All things New Cold War
< Return to subforum
Dassault Papillon:
Nope, do you have any articles in which I can read about it?
The answer, though, is probably that as the West increases sanctions against Russia, Russia is responding by doing such missions in order to "spook" NATO in retaliation. And, of course, they may be trying to intimidate weaker NATO members or nations seeking NATO membership.
Right, and I am still curious as to what these missions are exactly?
Dassault Papillon:
Three of those links described the same incident, fair enough though. Every article did make it clear that Russia didn't violate any national airspace's though. It is actually illegal for NATO to intercept planes in this manner.
TBH, NATO is being a bit of a hypocrite criticizing Iran for intercepting cargo ships in Yemen waters when at the same time NATO is intercepting Russian airplanes in international airspace.
One recommendation though. Don't go to partisan sites for your news. They are propagating your views, whether you can realize it or not.
Blackflag:
Okay, justify why you think the U.S. doesn't have a small-scale specialist military.
Dassault Papillon:
Well to start, our military training isn't all that it could be. For a US infantryman, his equipment and gun cost six times what it took to train him and provide him his skillset. In true specialist militaries, their soldiers training costs more than their equipment. That is the way it should be. When we do military exchanges and training exercises, our own soldiers are are constantly outclassed.
IMO, there are 4 tiers for the various levels of troop skill
Top Tier: You have nations like France and former Eastern Block nations which have the most rigourous and effective training programs. The Eastern Block nations, such as Poland and the Czech Republic, leverage training doctrines formerly promoted for special forces brigades under the Soviets. The reason France has top tier infantry, is because almost all of their active duty troops are specialized and trained under near SF circumstances. For example, French RIMA brigades, French Foreign Legion, French Commados, ect.
Second Tier: In tier two you have nations like the UK and Russia. Their troops undergo long training programs, and have lots of experienced generals and tested doctrines
Third Tier: This is where you have nations like the US, Gerrmany, and Italy. While often well equipped and well trained, they aren't nearly as effective in combat as other with higher tiers. Usually the training time in these countries is a month bootcamp.
Fourth Tier: Here is where nations like China, Iran, and various third world miltaries fall. They probably undergo 2 weeks of training before reaching private status, and this is usually because of tight budgets or a high demand for more soldiers.
I am not knocking anyone here, and their are both advantages and disadsvantages to putting more time and energy into proper training, but a specialist military mostly has specialist training programs and only active duty specialist roles. Right now, a US soldier is given a months training, and to make matters worst, the amount of soliders we have undergoing training often limits the amount of specialized education we can offer to each individual soldier.
The US military aren't walking meat bags like the Nazis reffered to us as in the African campaign of WW2, but we aren't no supersoliders either. . Our troops are good at fighting terrorists and partisans recruited from the countryside, but up against a trained military force, I would seriously worry for our soldiers. Under the right tactical circumstances we can beat superior infantry, but in raw combat our troops aren't as good as nations like Russia and France. Extending our training programs and borrowing some doctrines from our allies would fix this, but it would be costly.
Another reason why the US isn't a specialist military is because we do not use specialist equipment. Our service rifle is very outdated and subpar to the majority of service rifles used in the developed world. Our ballistic armor and other equipments are likewise subpar to what soldiers are given in other nations. In general, the average soldier, even in specialized forces such as the marines, are severely underequipped.
At one time we attempted to modernize our service rifle and equipment, but all the projects were scrapped because the weapons we produced were ineffective or too costly.
Blackflag:
I guess you weren't kidding when you praised France's military...
I guess the USA's army needs some serious reforms in terms of training and infantry equipment such as our service rifles.
Is Russia seriously ahead of us in this regard?
One thing, though: you listed former Eastern Bloc nations as top-notch. If this is true, then why has Ukraine's military been doing so horribly against the insurgents in Donbass?
Dassault Papillon:
I guess the USA's army needs some serious reforms in terms of training and infantry equipment such as our service rifles.
Right. I think training is undervalued in our military. It shouldn't be a month process. It should take a couple months at least.
As I said, we made one attempt at modernizing our service rifle, and that came in the form of the XM8
The project failed, because the research and development team make the same mistakes they always have in regards to national defense. They overloaded the gun with expensive plastics, which would be totally fine, if the gun had even reached the standards that were originally set for it. So at the end of the day we were left with an overly expensive and sub-par weapon, which is pretty much the definition of everything we produce.
