Kissinger
Banned
But war isn't that way, it's a bloody long and uncertain conflict. (Words of Paul Van Ripen in a NOVA interview)
Our Military: How to get it on track or is it already?
- Thread starter Kissinger
- Start date
But war isn't that way, it's a bloody long and uncertain conflict. (Words of Paul Van Ripen in a NOVA interview)
Riain
Banned
The US have run down their materiel stocks fighting prolonged wars and with delays and reductions in weapons development. For example the USAF has bought any F15s and F16s for ages in the expectation that the F22 would be bought in larger numbers and the F35 would be in squadron service by now. The upshot is that the fighter fleet has a very old average age. The same can be said for a lot of fleets, the tanker fleet is a prime example.
A word on doctrine. It is easy to dumb down a high end force but very difficult to ramp up a low end force. If the US reorients itself toward fighting COIN wars then major powers will not be deterred from engaging in confrontation with the US, knowing that COIN skills and equipment aren`t much chop against an armoured Corps.
A word on doctrine. It is easy to dumb down a high end force but very difficult to ramp up a low end force. If the US reorients itself toward fighting COIN wars then major powers will not be deterred from engaging in confrontation with the US, knowing that COIN skills and equipment aren`t much chop against an armoured Corps.
In part, the viewpoint that war can be bloodless, come from the Media coverage of Desert Shield/Storm and the Iraq invasion. The American people saw a high tech military that crush the enemy with little or no problems.
What the media did not show is the soldier on the ground who had to deal with other troop on the ground. This fighting can still get quite bloody. The problem is that ground fighting does not make good TV.
I can see Kissingers POV, we're, (the UK as well as the US), finding, inventing or buying new toys and technology to fight in the same old way. The tactics and the way we're using the kit isn't moving at the same speed. We're not fighting smarter as such, just in a more over complicated fashion.
I think the idea of using WWZ as a jumping point is actually a good one.
When the machinegun was invented, warfare changed, as it did when the airplane was invented and the tank. The basic enemy - other humans - hasn't changed in a few hundred thousand years, (or a few thousand if you're a creationist).
So what will we do if we meet a new enemy?
I think the idea of using WWZ as a jumping point is actually a good one.
When the machinegun was invented, warfare changed, as it did when the airplane was invented and the tank. The basic enemy - other humans - hasn't changed in a few hundred thousand years, (or a few thousand if you're a creationist).
So what will we do if we meet a new enemy?
Garrison
Donor
Ah so the European's don't provide ground forces, well I'm sure that's going as a comfort to the families of all those British, French, German, etc. soldiers who obviously weren't really killed in Afghanistan.
And the non-existent Charles de Gaulle & the not-being-build Queen Elizabeth & Prince of Wales.
And then there's the little detail of both Afghanistan & Iraq being done primarily for the US. Libya had decent European presence in the air, even Belgium dropped bombs there!
That being said, I certainly would like to see the average EU country have a higher defence budget than 1.61% of GDP, in particular those who are dragging the average down by hovering around the 1% mark.
This is going political fast. Yes, some European nations provide token ground forces. But equally clearly they rely on the US to provide the lion's share of military power. And when it comes to naval power, don't even pretend that Europe's combined navies equal the striking power of even 1 US CVBG, which are absolutely relied on to enforce UN and NATO missions worldwide.
Leftist Euro civilians may bitch about the US military, but it does the job they refuse to pay for or do themselves, yet they still want done.
Kissinger
Banned
I'm just saying in essence
Quote Rommel: They came the same old way and we smashed them the same old way.
Or our tactics have become too predictable to the point someone may find out how to beat the system. As of now there are stealth cruise missiles capable of beating our reaction time. That is what I'm worried about
Quote Rommel: They came the same old way and we smashed them the same old way.
Or our tactics have become too predictable to the point someone may find out how to beat the system. As of now there are stealth cruise missiles capable of beating our reaction time. That is what I'm worried about
That was the Duke of Wellington, not Rommel.
But I do see your point. I don't know the answer, except that the answer can't possibly involve slashing defense and redirecting billions into foreign aid. That dog don't hunt.
But I do see your point. I don't know the answer, except that the answer can't possibly involve slashing defense and redirecting billions into foreign aid. That dog don't hunt.
Kissinger
Banned
Maybe a Serbia can be instructive align with the war games, they taught that an inferior country can resist anothers airpower since they were defeated by a combined effort proving once again air power cannot win a war alone.
Hyperion
Banned
BS
I would say the combined European Navies, which include several aircraft carriers, would be worth aboue 2-3 US carrier strike groups.
As to the OP, where the hell has he been since 2001.
We could still have won in Afghanistan, but Iraq may have been close. Regardless, our casualty figures would have been exponentially worse than what was actually experienced.
Not a chance...European carriers have about the capability of Tarawa-class landing ships. In other words, they don't have the ability to project and sustain combat power. Could 1 US CVBG sink every European warship? No. But could every combined European warship project as much power as 1 Nimitz class? Also no.
Also I find it interesting that while some posters have quibbled about relative combat power, NOBODY has addressed or refuted the fact that the UN, EU, and NATO rely on the US military because they refuse to pay for one of their own.
I wanted to jump in on this mainly because this is true. The reason why the U.S. military was caught off guard with the Iraqi insurgency and Afghanistan is mainly because our military leadership at the strategic level have the East/West German mentality because that is what they were trained on. It is a mentality that we are slowly creeping away from but our leaders still have a cold war mindset.
Speaking as a leftist Euro civilian, albeit with a military training of sorts in a country that still practices conscription, I don't know who these leftist Euro civilians are that "bitch about the US miltary" but would still support invasions of foreign countries. I see that as something of a strawman. I understand and support if my country goes with a boycott, economic sanctions or a blockade against a "rogue state". UN approved peace keeping missions and purely defensive operations such as the multi-national naval taskforce on the Somalian coast are OK but I can't support (and never have supported) an invasion of a foreign country. National defence for me means working politically and diplomatically with the international community to uphold peace, while preparing militarily for a defensive war. If worst comes to worst, defending of the national soil by all able-bodied men and women. Perhaps allying with other likeminded nations to do so if need be.
I honestly believe that if most countries practiced these kinds of principles in defence, there would be a lot less wars fought and a lot less soldiers and military expenditures needed than there actually is today. And I think most "leftist Euro civilians" from where I come from would agree with me on that.
David Floyde, most of the money you're complaining about isn't going to where you think it is, in fact during the Iraq and Afghan wars hundreds of millions of dollars went to pay for private military contractors and blatent military pork programs that didn't work.
Just because the cash get's spent o nthe military doesn't mean it's money well spent.
The pay collected by ONE cowboy in blue jeans playing Soldier in Mosul would pay for a platoon of actual U.S> SOldiers that KNOW what they are doing.
Just because the cash get's spent o nthe military doesn't mean it's money well spent.
The pay collected by ONE cowboy in blue jeans playing Soldier in Mosul would pay for a platoon of actual U.S> SOldiers that KNOW what they are doing.
Riain
Banned
What job do the Europeans want done? Much of US power projection is used to ensure US energy supplies, but Europeans use about half the energy that Americans do and import it from different regions. The US is not a charity, it takes on a leadership role and reaps the rewards from this role and the expenditures that go along with it. Also Europeans have different perceptions of threats such as those emanating from Iran.
So it stands to reason that European defence expenditures are less than US.