.

Imagine this.
http://www.keithrocco.com/store/images/lg_us-marine.jpg

Looking like this.
http://newsonf1.net/im/06/kr-06-3r.jpg

That would be amusing. Especially since sponsorship usually means advertising.
Battlecries into battle would be replaced with advertising slogans.
"Yahhhhh! Coke adds life! Yaahhhh...die you muffafucka!"

I don't agree, the War on Terror, while provoking war in the short-term, is beneficial in the long-run.

Battlecries into battle would be replaced with advertising slogans.
"Yahhhhh! Coke adds life! Yaahhhh...die you muffafucka!"

Now imagine if Pepsi was sponsoring the other side...

Now imagine if Pepsi was sponsoring the other side...

I'd laugh at the poor guy who get stuck with pepsi max :p

I don't agree, the War on Terror, while provoking war in the short-term, is beneficial in the long-run.

for what? opium sales?

I'd laugh at the poor guy who get stuck with pepsi max :p

And then we'd get Mentos grenadiers, fighting against a brigade of Wrigley's Spearmint Sharpshooters.

USAF needs more money like an alcoholic needs a drink. Iraq should be a wakeup call that we have fucked up big time by not including comprehensive cost-effectiveness analysis in defense policy.

If the purpose of Iraq was to win a series of battles, then you'd be right. But it was a money laundering scheme, and you can't launder money without the place you're laundering it from loosing a shitload of it.

Now imagine if Pepsi was sponsoring the other side...

Well, just take a look at PepsiCo's CEO. She's clearly a terrorist.

*sigh*

So...now that we've had a full page of off topic posts and image spam, maybe someone wants to actually discuss the issue?

Anyone?

Bueller?

The USAF has always needed money and it has nothing to do with the War in Iraq. The problem is technology. Hopefully Congress will give the USAF more money.

Anyone?


*tosses crumb*

[
I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

Oh, the carriers work, and the tanks. They do what they're supposed to do. But you see, with the PNAC Agenda quite firmly rooted in American politics (one could say even before PNAC was formed, there certainly were elements of it), America will go gallivanting about on less well equipped, and most importantly, nuclear deprived nations for resources, strategic territory, and general muscle flexing.

And for that, one needs big, expensive armies, carriers to support all those bombing missions, and tanks to crush whatever armored cavalry the opposing nation has. It also helps that a fair number of Washington's politicians can be safely said to belong in the pockets of the arms industry.

One can certainly tailor a fighting force for low intensity, police actions and anti-insurgency operations, but not without hobbling the ability to go about smacking other nations armies a thing or three. And guess what amazes the military planners better?

I think to make up the lost profits the US military forces would sell half of their nuclear weapons to other countries.
Then spend that on fighter jets and fancy equipment.

A better way is to spend more on training soldiers to fight, then you give them the shiny equipment.
Nuclear weapons ruin the whole thing, so might as well sell them off to Iran.
But less spending on the military and the US might be able to save their economy from falling down.
In my unexpert opinion i think the US should step down it's spending on military equipment, and step up spending on training, a smaller more elite force, one that doesn't rely on bombs to win it's fights.

I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

We've also got to tailor the armed forces to fight the low-intensity, urban, insurgency based fighting that is already shaping up to be the new way of warfare in the 21st century. We've got enough nukes to ensure that conventional threats such as Russia and China either have to fold or call when they decide to bluff. We should focus on maintaining a technological edge while scaling back in numbers and focusing on the ability to shift to wartime production IF NECESSARY.

You seem to be saying that the makeup of the armed forces needs to be radically changed to fight low-intensity threats, yet you want to go back to what works. Also, apparently fancy toys that don't work are those which have been the most important bits of warmaking for about sixty years.

What am I missing?

Although, when a nation spends as much on defence as the rest of the world put together, it's probably a sensible idea to cut funding.

When was the last time that the US was fighting someone that actually has an Air Force? I mean really is air-to-air combat really that much of an issue in the foreseeable future?

USAF needs more money like an alcoholic needs a drink.
Second especially since their new fighter they want costs a fuckton of cash and yet they can barely make the damn thing work properly.
They just need newer planes not a bunch of ones so high tech they can't fly them, and if that is what they want to spend their money on then they can run out of money.

The USAF has always needed money and it has nothing to do with the War in Iraq. The problem is technology. Hopefully Congress will give the USAF more money.
Better idea - Congress doesn't give them money money and they set their sights lower.

Even if Putin restarts the Cold War, we don't need the absurdly expensive new fighters - and those we have been working on for years when no aggressive nation has a capable airforce.

When was the last time that the US was fighting someone that actually has an Air Force? I mean really is air-to-air combat really that much of an issue in the foreseeable future?

He who controls the air controls the war.

He who controls the air controls the war.
A control only rivaled by those who control the underwater :rolleyes:

A control only rivaled by those who control the underwater :rolleyes:

Well obviously in today's day in age, he who controls both sea and air controls the war :D

Well obviously in today's day in age, he who controls both sea and air controls the war :D
I vote we nuke it from space.

You don't need state-of-the-art aircraft to control the air if you're the only one trying to :rolleyes:

But having state of the art aircraft gives you a leg up over your competitors. This is why Hitler should have gone after jets earlier than he did. If he had, the war could have had a totally different outcome.

He who controls the air controls the war.

You don't need state-of-the-art aircraft to control the air if you're the only one trying to :rolleyes:

You don't need state-of-the-art aircraft to control the air if you're the only one trying to :rolleyes:

Ground-attack aircraft, hmm?

:sniper:Whether we like to believe it or not we are country with a warrior mentallity. we are also a country who believes in having the fast most advancedequipment available, who amongst you are still using windows 98 or a similar version of mac os. As a country we have come to power because of two things, having the knowledge to make hitech equipment and the mentallity to use it. (think Nag and Hir). Regardless of what the outcome is the USAF will get the funding and we will still be the best equipped although the masses will be only moderatly trained. I would like to see a coutry of highly trained warriors instead of a average army. i would like to see a like of things but they may not come to past. Alas in the long run it is heart that matters were not rebels of a new born country vastly out numbered and out trained by the british battle hardened veterans. Yet still they prevailed, on the other the polish had the heart to charge tanks while on horseback and any student of military history knows how that turned out. Please forgive an old man for his endless ramblings and understand that we military minded folks are pro war. That being said HOORAH and all the rest

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/18/airforce.wornout.ap/index.html

I'm going to say it once and only once...Bush's war is making America less safe.

I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

We've also got to tailor the armed forces to fight the low-intensity, urban, insurgency based fighting that is already shaping up to be the new way of warfare in the 21st century. We've got enough nukes to ensure that conventional threats such as Russia and China either have to fold or call when they decide to bluff. We should focus on maintaining a technological edge while scaling back in numbers and focusing on the ability to shift to wartime production IF NECESSARY.

Most of all we've GOT to start playing hardball with the MI complex and start eliminating the vast amounts of waste that go on daily in the Department of Defense.

Thoughts?

*didn't see any previous thread...was kinda suprised, but maybe I missed it

The air force's F-15 jets are aging, and they just found out that they have a flaw that make a good number of them apt to just break up midair. They need to be replaced. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/10/AR2008011003411.html

You can't keep the same jets 30 years and expect them to be just as

I agree mostly with the OP. The USAF wants to field ultra-high tech aircraft that, while their advanced systems certainly give them an edge (eg. F-22's stealth), cost around four times as much as a comparable Russian machine. New US aircraft are also very delicate - a pebble sucked into the jet intake can severely damage an engine, while I'm told by a few people in the business that the MiG 29 is capable of taking off on dirt runways. This doesn't necessarily mean the Russian air force is "superior" in any way, but aircraft cost and durability are important aspects to consider in any air force budget plan. It's obvious that the USAF and the civilian government are ignoring these problems.

Maintaining a technological edge is inarguably important for the USAF, but that doesn't mean it should be turned into a budgetary black hole. They should find practical solutions to their budget crunch, not solutions that will look sexy in action movies and video games.

On the issue of building military capacity if needed, this is something I've wondered about the US for a long time. It seems to be one of the few liberal democracies in the world that maintains a huge standing military at all times, compared to smaller countries which keep reduced military forces, yet are able to build up significantly at war time. I know this horse has been beaten to death about a thousand times already, but do you think backing away from the "world policeman" role and downsizing the military would be a practical way to handle the budget crunch?

