U.S. Military Can't Even Fight One War Today

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by APACHERAT, Feb 28, 2016.

  1. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    This is probably the best USNI read on A2/AD.


     
  2. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I was in the mix up till the beginning of this year.

    Now it is ABSOLUTELY TRUE that the U.S. Military is nowhere near the level of readiness it was a decade ago but then again that level of readiness is really not needed.

    We would be better off finishing up and deploying our new Direct Energy Weapons Systems and these systems are mostly to blame for other systems not being built as we are waiting for them.

    AA
     
  3. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Here is the thing.....we can spend money now on systems and deployments or we spend the money on finishing development and deploying the Direct Energy Weapons Systems which will revolutionize war as we know it.

    For the time being the chances of a major war breaking out are slim.

    Within a decade we will have unprecedented missile defense using the FEL and MEB...Free Electron Laser and Microwave Emissions Beam.

    AA

    - - - Updated - - -

    And one other thing.....the consequences for Russia and China economically should they start hostilities makes it really not worth it for them to do so.

    AA
     
  4. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I don't know if you actually read the entire article and the others I provided a link too.

    It will be a decade or more before we can initiate countering A2/AD and still it hasn't been figured out how the Air Force will play in the NIFC-CA strategy.

     
  5. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I just don't see a VIABLE scenario where the U.S. Military would have to contend with A2/AD.

    Can you point one out?

    AA
     
  6. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The chi-coms tell the U.S. Navy that they can't transit the South China Sea.
     
  7. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    And we will just pas though and they will do nothing.

    They can't.

    If they do we will refuse to accept any and all Chinese Exports into the U.S.

    That alone would completely collapse the Chinese Economy.

    AA
     
  8. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The chi-coms are expanding their markets throughout the world, soon exports to America will mean nothing.
     
  9. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Well that is still far in the future and it will be countered by China's soon to exist dependence upon American Coal, LNG and Oil Exports.

    The U.S. is coming to the end of a multiple decade plan to become the predominant exporter of Oil, Natural Gas and Coal.

    The U.S. is already the worlds largest producer of all three and we currently are the worlds largest exporter of Coal...will surpass Qatar in July of this year to become the worlds largest exporter of Natural Gas and by 2023 the U.S. will become the worlds largest exporter of oil.

    There is estimated to be between 6 to 14 TRILLION barrels of American Oil Reserves.

    The oil was always there but it just took us 100 years to develop the technology to extract it.

    And by the way....that is more oil reserves than every nation on Earth put together.

    AA
     
  10. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Its myopic to just assume everything will go as you think it will.

    Im going to have to listen to our military brass, who obsess about this type of thing.
     
  11. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am not looking at this in a shortsighted manner.

    I am looking at it realistically.

    We need to finish developing and deploying the direct energy weapon systems which will tale another 10 to 15 years.

    We really can't afford to do this and do other things.

    Once these direct energy weapon systems are deployed it will give us unparalleled capabilities.

    AA
     
  12. US Conservative

    US Conservative Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2015
    Messages:
    66,099
    Likes Received:
    68,212
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Looking at it realistically means you realize how history is littered with wars that weren't expected to happen, and even more where one or both sides weren't prepared for that war. Thats what our brass obsesses about.

    Directed energy systems are impressive-but they are whiz bang gadgets and not the meat and potatoes of ANY military. Do you really want to put all of your eggs in that basket?
     
  13. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    We are at the point where we can use them effectively and decisively.

    All Ford Class Carriers such as the CVN-78 Ford, CVN-79 J.F.K. and CVN-80 Enterprise will have two A1B Nuclear Reactors putting out 300 Megawatts each for a total of 600 megawatts.

    They were designed to power the FEL.

    AA
     
  14. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Direct energy weapons systems are defensive weapons with very short range, only the line of sight. A straight line of sight. The world isn't flat. At sea at sea level (eye level) the horizon is only 2.9 miles away. That's why warships use to have high conning towers to spot naval gunfire. The higher you are, the further away you can see the horizon.

