"The U.S. Military Does Not Have The Conventional..." Topic
12 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please don't call someone a Nazi unless they really are a Nazi.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Ultramodern Warfare (2014-present) Message Board
Areas of InterestModern
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Featured Workbench ArticleIf you want to magnetically store your 15mm vehicles, then you'd better add some steel!
Featured Profile Article
Featured Book Review
Featured Movie Review
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Tango01 | 29 Jun 2015 10:39 p.m. PST |
… Capability To Overcome The Defenses Of Russia, China, And Iran. "The US military is overly invested in short-range direct attack bombs and not enough in long-range, stealthy smart weapons and aircraft, and this must change if it ever expects to challenge the air defences of nations like China, Russia, Iran or North Korea. That's the assessment of the Washington-based Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, which released a new report this week on "sustaining America's precision-strike advantage". The crux of the argument presented by authors Mark Gunzinger and Bryan Clark is that while shorter-range weapons like joint direct attack munitions (JDAMs) and small diameter bombs (SDBs) have kill rates as high as 100% when an aircraft can get close to its target, that won't be possible in large force-on-force salvo against large military force that has its own guided, smart weapons…" Full article here link
Also… US Military Incapable of Overcoming Defenses of Russia, China and Iran. link In brief ,what the report is saying (quoting Russian news media) is the following the US military has over-invested into weapons which work well for launching attacks on countries like Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria but are quite ineffective for countries like Iran, Russia and China. What's my take . We know that the U.S. does not have the conventional military weapons to take on Russia or China (and neither does China or Russia vs. the U.S.) but the inability to wage a conventional war against a country like Iran is a worrisome one since it is the military option that the White House likes to sometimes advertise it is capable of doing as the Iranian nuclear talks continue.
Amicalement Armand |
Legion 4 | 30 Jun 2015 6:39 a.m. PST |
Good to know … Maybe we should send them all more aid … |
ScoutJock | 30 Jun 2015 7:32 a.m. PST |
The Chinese, Russians and Iranians know we have submarines and surface combatants capable of delivering hundreds more long range PGM to just about anyplace on the globe. Conveniently, the authors neglected to mention this additional and frankly more survivable delivery capability. Which comes as no surprise since they are undoubtedly K Street Weasels who are paid, either directly or indirectly by the aerospace defense giants named in the article, i, e. Northrop and Lockheed. |
Prince of Derekness | 30 Jun 2015 8:51 a.m. PST |
I reckon the US easily has the ability to mete out an all arms conventional kicking to Iran, Russia and China; Id say its fairly devastatingly capable. Of course garrisoning the aftermath and "nation building" is a different matter, especially when its like Iraq and theres no nation left… But yeah Scoutjocks got it, the defence companies scaring up some business. |
Mako11 | 30 Jun 2015 10:23 a.m. PST |
Perhaps, SJ, though I read recently that they were cancelling production of cruise missiles, which seems rather daft for me, given their effectiveness and heavy use in the beginning stages of a war, so……. We did, once, PoD, but with the procurement of the F-35, that capability is being degraded significantly: link As a plus for them, I guess, as poorly performing aircraft are shot down, they'll eventually get to build and charge us more for their replacements. |
ScoutJock | 30 Jun 2015 2:15 p.m. PST |
I read somewhere that the Navy bought about 4000 tomahawks of which 2500 or so are still operational so I think we have enough to go around for a while. At least until its replacement comes on line. |
jpattern2 | 30 Jun 2015 2:43 p.m. PST |
Yeah, sounds like just one more iteration of the "missile gap." |
carne68 | 30 Jun 2015 6:26 p.m. PST |
The real gap we do have is a proper Anti-Ship Missile. The Harpoon is well past its freshness date. It is dangerously obsolete, a fact that is even more alarming given the profusion of highly capable AShM's deployed by our potential adversaries, Brahmos, KH-22, etc. |
Lion in the Stars | 01 Jul 2015 7:34 a.m. PST |
Gotta agree with carne68: The US desperately needs a new anti-ship missile. Ideally something supersonic. |
Tango01 | 01 Jul 2015 11:20 a.m. PST |
|
andysyk | 01 Jul 2015 12:34 p.m. PST |
No modern western state has the ability to conduct a prolonged conventional war. We don't have the manpower or industrial basis to do so. Defence is based on minimum manpower and technology. Neither does Russia its too corrupt and inefficient?. China could probably give it go. Iran? Human waves? The west would target main military political and civil infrastructure with technology then if any country was still in the fight probably be able to contain them until we needed to catch up. Or would we? a long conventional war is about massed manpower and an industry that can be quickly turned into a munitions outpour, the UK no longer as the ability on the industrial side of things do other western states? Its easy to change a die in in a basic engineering plant it stamps out shell casings instead of tractor parts. Modern factories are much more product intensified. How long is the conventional war? In the long run we may be out munitioned? Even in Afghanistan British troops were ordered to curb small arms ammunition useage. |
Legion 4 | 02 Jul 2015 6:28 a.m. PST |
No modern western state has the ability to conduct a prolonged conventional war. It's all about $$$ … Modern Warfare is very, very, costly in $$$, among other things. Even prolonged COIN is very expensive. Fortunately modern tech on many levels keeps the human losses to the Western forces lower than in the past like in WWII, etc. … Of course that being said, it is still tragic if you are one of KIA/WIA as always. One of the problems/situations I see is with COIN, the ROE limits use of some firepower. Which again, of course is the nature of that type of warfare. Hard to ID the enemy, as well as the classic guerilla/insurgent tactic of hiding among civilains, etc. … I feel in any type of warfare, less strict ROE could shorten the conflict [?]. But again, fear of collateral damage for a number of reasons, etc. is much more of a consideration today than before. Which is a double edge sword at times, it appears. |
|