The US Military..undisciplined, not trained to standars, and poorly equipped

[8thidpathfinderpower]

In the coming days, you are going to hear a lot about the war in Iraq,(If you ain't sick of it already, then there will be more) But, what you don't hear about, is the lack of military preparedness that will ultimately cost our country in the long run.

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.

As a country, we need to take note. We need to understand, that 9/11 was just the beginning, and we are all alone...not the place to be.


This thread is in no way intended to be a massive flame fest. It is how ever, intended to start a open and frank discussion about USA military readiness, and much touted equipment performance that is now by all means, out dated, and endangering our teoops lives. If anyone was truely offended, I first want to apologize. But, this is a thread about the current state of USA military readiness, and, for all eviddence here, is not good.


Here are 2 of the links, of the many I used for research before I started this thread. I hope this helps some of you who want to read these yourselfs. Thank you for viewing this thread.


www.aurairpower.net (http://www.aurairpower.net)
www.spacewar.com (http://www.spacewar.com)


Here are some more sites that you can use for your own research, if you choose to do so....Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, Suhkoi, and globalsecurity.org. For issues about our army, you can go to the DoD website, the Army website, and the Air force web site.

[Zoomie]

Oooook......was Webcorex2 an alias of yours?

[Power_serj]

Where did you hear that propaganda from? The Marines just bought the new MRAPs, the Air Force is in the process of buying F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters, and our aircraft carriers are better than any in the world. I agree that we need more military spending, but you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not one service of the Russian military can even come close to comparing to US military equipment.

[Lt. James Anderson]

If you never got shot at or shot at somebody your opinion doesn't count for sheet, at least not in my book.

[Hutz]

If you never got shot at or shot at somebody your opinion doesn't count for sheet, at least not in my book.

So you're not a fan of politicians? :)

[11 Bravo]

As a country, we need to take note. We need to understand, that 9/11 was just the beginning, and we are all alone...not the place to be.



You are a complete ass..... and as a US citizen , you to me apparently have no clue.

[Hilbert]

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.

old, outdated, broken military equipment, sub-par training ... can you please elaborate on these.

Sure, speaking purely in terms of technical capabilities, the Russian BMP-3's trump any U.S. IFV's and can even go toe to toe with modern MBTs (and beat them). Yes, they have some very nice fighter aircraft, Su-35, Mig-31 Interceptor, etc. but can you please elaborate on what equipment of theirs outmatches the U.S.'s?

I'd like to see more information on this.

Thanks,
Hildebert

EDIT: I'm sorry but until you can show some information to back up these claims, I find this downright impossible to believe.

[Hutz]

Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world.

Where the hell did you get this info? You need to fire your Int O for being completely out to lunch.

[D-gin]

Where the hell did you get this info? You need to fire your Int O for being completely out to lunch.
I think you mean permanent leave.

[Beowulf]

The current conflicts have forged some of the best NCO's and Officers our military has seen in a long time. Unlike some other periods in our military's history.

Our training programs have made dramatic advances since GWOT kicked off, and our equipment has gotten better, not to mention the process for procuring and fielding new equipment.

[muck]

It may be the case that lowered recruitment standarts have diluted the overall standart of US Forces. And we live in a time in which most "first world" militaries have good capabilities. But from all what I have heard US Forces is still the best-equipped and at least regarding some of it's units best trained fighting force in the world.

Your country is spending more on it's defense than mine on everything else, and Germany is still the third largest economical power.

[Roy Batty]

I think you mean permanent leave.

It's called a "cheddar break"...when your cheese slips off your cracker..lol

[netchicken]

Not even I would create such a one sided and biased opinion piece here.

What information do you have to back up your argument? Is the military inferior based on their past standards, or are they inferior to some other country, say British, Russian, Iranian, or French?

I suspect that this piece is satirical based on the current "The Russian military is terrible" threads here.

[Lt. James Anderson]

So you're not a fan of politicians? :)

As a matter of fact no. Politicians are scumbags, communists or both.

[LaoSexMachine]

Typical (US) state militia member rant.

[wicked_hind]

I was thinking the same thing, Ezekiel. This guy definitely needs to take off his tin hat, and perhaps lay off the sauce if that's the case. Something tells me he's DAOTW material.

[Beowulf]

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?t=119169

[Hunterhr]

Sounds like someone's a little drunk. Sober up and try again.

[Zoomie]

Typical (US) state militia member rant.

Well Ezekiel, do you remember his tirade (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2699983#post2699983)against that Marine who sat down in a secured building to take a smoke and opened up his body armor to air out some? This rant doesn't surprise me at all.

[Beowulf]

no activity since he posted that. He probably passed out from all the qaludes and whippets.

[Hellfish]

Where did you hear that propaganda from? The Marines just bought the new MRAPs, the Air Force is in the process of buying F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters, and our aircraft carriers are better than any in the world. I agree that we need more military spending, but you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not one service of the Russian military can even come close to comparing to US military equipment.

More military spending?

Yeah, those F-22s and JSFs are critical to defeating OBL. So are the aircraft carriers. :roll:

We need smarter military spending, not more - on the procurement side and on the sustainment side.

[Zoomie]

We need smarter military spending, not more - on the procurement side and on the sustainment side.
Part of that is getting newer weapons and aircraft, because after awhile like with the F-14, you just can't keep it running it efficiently because its see so much use. And when that happens, its time to move on and procure new weapon systems.

[Ratamacue]

More military spending?

Yeah, those F-22s and JSFs are critical to defeating OBL. So are the aircraft carriers. :roll:

We need smarter military spending, not more - on the procurement side and on the sustainment side.Getting the tools needed to fight the war right now is very important, but so is maintaining long-term plans. We have alot of aging aircraft in our inventory (not just technologically, but also in terms of simple wear and tear). It's better to spend the money now and be prepared than to end up in a large-scale conventional war 20 years from now with obsolete naval and air forces.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

If you never got shot at or shot at somebody your opinion doesn't count for sheet, at least not in my book.

Been there, got shot at. DS1. I am glad you read my post. Maybe, as a officer, you may want to take training more seriously. Your life depends on it.

[deagle]

do you care to back that up with a source ?

[noname]

Been there, got shot at. DS1. I am glad you read my post. Maybe, as a officer, you may want to take training more seriously. Your life depends on it.

I think it was proved in another thread that he isn't an officer, just plays one in teh online world. p-)

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Where did you hear that propaganda from? The Marines just bought the new MRAPs, the Air Force is in the process of buying F-22s and Joint Strike Fighters, and our aircraft carriers are better than any in the world. I agree that we need more military spending, but you really don't know what the hell you're talking about. Not one service of the Russian military can even come close to comparing to US military equipment.

Well, we will see if the F22 is up to snuff, especially in the next war, when we go up against some SU-35, SU-27MKI, and other aircraft from Russia.

The JSF, although has a supposedly small radar cross section, is no match for a 1 on 1 engagement with a SU-27 series aircraft, Basicly, all the air farce done is spend money on out dated technology. Yes..our elecronics are supposed to be second to none..but the Russians have made their radar far more powerful, and their AAM longer range than the american Amraam. Evin the newest version of the amraam cannot compete. In the manuverabilty department, the Russian aircraft clearly can out manuver the F15, F16, JSF, F18A/B/C/D/E/F/G. Russian tanks have a lower profile than american M1s. Their newer tanks have 135mm main guns, and French thermal imagining sight. These are just examples where the Russians have out paced the USA when it comes to military equipment.

The american way of training its troops for battle, to say the least, is very poor. The current batch of troopies exhibit lack of discipline, no training in weapons maintenance, among other things.

MRAPS getting to Iraq...nice idea, too late. The Iranians have just managed to buy some off of a 3rd world country(Africa). The next generation of IEDs and penetrators(HEAT) will work over those vehicles quite well.

This is reality. The american government is too worried about throwing money at some ungodly thing..instead of spending on stuff we need.

The information I managed to obtain about the SU-27 series aircraft, comes from several videos shot by our own military at air shows, and from other government sources on the web(Austrailia has a wonderfukl assesment of the SU-27 series, good reading.)

As I said before, we lack in military preparedness. Our military equipment in Iraq will take severl decades to come clean from the scars of battle. We lack airlift, a very improtant thing when it comes to deploying to a war.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is reality. We need to start building up the military, again, and hope we do not have any wars in the near future.

[Buckeye67]

So from what I'm gathered so far, your source is 8thpathfindergoatse.cx.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

do you care to back that up with a source ?


I would like to inform you of where I got the information I based this thread off of. Civilian pubs like Jane's, Defense Industry Daily, Lockheed/Martin, Boeing, the Government of Austrailia(they have a very wonderful webpage just about the threats in the Pacific, and the SU-27 series aircraft), and our own military, especially the USAF, and our wonderful CIA(they have a wonderful fact sheet on the Russian defense establishment)

[Hilbert]

Once again, I repeat myself: Sources Please.

EDIT: Care to provide some links?

[budgie]

If you never got shot at or shot at somebody your opinion doesn't count for sheet, at least not in my book.

Neither applies to me but I can still read. And all I've read tells me that despite being a tad stretched at the moment the US military is still among the best trained and is the best equipped in the world. People like Russia and China are struggling to keep up.

[Moledet]

I don't know why you think the SU27 can outmatch the F15/F16, in 1996 the IAF met with Russian SU-33s that crossed into the Israeli airspace (3 times), although the Russians heavily maneuvered (and tried to lock) the IAF pilots (F16D) kept the cannon locked on them until they left the Israeli airspace and returned to their aircraft carrier.

[BloodyTalon]

Neither applies to me but I can still read. And all I've read tells me that despite being a tad stretched at the moment the US military is still among the best trained and is the best equipped in the world. People like Russia and China are struggling to keep up.
Yes, but apparently our army sucks because we don't have force field technology to make our vehicles invinceable and we don't own the SU-27 which is the greatest fighter ever made and nothing short of the Millenium Falcon can defeat it. Or at least that's what the OP thinks.

Oh yeah, and some rambling about how soldiers these days have the nerve to relax when not fighting or on patrol.

[Beowulf]

The american way of training its troops for battle, to say the least, is very poor. The current batch of troopies exhibit lack of discipline, no training in weapons maintenance, among other things.


I don't follow tech specs on armor or aircraft, at least not more than I need to.

But this little tidbit is utter ****.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I don't know why you think the SU27 can outmatch the F15/F16, in 1996 the IAF met with Russian SU-33s that crossed into the Israeli airspace (3 times), although the Russians heavily maneuvered (and tried to lock) the IAF pilots (F16D) kept the cannon locked on them until they left the Israeli airspace and returned to their aircraft carrier.

The idea came fom watching videos of the latest SU varient, the SU-30MKI, and comparing data to the F16. Also, from watching demo videos of the F16 at air shows.


Not trying to change subjects, but, I have noticed the IAF has some of the most technologicaly advanced aircraft today, and this is using your countrys industrial base to make it happen.

[Ratamacue]

The idea came fom watching videos of the latest SU varient, the SU-30MKI, and comparing data to the F16. Also, from watching demo videos of the F16 at air shows.The F-16 is not, and never has been, intended as a counterpart to the Flanker. Neither is the F-35.

[Hilbert]

I don't know why you think the SU27 can outmatch the F15/F16, in 1996 the IAF met with Russian SU-33s that crossed into the Israeli airspace (3 times), although the Russians heavily maneuvered (and tried to lock) the IAF pilots (F16D) kept the cannon locked on them until they left the Israeli airspace and returned to their aircraft carrier.

Please note those situations we're over a decade old and during fairly "dark" days for the Russian Military. Quality has improved a deal sense then under Putin's reforms. Although as far as the Su-27 being able to take on the F-22... let's just say I have some serious doubts.

[Ordie]

Too much discussion and emphasis on fighter vs. fighter.

When in fact a fighter is just a fragile beer can with a jet engine and wings that can be easily grounded by a careless maintenance crew driving a tractor into it.

The key to air superiority is not air to air combat, but the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground by any means possible.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The F-16 is not, and never has been, intended as a counterpart to the Flanker. Neither is the F-35.

TRUE, and to point. But......the Russian MiG 29 series IS the counterpart to the F16. And, soon to be the JSF. I will have to go back and check, but if I remember right, the Russians have made several improvments to the MiG29, even to go as far as putting thrust vectoring nozzles on the aircraft to enhance manuverability.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Too much discussion and emphasis on fighter vs. fighter.

When in fact a fighter is just a fragile beer can with a jet engine and wings that can be easily grounded by a careless maintenance crew driving a tractor into it.

The key to air superiority is not air to air combat, but the destruction of enemy aircraft on the ground by any means possible.

I chose aircraft to point out, the advances in Russian capabilities, and the sales of these capabilities to the rest of the world.

You are right about air to air warfare...to an extent. On the ground, recent advances in weapons like the newest versions of the T-90, and the new tank already in devolopment, if not in service. FYI..both versions, this includes the newest versions of the T-90, has the new 135mm smoothbore gun.

[Lokos]

Yah...

I'm not exactly against the Russians, as many of you would know, but the notion that the US is about to lose its absolute military supremacy is pretty ludicrous. There is something to be said for spending as much money on the military as the rest of the world combined.

As long as you have $450 billion dollar defence budgets... you're all good.


both versions, this includes the newest versions of the T-90, has the new 135mm smoothbore gun.

What now? The T90A and the T90S do not have the gun you're talking about. The 'new tank' has yet to be revealed - and therefore the caliber of its gun is unknown.

Mate, this is fear mongering. The Russians don't have much of the equipment you're talking about in any quantity. There are more F22s in service right now than the very newest MiGs or Sukhois. The Russian military, while its improving, is not yet 'up to date'. In time, sure, there'll be significant improvements, but right now... you're all good.

Lokos

[Ordie]

On the ground, recent advances in weapons like the newest versions of the T-90, and the new tank already in devolopment, if not in service. FYI..both versions, this includes the newest versions of the T-90, has the new 135mm smoothbore gun.

Perhaps, but the use of tanks is dependent upon horsepower, landscape, maintenance and fuel. A tank is of no use if the fuel farm is blown up or supply lines are too streached or the crew is lost.

[Hilbert]

On the ground, recent advances in weapons like the newest versions of the T-90, and the new tank already in devolopment, if not in service. FYI..both versions, this includes the newest versions of the T-90, has the new 135mm smoothbore gun.

I agree with you that the T-90 (with the Modernization Packages that are standard on Russian Tanks) is a force to be reckoned with, one of the best tanks in the world, however you must remember that Russia doesn't have very many of these. The bulk of the armor comprises modernized T-62's, T-72's, and T-80s.

BMP-3M's which can for all practical purposes double as tanks and even go toe to toe with the M1, are also in short supply as well. My understanding is that the bulk of their Ground Forces IFVs are BMP-2's and large supplies of BMP-1's left over from the Cold War.

Even with Putin's reforms the Russian Military is still building it's strength, it's not yet ready for all out war technologically wise, however in five or ten years, this will be a different story. You have a solid core of First Rate, teir one units of Infantry, Armor, Fighter Aircraft, Helicopters and what not, such as the 245th Infantry Regiment, the VDV (Airborne Forces; Paratroops), and Spetsnaz which boast the latest equipment and first rate training. Sure, these units can certainely give the U.S. counterparts a run for their money but behind that are conscripts and lesser quality troops with poorer equipment.

EDIT: One thing I also want to bring up is that Russia is NOT our enemy here. If anyone's our enemy here look to those "peace loving" and "do not condone violence or terrorism in any fashion" fanatics in the Iranian Govt.

[Lokos]

Hilbert, your assessments are sound and I agree with them.

Lokos

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I don't follow tech specs on armor or aircraft, at least not more than I need to.

But this little tidbit is utter ****.

I would not go as far to discount the statement made, there Beowolf.

I am going to list some very important examples of lack of discipline among US military personnel, and the results of the misbehavior. And, as I said before, these are just examples.

Abu Ghraib.....military personnel leak pictures of military personnel in comprimising posistions with Iraqi prisoners. The result has been a heightend insurgency.

Posing for **** videos, and in **** magazines...A few women managed to pose in comprimising pics in Playboy and make **** videos. This has clearly demonstrated the lack of self respect of the soldiers, female air man, and the Kentuck National Guard.

AWOL/Desertions...these are on the increase, because of the stresses of combat, but also because of the perception of the problems encountered as a whole. This is a key indicator of military effectiveness.

[Shadowstorm]

The major drawback on Russian armoured vehicles is armour and fuel problems.

[Moledet]

TRUE, and to point. But......the Russian MiG 29 series IS the counterpart to the F16. And, soon to be the JSF. I will have to go back and check, but if I remember right, the Russians have made several improvments to the MiG29, even to go as far as putting thrust vectoring nozzles on the aircraft to enhance manuverability.
Speaking of airshow videos, MiG 29 vs. F16 in the IAF's site (in courtesy of Lockheed).
http://www.iaf.co.il/Templates/Gallery/GalleryVODMovies.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=67&folderID=1917&subfolderID=1921&docfolderID=1921&docID=26804

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Speaking of airshow videos, MiG 29 vs. F16 in the IAF's site (in courtesy of Lockheed).
http://www.iaf.co.il/Templates/Gallery/GalleryVODMovies.aspx?lang=HE&lobbyID=67&folderID=1917&subfolderID=1921&docfolderID=1921&docID=26804

Thnks for the link.

[Beowulf]

I would not go as far to discount the statement made, there Beowolf.