    Here's how it works.
     
  15. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    If you run a search you will see the U.S. Navy intends to have eventually a 100 Megawatt FEL Beam.

    As well they intend to have a worldwide FEL Targeting Satellite Network.

    When you start getting into the 50 to 100 Megawatt Class Beaming you can use this for over the horizon targeting.

    AA
     
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The beam is a straight line of sight. There's also problems with fog, rain, smoke, etc. And counter measures like maybe something as simple as a mirror. :smile:

     
  17. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The FEL unlike standard lasers can be adjusted for atmospheric conditions and will not be effected.

    Also standard laser optics and mirrors will not work with the FEL as when it get's to the 100 Megawatt level ithe beam generated exists at SOLAR CORE TEMPS.and would melt right though a mirror so they use a system of almost compound insect eyed PRISMS.

    This is still at least 15 to 18 years away but the Ford Class Carriers have been designed for this.

    The MEB is an incredibly powerful weapon which has some moral issues as to it's use.

    AA

    - - - Updated - - -

    Also just to add a 100 Megawatt beam is hot enough to vaporize and render inert a Nuclear Warhead atop a missile.

    AA
     
  18. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But but but what happens if Hillary or Bernie become President ???

    We might not even have a U.S. Navy in 15 or 18 years. That job will likely be outsourced to the PLA-Navy. :smile:
     
  19. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    You know it seems that we can never seem to get a MODERATE in office.

    Either a candidate is full blown hardcore Right Wing or we get some insane bleeding heart.

    We need a Moderate.

    Someone who is Socially Liberal and Fiscally Conservative who understands we need a strong military but also knows how to cut waste.

    AA
     
  20. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,494
    Likes Received:
    2,420
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    True, but are we talking about conventional equipment, or specialized equipment here?

    There are huge differences when you are shooting 300-500 meters from kilometer plus distances. Just as there are in firing a tank cannon from the main gun on a BB class ship. Or flying a Piper Cub from an SR-71.

    The Army only trains it's forces to fire at targets 350 meters and less. The Marines goes out to 500 meters. But no "standard forces" are trained to the ranges that you are talking about. That is specialized training, specialized equipment.

    I am a really good shot, but I am no Carlos Hathcock.

    The only time I have fired at that kind of range was also with a .50 cal round, but it was on an M2. Accuracy not so important, just aim and walk the rounds to target.

    Actually, it had. But it comes and goes.

    In the 1970's, most of the camps they used were in Libya and Iraq. The PLO had some scattered around Lebanon, but these were more administrative then anything else. But when Israel finally got pissed off enough at the PLO to push them out of Israel into Lebanon, that kicked off the Lebanese Civil War. At that point Lebanon became a major training area for the PLO.

    In the 1980's, a lot of the terrorist camps started to come under attack. Israel was going after the PLO in Lebanon, the US went after many in Libya. Iraq was using them for their benefit, but the 1990 war caused the camps to shut down and many training there were expelled, fled, or were drafted into the Iraqi Army. And for several years after the 1991 war concluded things got quiet again.

    But the pull-out of the Soviet Union levt a large opening in Afghanistan, so most of the groups in Africa and the Middle East then fled to Afghanistan. There they felt they were safe, far from US allies and forces. And as the 1990's went on, activities picked up more and more.

    There are 2 main things that any terrorist group needs if they are going to be more then a local-regional threat. One is a safe place to train, preferably away from enemy forces. The other is a nation-sponsor. The second one has become problematic over the last several decades. Those groups have learned that they can not nessicarily rely on a nation to support them, since nations, governments, and policies can change.

    Both Libya and Iraq supported terrorists, then evicted them, then supported them again, then evicted them yet again. Afghanistan opposed them, then a change in government had them supporting them. Then another change in government opposed them once again. Because of this, I think many decided the best way to ensure that government support is to simply become their own government.