I don't like knocking the military, but the ppl in charge of it are dumb as bricks. Everything has to be extremely cool looking and pricey at the expense of effectiveness.
Dassault Papillon:
One thing, though: you listed former Eastern Bloc nations as top-notch. If this is true, then why has Ukraine's military been doing so horribly against the insurgents in Donbass?
Actually I was speaking more along the lines of the Warsaw Pact nations. Poland, The Czech Republic, Romania, and Bulgaria all have really top notch infantry.
Ukraine's military is mostly designed as a large mechanized force rather than a specialized military capable of deploying overseas and dealing with counter insurgencies. They didn't win the Donbass War originally because their military wasn't equipped or prepared for a large scale rebellion. Despite this they were still able to push the rebels back to the city of Donbass, which they kept under siege for a week.
During the siege, Russia flooded the country with dozens of heavy tanks and artillery weapons, but this is denied by Russia. Eventually the rebels, with their endless check on Russian military hardware, were able to get artillery superiority, which gave Russia the upperhand in calling for a ceasefire. Ukraine is still in a state of ceasefire now, but I probably didn't have to tell you that.
Is Russia seriously ahead of us in this regard?
Actually yes. Their training program is a lot more vigorous than ours, and their active deployment units are better equipped than our US marines. The Russian soldier is currently being supplied with AK 100 series rifles. You can encounter a Russian soldier with anything up to an AK-108, and believe me when I tell you that is one hell of a rifle.
Another advantage they have is that their soldiers have a lot more expierience than our own. They are continiously deployed to fight insurgents in the Caucasus, almost always the fresh meat.
The vets of the Iraq War encountered a trained army, but they were able to win through overwhelming fire power, numerical superiority, and air superiority. All of the things that made the Invasion of Iraq a cakewalk would be absent in a war against Russia and China, so our soldiers nvr really gained any experience dealing with these things.
Afghanistan was another story. The combat was intense, but like the Soviet War in Afghanistan, we didn't participate in most of it. We trained an army of over 200,000 Afghan soldiers to fight the majority of the battles, and they still continue to do so. Also unlike the Soviet War in Afghanistan was the fact that we had more supporters in our own war, whereas the Soviet Union had more enemies.
It seems like the best recourse to improving the state of our own military is to increase our training programs, to modernize our own equipment to this century, and to work the military a bit harder in order to get more veterans among our ranks. The EU sent 20,000 troops to the Congo, while France was fighting its own war for 2 years in Mali (another war that should be compared to Afghanistan). Those would of made ample opportunities to give our troops the expierience they need to win a major war.
So, apparently me and Stag are in agreement that the U.S. Military requires some major changes to deal with a growing Russia and China.
Here's what I propose:
1. Trillion dollar annual military budget.
2. Major reforms to reduce inefficiency, waste, and corruption within the bureaucratic system and military purchases.
3. Break up the monopolies of huge companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc. Allow for more competition from smaller companies.
4. Increase the quality and length of training time, especially for the infantry.
5. Modernize infantry equipment.
6. Modernize our tank and IFV forces.
7. Make a greater emphasis on manual stuff (that is, being less reliant upon fragile modern computer systems) and "simple, stupid" systems.
8. Put a greater emphasis on having EMP-proof gear and systems.
9. Fix all the F-35's flaws.
10. Greater spending on developing and procuring anti-ballistic missile and cost-effective laser systems.
How's that?
Okay, lemme ask some questions and make some refutations and then I'll move on to my own list.
1. Trillion dollar annual military budget.
I personally think we can do more with less. We spend ridiculous sums of money on fancy electronics in our weapons systems, which only provide a minuscule advantage in combat. Our military has 1,300,000 active duty personnel, and 800,000 in reserve. Equipping, Training, and Caring for that many men takes both a strain on the budget and the actual quality of the troops in our service.
Break up the monopolies of huge companies like Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon, etc. Allow for more competition from smaller companies.
Wait, can you explain this more, like how it will be better for the military industry?
Put a greater emphasis on having EMP-proof gear and systems.
The newest popularized military technology are laser targeting systems attached to guns. I am not really an expert on how they work, but they are being implemented into most new service rifle models in other countries. EMP proof systems can be good for our ballistics, but I discourage such technology on soldiers and tanks, especially if you want more manual warfare rather than electronic warfare.
Here is my list. Most of them are tag on points to your own.