I am going to list some very important examples of lack of discipline among US military personnel, and the results of the misbehavior. And, as I said before, these are just examples.

Abu Ghraib.....military personnel leak pictures of military personnel in comprimising posistions with Iraqi prisoners. The result has been a heightend insurgency.

Posing for **** videos, and in **** magazines...A few women managed to pose in comprimising pics in Playboy and make **** videos. This has clearly demonstrated the lack of self respect of the soldiers, female air man, and the Kentuck National Guard.

AWOL/Desertions...these are on the increase, because of the stresses of combat, but also because of the perception of the problems encountered as a whole. This is a key indicator of military effectiveness.

These examples hardly warrant the broad strokes that you've used to paint all service members. For shame.

I'll say again that our current NCOs, Officers, and combat veterans are some of the best we've had in ages. We are still fielding an all volunteer force, even in this time of war.

You sound just like a has-been vet who tries to re-live his glory days by bashing the current troops and talking about the way it used to be.

edit:

How about posing some constructive solutions, instead of just bitching?

[Ordie]

Posing for **** videos, and in **** magazines...A few women managed to pose in comprimising pics in Playboy and make **** videos. This has clearly demonstrated the lack of self respect of the soldiers, female air man, and the Kentuck National Guard.

**** is the least of our worries. I consider **** is a morale booster.

If anything, actual combat experience and lessons learned from these experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered highly valuable assets.

It is something that the PLA, Russian Army or any global army would envy.

Unfortunately sometimes these lessons are written in blood.

[muck]

Abu Ghraib.....military personnel leak pictures of military personnel in comprimising posistions with Iraqi prisoners. The result has been a heightend insurgency.

This incident could have happened within every Army, I don't buy that.



Posing for **** videos, and in **** magazines...A few women managed to pose in comprimising pics in Playboy and make **** videos. This has clearly demonstrated the lack of self respect of the soldiers, female air man, and the Kentuck National Guard..

The Military may have a kind of code of conduct for soldiers, but I fail to see how the examples you have presented were in any way connected to a lack of self respect or discipline because this is an element of their private life and does not tell us something about the way they perform their duties.
And again I must say this happens everywhere. Russians officers abused conscripts, German paratroopers found it funny to play deepthroat with human skulls, and so on and so on.

[Hutz]

You sound just like a has-been vet who tries to re-live his glory days by bashing the current troops and talking about the way it used to be.


The older I get, the better I was.

[grenadier07]

I read through this whole thing this morning and it sounds to me like nothing more than someone playing armchair general bitching up a storm about problems that may or may not be legitimate without posing any solutions to fix said problems. Criticize all you like but at least have a few good ideas to correct the problems you think are there. Some things he mentions are right. All services in the US military are facing problems with old aircraft that are wearing out even faster with the high ops tempo. However to say that the F-22 or F-35 won't get the job done against possible adversaries in the future when they have just barely come online if at all is stretching it a bit. As has been stated by many people it isn't always about who has the fanciest gadgets it's how well your people know how to use what they have. Frankly I don't see this training gap. As for servicemen and women being less disciplined today that is a load of crap. A very wide brush stroke to define isolated incidents. You could have used the same arguement for the Tailhook Scandal back in the early 90's and you would have been just as wrong.

[wicked_hind]

Perhaps, but the use of tanks is dependent upon horsepower, landscape, maintenance and fuel. A tank is of no use if the fuel farm is blown up or supply lines are too streached or the crew is lost.

Yup, battlefield interdiction does wonders.

[Zoomie]

The idea came fom watching videos of the latest SU varient, the SU-30MKI, and comparing data to the F16. Also, from watching demo videos of the F16 at air shows.

ROFL, you make blanket assessments about the USAF just from air show footage you watch on YouTube? :roll: Brilliant . . .

Yeah, I sure back in your day everyone who fought in a war was a gentleman and an officer, none of them did wrong, and everyone went home happy, right?

[wicked_hind]

The idea came fom watching videos of the latest SU varient, the SU-30MKI, and comparing data to the F16. Also, from watching demo videos of the F16 at air shows.


Not trying to change subjects, but, I have noticed the IAF has some of the most technologicaly advanced aircraft today, and this is using your countrys industrial base to make it happen.

So your opinion of the superiority of these aircraft are based from watching videos? Oh brother. As demonstrated time and time again, your weapons are only as good as the people that are using and maintaining them. Training is the difference between winning and losing a war. All the high tech gadgets you can possess won't necessarily help you if you don't know how to use them to their full effectiveness. You may have a fighter jet, or a tank, that may be claimed on paper to be the world's best, but that doesn't mean a damn thing if you're not out there training to get the most out of your crew and equipment. Maintenance and logistics are essential to training. What good would it be if you can't get your 10 squadrons of fighters off the ground or your 10 tank divisions in the field because you don't have parts or enough fuel for them? What do you think will happen when they come across a well trained force, with seasoned pilots and experienced tankers whose equipement is in top shape and have steady supplies of fuel and parts?

[MichaelF]

In the coming days, you are going to hear a lot about the war in Iraq,(If you ain't sick of it already, then there will be more) But, what you don't hear about, is the lack of military preparedness that will ultimately cost our country in the long run.

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.

As a country, we need to take note. We need to understand, that 9/11 was just the beginning, and we are all alone...not the place to be.

You have recieved a NO GO on this station (Current Military Affairs).

[deagle]

I would like to inform you of where I got the information I based this thread off of. Civilian pubs like Jane's, Defense Industry Daily, Lockheed/Martin, Boeing, the Government of Austrailia(they have a very wonderful webpage just about the threats in the Pacific, and the SU-27 series aircraft), and our own military, especially the USAF, and our wonderful CIA(they have a wonderful fact sheet on the Russian defense establishment)

you list so many places, but post no links of your sources. print sources would have volume/journal references etc...

[deagle]

I would not go as far to discount the statement made, there Beowolf.

I am going to list some very important examples of lack of discipline among US military personnel, and the results of the misbehavior. And, as I said before, these are just examples.

Abu Ghraib.....military personnel leak pictures of military personnel in comprimising posistions with Iraqi prisoners. The result has been a heightend insurgency.

Posing for **** videos, and in **** magazines...A few women managed to pose in comprimising pics in Playboy and make **** videos. This has clearly demonstrated the lack of self respect of the soldiers, female air man, and the Kentuck National Guard.

AWOL/Desertions...these are on the increase, because of the stresses of combat, but also because of the perception of the problems encountered as a whole. This is a key indicator of military effectiveness.

so you ASSume the few can be generalized into many ? did you account for a 51 % majority of "ineffectiveness" or "undiscipline" ?

its true some of those points are valid, but only to a small number....its not as rampant as you make it sound.

throw up some clear FACTS from CREDIBLE sources and then reply.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

Undisciplined - untrained, poorly equipped? As compared to who, exactly?

[derkrieger]

To aliens surely.

[Freibier]

Undiciplined, not trained to standards - well, looks like it for an outsider, imho
But come on, poorly equipped?
Body Armor vs. sandals comes to mind p-)

[wicked_hind]

Undisciplined - untrained, poorly equipped? As compared to who, exactly?

I think he and F16Driver could have long talks into the wee hours of the morning

[Power_serj]

This topic is flamebait. There are no sources by the author and as far as I know. He pulled his information straight out of his anus and put it on a plate and called it dinner.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I remember my grandfather talking to me about his service in WWII. He was appalled at what a bunch of idiots we were - constantly screwing up - never seemed to know what we were doing - nothing ever worked right or went to plan. He'd always chuckle about how if we were that bad, how bad the enemy must have been. :)

[California Joe]

Undisciplined - untrained, poorly equipped? As compared to who, exactly?

Guatemalan SF. I have it on good authority that they eat their dead.

[khukuri]

Undisciplined - untrained, poorly equipped? As compared to who, exactly?


hit the nail on the head,

With half of the worlds military expenditure and an never ending cycle of actual military experience you cant really fail can you...


Guatemalan SF. I have it on good authority that they eat their dead.


rofl rofl rofl muahahahaha!

[seraosha]

The older I get, the better I was.

This is a very insightful post. I'm sure it's been around the block, but this is my first time hearing it. Saving that one.

[Zoomie]

Undisciplined - untrained, poorly equipped? As compared to who, exactly?
Why, himself of course! p-)

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Before this thread turns into a massive flame fest, this is NOT what is intended. How ever, it is intended to adress the current state of military readiness. If any one was offended, I apologize. As I stated before, I startted this thread to start a open and honest discussion about USA military readiness.

[Zoomie]

Before this thread turns into a massive flame fest, this is NOT what is intended. How ever, it is intended to adress the current state of military readiness. If any one was offended, I apologize. As I stated before, I startted this thread to start a open and honest discussion about USA military readiness.
You didn't address anything by saying "Everything in the US Military sucks!", nor did it seem like you wanted to discuss anything from the start.

[kamaz]

our military def does suck as compared to others, such as Russia's army, where superiors beat their underlings to death in drunken stupor, veterans go unpaid, or perhaps the Israelis, who wear hand me down uniforms, fight in dusty 30 y.old M113s and have little proper body armor.

yeah the US DoD sucks ass. definitely.

[socom6]

In the coming days, you are going to hear a lot about the war in Iraq,(If you ain't sick of it already, then there will be more) But, what you don't hear about, is the lack of military preparedness that will ultimately cost our country in the long run.

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.

As a country, we need to take note. We need to understand, that 9/11 was just the beginning, and we are all alone...not the place to be.


This thread is in no way intended to be a massive flame fest. It is how ever, intended to start a open and frank discussion about USA military readiness, and much touted equipment performance that is now by all means, out dated, and endangering our teoops lives. If anyone was truely offended, I first want to apologize. But, this is a thread about the current state of USA military readiness, and, for all eviddence here, is not good.

Are you talking about the Carter administration US Army? If not then it cant be the present US Army. From what I see the US Army are battle tested and battle hardened and the US civillians are battle scared and whiney spoiled kids.

You sir I believe is talking about the demoralized gutted military of 1979 when the Soviet/ WARSAW PACT military was all powerful and could have whipped US butt on the plains of Germany ripping into France and launching a massive assault on Britain, I remember those days with dread even though i was a little youth, Communists were taking over everywhere while America was hand wringing and cussing off itself over Viet Nam.... Thanks God for Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Seriously you are quite mistaken in your Democratic Party assesment of the US military today. I see from my estimation a massive and powerful force capable of incredible lethality and deadly force the pride of America the best she ever had.

[Hollis]

I am thinking "8thidpathfinderpower" got hijacked.

[timetraveller]

Sounds like someone's a little drunk. Sober up and try again.



If he was drunk and i mean drunk he wouldnt be able to use a keyboard .. full stop


that i know from experience and i've retruned home from wrk . even though I've had a few refreshments [ Bramha's ]

[timetraveller]

This topic is flamebait. There are no sources by the author and as far as I know. He pulled his information straight out of his anus and put it on a plate and called it dinner.


Well 5 pages so FAR !!


Sorry make that 6 pages ..

[Shadowstorm]

Jimmy Carter was joke. He killed a lot of military programs like the B-1 and the military was like shell of it self.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Are you talking about the Carter administration US Army? If not then it cant be the present US Army. From what I see the US Army are battle tested and battle hardened and the US civillians are battle scared and whiney spoiled kids.

You sir I believe is talking about the demoralized gutted military of 1979 when the Soviet/ WARSAW PACT military was all powerful and could have whipped US butt on the plains of Germany ripping into France and launching a massive assault on Britain, I remember those days with dread even though i was a little youth, Communists were taking over everywhere while America was hand wringing and cussing off itself over Viet Nam.... Thanks God for Ronald Wilson Reagan.

Seriously you are quite mistaken in your Democratic Party assesment of the US military today. I see from my estimation a massive and powerful force capable of incredible lethality and deadly force the pride of America the best she ever had.

I doubt that the military now, if it had to do so, could actually respond to another hot spot, maybe here at home, or overseas, with things the way they are. Todays "battle hardend" military, is over stretched, and in most cases, not equipped well. If I was to use the term battle hardend, I would be a liar. Battle weary is more like it.

The US Military, because of the "draw down" after the cold war, had to go to war, with unprotected vehicles, and troops without body armor, and not trained properly. It has taken 5 years of war, and close to 4 thousand killed, to get the ball rolling. And yet, we are slow to respond to a war we are fighting in.

The Russians, in the 1990's, although in a rough stretch its self, modrenized its equipment and has fielded some very impressive weapons systems.

The USA how ever, let product improvements slide, was really slow at fielding gear compared to now, and we are still slow in most instances. The F-15 eagle, and its varients are an example of what I am talking about. The Russians, have refinded their aircraft, to compete with, and in most cases out perform our top of the line fighters. In stead of adding improvements to already existing aircraft, like the F15 series, we decided to sink billions of dollars into at least 1 new jet aircraft (JSF) that will more than likely be out perfomed by the newer varients of the SU27 series aircraft. On the armored vehicle side, we were slow to respond to todays threats from IEDs, and EFPs. Instead, we sunk alot of money into 2 very lopsided, and failed programs. (the commanche, and the future force warrior programs.)and now, we are trying to play catch up because of mounting casualties, and political pressure. And the ones putting pressure on the pentagon now, are the same ones who did not want to approve funding at a mucg earlier time.

Troop training is another matter. From the examples I have already mentioned, I am going to add one more.

When the over hyped rescue of Jessica lynch was played up most were wondering why that truck strayed off the path on that fateful day. Could it have been too dusty to see? Could it be that in the fog of war, the driver was disorientated? Or the likely reason of the fact that the driver was lost. Why did he get lost, More than likely, because he could not or would not read a map. Land navigation, now has been reformed quite a bit. Soldiers are now gwtting the proper training...or are they? Have we become so used to modren enhancements such as GPS, that we forgot how to read a map and use a compass? The latter, probably is going on today, versus teaching soldiers how to find their way home when lost.

There is a huge debate about which small arm is better than the M4...when troops should be taught HOW to clean their weapon properly. Yet, this is another example of lack of training.

As one Lt. Col. wrote to some of his commanders, he stated the fact that a army private gets into more trouble for losing his weapon, than a general does when losing a war. This is how the US Military is run. It needs to change. Because when Iraq is finished, the next country we will probably have issues with will more than likely be Iran. And, they are alot less forgiving than the Iraqis ever were.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

One more thing that I will add...as of now, if the USA had another event happen in the world, how would we get personnel, equipment, and relief supplies to that one added hot spot. The issue I will adress next, is lack of military airlift capability.

When the production line was running at full steam, we were nearsighted in our reasoning for not purchasing more C17 airlifters. Or, proceeding with the deolopment and replacement of the C5 Galaxy, in which most are not flyable most of the time. Instead, we contract out services to the civil air reserve fleet, or other contract carriers and airlift suppliers(Like a the Russian airline) to carry on this task. Now, the US military has another complex problem to an already battle weary force...and as a result, our country cannot defend its own borders from attack.

Some of the items I have talked about already must have touched a nerve with some people. People do not like to hear that their military is not the best in the world. Nor do they like to hear about the issues, because it hurts a great nation such as ours, pride.

But the fact remains, we still need to adress issues, that in the long run, is not good for the soldiers who carry out what we ask them to do, and for the public as a whole.

[Ordie]

Jimmy Carter was joke. He killed a lot of military programs like the B-1 and the military was like shell of it self.

Keep in mind that he was one of ADM. Rickover's (a proponent of the Nuclear Navy and Submarines) followers during his Naval service.

He did provide a pay raise of 12% for the military during his tenure.

[Lokos]

If anything, actual combat experience and lessons learned from these experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan are considered highly valuable assets

... Chechnya v1.0? Chechnya v2.0? Daghestan v1.0?

The Army of the Russian Federation isn't exactly experiencing a dearth of combat experience...

Lokos

[Hilbert]

The US Military, because of the "draw down" after the cold war, had to go to war, with unprotected vehicles, and troops without body armor, and not trained properly. It has taken 5 years of war, and close to 4 thousand killed, to get the ball rolling. And yet, we are slow to respond to a war we are fighting in.

Regarding Body Armor:
PASGT Armored Vests we're issued to U.S. troops all the way back during the 1990's Persian Gulf War (although as a freind of mine who served in Desert Storm pointed out, a good number of the troops didn't wear them because they were incredibly hot), this has long since been replaced by the Interceptor Body Armor, which the U.S. Army has replaced with IOTV and the Marines with the MTV.[/quote]


The Russians, in the 1990's, although in a rough stretch its self, modrenized its equipment and has fielded some very impressive weapons systems.

My understanding is that Yeltsin's presidency during the 1990's was some of the darkest days the Russian Armed Forces have ever experienced. Any type of effective modernization never occured until into Putin's presidency and even today, the modernizations and reforms are still underway and although proving highly successful, they're not yet complete.

As far as the F-22, I really think you underestimate just what it's capable of. Indeed, I feel you really underestimate the U.S. Armed Forces as a whole.

[RomanS]

I dont think you should be worrying about USA's strength compared to Russias or other countries.

USA is definately ahead in the world on overall defence structure.

My friend in Russia said, "You cant take US with army and force. It would be suicide for anyone. They have the strongest military on the planet today. But American social internal problems, thats what can damage US more than Russian military."

[socom6]

I doubt that the military now, if it had to do so, could actually respond to another hot spot, maybe here at home, or overseas, with things the way they are. Todays "battle hardend" military, is over stretched, and in most cases, not equipped well. If I was to use the term battle hardend, I would be a liar. Battle weary is more like it.