Of course, would the arms manufacturers stand for that...?

But having state of the art aircraft gives you a leg up over your competitors. This is why Hitler should have gone after jets earlier than he did. If he had, the war could have had a totally different outcome.

not really the ME-262 was a pile of shit that only worked half the time the other half of which was spent combusting

P-51's where superior in all but outright speed, not that it mattered as the factory's where being leveled by bombers and the jets shot out of the sky by superior numbers

as interesting as this is your bringing up a war 60 years ago to prove a point? surely Russians in Afghanistan is more relevant or maybe the Yom Kippur War ;)

Ground-attack aircraft, hmm?

A-10's are not state of the art are they? :p

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/18/airforce.wornout.ap/index.html

I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

*didn't see any previous thread...was kinda suprised, but maybe I missed it

A Nimitz-class costs 4.5 billion, a Los Angeles class costs 2.5 billion, not that much of a difference. Plus, the new CVN-21-class (I refuse to acknowledge that we named it the Gerald Ford class) is designed to cut costs by increased automation, a new reactor system etc. Now, albeit the first in the series will be +8 billion, that is due to R&D and other developmental factors. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the initial air strikes during Operation Enduring Freedom were done by the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy and not by a Los Angeles-class submarine.

Also, most IED attacks are against Humvee convoys, and in the instances where it was a tank, it was a very large explosion. With the right proportion of explosives, you can break through any armor. Spec Ops is not an end-all solution. Most are trained for limited engagements and clandestine activities, not all-out theater warfare.

:sniper:Whether we like to believe it or not we are country with a warrior mentallity. we are also a country who believes in having the fast most advancedequipment available, who amongst you are still using windows 98 or a similar version of mac os. As a country we have come to power because of two things, having the knowledge to make hitech equipment and the mentallity to use it. (think Nag and Hir).

More because everyone else was more or less bankrupt after WII.


Regardless of what the outcome is the USAF will get the funding and we will still be the best equipped although the masses will be only moderatly trained. I would like to see a coutry of highly trained warriors instead of a average army. i would like to see a like of things but they may not come to past. Alas in the long run it is heart that matters were not rebels of a new born country vastly out numbered and out trained by the british battle hardened veterans. Yet still they prevailed.
Not so much anymore in the age of professional armies. And in the American Revolution you have to remember that without thousands of troops (and especially naval power) that was contributed to the American side by the French and Spanish the 'rebels' would've very probably remained part of the Empire.

on the other the polish had the heart to charge tanks while on horseback and any student of military history knows how that turned out.
I'd hope any student of military history would know that never actually happened. It was misreporting by a journalist who arrived after the event.

As a sidenote, perhaps y'all should read my thesis (when its done) entitled "The Influence of Air Power Upon History."

Yes, it is based on the book by Alfred Thayer Mahan. Basically, it talks about how airpower has replaced the idea of seapower defining a militaries strength.

:sniper: hehehehehehe

A Nimitz-class costs 4.5 billion, a Los Angeles class costs 2.5 billion, not that much of a difference. Plus, the new CVN-21-class (I refuse to acknowledge that we named it the Gerald Ford class) is designed to cut costs by increased automation, a new reactor system etc. Now, albeit the first in the series will be +8 billion, that is due to R&D and other developmental factors. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, a lot of the initial air strikes during Operation Enduring Freedom were done by the aircraft carrier John F. Kennedy and not by a Los Angeles-class submarine.
.
When did 2 billion become 'not that much of a difference':confused:

A-10's are not state of the art are they? :p

Well, no, but F-15Es and B-2s are.

When did 2 billion become 'not that much of a difference':confused:

ok, here's another example.
USAF F/A-22A costs $137 million USD per unit
USN/USMC F/A-18E/F costs $55 million USD per unit

That's almost three Hornets per Raptor. But (according to the Air Farce) the Raptor has greater combat capabilities. Capabilities that would justify the higher price tag.

Considering the greater role a carrier plays in warfare compared to a submarine, I would be willing to pay the higher price for a more capable unit. Note that a carriers role has always been one of projecting air power on a global scale, while an attack submarine is only designed to find and kill Soviet/Russian SSBNs.

The Air Force should get more money, at the expense of the Army.

No one can deny that the USAF has technical superiority over any opponent. Yet, we mitigate our advantage by sending in ground troops. In low intensity conflicts, our docterine should be "Break things, leave". That's what we're best at. Breaking other people's toys.

When did 2 billion become 'not that much of a difference':confused:

When we have a 3 Trillion dollar budget.

Look at it this way. The USAF is already funded much better than most other Air Forces. I feel they should start doing a better job with the money they do get.

Toughen up with the MI complex, stop it with the fancy pipe dreams and get down to business.

Look at it this way. The USAF is already funded much better than most other Air Forces. I feel they should start doing a better job with the money they do get.

Toughen up with the MI complex, stop it with the fancy pipe dreams and get down to business.

The Air Force is very good at it's job. It's job is to break things. It breaks things well.

The USAF is dangerous to the safety of the Civilised World. The USAF should either adopt better policies towards attacking positions & "enemies" (friendly fire being a yankee specialty) or be disbanded. The US armed forces are a danger to all others fighting near them.

I say this as a British Subject who wants to know his Nation's troops are safe fighting the enemies of America whilst risking their lives and homeland.

The USAF is dangerous to the safety of the Civilised World. The USAF should either adopt better policies towards attacking positions & "enemies" (friendly fire being a yankee specialty) or be disbanded. The US armed forces are a danger to all others fighting near them.

I say this as a British Subject who wants to know his Nation's troops are safe fighting the enemies of America whilst risking their lives and homeland.

lol, you're a subject. At least I'm a citizen.

Are you referring to the British convoy attacked by the A-10s a ways back? From what I know, this is the only friendly-fire incident involving the US and British forces, but I don't really follow the news. And how do isolated friendly fire incidents affect the safety of the civilized world? Did we drop a bomb in London or something?

maybe corporate sponsorship could be an idea?

What the paint scheme on new USAF planes would look like:
http://www.byerscustom.com/images/BD5%20Jet.jpg

Second especially since their new fighter they want costs a fuckton of cash and yet they can barely make the damn thing work properly.
They just need newer planes not a bunch of ones so high tech they can't fly them, and if that is what they want to spend their money on then they can run out of money.

source?

A-10's are not state of the art are they? :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bMfrixJyWc

No, they aren't, but then they're also being retired because of their age, also the Warthog isn't the only ground-attack aircraft the U.S. military has.

Well, no, but F-15Es and B-2s are.

The B-2 is not a ground-attack plane, it is a strategic bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk is a state-of-the-art ground attack plane though.

The USAF is dangerous to the safety of the Civilised World. The USAF should either adopt better policies towards attacking positions & "enemies" (friendly fire being a yankee specialty) or be disbanded. The US armed forces are a danger to all others fighting near them.

I say this as a British Subject who wants to know his Nation's troops are safe fighting the enemies of America whilst risking their lives and homeland.

Right, the brits have never been the perpetrators of 'friendly fire' :rolleyes:

lol, you're a subject. At least I'm a citizen.

actually its a subject of the crown and (in this case) a citizen of the United Kingdom

you see the government here can only arrest enviromental protesters and get away with it *pokes America*:p

Are you referring to the British convoy attacked by the A-10s a ways back? From what I know, this is the only friendly-fire incident involving the US and British forces, but I don't really follow the news. And how do isolated friendly fire incidents affect the safety of the civilized world? Did we drop a bomb in London or something?

ask google (http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&hs=9qC&resnum=0&q=friendly+fire+American+forces+on+British&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=iw)

The B-2 is not a ground-attack plane, it is a strategic bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk is a state-of-the-art ground attack plane though.

If anything, the F-117 should be considered the Strategic Bomber. It was used to destroy heavily defended, high value targets deep within enemy territory, much like the B-2's original mission.

You're also forgetting the best ground attack aircraft in the US inventory, the B-52. That plane has proven one of the best and most flexible military aircraft in history.

Well, I'm using the term very loosely (yes, and wrongly, I suppose). The B-2 is obviously supposed to attack ground targets, the original point was that just because you don't fight air forces doesn't mean you don't need a strong air force, the B-2 an example of this. IIRC the F-117 is on the way out, isn't it?