    And is North America all that we care about?

    What if they invaded Guam? Is there much doubt they have the forces to take over Guam? Or American Samoa? Palalu? I do not doubt much that Puerto Rico could be taken over by several nations before the US could put up more then a token defense.

    Sorry, but one thing having served for so long has done is made me realize that there is much more to "America" then the "48 states +2" of North America. I have served with a great many individuals from outside that area, and who think of themselves (and rightly so) as much "American" as I do.

    I deployed with a wonderful lady from Palalu, and have served with at least a dozen from Puerto Rico. 2 years ago I conducted training with an Infantry battalion from Samoa. One of the doctors in my unit now is from Guam.

    Sorry, but it frankly pisses me off when people get this idea that "American" only means those that live in North America. Just like it pisses me off when in discussion of WWII people insist that Japan was no threat to the US, completely ignoring that the Philippines at that time were American Territory. But I guess that did not count, since those were little brown men and women, and were not "real Americans".

    Yea, if they ever lick that issue with thermal blooming in anything other then almost perfectly clear weather.
     
  21. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I am well aware of the vast number of U.S. Territorial Islands in the Pacific.

    China could not get it's navy anywhere near Guam before we blew their ships out of the water and never mind the U.S. Navy and especially our Sub Force.

    As far as shooting at distance remember I am not Military.

    We set up several M82's to protect us in Meet and Greets and they and the men that use them have saved my life.

    But they are far too heavy for use in standard U.S. Forces on the move.

    If you look at the number of Naval Weapons systems put on hold or cancelled it's because they are putting their money into Direct Energy Weapons.

    AA
     
  22. Shiva_TD

    Shiva_TD Progressive Libertarian Past Donor

    Joined:
    Aug 12, 2008
    Messages:
    45,715
    Likes Received:
    885
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The United States currently has 11 nuclear carrier task forces based on ten Nimitz class carriers and one new Ford class carrier (with two more Ford class carriers on the way). Those task forces also include Ticonderoga-class cruisers, Arleigh Burke-class destroyers, Los Angeles-class attack submarines, and supply ships.

    No nation is currently capably of going up against this massive US naval force and successfully launching a sea-born invasion against any US territories.
     
  23. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    But those carrier forces are no longer formed into Carrier Battle Groups but as Carrier Strike Groups.

    Ten years ago the U.S. Navy was capable of putting ten CBG to sea. Today it has difficulties just having two CSG at sea and in it's assigned AOR. On any given day, seven of the Navy's ten carriers aren't combat capable (mission capable) No surprise, under Obama, 2/3 of the Army's combat brigades and 1/2 of the Marine Corps aren't combat ready.

    Could the U.S. Navy form Carrier Battle Groups today ? Maybe three.

    CSG -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carri...le:George_Washington_Carrier_Strike_Group.jpg

    CBG -> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrier_battle_group#/media/File:Abraham-Lincoln-battlegroup.jpg

    If the Navy were able to put ten CSG to sea, there wouldn't be any destroyers to support amphibious operations or provide convoy escorts.
    Just aren't enough destroyers in the fleet today and all of the frigates have been deactivated.
     
  24. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Exactly.

    There is no nation capable of getting through a U.S. Navy Task Force.

    Plus the U.S. Air Force would blow any enemy Naval Fleet out of the water well before they could attack.

    And people always forget about the massive U.S. Submarine Force but of course we don't EVER talk about Sub's.

    AA

    - - - Updated - - -

    Yeah but answer truthfully.....do you honestly believe that during a time of war that any nations naval forces would be able to do any real damage if we confronted them?

    AA
     
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    SHHHH, not so loud. There's a reason why it's called the "silent force."



    Yes.

    Right now we aren't able to deal with A2/D. Maybe in ten years we will be able too ??? -> https://news.usni.org/2014/01/23/navys-next-air-war
     

Share This Page