The US Military, because of the "draw down" after the cold war, had to go to war, with unprotected vehicles, and troops without body armor, and not trained properly. It has taken 5 years of war, and close to 4 thousand killed, to get the ball rolling. And yet, we are slow to respond to a war we are fighting in.

The Russians, in the 1990's, although in a rough stretch its self, modrenized its equipment and has fielded some very impressive weapons systems.

The USA how ever, let product improvements slide, was really slow at fielding gear compared to now, and we are still slow in most instances. The F-15 eagle, and its varients are an example of what I am talking about. The Russians, have refinded their aircraft, to compete with, and in most cases out perform our top of the line fighters. In stead of adding improvements to already existing aircraft, like the F15 series, we decided to sink billions of dollars into at least 1 new jet aircraft (JSF) that will more than likely be out perfomed by the newer varients of the SU27 series aircraft. On the armored vehicle side, we were slow to respond to todays threats from IEDs, and EFPs. Instead, we sunk alot of money into 2 very lopsided, and failed programs. (the commanche, and the future force warrior programs.)and now, we are trying to play catch up because of mounting casualties, and political pressure. And the ones putting pressure on the pentagon now, are the same ones who did not want to approve funding at a mucg earlier time.

Troop training is another matter. From the examples I have already mentioned, I am going to add one more.

When the over hyped rescue of Jessica lynch was played up most were wondering why that truck strayed off the path on that fateful day. Could it have been too dusty to see? Could it be that in the fog of war, the driver was disorientated? Or the likely reason of the fact that the driver was lost. Why did he get lost, More than likely, because he could not or would not read a map. Land navigation, now has been reformed quite a bit. Soldiers are now gwtting the proper training...or are they? Have we become so used to modren enhancements such as GPS, that we forgot how to read a map and use a compass? The latter, probably is going on today, versus teaching soldiers how to find their way home when lost.

There is a huge debate about which small arm is better than the M4...when troops should be taught HOW to clean their weapon properly. Yet, this is another example of lack of training.

As one Lt. Col. wrote to some of his commanders, he stated the fact that a army private gets into more trouble for losing his weapon, than a general does when losing a war. This is how the US Military is run. It needs to change. Because when Iraq is finished, the next country we will probably have issues with will more than likely be Iran. And, they are alot less forgiving than the Iraqis ever were.

You come with some very valid points there I cant deny. But still I am quite confident in the US troops and what they can do with what they have. And I dont think they are battle weary if I say they are battle weary I would be totally disrespecting the capability of the US military I would more say they are weary of BS from both the Govt and whiney brat civillians behind their backs.

Say the Iranians start going ape shyt and perceive just as you are now 8thidpathfinderpower that the US military is not "good" anymore and launch a massive attack on coalition forces in Iraq that the US forces in Iraq will be annihilated? Or at best do a fighting retreat like in Korea 1950? I really dont think so. I bet some warheads in the Pentagon may be praying the Persians do exactly that so they the Iranians get their arses handed to them. Now if you say the US with the forces now stretched as it is cannot invade Iran with its quite substantial conventional forces and numerous Shia irregulars then I agree with you but if Iran attacks US forces in Iraq because they think the same way u think bro they will be making a sad mistake.

Now what surprise me though is that you yourself knew what the US military was like before Reagan. You know I believe something is wrong with some Americans, the combined US military suffer nearly I mean nearly 4000 KIA's in four years of low intensity war in Iraq which in my opinion aint all that compared to Korea or Vietnam and all of a sudden the US military is "broken" I mean jeez guys whats the deal here? I have confidence in the
US forces in both peace time and war but I dont have confidence in the US citizenry to support their military when the going gets rough.

As I have said though u have raised some very valid and crucial points and I cant deny them you know more than me in many respects as you are a former trooper yourself. I really cant say if training has suffered or not, I do agree with u however that troops may have become over reliant on technology and this should change as you cant leave out the basics.
Ya know 8thidpathfinderpower not to beat a dead horse but if Bush didnt invade Iraq we wouldnt be arguing over whether the US mil is indisciplined, not trained to standards, and poorly equipped. Bush has not put the nation on a war footing and tried with Rumsfeldt to run two wars on the cheap with a lot of your whiney bratty fellow citizens not minding it a bit as they dont wanna hear about wars but jump in their shiny import car wondering if the fed is going to raise or lower interest rates because they invested a lot in the real estate market among other things.

[BloodyTalon]

Who here also thinks that that 8thidpathfinder was an especially uptight barracks lawyer during his service?

Seriously, I expect crap like hyperbole and using a few incidences to make a broad statement about the effectiveness of the entire military from a civie whose only combat experience is playing Halo, not from a BTDT.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Who here also thinks that that 8thidpathfinder was an especially uptight barracks lawyer during his service?

Seriously, I expect crap like hyperbole and using a few incidences to make a broad statement about the effectiveness of the entire military from a civie whose only combat experience is playing Halo, not from a BTDT.

BTDT. Really. For real.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I dont think you should be worrying about USA's strength compared to Russias or other countries.

USA is definately ahead in the world on overall defence structure.

My friend in Russia said, "You cant take US with army and force. It would be suicide for anyone. They have the strongest military on the planet today. But American social internal problems, thats what can damage US more than Russian military."


The thead is not meant to discuss direct comparisons to Russia's military. Rather, it meant to adress USA military readiness as a whole.

We have a "good" military. But, with what is happening in the GWOT,(it is and will be ongoing for some time.)and new and untrusted and untested alliances with China, countries in Africa, and our old partners during the cold war, readiness as a whole, is not what it should be.

When you mention that the USA has a good or great military, you have to remember to maintain a stance we take for granted in the world today, we have to realize being "good", is not good enough. You have to be the best at what you do. No questions asked.

From equipment, to troop morle, readiness and discipline, we have a good thing going. We have some of the most dedicated soldiers in the world. But, as always, we also have several weaknesses in leadership, training, and discipline that needs to be improved on.

Our military relies too much on technology to make up for training, manpower, and equipment. And for a world that is just as volatile as it was 27 years ago, we have a great big problem that needs to be adressed. It is unfortunate it had to take a war to make us open our eyes.

[usmcprincipal]

I'm not well versed in the training doctrine of the Army or its implementation, so I can't speak directly to the issue of training; however, since our forces began engaging the enemy in Afghanistan and Iraq only four members of the United States armed forces are listed as missing in action or captured.

That's a pretty remarkable record in light of the massive number of troops deployed in the past few years, particularly when many of the tactical operations emphasize small unit initiatives in urban environments.

I would suggest that forces with sub-standard training would not have accumulated such a record over a span of several years.
___________________

As an aside...I consider Abu Ghraib to be an anomaly and the result of poor leadership.

Semper Fi

[ase290406]

The US military is facing the same problems any big military faces. It's slow. Slow to respond to changing threats, slow to reequip and so on.

But the solution isn't in just the military itself.
It's about convincing the American public that there is a genuine threat out there. More public support, means more budgets, means better performance. Also because the military won't be able to excuse mess-ups with low budgets.

Just to get a bit of foreign perspective here. I've talked to a few of our soldiers who worked with the US military, during my service. One who had trained with marines in the Israeli infantry school said to me "They have amazing physical qualities, but in tactics we beat them". I don't remember the entire conversation, but my general impression was that the Americans are having trouble in "thinking outside the box" and improvising. That was in 2004 though.

Another thing I read about is the safety issue. An Israeli paratrooper officer who did the American "Green berets" training course had an interview. He was amazed when during a para jump a man got caught is the propeller of an airplane (probably a C-130), and the exercise didn't stop. "In Israel we would have stopped all the training in the base, to review what happened. But the Americans just went on." That article I read in 2006 in an Israeli man magazine. I think it was "Blazer" if anybody wants to find the story.

Obviously this are two private opinions of 2 IDF soldiers, based on my memory. But sometimes you can see better when looking from the outside on your organization.

[Lokos]

More public support, means more budgets,

... The US already outspends the rest of the world combined when it comes to the military. How much more money should the DOD get to play with, in order for Americans to feel safe and secure?

Lokos

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

But how much of that actual budget is being used properly?

[CG51]

I dont think you should be worrying about USA's strength compared to Russias or other countries.

USA is definately ahead in the world on overall defence structure.

My friend in Russia said, "You cant take US with army and force. It would be suicide for anyone. They have the strongest military on the planet today. But American social internal problems, thats what can damage US more than Russian military."

Your friend hit the nail on the head right there.

[CPL Trevoga]

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.


Russia is capitalist country now, they corrupt and inept as much as US. US can just buy them out, no need to worry. Back in Communism, we would fight for the Motherland to the death though.

[Hokiecadet88]

I as a future officer in the US Army am appalled at your accusations of military readiness 8thidpathfinderpower. I am a Cadet in the Virginia Tech Army ROTC program which is the number one College ROTC program in the nation. When it comes to Army all we do is train, train, and train. We learn all the squad and platoon formations a future officer needs to know. We have BRM every year as well as we send a team to the AMC (Army Marksmanship Competition) and finish in the top 10 for ROTC units with cadets getting even higher accolades. We have probably the best instructors imaginable. For example my platoon's instructor has multiple combat deployments as well as being a Ranger Instructor Instructor. This guy knows more about small unit tactics than you can imagine. Our Battalion Sergeant Major is a Green Beret. Our readiness to fight whoever decides to **** with the US is unquestionable. Not only is our military highly trained and thoroughly equipped to perform the job we also have something else. If some country were to outright attack the US with a military they would be in for a fight. When it comes to defending your country the US definitely has the spirit to kick their ***.

Now to talk about all your comparisons of certain aircraft to our aircraft or certain tanks to ours all you are using are the specs. You have yet to take into account the training our pilots, tank commanders, infantrymen, and eveyone else has. Yeah someone may have a better fighter than the F-16 or F-22, but can they fly it effectively to win the fight. You know as well as I know that there have been numerous times in history where an "inferior" unit or force has defeat the so called "better" unit or force. You could have the best weapon system in the world but if you don't have the training to use it correctly you might as well be dead already.

[sp2c]

this all sounds like a typical ex-soldiers rant

we have that a lot here, b00h00 used to have 20 major surface combatants and now only 6 lo and behold for we are d00000000000med, doomed I tellz you, http://www.gamers.org/dhs/helpdocs/doomicon.gifED!
never mind the fact that just one of these ships can take on the 20 old vessels with a skeleton crew and without coffee on board

but everything was cool in their day, soldiers were better too because they didn't get airco ... or paid

[Beowulf]

this all sounds like a typical ex-soldiers rant

we have that a lot here, b00h00 used to have 20 major surface combatants and now only 6 lo and behold for we are d00000000000med, doomed I tellz you, http://www.gamers.org/dhs/helpdocs/doomicon.gifED!
never mind the fact that just one of these ships can take on the 20 old vessels with a skeleton crew and without coffee on board

but everything was cool in their day, soldiers were better too because they didn't get airco ... or paid

8thID should join forces with all the junior enlisted bloggers of doom.....

f-em more missions for me then.

Reminds me of Henry's St Crispin's day speech.

[2Sheds_Jackson]

I doubt that the military now, if it had to do so, could actually respond to another hot spot, maybe here at home, or overseas, with things the way they are. Todays "battle hardend" military, is over stretched, and in most cases, not equipped well. If I was to use the term battle hardend, I would be a liar. Battle weary is more like it.

As any military would be. However, the reality is that 95% of the forces are not engaged in heavy front line fighting.



The US Military, because of the "draw down" after the cold war, had to go to war, with unprotected vehicles, and troops without body armor, and not trained properly. It has taken 5 years of war, and close to 4 thousand killed, to get the ball rolling. And yet, we are slow to respond to a war we are fighting in.

Think about what you just said. 5 years of war. 4 thousand killed. That's not an indictment of our state a readiness - it's an amazing achievement. In past wars, we've had that many killed in a single battle. If you're going to judge that kind of achievement as a negative, then I'm not sure what kind of war - short of nuking people from orbit, could meet your expectations.


The Russians, in the 1990's, although in a rough stretch its self, modrenized its equipment and has fielded some very impressive weapons systems.

What, now? Their R&D virtually stopped when the USSR collapsed. Yes they do have some impressive systems, but there are few that can be said to be functionally superior to their US counterparts. And the reality is that we are unwilling to spend money on systems that are already adequate to address the threat.



The USA how ever, let product improvements slide, was really slow at fielding gear compared to now, and we are still slow in most instances. The F-15 eagle, and its varients are an example of what I am talking about. The Russians, have refinded their aircraft, to compete with, and in most cases out perform our top of the line fighters. In stead of adding improvements to already existing aircraft, like the F15 series, we decided to sink billions of dollars into at least 1 new jet aircraft (JSF) that will more than likely be out perfomed by the newer varients of the SU27 series aircraft. On the armored vehicle side, we were slow to respond to todays threats from IEDs, and EFPs. Instead, we sunk alot of money into 2 very lopsided, and failed programs. (the commanche, and the future force warrior programs.)and now, we are trying to play catch up because of mounting casualties, and political pressure. And the ones putting pressure on the pentagon now, are the same ones who did not want to approve funding at a mucg earlier time.

This just isn't makin' any sense. You complain that we're not spending enough on new programs, then condemn the new programs we have? No whored-up F-15 is ever going to compete with an F-22. We have actual F-22's in the air now, while the Russian counterpart exists only on paper.



When the over hyped rescue of Jessica lynch was played up most were wondering why that truck strayed off the path on that fateful day. Could it have been too dusty to see? Could it be that in the fog of war, the driver was disorientated? Or the likely reason of the fact that the driver was lost. Why did he get lost, More than likely, because he could not or would not read a map. Land navigation, now has been reformed quite a bit. Soldiers are now gwtting the proper training...or are they? Have we become so used to modren enhancements such as GPS, that we forgot how to read a map and use a compass? The latter, probably is going on today, versus teaching soldiers how to find their way home when lost.

Well you're just spitballin' here. You're taking one isolated incident that got lots of press, out of a conflict involving hundreds of thousands - a conflict with historically low casualty rates - you're guessing at the cause - and you're trying to portray that one incident as representative of all soldiers. That's like using the details of a single jet airliner crash to prove that all air travel is unsafe.



As one Lt. Col. wrote to some of his commanders, he stated the fact that a army private gets into more trouble for losing his weapon, than a general does when losing a war. This is how the US Military is run. It needs to change.

The little guy at the bottom feels the sting of the lash - that's been the case in every organization ever conceived - from Rome to IBM to the US Army. Nothing new there. I'm not saying it's right - but I'm satisfied that when compared to other similar organizations, our processes are transparent, and our people accountable.

Listen - I don't disagree with your general point that there are problems and improvements need to be made. However I don't find any traction for these claims that the US military has somehow fallen behind other similar organizations. It's just as easy to sit down and lob exactly the same kind of criticisms at each one of them - except I doubt very much that any of them can boast the combination of size, budget, capability, experience, and support that our military has.

[Hunterhr]

If you're going to judge that kind of achievement as a negative, then I'm not sure what kind of war - short of nuking people from orbit, could meet your expectations.

It's the only way to be sure. :bash:

[number nine]

8th, why don't you compare other armed forces against your checklist, Russian for example? Yes, other armed forces might be better than US in some areas, but overall they are weaker.

And in my personal opinion, only thing that is holding US back is Congress approval of armed forces spending, not in general, but meddling in which weapon systems are produced and which are put on hold, and frankly they don't have a clue about that. And IMO of course armed forces should themselves allocate funds in military spending, that will leave decision making to the competent.

Just like judicial and executive branches of the government are separated from legislative one, military should be also.


But how much of that actual budget is being used properly?Minardiau, that is the core of the issue, and I am talking about it. Why is Congress/Parliament not allowed to overrule court rulings but can reallocate military budget spending? That is crucial issue of technocracy vs. democracy as it is now, and I don't think accountability and other fruits of democratic government must be absent in technocracy, nor that they should be.

Politicians are performing heart surgery aren't they? Yes, it's irony.

[miguelencanarias]

This thread is in no way intended to be a massive flame fest. I think that ship has pretty much sailed.

[SOG]

im moving to canada. surely there training and equipment will secure myself a happy future retirement in 2050.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

... The US already outspends the rest of the world combined when it comes to the military. How much more money should the DOD get to play with, in order for Americans to feel safe and secure?

Lokos That may be true, but over 90% goes into pay, bonuses, and quality of life programs. There needs to be more money allocated by the government to sustain production of critical wartime assessts such as the C17, C5, and the new combat vehicles for the army and marines.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I think that ship has pretty much sailed.

And do not forget, ported and sailed again

[8thidpathfinderpower]

I as a future officer in the US Army am appalled at your accusations of military readiness 8thidpathfinderpower. I am a Cadet in the Virginia Tech Army ROTC program which is the number one College ROTC program in the nation. When it comes to Army all we do is train, train, and train. We learn all the squad and platoon formations a future officer needs to know. We have BRM every year as well as we send a team to the AMC (Army Marksmanship Competition) and finish in the top 10 for ROTC units with cadets getting even higher accolades. We have probably the best instructors imaginable. For example my platoon's instructor has multiple combat deployments as well as being a Ranger Instructor Instructor. This guy knows more about small unit tactics than you can imagine. Our Battalion Sergeant Major is a Green Beret. Our readiness to fight whoever decides to **** with the US is unquestionable. Not only is our military highly trained and thoroughly equipped to perform the job we also have something else. If some country were to outright attack the US with a military they would be in for a fight. When it comes to defending your country the US definitely has the spirit to kick their ***.