Yes, it is being retired in a few months. It's being replaced in the attack role by the F-22

The B-2 is not a ground-attack plane, it is a strategic bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk is a state-of-the-art ground attack plane though.

Well, I'm using the term very loosely (and wrongly, I suppose). The B-2 is obviously supposed to attack ground targets, the original point was that just because you don't fight air forces doesn't mean a strong air force is useless, the B-2 an example of this. IIRC the F-117 is on the way out, isn't it?

^ the B-52 isn't really advanced, though.

^ the B-52 isn't really advanced, though.


It's subsystems and weapons are, though. The B-52s of today look nothing like they did in the 50s. And the weapons they use are state of the art.

Of course, you can't use a B-52 with significant Anti-Air defenses still operational. And you can't ferret out the SAMs without air dominance. Hence, the F-22.

The B-2 is not a ground-attack plane, it is a strategic bomber, the F-117 Nighthawk is a state-of-the-art ground attack plane though.

The F-117 isn't state of the art anymore. Why?
1.It costs like crazy.
2.It's slow.
3.It's maneuverable just a bit more than an aircraft... carrier.
4.It's old.
5.Its airframe is subject to terrible stress, forcing frequent maintenance.
6.It got shot down by a SA-3, and that's saying something for an airplane who should be invisible to radar and IR systems.
7.The USAF is going to replace it with more cost-effective, more modern, faster airplanes (F-35, I think).

To sum it up, it was a real breakthrough in aerial warfare when it made its maiden flight: now it's scrape metal out of the Cold War.


Back to the OP, the real problem with almost all military budgets all over the world is that it works like this:
step 1.Military industry says "hey government, I've got this new fancy-schmancy brand new airplane/tank/gun: buy it, or I'll fire 10000 employees!"
step 2.Government makes some place in budget - maybe cutting some welfare programs
step 3.Military are required to devise a possible use of newly-acquired airplane/tank/gun, even if it's crap.

A more cost-effective option would be:
step 1.Government evaluates potential threats to country
step 2.Military are required to evaluate if such threats can be countered with current technology
step 3.If military says "no", government asks military to make requirement for new weapons to counter specific threats and
step 4.Government evaluates costs vs benefits of military requirements
step 5.Government buys new weapons, following military requirements

The F-117 isn't state of the art anymore. Why?
1.It costs like crazy.
2.It's slow.
3.It's maneuverable just a bit more than an aircraft... carrier.
4.It's old.
5.Its airframe is subject to terrible stress, forcing frequent maintenance.
6.It got shot down by a SA-3, and that's saying something for an airplane who should be invisible to radar and IR systems.
7.The USAF is going to replace it with more cost-effective, more modern, faster airplanes (F-35, I think).

TBH, the shootdown was rather blown out of proportion. It was caused by the stupidity of the mission planners and the skill of the missile crew.

A Stealth aircraft is not designed to be invisible to radar. Nothing is. It's designed to minimize its radar signature by absorbing as much energy is possible, and scatter the rest. Some of the energy gets back to the radar reciever, but it's usually so small that it can be confused for a bird, or ground clutter.

The Serbian battery commander knew, after a bit, that one of the attack tracks ran very close to his battery. He figured this out not by radar returns, but by the attacks themselves. So, he kept his batteries quiet and tried to predict where and when a small radar return came back one night and matched where he thought the F-117 would be, he locked on and fired. Lo and behold, he shot it down.

lol, you're a subject. At least I'm a citizen.

Are you referring to the British convoy attacked by the A-10s a ways back? From what I know, this is the only friendly-fire incident involving the US and British forces, but I don't really follow the news. And how do isolated friendly fire incidents affect the safety of the civilized world? Did we drop a bomb in London or something?

Not yet...

You shoot our soldiers on the ground often. The American troops should stop their "shoot first, ask questions and never apologise later" policy and fight wars only killing the enemy (the people on the declaration of war not listed as "Allies of the USA") not everyone not in Yankee uniform.

And I should rather be a subject of the British Queen, a woman of Wisdom and Experience, than a Citizen under Mr "NASA isn't rocket science"!

Democracy doesn't work people!

After all, Hitler was elected, Elizabeth the First was given the job as because of her birth.

Well, no, but F-15Es and B-2s are.

But the B-52s have been around for how long? :D

ok, here's another example.
USAF F/A-22A costs $137 million USD per unit
USN/USMC F/A-18E/F costs $55 million USD per unit

That's almost three Hornets per Raptor. But (according to the Air Farce) the Raptor has greater combat capabilities. Capabilities that would justify the higher price tag.

The F/A 18 Hornet is a navy/marine plane FYI.

The F/A 18 Hornet is a navy/marine plane FYI.

[points to letters USAF and USN/USMC]

um, yeah...i know that. that's why those letters are there. They're called acronyms and stand for the different branches that use them.

Unless you're under a 90 Year old plane when it plumets out of the sky...

I'm assuming that would apply to any aircraft.

But the B-52s have been around for how long? :D

Apparently they're going to be kept around till they're 90 years old, that's uber cool.

[points to letters USAF and USN/USMC]

um, yeah...i know that. that's why those letters are there. They're called acronyms and stand for the different branches that use them.

No shit really? WOW!! :rolleyes:

I guess that's why I'm seeing the USN on the F/A-18e/f super hornet and the original hornet was used by the USN and the USMC.

Yep yep that's true. The USAF (The United States Air Force) did not fly the Hornet nor does it fly the Super Hornet.

No shit really? WOW!! :rolleyes:

I guess that's why I'm seeing the USN on the F/A-18e/f super hornet and the original hornet was used by the USN and the USMC.

Yep yep that's true. The USAF (The United States Air Force) did not fly the Hornet nor does it fly the Super Hornet.

I don't get it. What exactly is your complaint? Where did I say the Air Farce uses the Hornet? Nowhere. I was comparing contemporary aircraft from the different branches.

Unless you're under a 90 Year old plane when it plumets out of the sky...

I don't get it. What exactly is your complaint? Where did I say the Air Farce uses the Hornet? Nowhere. I was comparing contemporary aircraft from the different branches.

Somebody else said it and I wanted to drive the point home. You just happened to be the poster I quoted when I did so.

Not yet...

You shoot our soldiers on the ground often. The American troops should stop their "shoot first, ask questions and never apologise later" policy and fight wars only killing the enemy (the people on the declaration of war not listed as "Allies of the USA") not everyone not in Yankee uniform.

And I should rather be a subject of the British Queen, a woman of Wisdom and Experience, than a Citizen under Mr "NASA isn't rocket science"!

Democracy doesn't work people!

After all, Hitler was elected, Elizabeth the First was given the job as because of her birth.

Lincoln was elected; Genghis Khan was not. See how that argument works both ways? Plus, I'd rather live in a country where we only have to tolerate inadequate leadership for a little while, whereas if the monarch is a retarded monkey, you're stuck w/ said monkey until its death. Plus, in at least one of the nine instances (far from the whole 'killing often') the US personnel in question were punished.

Somebody else said it and I wanted to drive the point home. You just happened to be the poster I quoted when I did so.

Oh, well you coulda told me that. I was thinking, "WTF is up w/ this guy?!" See dukeburyshire, this is how friendly-fire incidents happen; simple miscommunication

lol, you're a subject. At least I'm a citizen.

Are you referring to the British convoy attacked by the A-10s a ways back? From what I know, this is the only friendly-fire incident involving the US and British forces, but I don't really follow the news. And how do isolated friendly fire incidents affect the safety of the civilized world? Did we drop a bomb in London or something?

The only friendly fire incident? How about the Tornado shot down by the Patriot Missile Battery? The American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm that attacked British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war)? Another A-10 attack involving 4 APC's of the british army?

American soldiers are well liked by those in the british armed forces. However, they are often mocked for the way that they throw money at things. Its common perception in the British Army that US soldiers have all the kit but don't know how to use it.

Lincoln was elected; Genghis Khan was not.

It's Чингис Хаан, which translitterated is pronounced Chingis Haan. I'm taking Mongolian at present, so I'm a stickler for such things.

The only friendly fire incident? How about the Tornado shot down by the Patriot Missile Battery? The American A-10 during Operation Desert Storm that attacked British armoured personnel carriers killing nine British soldiers (the same number as were killed by enemy fire in the whole war)? Another A-10 attack involving 4 APC's of the british army?