1. Reduce the military personnel to 500,000-600,000 active duty, and 300,000-500,000 reserve. This will provide stigma to the economy, and will lax the budget so we can focus on having 600,000 good personnel rather than 1,300,000 subpar personnel.
2. Reform the department of defense. The Secretary of Defense makes all decisions regarding military purchases within the budget. There is a board which advises the Secretary, but besides that, the fate of our whole nation is mostly in the hands of one non-elected official. The board needs to be specialized for certain roles, and have full control over purchases as a portion of the total defense budget.
For example, the secretary of aerial defense might be allocated 5% of the total defense budget, and would have full control over making purchases for aerial defense.
3. Stop bad recruitment. The US military will take in anyone now adays, and a lot of our new recruits are composed of call of duty fanatics in high school. Cadet programs are good, and I believe we should be like the spartans and instill military discipline in the willing at a young age, but it wouldn't hurt to raise the age to join the military.
4. Training time for infantry should be 6 months, and 9 months for tank crews. Many might not realize it, but that is actually a pretty radical proposal. We've always designed our military around building a huge military force in as quick as time as possible, but I would rather produce top of the line quality troops over a longer period of time, even if that means subjected them to a vigorous and unforgiving six months of bootcamp. Although our doctrines would need to change as well. Bootcamps of today focus less on specialized training and more on overworking soldiers physically. The thing about modern warfare is that the need for extreme amounts of physical strength are waning, especially since guns are getting lighter by the second.
5. Our infantry needs to be seriously reworked in terms of equipment, The US military considered adopting another nations service rifle after the XM8 failed. This isn't a perfect solution though, because our rifle needs to be produced indigenous. The service rifle needs to be low on plastics and fancy electronics, and high on stability, accuracy, and reliability. It also needs to be modular. Some possible guns we can model our specs off of come form Poland, Italy, and Mexico.
6. Since we are an overseas nation, our heavy tanks wont be able to form any first line of defense. That is why we should do away with the heavy tank entirely.
We need small light tanks which are fast and have a gun of at least 90mm's on them. Right now the best example of this would be the Scorpion II produced by the United Kingdom, but we should look towards making our own variant based on some of the same specs at the Scorpion 90. Thankfully these are also easy to produce, and they are capable of navigating any type of terrain. Poland is producing a futuristic vehicle known as the PL-01 Light Stealth Tank, and I would be intrested in seeing some of the trials for it.
A new medium tank will also be necessary. Currently the only medium and light tanks we have are from the early 50's and 60's. The Polish PT-91 Twardy is an indigenious Polish tank apart of the T-72 family. It compromises armor for incredible weapons power and speed. It is becoming outdated, but it was a beast, so they are making a new modernized version of it. The new US medium tank should model itself after the Twardy's specs. The gun needs to be as long range as possible, and as powerful as possible, even at the sacrifice of armor.
7. The Bradley IFV is pretty solid for today, but it isn't superior to other IFV's, and right now the IFV is the fastest evolving military vehicle. The IFV needs to be fast, capable of carrying a dozen passengers, and well armored, since it isn't only a battlefield weapon, but also a troop carrier. This is the Georgian Lazika.
It is capable of hosting three different mounter rocket launchers, a 23x152mm cannon, and a coxial type machine gun. Those are the proper araments an IFV should have, but the Lazika fails because it has low fuel capacity and low speed. Something we would need to improve upon on our vehicles.
7. Yep, manual stuff is good in most cases, but there are times where automatic weapon systems can make life easier. One example would be the autoloader in tanks, which completely removes the nessecity of a loader crewsman. Other auto technologies such as auto targetting have been very expensive and shown miniscule results though.
8. Artillery needs to be modernized considerably. One of the main mistakes I see militaries making is creating expensive mechanized machines for their artillery systems. Artillery is best in the hands of infantry. We need to return to the days where howitzers, mortars, and recoiless rifles were readily at hand to infantry, rather than 400 km's away. These new artillery weapons need to be light weight and mobile, and capable of being mass produced.
Scenarios:
Infantry is advancing, but is then engaged by enemy infantry coming out of the woodwork. Infantry assemble their mortars, and fire ahead of the advancing infantry, forcing them completely back into the woodwork.