Now to talk about all your comparisons of certain aircraft to our aircraft or certain tanks to ours all you are using are the specs. You have yet to take into account the training our pilots, tank commanders, infantrymen, and eveyone else has. Yeah someone may have a better fighter than the F-16 or F-22, but can they fly it effectively to win the fight. You know as well as I know that there have been numerous times in history where an "inferior" unit or force has defeat the so called "better" unit or force. You could have the best weapon system in the world but if you don't have the training to use it correctly you might as well be dead already.


Thank you for taking the time to give an insiders view into the thread.
When you deal in weapons systems, personnel trained to operate that weapons system is a very key part of the system.

But, when planning for war, you have to take into context, the enemy just might have the same capabilities, and training that your unit has when first sent in. Alot of countries we are fighting now, have been supplied, and trained buy the USA.

When it comes to war, good is not good enough. I am sorry if most people disagree. You have to be the best, not only in terms of equipment, personnel, but having a trained well equipped force that has all the assets to get to a fight is important also.

[SOG]

omg im sorry, for some reason i thought this was a joke/thread. i took the time to read more indpeth. sorry for my above post.

as for the matter:
i think our training is pretty good. hidden bombs are the only effective way the enemy can kill our boys. otherwise we go toe to toe on their home turf and win anyday.

old outdated equipment? to some extent every army is in a constant upgrade cycle. also its not what russia can make, but what will we fight thats actually fielded? ie who will buy what from russia and how much will we fight against. we know russia cane turn out the goods, but who can buy from russia and field in such numbers to actually hurt us?

currently the problems i see are:
1. too much R&D in some fields. for the cost we could have done some of the serious afforementioned upgrading.

2. we need more standing troops period.

3. IMHO the generals need to better utilize the good training of our troops in a more direct combat role than street beat patrolling. if we arent taking the war to the enemy then we arent effectively fighting.

4. less BS with song and dance about certain companies getting certain contracts. if we need a better weapon do the testing and buy it already. (i think this war has actually provided that to a certain extent which is good)

5. solid budget for repairing and maintaining in wartime.

i understand what you are saying to a certain extent but at the same time we are in a cycle. new navy ships and subs right around the corner. new f22 and f35 that can be highly upgraded for years and years to come. a leading and outright deadly UAV program with stunning future capabilities. producing a ton of vets to lead the next generation of soldiers on the right path. not to mention our carriers, extensively outfitted humvees and other IED vehicles, a wealth spec ops missions, the intelligence community going full tilt, i think all of our gears are going forward and moving hard and most importantly holding up to the task.

im trying to figure out your reason and applying it to a real world threat. i cant come up with too many contenders.

could china take us in 10 years? by pure numbers its very possible. but then again theres always the nuclear option. plus we have an economic two way street going. maybe that might be cut short someday.

if anything this war has spurred our military programs and purchases like crazy. its actually bewildering sometime at all the new advancements, weapons and tech being worked on and procured.

personally i think were in a cycle with some **** just like everybody else.

[Lokos]

but over 90% goes into pay, bonuses, and quality of life programs.

That's not true, my main man.

Total budget for 2007: 439.3 billion

Of which:

Military personnel: 110 billion
Operations and maintenance: 152 billion
Procurement: 84.2 billion
R&D: 73.2 billion
Construction: 12.6 billion
Family Housing: 4.1 billion
Working Capital Funds: 2.4 billion

In addition to the above, but outside of the primary budget:

Department of Energy funding for nuclear weapons development: 23 billion
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations: 120 billion

To sum up:

Perhaps 25% of the budget goes towards what you're talking about. Procurement and R&D claims at least as much. The rest is for operations and maintenance. It seems like an alright allotment to me...

Lokos

[MichaelF]

That's not true, my main man.

Total budget for 2007: 439.3 billion

Of which:

Military personnel: 110 billion
Operations and maintenance: 152 billion
Procurement: 84.2 billion
R&D: 73.2 billion
Construction: 12.6 billion
Family Housing: 4.1 billion
Working Capital Funds: 2.4 billion

In addition to the above, but outside of the primary budget:

Department of Energy funding for nuclear weapons development: 23 billion
Funding for Iraq and Afghanistan operations: 120 billion

To sum up:

Perhaps 25% of the budget goes towards what you're talking about. Procurement and R&D claims at least as much. The rest is for operations and maintenance. It seems like an alright allotment to me...

Lokos


Don't confuse the issue with your facts!

This is one of those "In my day we......wrestled bears/killed commies/spanked ourselves...in Basic!!!!"-threads.

The US Army (to stay in my own lane, I'll let the members of other Services speak for them) is in much better warmaking shape than it was at anytime from 1989 to 2001.

Are we overstretched? Yes*. But that is a Force Shape issue, and not a training or logistical item. The Army could use another 5 Divisions (even if they are Light Infantry or 1990-er Mech). The Guard and Reserve are too small, as well. This is where you Enlist and become part of the solution.

That said, we are very, very well equipped and trained. The massive supply of combat-experienced NCOs and JOs is really having an impact at the Battalion level. Our Soldiers are also very well disciplined. Those who aren't quickly see the inside of a stockade.



*-The "2 Major Conflict" scenario is based on the assumption that we would be coming to the aid of a regional ally (ROK, NATO, ROC, etc), and then doing the same elsewhere (ex:reinforcing the ROC, then reinforcing the ROK when Kim tries to take advantage of our distraction). A Strategic Offensive (read: Invasion) is not part of that scenario. We could not invade Iran or another Regional Power, at this time, with this Force Size. We never claimed we could.

Want to run two Offensives at the same time? Buy another six-pack of Divisions. Call your Congressman. Repeat.

[JTAR7242]

Your country is spending more on it's defense than mine on everything else, and Germany is still the third largest economical power.Behind the state of California. ;)


At any rate, without slogging through eight pages, as usual, pathfinder is out of his element. American forces are better trained and equipped than any other military in the world. There may be some shortcomings in equipment because of war losses, but make no mistake. The Iraq conflict, whatever you may think of it, plus the other theaters of the (War on Terror, Long War, whatever) have generated lessons on modern tactics that have not been ignored. Repeated tours may sometimes discourage reenlistments, but those NCOs and officers who stay are more experienced and savvy than any of their historical predecessors.

In the end, while it might have come at a heavy price tag, but no military force on the planet will have the kind of operational experience in everything from conventional (where the US dominates across the board) warfare, asymmetrical, and special operations. Equipment can be replaced. The next generation weaponry is top notch. Remember, modern combat has to be analyzed along a "total force" mindset. While perhaps individual planes are better than American ones (of course, what determines better?), American air power often enjoys an enormous advantage in ECM, ECCM, and advanced warning/long range targeting. An Su27s ability to cobra stand looks good in an air show and might give it an edge at close range, but is rather useless when it gets shot down from over the horizon.

And that only scratches the surface of America's combined arms superiority over the rest of the world. And among the countries that might be able to compete on a technological level, they are severely outclassed at the numerical level. Perhaps eventually the Chinese might be able to bring themselves on par, but the Russians? Not any time soon. And certainly a war with China is not likely to occur any time soon. They are on the cusp of being a viable superpower, and have nothing to gain from armed conflict with the United States.

[Lokos]

Perhaps eventually the Chinese might be able to bring themselves on par, but the Russians? Not any time soon.

... The Russians well before the Chinese.

Lokos

[jetsetter]

Well, we will see if the F22 is up to snuff, especially in the next war, when we go up against some SU-35, SU-27MKI, and other aircraft from Russia.

The JSF, although has a supposedly small radar cross section, is no match for a 1 on 1 engagement with a SU-27 series aircraft, Basicly, all the air farce done is spend money on out dated technology. Yes..our elecronics are supposed to be second to none..but the Russians have made their radar far more powerful, and their AAM longer range than the american Amraam. Evin the newest version of the amraam cannot compete. In the manuverabilty department, the Russian aircraft clearly can out manuver the F15, F16, JSF, F18A/B/C/D/E/F/G. Russian tanks have a lower profile than american M1s. Their newer tanks have 135mm main guns, and French thermal imagining sight. These are just examples where the Russians have out paced the USA when it comes to military equipment.

The american way of training its troops for battle, to say the least, is very poor. The current batch of troopies exhibit lack of discipline, no training in weapons maintenance, among other things.

MRAPS getting to Iraq...nice idea, too late. The Iranians have just managed to buy some off of a 3rd world country(Africa). The next generation of IEDs and penetrators(HEAT) will work over those vehicles quite well.

This is reality. The american government is too worried about throwing money at some ungodly thing..instead of spending on stuff we need.

The information I managed to obtain about the SU-27 series aircraft, comes from several videos shot by our own military at air shows, and from other government sources on the web(Austrailia has a wonderfukl assesment of the SU-27 series, good reading.)

As I said before, we lack in military preparedness. Our military equipment in Iraq will take severl decades to come clean from the scars of battle. We lack airlift, a very improtant thing when it comes to deploying to a war.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is reality. We need to start building up the military, again, and hope we do not have any wars in the near future.

First, the F-35 is not designed to go head to head with an aircraft the size of an Su-27. The Su-27 was designed to go against the F-15 and the F-15 is being replaced with the F-22A and upgraded F-15s. JSF is a program designed to replaced the F-16 and other smaller fighters. In that respect it will do quite well by all accounts. As for "more powerful radars", I'm not sure where you are getting your information really. The AN/APG-81, AN/APG-77, AN/APG-63(V)2, AN/APG-63(V)3, and AN/APG-79 are going to be or are quite capable. As for A2A missiles, again I am not sure where you are getting your information. While the Russians may have a longer range missile, that does not mean that they are "better". It is called doctrine. The US Airforce wants to use stealth to get close and then fire. Of course they could have a huge long range A2A missile but they don't want it. You also have to consider the AIM-120D. I would also like to add that "some video taken at airshows" means absolutely nothing. Let me guess, you think the Cobra is something special? lol.

As for the Abrams, it is still quite capable and the TUSK upgrades with improve their already impressive capabilities.

The MRAP vehicles are already proving their worth in Iraq. If you take a look at some of the photos from Iraq and various stories you can see this. And sure their may be more advanced bombs but that doesn't mean that the MRAP vehicles will just bust open.

[MichaelF]

In a completely oblique fashion, the OP does have one very good point.

The US Army is too small for it's current (and, likely, future) missions.
At least 80 BCTs in the Regular Army would be a good start (we are currently looking at ~43). Even if half of them are IBCTs (Light Infantry), that's still a lot of trained manpower available.

28 Guard BCTs is ridiculously low. 50 (avg of one per State, some big States having more, some smaller States sharing) should be the minimum.

The Army Reserve should be slightly enlarged (the current objective is 59 support brigades) to match the Regular Army's needs.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

The responses have been overwhelming so far, and its hard to keep up with them. First off, I would like to take and thank everybody for viewing this thread.

I will apologize for my figures on the USA Defense spendings. The correct amout would be for personnel pay, quality of life, and solider readiness, is as Lokos posted.

MichaelF, your last post hit the nail on the head. The current force structure of the BCT concept is no where near where it should be.

If the Army had to send troops to another crisis spot, perse, Latin America, it would not even be able to deploy, sustain and maintain levels needed for missions, with the current troop levels.

Earlier I mentioned about not enough equipment...as for the F22 Raptor, 183 is way too little amount for sustained operation/attrition levels. Our current levels would cost us dearly. especially if the USA had to fight against a well trained, and equipped advisary.

There are not enough Tactical/Stratigic aircraft to move forces from point A to point B. With out going into details, this is a dangerous situation. The ageing og the C130 fleet, and the wear and tear on the aircraft, os wearing them out faster, and repairs are costing and being done alot more. Even with just 1% of transports in for repairs, maintenance, this would put a serious damper on the USA to respond more readily to a crisis.

[D-gin]

Earlier I mentioned about not enough equipment...as for the F22 Raptor, 183 is way too little amount for sustained operation/attrition levels. Our current levels would cost us dearly. especially if the USA had to fight against a well trained, and equipped advisary.

So say we did have that happen at some point in the next ten (10) years, Who would you guess that might be?

Also what would be your estimate on how many F-22's we might need against this unnamed advisory?


I'm not baiting, I'm not arguing, I'm just asking.

[Noble713]

There are not enough Tactical/Stratigic aircraft to move forces from point A to point B. With out going into details, this is a dangerous situation.

There is no real reason to move heavy land forces by air anyway. If a conflict develops that can be handled by the 82nd Airborne with backing from the nearest MEU, you don't need to send in Strykers/mechanized with air assets in the first 96 hours or whatever. If a conflict develops that requires more than paratroopers and Marines, you can send the Air Force to prep the battlespace while you wait 3+ weeks for heavy divisions to arrive by sea. Best to take one's time and do it right instead of trying to rush some stop-gap solution. A CBO document I read (Options for Restructuring the Army (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6348&type=0)) stated the time to deploy virtually any type of Army brigade is only marginally decreased by air transport vs sea transport.

If anything we should increase our sealift capacity, so we can move a larger amount of forces in a single lift. That, and stand up a new mechanized airborne division. Unfortunately I'd expect a US-designed equivalent to the BMD-4 to be a gold-plated boondoggle.

[jetsetter]

Earlier I mentioned about not enough equipment...as for the F22 Raptor, 183 is way too little amount for sustained operation/attrition levels. Our current levels would cost us dearly. especially if the USA had to fight against a well trained, and equipped advisary.

You actually think procurement will stop at 183? lol. No, production will continue on. A few each year.

[Hilbert]

I'm still trying to figure out on what base 8thidpathfinderpower can claim the U.S. Armed Forces are "undisciplined" and "poorly equipped."

[jetsetter]

I'm still trying to figure out on what base 8thidpathfinderpower can claim the U.S. Armed Forces are "undisciplined" and "poorly equipped."

More than likely he will throw out some video or photos taken out of context.

[Noble713]

More than likely he will throw out some video or photos taken out of context.

Has anyone ever posted a US equivalent to the RMM?

[Zoomie]

More than likely he will throw out some video or photos taken out of context.
I already referenced one such post of his earlier in this thread where he flips out about a Marine having a smoke. :roll:

[JTAR7242]

There was that soldier who was having some fun dressed up like Rambo for a posed picture too. Called him Pvt Dork or something.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

More than likely he will throw out some video or photos taken out of context.


Actually, hate to dissapoint you. Not going to do that.

[jetsetter]

Actually, hate to dissapoint you. Not going to do that.

You already mentioned some "air show" videos. You should know that an aircraft's performance at an air show can't be used to determine its capabilities.

[Lifeinasmallbox]

I didnt believe any of this until I reclassed and spent the last 2 months at Fort Sill with the IET kids...All this bullsh*t is starting VERY VERY early in these guys careers. I dont think I've ever yelled at so many people for being so A'd up before in my years of service...These mother f*ckers were getting passes in week 4 of basic training...talking to the DS like they were friends...I had to speak in f***in 3rd person for 5 months when I went through! I've never been so disguisted and disapointed in my life. Seeing as how it was a school environment. I couldnt take the sh*t heads to woodline for disrepecting me...It's rediculous. Can you sense my frustration? This "New Army" bull crap and method of trying to push people through to get numbers back up is just going to wind up getting people killed in the future.

...Write your congressman

[HardThunder]

Just looking at the title, I understood I was going to be upset with most of the junk posted. It bring back the "All our vehicles are not armored" thing a group of political hacks made a big deal about. I recall thinking at the time "Ok it was ok a few week, and years ago when I was to fight the USSR, but today it is some guys fault that has nothing to do with one item we have today"

So when did congress start buying the army M-1903s? The air force P-17s? Basic troops go to the front lines? Did they stop RIP also? We lost air transport? I missed that one, but did note we have a shot load of C-17s. Did they remove the TP from MREs?

Oh and I can see how upsetting it is with the quality of the new troops, at no time in history was anyone disappointed with new troops until now. Well other then me, 100,000 officers, 1,000,000 NCOs, George Washington, and just about every person under any flag.

I also find it strange that those that have nothing but contempt for the military, and those that serve are always the ones saying how bad it is, although ask one where the safety is, or what a Cannon cocker is, and they cant help you.

[ren0312]

It may be the case that lowered recruitment standarts have diluted the overall standart of US Forces. And we live in a time in which most "first world" militaries have good capabilities. But from all what I have heard US Forces is still the best-equipped and at least regarding some of it's units best trained fighting force in the world.

Your country is spending more on it's defense than mine on everything else, and Germany is still the third largest economical power.

Considering the size of its economy, a 100 billion dollar military budget is well within Germany's reach, but that is another topic altogether.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

You already mentioned some "air show" videos. You should know that an aircraft's performance at an air show can't be used to determine its capabilities.

Actually, yes you can. A good video of an airshow flyby/demonstration is a very good indicator ofan aircrafts performance, especially at the

[number nine]

Don't tell that! Please!

Can you measure climb and dive rate, can you be sure the thing is fully throttled? What about spin characteristics? What about performance at high altitude and high speed? Lastly, can you measure weapon performance?

And I am of course not a pilot. I am waiting one to appear to debunk what you write!