American soldiers are well liked by those in the british armed forces. However, they are often mocked for the way that they throw money at things. Its common perception in the British Army that US soldiers have all the kit but don't know how to use it.

Read my other posts please.

When has Britain had a retarded Monkey as Monarch? (remember to mention it to the Queen, after all she loves being insulted by nationalistic Yankees!)

King George III comes to mind :D

When has Britain had a retarded Monkey as Monarch? (remember to mention it to the Queen, after all she loves being insulted by nationalistic Yankees!)

Also, the Monarch doen't use their power much. That way our Parliament works whilst knowing a Higher authority can stop them whenever, which keeps them in Check.

Um, it's a metaphor...

And I didn't insult anyone. I said "if." It's not my fault you get offended so easily by something not meant as an offense.

And you pretty much described the US system of checks and balances.

btw, anyone realize how off-topic this has gotten?

Lincoln was elected; Genghis Khan was not. See how that argument works both ways? Plus, I'd rather live in a country where we only have to tolerate inadequate leadership for a little while, whereas if the monarch is a retarded monkey, you're stuck w/ said monkey until its death. Plus, in at least one of the nine instances (far from the whole 'killing often') the US personnel in question were punished.

When has Britain had a retarded Monkey as Monarch? (remember to mention it to the Queen, after all she loves being insulted by nationalistic Yankees!)

Also, the Monarch doen't use their power much. That way our Parliament works whilst knowing a Higher authority can stop them whenever, which keeps them in Check.

King George III comes to mind :D


He was ill, not a retarded Monkey!

Don't insult people who were severly ill because of their affliction.

That's just Wrong

Just scrap the USAF. Safer for the rest of us.

Y'all should just move faster. Our bombs have the right of way.

Except your system doesn't have people trained from birth to do their job in it.

That worked very well for several of your monarchs. Like um...Henry VIII, Edward VI, Queen Mary and Elizabeth. Let us not forget King James I and King Charles I either.

Um, it's a metaphor...

And I didn't insult anyone. I said "if." It's not my fault you get offended so easily by something not meant as an offense.

And you pretty much described the US system of checks and balances.

btw, anyone realize how off-topic this has gotten?

Except your system doesn't have people trained from birth to do their job in it.

Back on topic,

Just scrap the USAF. Safer for the rest of us.

Not yet...

You shoot our soldiers on the ground often. The American troops should stop their "shoot first, ask questions and never apologise later" policy and fight wars only killing the enemy (the people on the declaration of war not listed as "Allies of the USA") not everyone not in Yankee uniform.

And once again, you brits never shoot allies by accident? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3070875.ece)

Henry VIII created the Royal Navy.

Killed a few of his wives and was excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Queen Mary helped the economy.

Persecuted and burned protestants

Elizabeth founded the new Empire, defeated the Spanish and saved her nation from foreign agression repeatedly, on a shoesting budget.

Persecuted Catholics.

James I united the two Kingdoms.

Brought authoritarianism back to the Monarch by stripping Parliment.

Charles I helped make us realise how bad Republics are.

Disbanded parliment which sparked the British Civil War which allowed Oliver Cromwell to assume power.

Henry VIII created the Royal Navy.

Queen Mary helped the economy.

Elizabeth founded the new Empire, defeated the Spanish and saved her nation from foreign agression repeatedly, on a shoesting budget.

James I united the two Kingdoms.

Charles I helped make us realise how bad Republics are.

And Americans should be banned from having bombs. I don't give kids Knives.

You guys should be banned from having Catholics. Their heads seem to detach randomly...

Except your system doesn't have people trained from birth to do their job in it.

Back on topic,

Just scrap the USAF. Safer for the rest of us.

See, we have these silly things called 'beliefs,' and one of them is that "All men are created equal."

Birthright does not mean you are better than someone.

I don't give kids Knives.

I've had a knife since I was a kid. My grandfather and my scout master taught me how to care for it and how to use it. Same goes with any weapon.

That worked very well for several of your monarchs. Like um...Henry VIII, Edward VI, Queen Mary and Elizabeth. Let us not forget King James I and King Charles I either.

Henry VIII created the Royal Navy.

Queen Mary helped the economy.

Elizabeth founded the new Empire, defeated the Spanish and saved her nation from foreign agression repeatedly, on a shoesting budget.

James I united the two Kingdoms.

Charles I helped make us realise how bad Republics are.

And Americans should be banned from having bombs. I don't give kids Knives.

Oh and Duke? The Royal Navy started under Alfred the Great! Henry VIII reformed and expanded it.

Can we all just agree we have a valid point?

Duke, yes there have been friendly fire incidents, but look at it this way, when things go in the crapper, who's there? The US, when you need air support, when your getting blown away, who's there, the USAF. The problem isn't with the USAF, it's with the British and US governments not working hard enough to achieve a level of integration neccessary for a multinational force.

And Duke has a point, there are problems in training, the point that "American's have all the kit but not the training" is very true, our training methods tend to be if you survive in battle, you'll do fine, but lets also remember until quite recently (from a historic standpoing) the British Navy believe that the best method of teaching crews was to send them out to sea with minimal training.

On Topic:
The USAF is going through and Upgrade Period. Most of our tech is from the Cold War at this point, the F-15, B-52, A-10 and almost every single other aircraft so far named is twenty and thirty years old or more! So the USAF is upgrading, superior electronics and communications will help reduce the number of friendly fire incidents, better targeting systems and manuverability will enable aircraft to provide ground support in an urban combat area. Give the USAF enough money to complete this upgrade phase and retire the venerable yet fast becoming obsolete equipment. (This user would like to point out that he believes no decent alternative has been given for replaceing the A-10 Thunderbolt II and is somewhat irritated to all statements made by the government and aircraft manufacturing companies saying otherwise."

And once again, you brits never shoot allies by accident? (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3070875.ece)

From the article:
It has been rare for British troops to be accused of friendly fire incidents either in Afghanistan or Iraq. The tragic killing of the two Danes is believed to be the first time that British troops have been involved in such an incident in Afghanistan. In Iraq, two British soldiers in a Challenger 2 attack were killed when another Challenger 2 opened fire in error.

US forces do tend to be involved in significantly more incidents of friendly fire than other nations. Part of it may be due to their higher numbers (more chance of an accident happening), but I think a big issue is training and standard procedures. I feel if the US armed forces were to review both of these, giving due consideration to what does and doesn't work in other forces, then they'll be a significantly more effective fighting force without the necessity of spending billions on expensive equipment.

I think to make up the lost profits the US military forces would sell half of their nuclear weapons to other countries.
Then spend that on fighter jets and fancy equipment.

A better way is to spend more on training soldiers to fight, then you give them the shiny equipment.
Nuclear weapons ruin the whole thing, so might as well sell them off to Iran.
But less spending on the military and the US might be able to save their economy from falling down.
In my unexpert opinion i think the US should step down it's spending on military equipment, and step up spending on training, a smaller more elite force, one that doesn't rely on bombs to win it's fights.

This is wrong on so many levels it's not funny.
Sell nukes to Iran? Dumb idea there, when the UN is trying to keep them from their own nuclear weapon program.

Less spending on the military means less manufacturing money going to the makers of uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc etc etc -- in fact, cutting military spending puts more people out of work, thereby weakening the economy further.

And yes, relying on bombs to win fights -- that's why the infantry has been in Iraq and Afghanistan how long?????

Please think before you post.

Well, no, but F-15Es and B-2s are.

The F-15s have the serious problem of 40% of the fleet being likely to tear itself apart midair because of a design flaw.

Humor me and actually read the link I provided?

Cut the DOD budget in half and tell them to go F themselves.

And Americans should be banned from having bombs. I don't give kids Knives.

Aw, are we feeling a bit jealous that your wee ickle America became a teenager, grew up, moved out, and doesn't call or write enough to suit you, mum?
Oh and, um.... whatever did happen to all those OTHER colonies in the Empahr?

From the article:


US forces do tend to be involved in significantly more incidents of friendly fire than other nations. Part of it may be due to their higher numbers (more chance of an accident happening), but I think a big issue is training and standard procedures. I feel if the US armed forces were to review both of these, giving due consideration to what does and doesn't work in other forces, then they'll be a significantly more effective fighting force without the necessity of spending billions on expensive equipment.