Infantry has stopped to scout a valley, and bam, they see tanks approaching from the other side of the valley. Call air support? No, have your teams entrench themselves and set up their recoiless rifles to eliminate the tank squad (although this is still a bad situation to be in)
9. The UAV is an important weapon now, especially when used in partnership with the helicopter. UAV's and helicopters actually do need to be automated more. Right now a small UAV could fly behind enemy lines, laser designate and mark all the important supply depots, checkpoints, and weapons dumps, so the airforce can launch a mass airstrike and attack everything there is before the enemy has a major chance to retaliate. We need to attach more UAV's to helicopters and equip helicopters with onboard UAV pilots.
10. You want to fix the F-35, but I would rather do away with the F-35. The US military makes multi-purpose aircraft. Every aircraft we make is designed to fullfill every possible function. Currently we have designed a mass production plane capable of performing any task good, but other nations are producing multiple model aircraft capable of performing a specific function exceptionally.
My proposal would be to create three new models of aircraft that perform 2 functions exceptionally than 6 functionals just good enough.
- One interceptor model plane with SEAD technologies. The ultimate air master. It is capable of suppressing air defenses and taking out other planes.
- One attack plane with tactical strike capabilities and AS capabilities. The three popularized NATO attack aircraft are the A-10 thunderbolt, the Harrier, and the French Super Etendard. The Super Etendard is perhaps the most renowned of the group. It is capable of launching just one guided fire and forget missile, but it is extremely fast, accuarate, and that one missile is capable of destroying whatever it touches. Our new attack plane should be modelled the same way. Any NATO tank squad trying to take out a squad of T-90's will be obliterated, which is why attack aircraft are so desperately needed.
- One tactical bomber plane with napalm capabilities. A napalm tactical bomber was a rather good idea I had. A tactical bomber is designed to take out specific strategic targets in a warzone and support ground infantry. The combination of napalm and tactical bombing weapons fullfills both functions.
11. Ballistic missiles are a serious threat. They can be procured by almost any country, and the use of the ballistic missile can destroy entire armies. One of the problems of going to war with a nation like Iran, is that any attempt at assembling in the Middle East would be met by ballistic missile fire from their scuds. I don't know how to deal with this threat, but when I do I'll be sure to tell you
That's why I like lasers. They have the potential to be a really cheap, cost-effective way of dealing with cheap but very deadly missiles that can be mass-produced rapidly. Granted, they need to get more powerful so that they can handle fast-moving and hard-shelled missiles, which would reduce their cheapness a bit, but I really do think that lasers are the future of anti-missile warfare. They have huge potential, in my opinion.
As for my idea of diversifying the U.S. military-grade weapons market, it's good because as it stands right now, the U.S. pretty much gets all its planes from 3 companies or so. What happens if all three of them turn out to be un-innovative, inefficient, slow, makers of expensive crappy stuff, etcetera? We need to open up the market so that if even a small company could do it better than Boeing, we give the small company the contract and the resources needed to build its product. As it is right now it's almost as if the military deals with Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman out of sheer loyalty and emotional attachment to these traditional companies which have had a long history of doing business with the military.
That's why I like lasers. They have the potential to be a really cheap, cost-effective way of dealing with cheap but very deadly missiles that can be mass-produced rapidly. Granted, they need to get more powerful so that they can handle fast-moving and hard-shelled missiles, which would reduce their cheapness a bit, but I really do think that lasers are the future of anti-missile warfare. They have huge potential, in my opinion.
That kind of technology would obsolete our own advantage we have in the ballistic missile fields.
Blackflag:
That's why we don't give them to anybody else.
Dassault Papillon:
Right, but innovative technologies like that don't stay hidden for long. When we invent something like that and actively use it in combat, it promotes research in the same field. Think the Atomic Bomb.
We need to open up the market so that if even a small company could do it better than Boeing, we give the small company the contract and the resources needed to build its product. As it is right now it's almost as if the military deals with Lockheed-Martin, Boeing, and Northrop Grumman out of sheer loyalty and emotional attachment to these traditional companies which have had a long history of doing business with the military.
Instead of trust busting we could just purchase weapons from different companies. First they would need a design worthy of our purchase.
I don't even think ppl understand how much money we would have left over if we stopped producing these stupid beasts.
There hasn't been a major war between great powers since WW2, so it will actually take a real war to prove my point that while these things are effective, they aren't practical anymore. The future is in cheap, fast, and powerful mechanized vehicles. For everyone of the new M1 Abram designs we make, we could be producing several light tanks or medium tanks.
Blackflag:
Exactly. Opening the market would encourage entrepreneurs to come up with innovative, superior designs. A free market in the arms industry is the key to better designs.