[wicked_hind]

Actually, yes you can. A good video of an airshow flyby/demonstration is a very good indicator ofan aircrafts performance, especially at the
Paging Dr. Ngati
http://img178.imageshack.us/img178/6356/855431889b66b0b896oun4.jpg

[Hilbert]

Actually, yes you can. A good video of an airshow flyby/demonstration is a very good indicator ofan aircrafts performance, especially at the

What the heck...? You can't be serious. And if you are, as I always say--please explain yourself and your reasoning.

[Noble713]

Actually, yes you can. A good video of an airshow flyby/demonstration is a very good indicator ofan aircrafts performance, especially at the

Your gold star for effort just not enough? I suppose everyone needs something to strive for....

[PoGo]

Actually, yes you can. A good video of an airshow flyby/demonstration is a very good indicator ofan aircrafts performance, especially at the

Come on buddy haven't you made enough dumb comments already?

[HardThunder]

Oh please, everyone knows about the combat aircraft Roller Coaster effect. How good a combat aircraft is has nothing to do with weapons, avionics, system integration, target tracking, lift capability, structural integrity, G force limits, and bleeding. It is all about if the aircraft can make the people on the ground feel like throwing up.

The Roller Coaster effect has been a military standard in countries throughout the Northern, and Souther hemisphere for decades. Good music, an effective paint job, fair presentation will convert the masses in a single showing. Where as sneaking up on an opponent in broad daylight in the middle of his air defense network will never be effective because you do not have the "Roller Coaster Effect".

Imperial Guards are always the best, because they look better, and march better then field troops. Especially one actually in the field ( Of course this has nothing to do with units like the Old Guard, and other like troops that really are good troops- Then again they are not Imperials! ).

[ZoneOne]

Whether or not any of this stuff you speak of is true, you believe it. I'll give you that.

But my question to you is, what are you doing about it?

Besides posting here...

[8thidpathfinderpower]

What the heck...? You can't be serious. And if you are, as I always say--please explain yourself and your reasoning.

You can get a very good idea of what an aircrafts performance envolope is by watching the acrobatics at an airshow. These aircraft are put through their paces, to let potentual suitors see what the aircraft is capable of. The pilots chosen are either the "cream of the" crop, or test pilots.

But, as others have mentioned, alot depends on pilot training, wind speed, altitude, varibles such as engine performance, and wing loading, and weight. Also, I forgot to mention, the over all aircraft design.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Whether or not any of this stuff you speak of is true, you believe it. I'll give you that.

But my question to you is, what are you doing about it?

Besides posting here...

Actually, writing letters to senators and congressmen, and trying to raise awareness in the public, by posting on forums.

[Some Dude]

I dont agree with everything that 8...power is saying but I do agree with the underequipped arguement. True, we have more aircraf carriers, and more advanced aircraft than other countries, but in terms of what soldiers on the ground have... well Norway's army is going to have all HK-416's, contractors have had the MRAPS alot longer than the US Army.

[Hilbert]

I dont agree with everything that 8...power is saying but I do agree with the underequipped arguement. True, we have more aircraf carriers, and more advanced aircraft than other countries, but in terms of what soldiers on the ground have... well Norway's army is going to have all HK-416's, contractors have had the MRAPS alot longer than the US Army.

Underequipped with and in terms of what what, plasma rifles and laser cannons?

[HardThunder]

Underequipped with and in terms of what what, plasma rifles and laser cannons?


Oh come now. Death Rays. It is a well known fact we could have many more Death Ray then we do now.

[Some Dude]

You know, at the risk of sounding paranoid, I get the feeling that you guys aren't taking me that seriously. Thus, lemme show you guys some articles, and show off my fancy city book learn'in
http://harlancountypotluck.com/sitebuilder/images/Cletus-79x238.jpg

Poor Humvee Armor:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted 2007.db&command=viewone&id=7

On HK-416
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html

On Dragon Skin:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

On Israeli "Trophy System":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

On Elisha Cuthbert (because shes so purdy):
http://www.wallpaperbase.com/wallpapers/celebs/elishacuthbert/elisha_cuthbert_12.jpg

[HardThunder]

Book learning?

Ya--

The M-16 has been killing people for longer then I have been an adult ( I was born in 56).

The new/ new body armor is much better then I ever got, and fyi it saves lives every day. Also on that note it is one, if not the best in use.

The "Trophy System" is questionable at best. Even the IDF has lost tanks in every battle they have been in. Maybe once they stop losing tanks we will look at it. Then again I would not be happy to find out we killed a group of kindergarten kids with a AFV defense system. Also they would in fact just target more Hummers.

As for the poor hummer armor. FYI it was never designed to be armored. Before the stabilization operations very few had been "Armored" . Also armor is a relative thing. Tanks have armor also, and people have weapons to stop them.

The Yamato was sunk in 1945.

[Hilbert]

You know, at the risk of sounding paranoid, I get the feeling that you guys aren't taking me that seriously. Thus, lemme show you guys some articles, and show off my fancy city book learn'in


On Dragon Skin:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

Dragon Skin...Oh you just made my night. Maybe one of the forum members with more patience than I have will give you the skinny on this "superior" product.

[BloodyTalon]

Poor Humvee Armor:
http://www.sftt.org/cgi-bin/csNews/csNews.cgi?database=Unlisted 2007.db&command=viewone&id=7
Linkie no workie. And why do i have a feeling that this articles is the author getting his panty in a twist about how a scout vehicle like the humvee is *gasp* not fit for being in the middle of an urban battle.

The truth is that the Humvee was never meant for the role it has now, which is why it is getting replaced by hardier vehicles like the Stryker and the Cougar.

On HK-416
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,131317,00.html
http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143790,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

Even then, the M16 is still a pretty damn effective firearm, and its not as if the gun jams every other shot.


On Dragon Skin:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/
Oh god, not another article about Dragon Skin. :roll:

The dragon-skin argument has beaten to death like an old hooker. If you use the search function you will see a litany of thread on why dragon skin got the shaft. Here's a summary: Not only was the armor significantly heavier than Interceptor armor, but the plates on the suit would fall off if it got too hot and rifle rounds would penetrate "unprotected areas" of the armor.


On Israeli "Trophy System":
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/
In case you haven't noticed, the main threat to vehicles in Iraq are IEDs, not RPGs. Besides, we are creating our own active defence system as part of FCS, so it isn't as if we are completely ignoring the technology.

[Zoomie]

You know, at the risk of sounding paranoid, I get the feeling that you guys aren't taking me that seriously. Thus, lemme show you guys some articles, and show off my fancy city book learn'in
http://harlancountypotluck.com/sitebuilder/images/Cletus-79x238.jpg
On Dragon Skin:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18720550/

Perhaps next time you should try opening the book too! Here's (http://hotair.com/archives/2007/07/03/new-vent-nbcs-emotional-terrorism/) why that NBC piece on Dragonskin is crap.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

What rips me, is that if the HMMWV was not meant for the role it is in now, then why did we buy it in the first place/

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Linkie no workie. And why do i have a feeling that this articles is the author getting his panty in a twist about how a scout vehicle like the humvee is *gasp* not fit for being in the middle of an urban battle.

The truth is that the Humvee was never meant for the role it has now, which is why it is getting replaced by hardier vehicles like the Stryker and the Cougar.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,143790,00.html?ESRC=army-a.nl

Even then, the M16 is still a pretty damn effective firearm, and its not as if the gun jams every other shot.


Oh god, not another article about Dragon Skin. :roll:

The dragon-skin argument has beaten to death like an old hooker. If you use the search function you will see a litany of thread on why dragon skin got the shaft. Here's a summary: Not only was the armor significantly heavier than Interceptor armor, but the plates on the suit would fall off if it got too hot and rifle rounds would penetrate "unprotected areas" of the armor.


In case you haven't noticed, the main threat to vehicles in Iraq are IEDs, not RPGs. Besides, we are creating our own active defence system as part of FCS, so it isn't as if we are completely ignoring the technology.

In anwser to your comments: If the HMMWV was not meant for a combat role (either armored or urban...war is still war), then why did we sink billions into a weapon system that is by all means, ineffective?

Active defense for RPG...its not a active defense, but a passive defense. And, because of political pressure, was and still not fielded in numbers to be effective. I believe IAI or Elbit offered a system already in service, and it was turned down,because like I said, political pressure.

The main threat in Iraq may very well be right now, IED and EFPs. BUT, what about the next war, when we go up against India, or perhaps China, or better yet, Iran, whose country has numbers of very well equipped and operational tanks and APCs? And, what happens if we go against a country that has managed to make a aircraft, in numbers superior to the F22?

My friends, warfare means you prepare for ALL TYPES of conflict...not what you deem for the moment necessary.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

In the coming days, you are going to hear a lot about the war in Iraq,(If you ain't sick of it already, then there will be more) But, what you don't hear about, is the lack of military preparedness that will ultimately cost our country in the long run.

The USA no longer can successfully defend worldly interests, let alone its own shores. Our military is mostly made up of old, outdated, and broken down military equipment. Our air forces (naval too) have or are going to buy jet fighters than can be out classed by the Russian made equipment on the market and in service across the world. Our military training is sub-par, and should be revamped, and our dear leaders, in their inept and corrupt ways, will not want to pay the bill, because it will take money out of their already lined pockets.

As a country, we need to take note. We need to understand, that 9/11 was just the beginning, and we are all alone...not the place to be.


This thread is in no way intended to be a massive flame fest. It is how ever, intended to start a open and frank discussion about USA military readiness, and much touted equipment performance that is now by all means, out dated, and endangering our troops lives. If anyone was truly offended, I first want to apologize. But, this is a thread about the current state of USA military readiness, and, for all evidence here, is not good.


Here are 2 of the links, of the many I used for research before I started this thread. I hope this helps some of you who want to read these yourselves. Thank you for viewing this thread.


www.aurairpower.net (http://www.aurairpower.net)
www.spacewar.com (http://www.spacewar.com)


Here are some more sites that you can use for your own research, if you choose to do so....Boeing, Lockheed/Martin, Suhkoi, and globalsecurity.org. For issues about our army, you can go to the DoD website, the Army website, and the Air force web site.


I appreciate all the comments about our armed forces, and the counter arguments to my claim that we are ill prepared to fight another possible war.

But, what most of the responses were, and are, are emotional reactions than a rather frank assessment.

Truth have it, we are not ready for another possible war with Iran, China, North Korea, or who ever else lurks to challenge American supremacy where it counts.

Truth is, if we did manage to go to war with Iran on a large scale, the body count would rise, and the mighty American defense machine would suffer a catastrophic defeat, on such a magnitude, that it would eclipse the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces during the first gulf war.

In warfare, there are no Urban battlefields..no rolling desert, not lush green jungles. These are the settings. But, warfare is, and forever shall be, is a balance of checks and mistakes. And, our government, the people in the armed forces, and the American public can rest assured....we will be defeated, very soon. Not because of the lack of the will of the troops to fight, but because of the higher than mighty attitude our military personnel demonstrate, and the lack of preparedness, that will cost us all in the long run.



I rest my case.

[BloodyTalon]

Okay, 8thidjackdanielspowers, let's play a little mental game: Think back to the late 70's when research began on a vehicle to replace the Jeep, what do you think the overwhelming majority of the people involved in the project (and the entire Army in general) envisioned the next major battlefield would be?

A: In the mostly open countryside of Europe against the USSR and their vast arsenal of tanks.

B: In a cramped city in the Middle East against an enemy that hid in the populace and whose weapon of choice was simple but deadly explosive charges using old munitions and cellphones as detonators.

If you think "B", then you have a very good chance of wining DAOTW two weeks in a row. Up until now, the Humvee was never intended to be a miniature APC or IFV at any point in its life. Like its predecessor, the Humvee was meant to transport personnel and survive light combat. The weapons it can carry were intended more for self-defence rather than an offensive role. If Humvee just happened to be pressed into its current role when Asymmetrical war became the norm. Hence why they are performing a less than stellar job protecting our soldiers in Iraq and why they are now being replaced by vehicles better suited for that role.

You are right that we need to pay attention to the long-term and prepare for any potential threat (although your predictions are Starfox Kid quality. Seriously, India?), but its extremely difficult, if not impossible, to accurately plan what we will be up against more than 20-30 years from now. So, we focus firstly on the threats we are dealing with now and then any threats in the near future. It's no different from what most militaries do.


Truth is, if we did manage to go to war with Iran on a large scale, the body count would rise, and the mighty American defense machine would suffer a catastrophic defeat, on such a magnitude, that it would eclipse the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces during the first gulf war.
Okay, now you're just being an idiot.

In fact, this quote alone makes me doubt your claim to being a BTDT. From claiming the superiority of an aircraft just on the basis of airshows, painting a broad brush of the the state of the Army from a handful of stories, too not even realising the true purpose of the Humvee, you clearly sound less like a veteran and more like a poser or someone who is mentally unstable to say the least. I'm sorry, but that's just the truth. You have yet to show any proof backing your claims outside of more retarded hyperbole that becomes increasingly irrational with every post.

[BloodyTalon]

Screw this. I'm turning on the Ngati-signal:
http://static.flickr.com/40/85543188_9b66b0b896_o.jpg

[ABNINF]

Truth is, if we did manage to go to war with Iran on a large scale, the body count would rise, and the mighty American defense machine would suffer a catastrophic defeat, on such a magnitude, that it would eclipse the defeat of the Iraqi armed forces during the first gulf war.

I rest my case.

rofl Looks like we've got another back-to-back DAOTW winner coming up

[CG51]

Yeah, his posts have certainly degraded lately.

[Noble713]

Early-onset Alzhiemer's, perhaps?

[Herrmannek]

For the original post. I totally agree on the topic itself though... You can't expect average soldier to be professional if he's still watching MTV and have fun of it. In WWII average soldier had 24-26 now they have 18-19-20, its ridiculous to expect a lot from a person who normally can't keep a job for longer than few weeks... at most.

[sp2c]

in WW2 the average soldier brought 3000 friends in 100.000 strong army groups of larger armies ... you can get away with a lot more with those kinds of numbers ... and no internet

these are completely different and imo uncomparable times (with the Nazi's trying to conquer the world and all that)

[Mastermind]

Different times and a different army means totally different strategy, equipment and military. I'm very tuned to the technological end of our military. I try to stay as knowledgable as possible on the latest and greatest toys coming to the modern military. I find some good, some great, some utterly amazing and some that are totally bone head stupid.

Currently, the filty rich USA military establishment is going through a quantum change. I personally believe, based on the things I have become aware of, the days of hundreds of thousands of troops on the ground are coming to a close. The objectives of war are the same and will probably always be so...to enforce your sides political will over the opponent. One of the most dramatic changes in warfare came with the development of the nuclear weapons...but just as dramatic, though less frighteneing to the general public, was the development of two things...the stealth bomber and the smart bomb. Polticallly, these things scare the living crap out of potential enemies. Coupled with the "utterly amazing" capability of through-the-roof satellite spy capability, the potential enemies of a truly modern miltiaty organization are quite devastating to any opponent who does not have that capability. I'm not sure if anyone noticed some of the military contracts that have been let lately....the news is very grievous for the sand armies of the radical muslims. Already our artillery batteries are being equipped with the new pin-point shells that have been perfected and are being produced in the hundreds of thousands. A contract has been let for thousands of robotic trucks that have such remarkable autonolus capability as to be truly "star wars"...the same kind of technology will soon be provided for unmanned combat vehicles remotely controlled by kids at video consoles in places like Virginia and Tampa and Oklahoma City. To put human blood at risk on battlefields of the near future will not be the first thought of generals...nor the first necessity.

I firmly do not beleive the US is at any kind of risk of being weak in defense because of the Iraq-Afganistan debacles. Technology has made leaps that are quite unbelievable and changes are coming almost faster than any foe could keep track...the uncertanty of engagement in this day of massive and very precise resonse is truly foreboding for anyone who might be thinking of taking the US on. Small armies do not equate to a modern nation being defense weak.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

A lot of people here do not agree with my statements, and I do not want them to.

When you take a look at USA military preparedness, you have to look at the big picture, not just what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Since the end of the cold war, the American government has failed the American people, and its armed forces on such a scale, that the ability to respond to world hot spots, have become at least iffy at best.

True, the USA is not the worlds policeman, but, the USA does maintain treaties that must be upheld, and other strategic interests hat must be defended.

As I stated before, lack of air lift capacity, either poorly performing, or out dated equipment and lack of proper troop training have been the causes of this short fall.

See, most people are so narrow minded when it comes to discussing military readiness, especially those who are in the armed forces, it has become sickening.

Our country is way too focused on the threats of TODAYS battle fields. Not tomorrows.

And the excuses of why vehicles like the HMMWV, which were designed within a context of a massive armored war of Western Europe does not cut it either.

So, to sum up what this thread is about in a nutshell...we suck. Not because of lack of ability to fight, but because of the training the troops receive, the equipment they use, and the OTHER threats that the USA faces, whether it be in Iraq, cruising down the avenue and being ambushed by Ali Baba and his 40 IEDS and EFPs, or deploying to the north pole to conduct operations against an attack against the Alaskan pipeline.

We do lack the ability to deploy adequate forces quickly. We lack the planes to do it. Sea lift capability, has been reduced so much, that it is a critical need.

As I have stated before, our equipment is not the best. Our training is not the best. And discipline has really lagged.

In war, you cannot be second best. And, as some of the posts in this thread have shown, we are second best.

[Hilbert]

Second best to what?