Trust me, I'm not saying that the U.S. military doesn't need to address the problem, I was just annoyed by Dukeburyshire's apparent attitude that the U.S. was the only ones guilty of it.

maybe corporate sponsorship could be an idea?



how did one man lay an egg that huge? :p

I can see a bunch of infantry in Iraq opening up their rations to find candy bars, new Coke-Cola products and designer chewing gum.

He was ill, not a retarded Monkey!

Don't insult people who were severly ill because of their affliction.

That's just Wrong

So you don't see a correlation between the original 13 colonies of the United States telling England to stuff it and going their own way rather than deal with a madman who fought wars with most of Europe, taxed the hell out of his subjects in the colonies to pay for it all, and sent soldiers to kill and burn towns in the colonies when his subjects said, "don't you think this is rather too much"?

You're defending a ruler who died blind, deaf and mad on his throne? Really?
...And they say the US is overly nationalistic.

Aw, are we feeling a bit jealous that your wee ickle America became a teenager, grew up, moved out, and doesn't call or write enough to suit you, mum?
Oh and, um.... whatever did happen to all those OTHER colonies in the Empahr?

OZ calls once a year

OZ calls once a year

Well, I could make a very silly remark about wishing for Mother England's approval (even though they don't need it anymore either), but the Aussies I've met are fun people!

So you don't see a correlation between the original 13 colonies of the United States telling England to stuff it and going their own way rather than deal with a madman who fought wars with most of Europe, taxed the hell out of his subjects in the colonies to pay for it all, and sent soldiers to kill and burn towns in the colonies when his subjects said, "don't you think this is rather too much"?

You're defending a ruler who died blind, deaf and mad on his throne? Really?
...And they say the US is overly nationalistic.

HAHAHA!!!

Funniest post by far in this thread.

Firstly, Henry VIII created a permanent Navy rather than a merchant navy.


Katganistan

So you don't see a correlation between the original 13 colonies of the United States telling England to stuff it and going their own way rather than deal with a madman who fought wars with most of Europe, taxed the hell out of his subjects in the colonies to pay for it all, and sent soldiers to kill and burn towns in the colonies when his subjects said, "don't you think this is rather too much"?

You're defending a ruler who died blind, deaf and mad on his throne? Really?
...And they say the US is overly nationalistic.

He was poisoned by his doctors! (because of ineptitude, not murder!).

And if he was so loathed by all, why was his Golden Jubilee celebrated?
We do get rid of bad rulers you know! (Charles I, Richard III etc)

Aw, are we feeling a bit jealous that your wee ickle America became a teenager, grew up, moved out, and doesn't call or write enough to suit you, mum?
Oh and, um.... whatever did happen to all those OTHER colonies in the Empahr?

It's Spelt Empire, and they joined the Commonwealth of Nations, which the Queen is figurehead of.

Serca

Can we all just agree we have a valid point?

Duke, yes there have been friendly fire incidents, but look at it this way, when things go in the crapper, who's there? The US, when you need air support, when your getting blown away, who's there, the USAF. The problem isn't with the USAF, it's with the British and US governments not working hard enough to achieve a level of integration neccessary for a multinational force.

And Duke has a point, there are problems in training, the point that "American's have all the kit but not the training" is very true, our training methods tend to be if you survive in battle, you'll do fine, but lets also remember until quite recently (from a historic standpoing) the British Navy believe that the best method of teaching crews was to send them out to sea with minimal training.

The USA was where during the Falklands War exactly?

And the RAF provides air support, the USAF has enough to do running around after it's own Trigger happy troops! And I Know who I'd trust more flying over my Chimney! (the RAF)

The USA should go into war separately from everybody else, and just get on with it, if they're so good, instead of dragging half the world in with them.

And the British Navy's training was done on ship, with the experienced crew. We didn't send out whole warships filled with fresh recruits.

Also, I think the USAF shouldn't spend so much money. What ever happened to Yankee Isolationism? If you aren't about to be invaded, don't go to War with someone!

The World was quite well off with you letting alone, thank you very much!

:rolleyes:

Isolationism ended when the US saved the UKs sorry butt from the Nazis.

The World was quite well off with you letting alone, thank you very much!

Accurate as long as you exclude the cold war.

Oh how I love myths!

The USA was more than happy to fleece Britain whilst we fought Hitler and make us Mortagage the Empire. Only when your lands were under threat did you actually bother to turn up!

And the Americans helped create the problems that created WWII. Remember Versailles?

Don't Insult Britain by saying you "saved us". The Empire did a lot more than the USA in the war. Still, don't let facts get in the way of US nationalism eh?

So are you saying that if the U.S. hadn't entered the war, you'd have still won and not signed a peace treaty with the germans?

No, your letting UK nationalism get in the way of facts. The US never ratified the Treaty of Vesilles, and, at the start of the war, it was the US who passed the Lend Lease Act, that amounts to practicly giving things to the UK, we provided convoy escort for a full half of the Atlantic, and when we got into the war, we provided the neccessary materials and manpower to end it.

Oh how I love myths!

The USA was more than happy to fleece Britain whilst we fought Hitler and make us Mortagage the Empire. Only when your lands were under threat did you actually bother to turn up!

And the Americans helped create the problems that created WWII. Remember Versailles?

Don't Insult Britain by saying you "saved us". The Empire did a lot more than the USA in the war. Still, don't let facts get in the way of US nationalism eh?

The Cold War Churchill wanted to end and the USA dragged out forever?

Oh how I love myths!

The USA was more than happy to fleece Britain whilst we fought Hitler and make us Mortagage the Empire. Only when your lands were under threat did you actually bother to turn up!

And the Americans helped create the problems that created WWII. Remember Versailles?

Don't Insult Britain by saying you "saved us". The Empire did a lot more than the USA in the war. Still, don't let facts get in the way of US nationalism eh?

The fuck?!

Without our weapons and supplies you would have lost the war in 41.

Also, it the the EUROPEAN powers who fucked over Germany after WWI. Truman wanted a lenient treaty.

Go read some books.

A strong Germany made World war 2. Had the French had their way Germany wouldn't be capable of War now

Lend Lease was not gifting. We got billed.

We could've fought much longer without the USA. The Empire was crucial to the war's result. Without it Britain would have had to let Hitler do what he liked.

If you guys ended it How Come it dragged on 'till '45?

And I'm an Imperialist.

A strong Germany made World war 2. Had the French had their way Germany wouldn't be capable of War now

Lend Lease was not gifting. We got billed.

We could've fought much longer without the USA. The Empire was crucial to the war's result. Without it Britain would have had to let Hitler do what he liked.

If you guys ended it How Come it dragged on 'till '45?

And I'm an Imperialist.

Well it was a team effort, no matter how much I want to say the US did it by itself-it didn't. The USSR, the US, Britain, and many other contributed to the defeat of the Axis powers. It lasted so long because Germany and Japan fought until the end.

The US was also using one arm against the Germans/Italians and the other against the Japanese.

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/US/02/18/airforce.wornout.ap/index.html

I'm going to say it once and only once...Bush's war is making America less safe.

I think we ought to restructure the military. We need to stop placing so much emphasis on fancy toys and go back to what works. Stealthy subs over floating-target supercarriers. Special forces instead of tanks that can't stand up to an IED.

We've also got to tailor the armed forces to fight the low-intensity, urban, insurgency based fighting that is already shaping up to be the new way of warfare in the 21st century. We've got enough nukes to ensure that conventional threats such as Russia and China either have to fold or call when they decide to bluff. We should focus on maintaining a technological edge while scaling back in numbers and focusing on the ability to shift to wartime production IF NECESSARY.

Most of all we've GOT to start playing hardball with the MI complex and start eliminating the vast amounts of waste that go on daily in the Department of Defense.

Thoughts?

*didn't see any previous thread...was kinda suprised, but maybe I missed it

I think the military seniority needs to have a kick in the ass by a politician who then says "You're already taking a huge amount of our GDP. If you can't make due with that, you're fired."

Seriously, go into your job tomorrow. Walk up to your boss with a straight face and say "I am pushed to the breaking point. If I don't get another five dollars an hour, I will no longer be the excellent employee I have always been."

See how far you get.

You both make fair points. Now I'm a brit, so I can see both sides of it, but it isnt that simple....

The Americans did not save the British, but the Allies could probably not have done as well as they did without the Americans.

No-one can deny that the millions of personnel and arms the USA deployed did not help. It is certain that such a crushing victory both in Europe and in the Pacific could not have been secured if it was not for US forces.