[Mastermind]

First, considering the tragic political fabric of the USA, where would any more troops come from...Mexico? Peru? Guatemala? Could we raise a 500 thousand man army today? Could we afford such a large army? I really doubt that when sergeants are getting 45 grand a year. How about fighter jets at nearly a billion bucks a copy...should we build a thousand of them? That's only about a trillion bucks....possibly 1.5 trillion by the time you factor in the cost overruns that seems to go with any and all military hardware contracts. How about if a real war starts, will we wine and cough at the first signs of casualties and demand a reorganization and re-equipping of the troops because we cant take .0023% casualties? Will our troops of the future go into combat wearing 87 pounds of personal protective equipment and look like mama’s little darlings going off to play in the snow, so wrapped up in protective clothing they cant move?

Carrier fleets that cost 400 billion Not counting the 100 billion worth of airplanes on the decks), surface ships that cost 4 billion each because they are equipped with magic "stealth" technology to keep them safe. And then robotic systems of every sort have driven the cost of military equipment into the stratosphere of budgetary considerations.

Then what about the massive entitlement burden those troops will have as veterans if we were to win the war? Thousands of law suits were carried by shyster lawyers over post-war health effects of the USA using the most effective ammunition combat has ever seen during the Gulf War 1...the depleted uranium round that zips through armor like it was soft lard....because the feared "radiation" exposure from the spent ammo, that was never proved by any investigating agency, by the way. And then there was the billions of bucks spent on the mysterious "Gulf War Syndrome" which no one ever found a cause for...but every rash, hair loss, and impotent ****** encounter of a veteran was blamed on. That entitlement and residual "caring for" will cost multi-trillions of dollars over those veterans life times. Already we are facing a "social security" meltdown due in 2020 (or so they tell us...another fear mongering classic). By the way, in response to “Environmental Concerns” American troops now go into combat sans the FMJ rounds that were so combat proven…now we use the new, environmentally friendly, lead free “Frangible” rounds that don’t leave nasty lead contamination on the battle field….hmmmm. Makes one wonder. What else is being sacrificed in the name of “Mother Gaia”? I wonder where the enemy is getting their environmentally friendly ammo?

Then what about the high cost of victory? The USA has spent nearly a trillion dollars (Probably more) on rebuilding Iraq in four years of chaos. Most of the money is unaccounted for...it simply vanished and most likely ended up in the "Palm Islands" resort communities of Dubai...whatever. The USA has a terrible habit of completely rebuilding all we destroy in a war....FOR THE DEFEATED ENEMY! While leaving American industry and infrastructure that made the victory possible to swing in the wind. The American steel industry has never recovered from the Marshall Plans (Including the "McArthur Plan") that rebuilt German and Japanese steel industry with modern, efficient plants and not one dime went into modernizing American plants...and as a result, our glorious victory cost us hundreds of thousands of American jobs!! What did that cost in dollar terms and lost taxes?

The sad fact is, the USA could not afford another war...the next war will be a mere walk-on. We probably would rather surrender because, quite frankly, at the current pace, we could never afford victory again. If any potential enemy of the USA is out there wondering what to do next...he should merely declare war on us, then immediately surrender...the benefits of being an ex-American enemy are tremendous.

Sure, I'm being facetious (Mods take note!)...but there is truth in my words. And, I believe what I have said is one of the major reasons the US military is shrinking, even in the face of serious global political and military threats. Automation and reduction of human risk, both ours and the lives of the enemy, is paramount in US military planner's thinking and strategy. By the way, just about every ancient military sage (Tsu, Clauzowitz, Patton, Guderian, etc. will tell you that if you are more concerned about your own casualties than victory…you better leave the business of war to real warriors...they never mentioned the hesitations over potential enemy casualties...they seem to have oddly thought creating enemy casualties was rather a large portion of the goal of war). Politically, financially and any other -ally we better be very, very careful in picking our next major enemy.

[BloodyTalon]

Second best to what?
TEH Russians, dude! Have you not seen their airshows?!

Seriously, 8thidposerpower, you've been spounting the same **** over and over again and you have YET to show a military that is vastly superior to us and would perform our mission under the same parameters (other side of the globe, high levels of sectarian strife in the region, goverment built from scratch, etc.) in a much more effective fashion. Russia? No; they may have some pretty good tech available or in the pipeline, but as mentioned before the quality of each individual unit is lop-sided. You have some very high-speed and heavily equipped forces on one hand, but at the same time you have a bunch of conscripts with last gen equipment who are turned into the military equivalent of prison bitches by older members of the military.

China? One word; logistics. If you think we are unable to fight a war on the other side of the globe with all of the logistical support that we still have, how do you expect the Chinese to do so with no where near the capacity to field its massive army outside of the region.

The EU? Well, as a whole they have the ability to win a massive war militarily, but their political environment is eons more testy than ours. Hell, look at all the controversy over A'stan. How do you expect that same population to handle a controversial war like Iraq?

[CG51]

I feel that 8th's judgment of the entire U.S. Armed Forces stem from that one pic of a Grenadier that had his helmet unstrapped and was wearing his body armour over a tee shirt. :roll:

Dude, a picture is 1/1000 of a second of time. Not indicative of the quality of the men and women in uniform.

[ibstolidude]

Our country is way too focused on the threats of TODAYS battle fields. Not tomorrows.

What no discussion of cyberwarfare, the fight for information dominance, and the struggle for human terrain?

[Zoomie]

Since the end of the cold war, the American government has failed the American people, and its armed forces on such a scale, that the ability to respond to world hot spots, have become at least iffy at best. So Desert Storm was iffy at best?


And the excuses of why vehicles like the HMMWV, which were designed within a context of a massive armored war of Western Europe does not cut it either.
So the truth is now an excuse?


Our country is way too focused on the threats of TODAYS battle fields. Not tomorrows.
What do you have to say about the formation of the Air Force's Cyber Command?


We do lack the ability to deploy adequate forces quickly. We lack the planes to do it.
So Armchair General, how many more C-17s must we buy in addition to the 150 we already have?


As I have stated before, our equipment is not the best. Our training is not the best. And discipline has really lagged.
Yeah, that Marine taking a smoke break was a total disgrace to our nation! :roll:

[8thidpathfinderpower]

So Desert Storm was iffy at best?


So the truth is now an excuse?


What do you have to say about the formation of the Air Force's Cyber Command?


So Armchair General, how many more C-17s must we buy in addition to the 150 we already have?


Yeah, that Marine taking a smoke break was a total disgrace to our nation! :roll:

Well, in anwser to your question about the C-17, how many aircraft would it take to airlift a Stryker birgade, with complete compliment of vehicles, and personnel?

And, what would happen if 1/2 of the C-130 fleet was grounded due to cracks in the wing boxes, when that birgade had to deploy?

The Air Forces formation of a cyberspace command, is just one aspect of warfare that is being conducted every day. It is a step in the right direction, but it is not enough. EVERY branch of service should have a dedicated unit.

It took us 6 months to mass the forces necessary to defeat the Iraqi army in the first gulf war. 6 months. In the next war, there might not be 6 months alloted to mass forces necessary to conduct war. Thats why the stryker birgades were formed. A novel idea, but without planes to carry units to the fight, well might as well stay home. And airlift is just one part of the military that is sucking hind wind.

[Hilbert]

8thidpathfinderpower, for the second time, would you please explain just what military the United States is "second best" (borrowing your own words) to; and while I'm thinking about it, could you also elaborate on how you've come to the conclusion that the U.S. military is poorly disciplined.

[Noble713]

Well, in anwser to your question about the C-17, how many aircraft would it take to airlift a Stryker birgade, with complete compliment of vehicles, and personnel?

It took us 6 months to mass the forces necessary to defeat the Iraqi army in the first gulf war. 6 months. In the next war, there might not be 6 months alloted to mass forces necessary to conduct war. Thats why the stryker birgades were formed. A novel idea, but without planes to carry units to the fight, well might as well stay home. And airlift is just one part of the military that is sucking hind wind.

If you have a problem that can't be dealt with by a ready brigade from the 82nd and a Marine Expeditionary Unit (i.e. 2 brigades of elite, rapidly-deployable light infantry), than you have a BIG problem. Big problems aren't going to be solved by sending an additional brigade of motorized infantry (Strykers are really just light infantry in big armored trucks; their firepower is very limited). It's far better to take your time and send an entire Army heavy division (or two) to smash the enemy the right way.


I already addressed the issue of air-deployability, but I'll say it again in case it didn't sink in properly the first time. If you don't believe me, then believe the CBO document I linked to (which it doesn't seem like you read):



http://www.cbo.gov/docimages/63xx/doc6348/634814.gif

Source: Congressional Budget Office.

Notes: MOG = maximum on ground (a measure that represents the number of cargo aircraft that can usefully be accommodated at an airport at any one time).

This figure shows deliveries from Savannah, Georgia, to Djibouti in East Africa using 180 C-17 aircraft or Military Sealift Command's fleet of fast sealift ships and large, medium-speed roll-on/roll-off ships. Prepositioned equipment is assumed to come from Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean.

So a mere 11 or so days out sea trans is bringing more tonnage to the fight than air trans. also:



For air deployment, the weight of unit equipment is the primary factor affecting deployment speed. The equipment associated with a light BCT weighs about 4,000 tons; with a Stryker BCT, about 13,000 tons; and with a heavy BCT, about 25,000 tons.(17) (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6348&type=0&sequence=2#F17) Similarly, the equipment associated with a light division weighs about 20,000 tons, whereas the equipment associated with a heavy division weighs about 100,000 tons. (Currently, there are no medium divisions, but CBO estimates that a medium division would have about 60,000 tons of equipment.) However, when those units are deployed with their associated support units (as they almost always are), the difference in the weight of all the unit equipment that must be shipped with each BCT--light, medium, or heavy--becomes much less significant because many types of support units are common to all types of forces and do not vary. In fact, the weight of the total force package (with combat and support units) is about 80,000 tons for a light division and 180,000 tons for a heavy division. (CBO estimates that a medium division would have about 120,000 tons of equipment with its support package.) The relatively large differences in weight among types of BCTs do not produce similarly large differences in weight among force packages. Thus, equipping combat units with lighter equipment does not reduce deployment timelines by a great deal.

The United States does not generally deploy combat units by air, because any sizable, fully supported unit tends to have so much equipment that deployment by sea is faster. Since a C-17 cargo plane will generally transport about 45 tons per sortie, deploying large units can easily require thousands of sorties. For sea deployment, the primary factor affecting speed is the square footage needed to stow unit equipment. The differences in that square footage for light and heavy units are somewhat smaller than the differences in how many tons of equipment those units have. A light division requires about 600,000 square feet to stow its equipment, whereas a heavy division requires about 1.4 million square feet.(18) (http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=6348&type=0&sequence=2#F18) As with tons, those figures are larger when the full set of support units is included, and the difference between light and heavy units becomes less ****ounced. In addition, because the U.S. fleet of sealift ships can transport very large amounts of cargo (the primary types of cargo ship can transport about 380,000 square feet of equipment each), deploying a single light or single heavy division by sea does not require appreciably different amounts of time--the U.S. fleet of cargo ships is capable of transporting either type of unit without multiple trips.


I think Mastermind is correct that we are rapidly pricing ourselves out of the business of making war. If you really want to be able to smash any country anywhere in the world in less than several months, and do it using GROUND troops (with virtually no casualties as well) and not just obscene levels of air bombardment, then expect to spend far more than 4% of the largest GDP on the planet to do it. I don't think 8thID fully recognizes what a monumental task it is to fight and sustain a war effort on the other side of the globe.

[number nine]

I think Mastermind is correct that we are rapidly pricing ourselves out of the business of making war. If you really want to be able to smash any country anywhere in the world in less than several months, and do it using GROUND troops (with virtually no casualties as well) and not just obscene levels of air bombardment, then expect to spend far more than 4% of the largest GDP on the planet to do it. I don't think 8thID fully recognizes what a monumental task it is to fight and sustain a war effort on the other side of the globe.

Any country like what, China? Without obscene levels of air bombardment and by conventional means only? Neither Iraq would go down as easily as it did in first war without air bombardment. In no major conflict USA, or any belligerent for that matter, will fail to utilize air superiority properly, if it has it.

[Noble713]

Any country like what, China? Without obscene levels of air bombardment and by conventional means only? Neither Iraq would go down as easily as it did in first war without air bombardment. In no major conflict USA, or any belligerent for that matter, will fail to utilize air superiority properly, if it has it.

Let me clarify my point: Of course air power will need to be utilized. However, I think there are only two ways to subjugate another nation, and the first doesn't have a particularly good track record:

1. Firebomb the entire country into submission, WWII Japan style. THIS is what I mean by "obscene levels of air bombardment". Extensive use of PGM strikes against C&C and power plants is not, IMO, "obscene levels". I think the US is fully capable of using this method if it really wanted to; we just need to restart our production of B-52H's, our most cost-effective, non-nuclear method of sending another nation back to the stone age. However, we lack the national will to do so, and that leaves:

2. Put boots on the ground. Since we've become so casualty-adverse, we've invented all kinds of nifty (but expensive) pieces of gear to act as force multipliers so we put fewer people in harms way. This $hit is far more expensive than option 1, especially if you throw in the extra requirements of being able to do it quickly (i.e. rapid deployability) and do it anywhere (massive transportation costs for supporting the log train).

The US is primarily an air and naval power, and instead of playing to our strengths, we've been trying to utilize our least effective tools. This isn't to say that the Army and Marine Corps are of a low quality, only that using them to solve our problems is going to cost us far more money than it would if we properly leveraged our ungodly-powerful air and naval forces.

[number nine]

Dude, in 1991. you fought moderately strong, but ill equipped and ill prepared enemy.

Iraqi tanks were using ammunition from 60's. Air force was one generation behind and four times smaller than USAF force which engaged it. In somewhat different circumstances that war wouldn't be easy at all for you.

More boots on the ground means more coffins on the way home. That means that B52s are your best friend.

And all attempts to increase protection of soldiers and AFVs will ultimately be futile, if you have to fight strong enemy. Bigger gun is the answer. Of course if enemy is capable of making said gun.

[Noble713]

I'm not disputing any of what you just said. In fact, I'm not even sure where those comments are coming from???

[number nine]

The US is primarily an air and naval power, and instead of playing to our strengths, we've been trying to utilize our least effective tools.

Neither I dispute this what you said, so my comment was affirmation of your statement.

[BloodyTalon]

Let me clarify my point: Of course air power will need to be utilized. However, I think there are only two ways to subjugate another nation, and the first doesn't have a particularly good track record:

1. Firebomb the entire country into submission, WWII Japan style. THIS is what I mean by "obscene levels of air bombardment". Extensive use of PGM strikes against C&C and power plants is not, IMO, "obscene levels". I think the US is fully capable of using this method if it really wanted to; we just need to restart our production of B-52H's, our most cost-effective, non-nuclear method of sending another nation back to the stone age. However, we lack the national will to do so, and that leaves:

2. Put boots on the ground. Since we've become so casualty-adverse, we've invented all kinds of nifty (but expensive) pieces of gear to act as force multipliers so we put fewer people in harms way. This $hit is far more expensive than option 1, especially if you throw in the extra requirements of being able to do it quickly (i.e. rapid deployability) and do it anywhere (massive transportation costs for supporting the log train).

The US is primarily an air and naval power, and instead of playing to our strengths, we've been trying to utilize our least effective tools. This isn't to say that the Army and Marine Corps are of a low quality, only that using them to solve our problems is going to cost us far more money than it would if we properly leveraged our ungodly-powerful air and naval forces.
First of all, deploying CBGS or an extensive bombing campaign ain't chump change. Its still very expensive to do this for the same reason why its getting more expensive to put boots on the ground. Sooner or later, we're gonna have to bump up defence spending by a few more percentage points of the GDP. I just hope the party in control isn't going try and stagnate our military for some narrow-minded reason.

Secondly, there is no denial that the USN and the USAF are miles ahead of any other navy or airforce, but the two branch are still only support for our "least effective tools." No major war has ever been won because the victorious side just sat back and bombed the living crap out of his enemy. The Clinton Amnistration tried that against bin Laden and in Kosovo and look how far that got them. The simple fact is that if you want to truely win a war, you need boots on the ground to move in and take the fight to their cities and countryside rather than from 1000 ft. in the air.

Besides, the era of Dresden-style carpet bombings are over. Why waste a bunch of (expensive) bombs and risk more of your (even more expensive) bombers attempting to completely level a city when some precision strikes against its infrastruture will also **** up the city and the country as a whole. Besides, the massive civilian death toll would do nothing but cause a PR nightmare for the attacker and a propoganda piece for the defender.

[number nine]

@Bloody Talon


Secondly, there is no denial that the USN and the USAF are miles ahead of any other navy or airforce, but the two branch are still only support for our "least effective tools." No major war has ever been won because the victorious side just sat back and bombed the living crap out of his enemy. The Clinton Amnistration tried that against bin Laden and in Kosovo and look how far that got them. The simple fact is that if you want to truely want to win a war, you need boots on the ground to move in and take the fight to their cities and countryside rather than from 1000 ft. in the air.

Quite wrong, because you won in Kosovo.

[Mastermind]

The combined arms doctrines of the past have been largely replaced with a doctrine that dictates a surgical removal of an enemy opponent’s leadership by means of first blinding them, then cutting off their communication to and from their troops and then piece meal isolation and destruction of troops in the field...game over. Of course, we are talking about opposing forces that do not have global thermo nuclear retaliatory capability.