However, if the Americans had not entered the war, it is not safe to say the British were doomed. German plans to invade Britain disappeared in 1940 and 1941, with problems developing in Operaton Barbarossa and defeat in the Battle of Britain. Most historians feel that unless the Soviet Union was entirely defeated, the German forces would not have made a move on Britain.

So, in response to Trollgaard, we would not have crumpled in 1941, but we would not have defeated the German forces so thoroughly in such a short space of time.

Look at it this way Dukeburyshire - in 4 years, the USA succesfully invaded Germany. Look at Vietnam and Chechnya - decades of conflict for no result. That was a very short space of time, considering.

Firstly, Henry VIII created a permanent Navy rather than a merchant navy.

A permanent Naval Service did not exist until the mid 17th century

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_navy

Oh how I love myths!

The USA was more than happy to fleece Britain whilst we fought Hitler and make us Mortagage the Empire. Only when your lands were under threat did you actually bother to turn up!

Our territory was bombed by Japan and we declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on us. Please try to remember that.

And the Americans helped create the problems that created WWII. Remember Versailles?

Um yea...we did not ratify Versailles and signed a seperate treaty with Germany.

Don't Insult Britain by saying you "saved us". The Empire did a lot more than the USA in the war. Still, don't let facts get in the way of US nationalism eh?

And if it was not for Lend-Lease, you would not have had half the equipment that you did have. Don't underestimate America's involvement.

The Cold War Churchill wanted to end and the USA dragged out forever?

Source?

Wait, let me get this straight? A branch of the US military is asking for more money? OMG REALLY? A better article would have been to dig deep into the archives and try to find a year when the USAF DIDNT try to ask for more money. In other news, water is suspected of being wet.

A strong Germany made World war 2. Had the French had their way Germany wouldn't be capable of War now

Lend Lease was not gifting. We got billed.

We could've fought much longer without the USA. The Empire was crucial to the war's result. Without it Britain would have had to let Hitler do what he liked.

If you guys ended it How Come it dragged on 'till '45?

And I'm an Imperialist.

You're the one saying that American assistance was inconsequential...
Now, can you say that England would have won the war without American assistance?

A strong Germany made World war 2. Had the French had their way Germany wouldn't be capable of War now

Lend Lease was not gifting. We got billed.

We could've fought much longer without the USA. The Empire was crucial to the war's result. Without it Britain would have had to let Hitler do what he liked.

If you guys ended it How Come it dragged on 'till '45?

And I'm an Imperialist.
Britain would have had their asses bombed off and then invaded like a prison bitch had Hitler not decided "hey, it's winter, let's attack the USSR."

Well, I could make a very silly remark about wishing for Mother England's approval (even though they don't need it anymore either), but the Aussies I've met are fun people!

i think we stop wishing for Mother England's approval ,when we pissed them off in WW2 when we recall our troops home to fight the japanese

the once a year callis a reminder that we grow up :p

Less spending on the military means less manufacturing money going to the makers of uniforms, weapons, vehicles, etc etc etc -- in fact, cutting military spending puts more people out of work, thereby weakening the economy further.


You do realize that such a focus on a military economy means that you practically have to go to war every now and again just to keep that need for newer weapons?

The F-15s have the serious problem of 40% of the fleet being likely to tear itself apart midair because of a design flaw.

Humor me and actually read the link I provided?

The Air Force's 224 newer F-15E fighter jets do not have the same flaws and have been returned to service.

.

This may be a bad sign, but I originally read the thread title as "USAF needs more A$$". Ugh... my mind is going.

Personally I believe in a reduced military(size-wise) to cut spending and such. With more focus on quick, decisive strikes as opposed to long drawn out trench warfare.

The USAF has always needed money and it has nothing to do with the War in Iraq. The problem is technology. Hopefully Congress will give the USAF more money.

Here's a thought, how come the US armed forces didn't use mainly the air force to destroy military targets such as arms factories, army barracks, airfields and hangars then use mainly a large fraction of air force sent to focus on destroying surviving military whilst bombers on bombing missions focus on the facilities that way they will become weak in number and unable to revitalise themselves, a few months of this and the armor and infantry can move in for the final blow.

Not yet...

You shoot our soldiers on the ground often. The American troops should stop their "shoot first, ask questions and never apologise later" policy and fight wars only killing the enemy (the people on the declaration of war not listed as "Allies of the USA") not everyone not in Yankee uniform.



wow you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about... lol:rolleyes:

you know I here a lot of people saying that the military is inadequately trained... what are you people basing this theory off of. If I'm not deployed I am training... :confused:

*tosses crumb*

Ooo!

*pounces*

One can certainly tailor a fighting force for low intensity, police actions and anti-insurgency operations, but not without hobbling the ability to go about smacking other nations armies a thing or three. And guess what amazes the military planners better?

One can plan for both...more on this below.

You seem to be saying that the makeup of the armed forces needs to be radically changed to fight low-intensity threats, yet you want to go back to what works. Also, apparently fancy toys that don't work are those which have been the most important bits of warmaking for about sixty years.

What am I missing?

Nothing really...but if we're fighting an open ended, low-intensity conflict, why are we bleeding money getting ready for World War III?

First of all, WWIII has only two realistic opponents...Russia, or China. If we fight either, it'll almost certainly come down to nukes.

I'm not advocating any reduction in strategic nuclear armarments.

Carriers and Tanks "work" in a conventional conflict, but that's not what we're fighting now, and it's not WWIII either.

We have 15 supercarriers either operational, under construction, or planned...and that's not including VTOL type amphibious assault ships. Why? That's more deck-space than the rest of the world put together. Are we seriously making so many enemies that we feel we have to have all this power-projection? We couldn't get by with half this number?

How many nations have the capacity to defend against our high-tech air-force? Again, the only nations capable who are realistic enemies are Russia or China, and again, that conflict likely degenerates into a nuclear war. Any other nation doesn't have enough armor for us to worry about, and no nation has the naval capacity to bring massed armor to American shores. We could probably reduce American tank inventory by as much as 75% if we stop poking our nose around where it's not wanted and we keep our infastructure updated so we can start cranking them out quickly if things ever do hit the fan. Urban environments, where the vast majority of conflict in the 21st century has taken place, have proven that special forces and other boots, usually in nothing more than an up-armored Humvee, are what work...not more fancy toys that gather dust for 30 years, or can't adapt to new roles when the situation calls for it.

Submarines "work" because they are more often than not now armed with cruise missiles, making them somewhat acceptable substitutes to carrier based airplanes. They obviously have shortcomings in such a role, but as the USS Cole and recent US Navy wargames have shown, modern warships are incredibly vulnerable targets. Subs, on the other hand, are immune to the massed missile or low-tech insurgency based tactics that have proven to be so dangerous for modern navies. They are also among the most effective weapons in any conventional naval conflict, so having a lot of them wouldn't be a bad idea in that respect either.

Most non-carrier warships in the navy are geared towards missile defense for carrier battlegroups. If you use subs wherever possible, you deny your enemy any target at all...to say nothing of being able to downsize the cruiser/destroyer force and, again, trim the budget.

So if we're cutting carrier battle groups by 1/2, tanks by 3/4, and we scale back a little on being "world policemen", would we not have plenty of money to upgrade the air-force?

Not only would we still be capable of fighting the current conflict, we'd be better prepared for any theoretical conventional conflict that might occur in the future, all while trimming the military's bloated budget.

Although, when a nation spends as much on defence as the rest of the world put together, it's probably a sensible idea to cut funding.

Probably...but you'll have to drag a few score of congressmen to their political graves to do it. Not something that can be done overnight.

On the issue of building military capacity if needed, this is something I've wondered about the US for a long time. It seems to be one of the few liberal democracies in the world that maintains a huge standing military at all times, compared to smaller countries which keep reduced military forces, yet are able to build up significantly at war time. I know this horse has been beaten to death about a thousand times already, but do you think backing away from the "world policeman" role and downsizing the military would be a practical way to handle the budget crunch?

Of course, would the arms manufacturers stand for that...?

No. Hence the influence they wield in congress. One threat of a moved factory will get a congressman on his knees to keep his constituents from losing jobs...and the congressman his office.

Tell someone in the MI complex my "plan" for reducing the carrier and tank inventories, and he'd laugh you out of his office.