This is supposed to be achieved by highly detailed intelligence gathering by satellites, drones, and orbiting control ships which pinpoint the enemy leadership targets that are destroyed by very precise high explosive weapons. Air power is no longer geared toward saturation (I'm back grounding here...I know everyone knows this). Under a hostile sky, filled with instant destructive capability for even individual targets as small as motorcycle couriers, you essentially remove the enemy capability of mobility...no mobility, no supplies, no communications. Thus, an army is no longer a viable fighting force...it is reduced to a gang of folks trying to survive in holes with very limited resources...no food, no water and no hope of ever getting any. In essence, almost all military forces in the world, that is, those without the ability to command their sky, are rendered useless. As long as they are held in place by modern air power, the ground forces really don’t have much of a problem in mopping up the pitiful forces left in place after a few weeks of this pounding isolation. Everyone probably remembers the major problem the old "Dragons Jaw" bridge caused the American bombing forces in Vietnam...that bridge remained standing after months of massive bombing with dumb bombs. There are no such problem like that now. Instant and assured destruction of any chosen target and almost all lines of communication and absolute prevention of repairs render the largest land armies impotent in just a matter of hours.

No, I don't want to suggest every land army is a "cake walk" problem for a modern military like the US has. But, this new way of dealing with massive campaigns basically means there is a quantum difference between fighting forces today. It's very much like what happened in Ethiopia in 1936 where the Italians used aircraft, mustard gas, flame throwers, modern artillery, mechanized infantry, armored units, aerial reconnaissance and other modern military devices against an Ethiopian army equipped with nothing of substance to resist. It was no contest. We might say, the situation for all but a few nations on this planet is the same as the Ethiopians of 1936 experienced.

So, considering this, the need for massively large military forces is greatly reduced. The modern attacking land forces have their problems reduced exponentially because of the flank and route protections they receive from these precision aerial resources. Aerial cavalry now behave very much like super mobile land forces, breaking up enemy formations usually before they have even assembled. With ultra sensitive satellite and theater orbital surveillance able to pick out individual enemy combatants even through cover, the enemy is reduced to using asymmetrical strategies for harassing and irritating the very rapid enemy advances...such tactics may hinder but will never defeat the modern land forces. The only recourse is exactly what the opposing forces have resorted to in Iraq and Af. They use very small units that mingle with the civilian populations in the urban centers where American forces are reluctant to engage for fear of causing excessive civilian casualties.

When you look at the greatly unbalanced ratio of American or coalition force casualties against the casualties of the opposing forces, you see the truth of the matter. The ratios are almost unbelievable, probably approaching a hundred or more to one...(No one really knows because the opposing forces are so obscure. Separating them accurately from civilian casualties is practically impossible). No organized fighting force can survive this kind of warfare unless they are equivalent forces, such as Russia or even possibly China have...but, even then, if they lose air superiority, they are doomed. Of course, the size of the opposing force has to be considered, and the land area they have to hide in and the number of targets they can present, not to mention their strategic capability of retaliation. But, most nations on the planet are not China or Russia or India.

What about the question of mobility and communication for the modern force? Essentially, the Americans have a tremendous advantage with the huge fleets of heavy lift equipment...not only in military aircraft but in their commandeering of the huge civilian fleets available to them., as they did in GW I and II They can move entire divisions in a matter of day to just about any place on earth. The gigantic naval reserve resources are readily available, too. The air forces are quite capable of beginning the isolation strategies almost immediately and can sustain such quite easily for the time needed to get the ground forces on site.

It would seem, as has been mentioned here, the equipping "for the last war" as opposed to the "next war" is true only in regard to limited unknowns...such as the surprises the opposing forces come up with now and then, such as the IED concentrations and their willingness to use suicide attacks...but even those tactics have failed miserably militarily...although politically, they have been more effective. Also, with the current re-supply of weapons and equipment from entities outside the area of engagement (Iranian and Syrian), there are mounting problems that are certainly solvable. Those problems leave the modern forces open to some varying degrees of harassment...but, most certainly not defeat...again in consideration of the military problem only. The demonstration of the American forces in exercising admirable flexibility on the battlefield have shown they are quite capable of meeting the changing conditions.

Opposing forces are recognizing the American weakness that is probably unique to American forces only, that is a very disorganized and volatile political system that is highly sensitive to the lowest of battlefield casualties and collateral damage with the resulting civilian casualties in the enemy theater. Such home front disunity basically removes much of the tremendous battlefield advantages the American have. American national resolve is very easily deflated and with the correct applications of ruthlessness against the civilian populations in the theater, can have dramatic results against the Americans. The Somalian example is very significant in this regard and the Iranian example of today is probably going to be the definitive proof of this glaring weakness.

Basically, the wealthy modern force with the latest equipment simply does not need that many boots on the ground in symmetrical engagements. In fact, we may soon see a military that will need very few actual boots filled with human feet on the ground in enemy territory.

[BloodyTalon]

@Bloody Talon



Quite wrong, because you won in Kosovo.
Not really. Kosovo is neither independant nor fully under the Serbian government's control. The only real victory we gained was that Milosevic was removed from power shortly thereafter.

[PoGo]

The combined arms doctrines of the past have been largely replaced with a doctrine that dictates a surgical removal of an enemy opponent’s leadership by means of first blinding them, then cutting off their communication to and from their troops and then piece meal isolation and destruction of troops in the field...game over. Of course, we are talking about opposing forces that do not have global thermo nuclear retaliatory capability.

This is supposed to be achieved by highly detailed intelligence gathering by satellites, drones, and orbiting control ships which pinpoint the enemy leadership targets that are destroyed by very precise high explosive weapons. Air power is no longer geared toward saturation (I'm back grounding here...I know everyone knows this). Under a hostile sky, filled with instant destructive capability for even individual targets as small as motorcycle couriers, you essentially remove the enemy capability of mobility...no mobility, no supplies, no communications. Thus, an army is no longer a viable fighting force...it is reduced to a gang of folks trying to survive in holes with very limited resources...no food, no water and no hope of ever getting any. In essence, almost all military forces in the world, that is, those without the ability to command their sky, are rendered useless. As long as they are held in place by modern air power, the ground forces really don’t have much of a problem in mopping up the pitiful forces left in place after a few weeks of this pounding isolation. Everyone probably remembers the major problem the old "Dragons Jaw" bridge caused the American bombing forces in Vietnam...that bridge remained standing after months of massive bombing with dumb bombs. There are no such problem like that now. Instant and assured destruction of any chosen target and almost all lines of communication and absolute prevention of repairs render the largest land armies impotent in just a matter of hours.

No, I don't want to suggest every land army is a "cake walk" problem for a modern military like the US has. But, this new way of dealing with massive campaigns basically means there is a quantum difference between fighting forces today. It's very much like what happened in Ethiopia in 1936 where the Italians used aircraft, mustard gas, flame throwers, modern artillery, mechanized infantry, armored units, aerial reconnaissance and other modern military devices against an Ethiopian army equipped with nothing of substance to resist. It was no contest. We might say, the situation for all but a few nations on this planet is the same as the Ethiopians of 1936 experienced.

So, considering this, the need for massively large military forces is greatly reduced. The modern attacking land forces have their problems reduced exponentially because of the flank and route protections they receive from these precision aerial resources. Aerial cavalry now behave very much like super mobile land forces, breaking up enemy formations usually before they have even assembled. With ultra sensitive satellite and theater orbital surveillance able to pick out individual enemy combatants even through cover, the enemy is reduced to using asymmetrical strategies for harassing and irritating the very rapid enemy advances...such tactics may hinder but will never defeat the modern land forces. The only recourse is exactly what the opposing forces have resorted to in Iraq and Af. They use very small units that mingle with the civilian populations in the urban centers where American forces are reluctant to engage for fear of causing excessive civilian casualties.

When you look at the greatly unbalanced ratio of American or coalition force casualties against the casualties of the opposing forces, you see the truth of the matter. The ratios are almost unbelievable, probably approaching a hundred or more to one...(No one really knows because the opposing forces are so obscure. Separating them accurately from civilian casualties is practically impossible). No organized fighting force can survive this kind of warfare unless they are equivalent forces, such as Russia or even possibly China have...but, even then, if they lose air superiority, they are doomed. Of course, the size of the opposing force has to be considered, and the land area they have to hide in and the number of targets they can present, not to mention their strategic capability of retaliation. But, most nations on the planet are not China or Russia or India.

What about the question of mobility and communication for the modern force? Essentially, the Americans have a tremendous advantage with the huge fleets of heavy lift equipment...not only in military aircraft but in their commandeering of the huge civilian fleets available to them., as they did in GW I and II They can move entire divisions in a matter of day to just about any place on earth. The gigantic naval reserve resources are readily available, too. The air forces are quite capable of beginning the isolation strategies almost immediately and can sustain such quite easily for the time needed to get the ground forces on site.

It would seem, as has been mentioned here, the equipping "for the last war" as opposed to the "next war" is true only in regard to limited unknowns...such as the surprises the opposing forces come up with now and then, such as the IED concentrations and their willingness to use suicide attacks...but even those tactics have failed miserably militarily...although politically, they have been more effective. Also, with the current re-supply of weapons and equipment from entities outside the area of engagement (Iranian and Syrian), there are mounting problems that are certainly solvable. Those problems leave the modern forces open to some varying degrees of harassment...but, most certainly not defeat...again in consideration of the military problem only. The demonstration of the American forces in exercising admirable flexibility on the battlefield have shown they are quite capable of meeting the changing conditions.

Opposing forces are recognizing the American weakness that is probably unique to American forces only, that is a very disorganized and volatile political system that is highly sensitive to the lowest of battlefield casualties and collateral damage with the resulting civilian casualties in the enemy theater. Such home front disunity basically removes much of the tremendous battlefield advantages the American have. American national resolve is very easily deflated and with the correct applications of ruthlessness against the civilian populations in the theater, can have dramatic results against the Americans. The Somalian example is very significant in this regard and the Iranian example of today is probably going to be the definitive proof of this glaring weakness.

Basically, the wealthy modern force with the latest equipment simply does not need that many boots on the ground in symmetrical engagements. In fact, we may soon see a military that will need very few actual boots filled with human feet on the ground in enemy territory.


Thats one of the better posts I've seen on MP.net. The only problem with what you said is that the main reason for needing grounds troops is occupation and rebuilding. Other than a handful of nations, the US military has no problem effectively neutrailizing an oppenents' ability to wage war. For example, in Desert Storm, OEF and OIF it took the US only a very small period of time to almost completely dismantle the military of their adversary. The problem (not in Desert Storm but in OIF, Kosovo and OEF) has been when the US atempts to rebuild the infastructure, gov etc. of the country. This takes ground troops. You can't keep order from 30,000ft.

[number nine]

Mastermind, you told it very nice, but that applies currently.
History shows us sooner or later for every new wondrous means of attack suitable defence will be found.
Even best AAW systems are order of magnitude cheaper than aircraft, such as MIM-104 and Russian S300, but they are not employed massively enough to counter threat from air, I fear. And technically it's easier to upgrade land based missile system for extra range because weight is not so big consideration. I wonder what will future bring. These are currently strategic asset, but I really wonder what will happen when they became attachment at division level.

[Mastermind]

Thats one of the better posts I've seen on MP.net. The only problem with what you said is that the main reason for needing grounds troops is occupation and rebuilding. Other than a handful of nations, the US military has no problem effectively neutrailizing an oppenents' ability to wage war. For example, in Desert Storm, OEF and OIF it took the US only a very small period of time to almost completely dismantle the military of their adversary. The problem (not in Desert Storm but in OIF, Kosovo and OEF) has been when the US atempts to rebuild the infastructure, gov etc. of the country. This takes ground troops. You can't keep order from 30,000ft.
Thanks for the compliment...I agree with you about the occupation comment. However, that, too, is a particularly American weakness...the aparent need we have to convert our previous enemies into "friends" and to make them as American as we are...to share this great "American Dream". It is somethig very few nations have ever done...perhaps since Rome did it in their era of greatness. It is a practice that may be unsustainable and is essentialy impractical in Muslim populations. I don't think any number of boots on the ground will make a bit of difference in Iraq in the long run.

You make an excellent point.

[Mastermind]

Mastermind, you told it very nice, but that applies currently.
History shows us sooner or later for every new wondrous means of attack suitable defence will be found.
Even best AAW systems are order of magnitude cheaper than aircraft, such as MIM-104 and Russian S300, but they are not employed massively enough to counter threat from air, I fear. And technically it's easier to upgrade land based missile system for extra range because weight is not so big consideration. I wonder what will future bring. These are currently strategic asset, but I really wonder what will happen when they became attachment at division level.
It is very true that highly expensive weapon systems can often be defeated by very inexpensive means. Yet, I think this is why cybernetic and robotic systems are going to become all the rage as trends are showing now. I think we may some day soon see wars fought where there will be more hydraulic fluid on the battlefields than blood. The nation that runs out of money and manufacturing capability first will be the loser.

[timetraveller]

Any army could have the best of gear but it's hopeless against an enemy who's will is strong ..

[Laworkerbee]

@Bloody Talon



Quite wrong, because you won in Kosovo.

That point could be argued, a "win" hardly in my opinion.


Any army could have the best of gear but it's hopeless against an enemy who's will is strong ..

That only applies to counter insurgency, wars between industrial states it doesn't.

[number nine]

That point could be argued, a "win" hardly in my opinion.Indeed? How about you and Bloody Talon answer me a question what happened after the war...

1. War resulted in status quo.
2. Some demands from US and allies were forced on Yugoslav side
3. Some demands from Yugoslav side were forced on US and allies

We can argue that US didn't depose Milosevic, and war was failure because of that. It might have even helped him stay in power a bit longer in fact by rallying people on his side, by rallying everybody against outside threat.

[ABNINF]

Well, in anwser to your question about the C-17, how many aircraft would it take to airlift a Stryker birgade, with complete compliment of vehicles, and personnel?

You're forgetting about the C-5 fleet.


And, what would happen if 1/2 of the C-130 fleet was grounded due to cracks in the wing boxes, when that birgade had to deploy?

That's a REALLY big if.


It took us 6 months to mass the forces necessary to defeat the Iraqi army in the first gulf war. 6 months. In the next war, there might not be 6 months alloted to mass forces necessary to conduct war. Thats why the stryker birgades were formed. A novel idea, but without planes to carry units to the fight, well might as well stay home. And airlift is just one part of the military that is sucking hind wind.

Wow, 6 months to move half a MILLION troops and their equipment to the opposite side of the globe. You're right, that's completely piss poor performance that any 3rd world country could do better. Come on man.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

You're forgetting about the C-5 fleet.



That's a REALLY big if.



Wow, 6 months to move half a MILLION troops and their equipment to the opposite side of the globe. You're right, that's completely piss poor performance that any 3rd world country could do better. Come on man.

I would not say, that 1/2 of the C-130 fleet getting grounded would be a "if". I would say it will be when.

And as for the C-5, a number of the earlier "A" models ARE being retired due to air craft age related issues. Will we have a number of C-17s to replace them? No. We, in all our hindsight and stupidity, want to cap production at 191.

I also forgot to mention, that dirung the first gulf war, it took a whole month to fully get the 82d airborne in place....and 6 months to mass 600,000 troops. If you pay attention, and look past the end of your nose, you might find that, in the next war, there might not be enough time to mass that many troops.

[8thidpathfinderpower]

If you have a problem that can't be dealt with by a ready brigade from the 82nd and a Marine Expeditionary Unit (i.e. 2 brigades of elite, rapidly-deployable light infantry), than you have a BIG problem. Big problems aren't going to be solved by sending an additional brigade of motorized infantry (Strykers are really just light infantry in big armored trucks; their firepower is very limited). It's far better to take your time and send an entire Army heavy division (or two) to smash the enemy the right way.


I already addressed the issue of air-deployability, but I'll say it again in case it didn't sink in properly the first time. If you don't believe me, then believe the CBO document I linked to (which it doesn't seem like you read):



So a mere 11 or so days out sea trans is bringing more tonnage to the fight than air trans. also:



I think Mastermind is correct that we are rapidly pricing ourselves out of the business of making war. If you really want to be able to smash any country anywhere in the world in less than several months, and do it using GROUND troops (with virtually no casualties as well) and not just obscene levels of air bombardment, then expect to spend far more than 4% of the largest GDP on the planet to do it. I don't think 8thID fully recognizes what a monumental task it is to fight and sustain a war effort on the other side of the globe.

It is a monumental undertaking to fight a war, no matter where it is at. But in the big picture, we have to be prepared to fight any where..not just where we want to.

[D-gin]

I would not say, that 1/2 of the C-130 fleet getting grounded would be a "if". I would say it will be when.
And why is that, Why is it "if" instead of when?


I also forgot to mention, that dirung the first gulf war, it took a whole month to fully get the 82d airborne in place....and 6 months to mass 600,000 troops. If you pay attention, and look past the end of your nose, you might find that, in the next war, there might not be enough time to mass that many troops.
Who do you see us going up against it the next war exactly that we would need entire infantry and airborn divisions deployed in under four to six months?


I mean if all of a sudden I wake up one day and the Chinese are parachuting into my back yard and no one in the military had any clue then I might agree but come on.

[sp2c]

Indeed? How about you and Bloody Talon answer me a question what happened after the war...

1. War resulted in status quo.
2. Some demands from US and allies were forced on Yugoslav side
3. Some demands from Yugoslav side were forced on US and allies

We can argue that US didn't depose Milosevic, and war was failure because of that. It might have even helped him stay in power a bit longer in fact by rallying people on his side, by rallying everybody against outside threat.

that wasnt the point of the Kosovo war
goal was to bomb slobo out of Kosovo, the effectiveness can be argued but the end result can't

slobo left, we won

[ABNINF]

I would not say, that 1/2 of the C-130 fleet getting grounded would be a "if". I would say it will be when.

Well, considering the fact that the Air Force is doing a bang up job to keep those C-130's updated with the latest upgrades, I don't see how a problem could come along so quickly that it would ground half the fleet overnight.


I also forgot to mention, that dirung the first gulf war, it took a whole month to fully get the 82d airborne in place....and 6 months to mass 600,000 troops. If you pay attention, and look past the end of your nose, you might find that, in the next war, there might not be enough time to mass that many troops.

You're also forgetting that during those first few months it wasn't imperitive that we get them on the ground in hours. They were still debating courses of action in the UN for 3 of those months. What kind of a conflict could come along that we would need to have multiple brigrades on the ground in a few hours time? Also, you still have yet to mention a country that can do it better, faster, and more effectively.

[PoGo]

It is a monumental undertaking to fight a war, no matter where it is at. But in the big picture, we have to be prepared to fight any where..not just where we want to.


Although I respect you having your own views and opinions you have to be reasonable on this topic. I'm sure the joint chiefs would love some brand new transport aircraft , and some brand transport ships, oh and why your at it, why don't we just buy some more aircraft carriers and B2s, etc. The fact of the matter is that all that depends upon one thing...$$$$. With the current defense budget we don't have the money for all these new things that would be great to have. We are doing the best we can with what we got (and what we got ain't too bad!)

[AZRON]

Any army could have the best of gear but it's hopeless against an enemy who's will is strong ..

Your statement leads me to ask .
Are you aware of the island battles in the Pacific in WWII ?

[Mastermind]

I think in the Isand battles and the larger battles in Europe, our will was definately strong. Perhaps stronger than those opposing us. We were not going to be defeated...no matter what! That was then a matter not only of national pride, but a matter of classical sense. We read the history, we felt the heritage left to us by our founding fathers and we believed in things much greater than ourselves then. People actually took off their hats and held their hands over their hearts as the flag was presented. My mother used to cry at every singing of the National Anthem....and everyone sang it...not just tone-deaf sitcom freaks. My dad told me that on our block, and every block in America in those days, there were at last two houses with stars in their windows...that means the family had suffered a battle death...some houses had two and even three stars! We actually felt like Americans and our citizenship really meant something. We were truly part of something unique and great...each and every one of us.

Now, it seems, at least a dissappointing half of us mostly believe in going to the mall and watching American Idol. A great many of us are now hyphenated-Americans. They really don't know what they are missing.

[Lokos]

goal was to bomb slobo out of Kosovo, the effectiveness can be argued but the end result can't

slobo left, we won

Only after the international community dropped the ridiculous demands made at Rambouillet did NATO 'win'.

They made a desert and called it peace.

Lokos

[sp2c]

weeell ... when you're right, you're right

shouldn't have said that

[Hollis]

Timetraveler, your statement is very incomplete. I know from personal experience the NVA (bac Biet) would hit us, greatly out numbering us, they were well motivated, bla blah,, Well guess what, I like my fellow Marines, are still here and they are not.

Google Khe Shan, Google Mutter's ridge, etc. Google A 1/9 a company of about 140 Marines getting hit with 2 battalions of NVA reinforced with heavy artillery...

So I guess we can argue whose "will is strong" we are talking about. As a General said about the Tangos, they are highly dedicated and very stupid.

As AZRON pointed out, read about the Islands in WWII, a hint would be Guadalcanal.




Originally Posted by timetraveller http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?p=2761580#post2761580)
Any army could have the best of gear but it's hopeless against an enemy who's will is strong ..

[Mastermind]

Hollis!!!!! :-)

[loganinkosovo]

In every Army you end up with the lazy, the useless, the Stupid and the untrainable.....It is the Sergeant's mission to weed these ****birds out.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0c/AlGoreVietnam.gif



http://www.tincher.to/images/gore_nam.jpg

[8thidpathfinderpower]

Well, considering the fact that the Air Force is doing a bang up job to keep those C-130's updated with the latest upgrades, I don't see how a problem could come along so quickly that it would ground half the fleet overnight.



You're also forgetting that during those first few months it wasn't imperitive that we get them on the ground in hours. They were still debating courses of action in the UN for 3 of those months. What kind of a conflict could come along that we would need to have multiple brigrades on the ground in a few hours time? Also, you still have yet to mention a country that can do it better, faster, and more effectively.

Well, as for a country that could put a lot of troops on the ground, really fast..lemme think...the former Soviet Union. They had the man power, and the assets to put several AB divisions on the ground, fast. Fact is, thats where part of the theory of the Stryker birgade concept came from.

But, aside from that, the C-130 fleet right now is facing a really big problem, again due to short sightedness, the center wing boxes are cracking. Even tho modifactions are under way, it is going to be too slow in some instances.

Again...in order to fight a war, you have to get to the war to start with. You have to arrive with all your assets needed, as a very valuable lesson was just learned from operation Iraq Freedom.

IN no way, shape or form, could we have the forces on the ground in enough time, if we had to go to war in lets say, Taiwan, Korea, or South America. And for the people who think that we could actually defend Taiwan against a Chinese division..better think again. Not enough forces, especially when the USA moved most of its forces, half-way across the Pacific.

One thing is for certain..I cannot believe some of the responses made here, especially on this last page.

Some one made a comment about not enough money for defense..or costing too much...let me say this..want to start a boom in Conneticut, Texas, and California..give the money to the military they need for weapons and weapon systems. Not only will the workers at all those factories thank you, but the american service man will too.

[Indiana Jones]

Only after the international community dropped the ridiculous demands made at Rambouillet did NATO 'win'.

They made a desert and called it peace.

Lokos
Der Krieg ist lediglich die Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln.
Without wanting to pontificate, NATO won the "war", and easily so-cautela abundans non nocet- it failed after hostilities had ceased, but that is a different chapter.

[Lokos]

Without wanting to pontificate, NATO won the "war"

It did; after it withdrew demands such as the right to occupy all of what was then Yugoslavia (made at Rambouillet).

As for 'easily so' - well, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. NATO didn't resort to bombing civilian infrastructure because they were 'winning with ease'.

It took the intervention of the Russians, the promise to uphold UN resolution 1244 (with its territorial sovereignty clause) and economic punishment to get Milosevic to withdraw the troops from the province. We didn't feel defeated.

The VJ was defeated at the negotiating table - not on the battlefield.

Lokos

[TR1]

A shame what Russia did during those days.....



oh and BTW this thread is some good comedic content.

[Indiana Jones]

It did; after it withdrew demands such as the right to occupy all of what was then Yugoslavia (made at Rambouillet).

I disagree. To begin with, NATO never intended to "occupy" Serbia proper. In short, the clauses you are certainly referring to (immunity, access etc.) were relative to interpretation either inspired by profane logistical considerations or designed as a casus belli.

As for 'easily so' - well, I'm going to go ahead and disagree. NATO didn't resort to bombing civilian infrastructure because they were 'winning with ease'.
Civilian infrastructure was destroyed deliberately from the very onset of the war. NATOs modus operandi as well as Serbian countermeasures did not allow to generate sufficient political pressure and domestic unrest by attacking military targets alone. The VJ or Serbia in general had no effective means of defence against the aerial campaign whatsoever. The outcome of the conflict was never in question.

It took the intervention of the Russians, the promise to uphold UN resolution 1244 (with its territorial sovereignty clause) and economic punishment to get Milosevic to withdraw the troops from the province. We didn't feel defeated.

The VJ was defeated at the negotiating table - not on the battlefield.

Does that matter ?
I agree that 3rd Army had not been militarily defeated by any stretch of the imagination, especially not in the perceptions of its members, but that strikes me as fairly irrelevant. Luckily (from a NATO perspective), a conventional military exchange with the corresponding loss of life was neither fundamental nor desired to bring the campaign to a successful conclusion. At the heart of the matter lies the fact that in the end, the FRY was unwilling and perhaps unable to continue further hostilities. NATO archieved its key political objectives, whereas the FRY did not, even though it managed to "save face".

[snoddy]

anyone can look at the active duty/guardsman/reservist and pick them apart....

but when it comes down to it, to the actual fighting, US service men do the job thats set out before them.

our military is only afew hundred yrs old so compared to other countries, we are better, you can take the time to figure out how and where it came from, ill give you a hint, when we want something bad enough we dont stop till we get it, we learned that from fighting ourselves.

[Lokos]

I disagree. To begin with, NATO never intended to "occupy" Serbia proper

I'd rather not rely on NATO's good graces, since the platform would have been there.


designed as a casus belli.


Ja.


Civilian infrastructure was destroyed deliberately from the very onset of the war.

The first wave of targets was against the 3rd Army. The second was a wave of attacks against all VJ targets. The last wave included civilian infrastructure. Only certain militarily vital facilities were hit from the beginning (i.e. fuel depots etc).


The outcome of the conflict was never in question

In hindsight that's easy to say.


At the heart of the matter lies the fact that in the end, the FRY was unwilling and perhaps unable to continue further hostilities.

We (the VJ) were able. The civilian leadership was not.


NATO archieved its key political objectives, whereas the FRY did not, even though it managed to "save face".

I don't dispute that they 'won'. It was a disgusting little episode in modern warfare. A gaggle of hypocrites, buffoons and cavalier 'humanitarians' got on their little high horse and decided to punish some 'bad guys'. It makes me sick even thinking about it.

Lokos

[Noble713]

IN no way, shape or form, could we have the forces on the ground in enough time, if we had to go to war in lets say, Taiwan, Korea, or South America. And for the people who think that we could actually defend Taiwan against a Chinese division..better think again. Not enough forces, especially when the USA moved most of its forces, half-way across the Pacific.


Taiwan: The Taiwanese army has 200,000 personnel in ~37 combat brigades (according to The Military Balance 2007). The Chinese don't even have the sea-lift capacity necessary to conduct an invasion against a force like that. Even when they eventually DO have enough sealift, virtually any US military reaction is based around the use of naval assets and naval aviation. After all, if the troops can't GET to Taiwan, how many the PLA tries to invade with is rather moot. Besides, in the long-run we are better off being friends with the People's Republic than with Taiwan, so I bet that any response from the US will be half-assed at best. Putting troops on the ground in Taiwan is a HUGE escalation that we would not benefit from.

Korea: The South Korean military is more than capable of handling itself versus the North. We still currently have 1 heavy brigade from the 2nd Infantry Division (which is moving to bases away from the DMZ) plus other support brigades (attack aviation and Patriot). Regardless of what's there, they really aren't needed anyway.

South America: What kind of ground conflict do you envision in SA that requires the commitment of divisions worth of ground troops?

[BloodyTalon]

Well, as for a country that could put a lot of troops on the ground, really fast..lemme think...the former Soviet Union. They had the man power, and the assets to put several AB divisions on the ground, fast. Fact is, thats where part of the theory of the Stryker birgade concept came from.
News flash: The Russian military has no where near the force projection capabilities that it had back in the Cold War. Having your government and economy collapse and then go through a decade of stagnation does that to a military.

Here's something for you to consider; The US military has 863 transport aircraft. That's 596 C-130s, 156 C-17s, and 111 C-5s. The Russian military in comparison has only 238 transport aircraft. How the **** does that equate to the Russians are superior to us in terms of transporting their military?

[Hilbert]

Here's something for you to consider; The US military has 863 transport aircraft. That's 596 C-130s, 156 C-17s, and 111 C-5s. The Russian military in comparison has only 238 transport aircraft. How the **** does that equate to the Russians are superior to us in terms of transporting their military?

Maybe he thinks Russian Aircraft look better at the Air Shows.

I don't know.

He still won't even answer my question about which army the U.S. is "second" to; my guess is he doesn't even know.

[TR1]

News flash: The Russian military has no where near the force projection capabilities that it had back in the Cold War. Having your government and economy collapse and then go through a decade of stagnation does that to a military.

Here's something for you to consider; The US military has 863 transport aircraft. That's 596 C-130s, 156 C-17s, and 111 C-5s. The Russian military in comparison has only 238 transport aircraft. How the **** does that equate to the Russians are superior to us in terms of transporting their military?
That is incorrect. The Russian AF operates about 120 An-12s, 20 An-124, 25 An-22, 125 An--24/26s, 50 An-32, 230 Il-76, 30 An-72....so a lot more than 238 aircraft, whatever the precise numbers of aircraft in service are.

Still doesn;t change the fact that US airlift capabilties are massive.

[Demoralizer]

If you ask me, 8thpathfinder was hacked.

[socom6]

If you ask me, 8thpathfinder was hacked.

LOL a good one.

[snoddy]

if he was hacked i think he would of told someone by now.....

and i think this thread would be locked....

[Noble713]

It seems everyone has slightly different numbers. The Military Balance 2006-2007 lists the Military Transport Aviation Command (aka 61st Air Army) as having:



EQUIPMENT BY TYPE

AIRCRAFT
TPT 293+: 50 An-12 Cub; 12 An-124 Condor; 21 An-22

**** (Under MoD control); 210 Il-76M/MD/MF Candid



The important thing, though, is that while the Russian's have 8 regiments of mechanized airborne (in 4 divisions, plus the arty regiment in each division) and 1 independent brigade of light infantry airborne, the 61st Air Army can only move about 1 division (or about 2 Brigades' worth).

By comparison, the US has 6 brigades of light infantry airborne (4 in the 82nd, 4th Brigade (Airborne) - 25th ID in Alaska, and the 173rd Airborne Brigade out of Italy). I've always felt that the Russian airborne mech forces were a great idea conceptually, and I wish the US would develop an equivalent force, but as noted it's not like the Russians actually have better force projection than the US because of them.

[Mastermind]

The Russian forces are good...probably excellent for what they have. But, When one considered the Russians, you have to also consider the potential opposition. If the Russians ever get as antsy as they were in the days of the Check invasion or the Cold War, who would ultimately end up opposing them? Almost all of Europe...that's a given...the Ruskies are not Communists anymore...so that would mean they might be some kind of quasi-imperial capitalistic force...very much like Hitler's military. Europe would immediately ally (again) with the USA...combined forces then make the Ruskies seem weak by comparison. IF this kind of thing would happen is pure and fantastic speculation, though.

What about China? Would the Russians stand up to them in some kind of large military confrontation...I think it's possible...as unlikely as it may be. If it ever did come down to Russia vs china in a real all-front shooting war…I expect the Chinese would be handed their own asses on a wooden platter.

Russia, based on her military revisions after the blood letting in Chechnya is now a force to be respected...but a relatively isolated action is not a BTW national defense action...that is an entirely different can of worms. I doubt very seriously Russia is apt to go offensive in any near future. So, really the discussion is an adventure into fantasy. But, Russia still maintains a fleet of well designed and fully equipped nuclear subs, and she has thousands of strategic nuclear warheads mounted on highly accurate delivery vehicles. Russia, is secure because of this...it is highly unlikely any outside nations would be so stupid as to grievously PO such a massively well armed tiger.

As for U.S. capability nowadays…well, America has a habit of meeting the need regardless of the circumstances. Unless the threat is a sudden nuclear threat, there are no (NO!) nations out there with a direct threat capability aside from the strategic nations mentioned, that our current military forces could not engage, hold by the nose until we are fully prepared and manned to deal them a very severe dusting.

It takes about six months for a modern military build up….and if the threat to the USA was severe enough or there was a massive public appeal to take action, believe me…there would be nothing on earth that could stop Americans from kicking just about anyone’s butt who deserved it. And this is also true of Russia, Germany, Britain, France…just about any of the modern strong powers. If they were severely threatened there is no doubt they could build up just as quickly and respond appropriately.

No nation can maintain a massive War strong military forever…..in times of peace, it is an economic necessity to trim the military down (Read Sun Tzu on this…he gives an excellent dissertation on this factor). It is a very careful balance a nation must achieve in this regard throughout it’s history. If it miscalculates, it can come to disaster on both ends of the spectrum.

[Indiana Jones]

I'd rather not rely on NATO's good graces, since the platform would have been there.

I think this to be an unrealistic prospect; If you familiarize yourself with the contemporary political peculiarities of the major European NATO members, it is glaringly apparent that any perceived occupation would have swayed the already wavering public opinion overwhelmingly against the intervention, to the degree that the very political existence of various key players was at stake.

In hindsight that's easy to say.


Even though the NATO effort was at best halfhearted and of course harmstrung by political and humanitarian considerations, the disparity in material, quality and numbers was quite simply too stark to allow for any different result.


I don't dispute that they 'won'. It was a disgusting little episode in modern warfare. A gaggle of hypocrites, buffoons and cavalier 'humanitarians' got on their little high horse and decided to punish some 'bad guys'. It makes me sick even thinking about it.

I am of the opinion that your assessment of NATOs political leadership is both too damning and simplistic. Even if we leave questions of self-determination, repression etc. aside, broadly speaking, in the light of the regions recent history, concerns over ethnic cleansing were not at all unfounded and further underpinned during the course of the "war".