Hence, the last statement in my OP. We've got to play hardball with the MI complex. The mentality of conflict in the country is the reason for this black hole of money.

A Nimitz-class costs 4.5 billion, a Los Angeles class costs 2.5 billion, not that much of a difference.

You're forgetting all the planes, plus a much larger crew...in addition, navy pilots are probably the most expensive personnell to train in the entire armed forces.

Also, most IED attacks are against Humvee convoys, and in the instances where it was a tank, it was a very large explosion. With the right proportion of explosives, you can break through any armor. Spec Ops is not an end-all solution. Most are trained for limited engagements and clandestine activities, not all-out theater warfare.

I'm not suggesting special ops be trained for theater warfare. We simply need more special ops because that's whats needed now. The regular active duty forces and the the Reserves ought to be for conventional theater conflict, not long-term occupations like we're currently doing.

If the right amount of explosives will beat any amount of armor, why bother with heavy armor? All it does is slow you down and make you a target.

ok, here's another example.
USAF F/A-22A costs $137 million USD per unit
USN/USMC F/A-18E/F costs $55 million USD per unit

That's almost three Hornets per Raptor. But (according to the Air Farce) the Raptor has greater combat capabilities. Capabilities that would justify the higher price tag.

From Wiki...

During Exercise Northern Edge in Alaska in June 2006, 12 F-22's of the 94th FS downed 108 adversaries with no losses in simulated combat exercises.[3] In two weeks of exercises, the Raptor-led Blue Force amassed 241 kills against two losses in air-to-air combat, and neither Blue Force loss was an F-22.

This was followed with the Raptor's first participation in a Red Flag exercise. 14 F-22's of the 94th FS supported attacking Blue Force strike packages as well as engaging in close air support sorties themselves in Red Flag 07-1 between 3 February and 16 February 2007. Against designed superior numbers of Red Force Aggressor F-15s and F-16s, it established air dominance using eight aircraft during day missions and six at night, reportedly defeating the Aggressors quickly and efficiently, even though the exercise rules of engagement allowed for four to five Red Force regenerations of losses but none to Blue Force. Further, no sorties were missed because of maintenance or other failures, and only one Raptor was adjudged lost against the virtual annihilation of the defending force.[52] When their ordnance was expended, the F-22s remained in the exercise area providing electronic surveillance to the Blue Forces.[53]

Now wargames aren't a real war, but with results like these, if they pan out even half as well on a real battlefield, then the Raptor is more than worth the price.

Considering the greater role a carrier plays in warfare compared to a submarine, I would be willing to pay the higher price for a more capable unit. Note that a carriers role has always been one of projecting air power on a global scale, while an attack submarine is only designed to find and kill Soviet/Russian SSBNs.

Not true...they are still surface ship and merchant killers, moreso now that they carry Harpoon anti-ship missiles. Many subs also carry cruise missiles as well, enabling both tactical and strategic strikes on land-based targets.

I don't deny the carriers ability to project power, we still need carriers in the modern US Navy. I simply doubt carrier cost effectiveness, and it's survivability against determined attack. Subs carry reduced advantages to carriers, but also none of the risks.



*licks fingers*

...I like crumbs. :p

Ooo!

*pounces*

*drops another crumb*


One can plan for both...more on this below.


Not without massive reductions you can, and probably creating civil war between the MI complex and your supporters in the worst case scenario.


First of all, WWIII has only two realistic opponents...Russia, or China. If we fight either, it'll almost certainly come down to nukes.


Pakistan and India proved that conflict between nuclear powers need not escalate that far though.

In fact, the policy of MAD may actually stymie nuclear strikes until it reaches an "all is lost" situation.

Think about it. In the Cold War, neither side wanted to touch off their nukes. Why? Because that would mean the end of it. Game over. Everyone loses.

But would a border incursion, or even a full scale invasion, immediately spark off nuclear exchange? Maybe, but that would be pulling the plug when the cards are still in the air.

There's always the hope that you can beat them off after all.


We have 15 supercarriers either operational, under construction, or planned...and that's not including VTOL type amphibious assault ships. Why? That's more deck-space than the rest of the world put together. Are we seriously making so many enemies that we feel we have to have all this power-projection? We couldn't get by with half this number?

Probably not. Not without throwing about 80% of Congress out on their ears, getting rid of "persuade by force" doctrines, and other extra-national treaties.

Like it or not, the US made a bunch of treaties with foreign countries (albeit on their terms) that more or less requires them to have all these carriers if they want to live up to their end of the bargain.

Besides, how are they going to "contain" countries which don't obey them? And if they don't obey the US, all those lucrative resource deals would go sour.


Most non-carrier warships in the navy are geared towards missile defense for carrier battlegroups. If you use subs wherever possible, you deny your enemy any target at all...to say nothing of being able to downsize the cruiser/destroyer force and, again, trim the budget.

Submarines are frightfully vulnerable to anything with wings/rotor blades and torpedoes though.


Probably...but you'll have to drag a few score of congressmen to their political graves to do it. Not something that can be done overnight.

Few score? More like almost every congressman there is.

*drops another crumb*

*Devours*

Not without massive reductions you can, and probably creating civil war between the MI complex and your supporters in the worst case scenario.

Possibly...but I think it's worth the risk to fundamentally change how the nation views it's need for military power.

Pakistan and India proved that conflict between nuclear powers need not escalate that far though.

Yeah, but they border each other. The Kargil War of '99 wasn't much compared to previous conflicts, and as far as I know neither nation had nukes during the previous war in '71.

In fact, the policy of MAD may actually stymie nuclear strikes until it reaches an "all is lost" situation.

Possibly. Again, I'm not advocating any reduction of strategic forces. I'm simply saying we ought to redefine what we consider to be "ready" for a conventional war against a potential adversary.

We can have the protection we need at a cost lower than what we currently pay, so why aren't more people pissed about all this wasted money?

But would a border incursion, or even a full scale invasion, immediately spark off nuclear exchange? Maybe, but that would be pulling the plug when the cards are still in the air.

Again, who are we fighting here? No nation on earth has the navy or air-force necessary to invade the US. Are we thinking Mexico is a big military threat?

Probably not. Not without throwing about 80% of Congress out on their ears, getting rid of "persuade by force" doctrines, and other extra-national treaties.

None of which are necessarily bad things.

Like it or not, the US made a bunch of treaties with foreign countries (albeit on their terms) that more or less requires them to have all these carriers if they want to live up to their end of the bargain.

Half of those nations can afford to pay for their own damned national defense.

Half of those nations wouldn't much care if we pulled up stakes.

Combined, I'd say we could reduce world-wide commitments significantly, if we ever bothered to do so.

Besides, how are they going to "contain" countries which don't obey them? And if they don't obey the US, all those lucrative resource deals would go sour.

That goes more into foreign policy than military doctrine, something else which needs to be addressed...maybe we ought to be trying to make it worthwhile for other nations to deal with us instead of making deals that are so transparently one-sided in favoring the U.S. that we have to enforce them at gunpoint.

Submarines are frightfully vulnerable to anything with wings/rotor blades and torpedoes though.

The ocean is huge, and hard to search. Only a handful of nations have the ASW capacity necessary to deal with the current U.S. submarine inventory, much less an expanded one.

Few score? More like almost every congressman there is.

Not every district has ties to the military. Most, but not all...and yes a few score. Once the top dogs are rooted out, the little ones will either back down, or go down with 'em.

Most, after making out like bandits for so long, will cut their losses.

Just for a note, I did not start this thread.......:D

*Devours*

Now... where did I put that polonium sample? :p


Possibly...but I think it's worth the risk to fundamentally change how the nation views it's need for military power.

Maybe. The trick is how though?


We can have the protection we need at a cost lower than what we currently pay, so why aren't more people pissed about all this wasted money?


Probably because it keeps them employed. And maybe because of the whole "America #1" mentality that ties in weapons somehow.


Again, who are we fighting here? No nation on earth has the navy or air-force necessary to invade the US. Are we thinking Mexico is a big military threat?


I imagine if Russia wanted to, they could scrape up the naval power needed. But that's an unlikely case anyway.


None of which are necessarily bad things.


Maybe, but like I said, the trick is how.


Half of those nations can afford to pay for their own damned national defense.

Half of those nations wouldn't much care if we pulled up stakes.

I imagine a chunk of them don't even want the US there. So I suppose that's an easy thing to arrange.


That goes more into foreign policy than military doctrine, something else which needs to be addressed...maybe we ought to be trying to make it worthwhile for other nations to deal with us instead of making deals that are so transparently one-sided in favoring the U.S. that we have to enforce them at gunpoint.

Obviously. Foreign policy and military doctrine tend to go hand in hand. And worthwhile deals are a must yes, but then again, they'd have to be deals that won't see you murdered in the polls and some new Lobbyist puppet comes up to take the position and overturn everything.

I suppose you could declare yourself dictator for life and take steps to ensure it is a long and healthy one.


The ocean is huge, and hard to search. Only a handful of nations have the ASW capacity necessary to deal with the current U.S. submarine inventory, much less an expanded one.


Coastal sonar buoys are, for military hardware, fairly cheap. And modern submarines have no measures against aircraft whatsoever.


Not every district has ties to the military. Most, but not all...and yes a few score. Once the top dogs are rooted out, the little ones will either back down, or go down with 'em.

Most, after making out like bandits for so long, will cut their losses.

One can certainly hope.

When America has entire parts of it's country in horrible poverty, looking like a run-down peasant dwelling, I think any mention of increasing military funding obscene and offensive in the extreme.

When America has entire parts of it's country in horrible poverty, looking like a run-down peasant dwelling, I think any mention of increasing military funding obscene and offensive in the extreme.

Then you must of found the USSR obscene and offensive in the extreme.

When America has entire parts of it's country in horrible poverty, looking like a run-down peasant dwelling, I think any mention of increasing military funding obscene and offensive in the extreme.The bad parts of the US are, interestingly enough, better off than the bad parts of China. Funnily enough, China spends more of its GDP on its military than does the US.

Our territory was bombed by Japan and we declared war on Japan. Germany declared war on us. Please try to remember that.



Um yea...we did not ratify Versailles and signed a seperate treaty with Germany.



And if it was not for Lend-Lease, you would not have had half the equipment that you did have. Don't underestimate America's involvement.



Source?

Churchill wanted to enter negotiations with the USSR in Austria in the 1950s.

When did an American president open negotiations without dusting the nukes?

Without Lend Lease the Empire would have been financially viable and still exist.

Churchill wanted to enter negotiations with the USSR in Austria in the 1950s.

Source?

When did an American president open negotiations without dusting the nukes?

Um...lets see...numerous times.

Without Lend Lease the Empire would have been financially viable and still exist.

You really do not know just how desperate Britain was do you?

Desperate enough to mortgage the Empire.

And we only just paid you vultures off!

Source, govt documents released under 50 yrs law.

Maybe the best thing to do would be ablolish the US armed forces. Then they could go back to isolationism and the rest of the world could get on and advance civilisation, not warfare.In the 50s? Didn't Churchill lose the election in the 40s?

Desperate enough to mortgage the Empire.

And we only just paid you vultures off!

Boy you really have an attitude don't you? Why don't you relax!

Source, govt documents released under 50 yrs law.

And is there a link? As a History Major, I am interested in this.

Maybe the best thing to do would be ablolish the US armed forces. Then they could go back to isolationism and the rest of the world could get on and advance civilisation, not warfare.

:headbang:

Maybe we should abolish the British Military Forces. I mean...they are not exactly astout in their treatment of locals.

Desperate enough to mortgage the Empire.

And we only just paid you vultures off!

Source, govt documents released under 50 yrs law.

Maybe the best thing to do would be ablolish the US armed forces. Then they could go back to isolationism and the rest of the world could get on and advance civilisation, not warfare.

I'll relax when yanks stop altering History!!!!!!!!

WOW!!! I'm not the one trying to alter History here.

Not sure of a link, it was in the papers here a while back.

Then there should be a link somewhere.

The British armed foces need treating with respect.

So do the American Armed Forces.

Boy you really have an attitude don't you? Why don't you relax!



And is there a link? As a History Major, I am interested in this.



:headbang:

Maybe we should abolish the British Military Forces. I mean...they are not exactly astout in their treatment of locals.

I'll relax when yanks stop altering History!!!!!!!!

Not sure of a link, it was in the papers here a while back.

Remind me who ran Abu Ghraid and Guantamo bay?

The British armed foces need treating with respect.

In the 50s? Didn't Churchill lose the election in the 40s?

He was re-elected from 51-55. As to the accuracy of the rest of statements, i admit to having no knowledge. I'd similarly be interested in seeing some sources. I know the US, especially the media/popular culture, does have a habit of over-exagerating their own role in conflicts whilst underemphasising everyone elses. But they did have a hand in winning the second world war, same as the Russians did, the UK, the Free French, the rest of the Commonwealth/Empire and half a dozen other european nations/resistance fighters and even quite a number of anti-nazi Germans. This is why it was called the Allies. To denigrate any nations part in this is to do them all a great diservice.

So Duke, relax please, you're making the rest of us Brits look bad. :rolleyes:

In the 50s? Didn't Churchill lose the election in the 40s?

Yes he did lose the election in the 1940s :D

But he did become PM again in 1955.

you know I here a lot of people saying that the military is inadequately trained... what are you people basing this theory off of. If I'm not deployed I am training... :confused:

Not enough live-fire training IMO.

Then you must of found the USSR obscene and offensive in the extreme.

No, no, no the stories of poverty in the USSR are lies by the bourgeois scum with the sole intention of making the enlightened peoples of the Soviet Republics look bad. :rolleyes:

Just build some of these...

http://www.stolaf.edu/people/vangtk/index_files/image009.jpg

problem solved

Then you must of found the USSR obscene and offensive in the extreme.

Indeed, especially Brezhnev's militarization, Stalin of course actually had a pretty small military (large standards today but for the time and situation it wasn't large), prior to industrialization the factories were beginning to make consumer items before Hitler invaded, in which case they needed to be moved and reorganized to military capacity.

Small military indeed

As I said, for the time and situation of the time, it wasn't that large.

Indeed, especially Brezhnev's militarization, Stalin of course actually had a pretty small military (large standards today but for the time and situation it wasn't large), prior to industrialization the factories were beginning to make consumer items before Hitler invaded, in which case they needed to be moved and reorganized to military capacity.

By the end of 1945, over 57,000 T-34s had been built: 34,780 original T-34 tanks in 1940–44, and another 22,559 T-34-85s in 1944–45

Small military indeed
At the time of the Nazi assault on the USSR in June 1941, the Red Army's ground forces had 303 divisions and 22 brigades (4.8 million troops), including 166 divisions and 9 brigades (2.9 million troops) stationed in the western military districts. Their Axis opponents deployed on the Eastern Front 181 divisions and 18 brigades (5.5 million troops). Three Fronts, the Northwestern Front, the Western, and the Southwestern, controlled the forces defending the western border. However the first weeks of the war saw major Soviet defeats as German forces trapped hundreds of thousands of Red Army soldiers in vast encirclements, causing the loss of major equipment, tanks, and artillery. Stalin and the Soviet leadership responded by stepping up the mobilization that was already under way, and by 1 August 1941, despite the loss of 46 divisions in combat, the Red Army's strength stood at 401 divisions.

Then there should be a link somewhere.

.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

The article is slightly misleading though, while the financial terms of the loans were very advantageous to Britain, the US made them conditional upon certain policies being implemented that opened up the British market for US companies.

Indeed, especially Brezhnev's militarization, Stalin of course actually had a pretty small military (large standards today but for the time and situation it wasn't large), prior to industrialization the factories were beginning to make consumer items before Hitler invaded, in which case they needed to be moved and reorganized to military capacity.

Stalin had a small military force? :headbang:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/4757181.stm

The article is slightly misleading though, while the financial terms of the loans were very advantageous to Britain, the US made them conditional upon certain policies being implemented that opened up the British market for US companies.

Actually...I was refering to what he said about Churchill, Austria, and negotiations in the 50s.

Stalin had a small military force? :headbang:

Is that a euphemism? Well he was certainly compensating for some inadequacy...

Stalin had a small military force? :headbang:

Well given that Stalin always thought a war was coming, and that the rest of the time the USSR was actually at war, the size isn't surprising. What is surprising is the ridiculous massive armed forces his successors kept in peace time.

Well given that Stalin always thought a war was coming, and that the rest of the time the USSR was actually at war, the size isn't surprising. That is surprising is the ridiculous massive armed forces his successors kept in peace time.

Not all that surprising in truth.