Ground/Sea warfare thread

[Warmaker]

The RAF have long experimented with using "proper" fighter jets acting as "control" aircraft for "small" companions like Hawks to make up the numbers.

The only problem I have with this concept is that it will be hard for the RAF to keep its "handful of brave chaps versus impossible enemy hordes" reputation if they're swarming all over them with drones.

Traditions need to be upheld, I like that, but the reality IMO, is that a military force should be able to change and adapt to make it succeed.

Like how Cavalry used to be the pride of any Western Army until it was brutally swept aside by the changing nature of warfare. Signs for the eventual supplanting of Cavalry as the core of an army by Infantry and new technology / warfare starting springing up alot since the days of Medieval Europe. There were still a good amount of Cavalry in WWI, and they still had this air of historical superiority in their heads. But as far as what they contributed to the war, they did nothing. WWII? There were still a few, even the Germans and Russians had a few Cavalry Divisions. But the history and glory was taken up by the other arms of the military: Infantry, Armor, Air, etc.

Opinion / Mindless Rambling: This reminds me of a thread in another forum I frequent. We had a little discussion about what area of warfare will see the biggest advancement (doctrine or technological) soon. I put down airpower, simply because the idea of unmanned combat aircraft seems enticing. UAVs were first being used in combat operations by the US military (probably the Brits too since they were in Iraq since the invasion portion of 2003). There's definite uses, lessons learned with UAVs. Things to improve, new ways to use them, iron out their proper utilization. Other nations took notice since I've read about numerous UAV programs being pushed quite fast by other countries.

What I thought was that given time and technological maturity, the idea of combat aircraft designed for unmanned / computer / "drone" usage isn't too ridiculously far off. Combat aircraft that can be somehow flown without the restrains of consideration for a live pilot? What power and maneuverability can be made into that aircraft? It threatens the near Chivalric Combat Aviator image... Maverick being replaced by a computer? Think about that.

But the same was said about Cavalry that it can't be replaced. War slowly changed that.

The same was said about Battleships, how they once ruled the seas with their power. But Aircraft Carriers swept them aside in dominance of the seas.

Or, for an ancient example, how the Spartans refused to change to a point where Sparta will fail due to the inability and desire for her people to change and adapt their ways.

[Noyhauser]

Traditions need to be upheld, I like that, but the reality IMO, is that a military force should be able to change and adapt to make it succeed.

Like how Cavalry used to be the pride of any Western Army until it was brutally swept aside by the changing nature of warfare. Signs for the eventual supplanting of Cavalry as the core of an army by Infantry and new technology / warfare starting springing up alot since the days of Medieval Europe. There were still a good amount of Cavalry in WWI, and they still had this air of historical superiority in their heads. But as far as what they contributed to the war, they did nothing. WWII? There were still a few, even the Germans and Russians had a few Cavalry Divisions. But the history and glory was taken up by the other arms of the military: Infantry, Armor, Air, etc.

Opinion / Mindless Rambling: This reminds me of a thread in another forum I frequent. We had a little discussion about what area of warfare will see the biggest advancement (doctrine or technological) soon. I put down airpower, simply because the idea of unmanned combat aircraft seems enticing. UAVs were first being used in combat operations by the US military (probably the Brits too since they were in Iraq since the invasion portion of 2003). There's definite uses, lessons learned with UAVs. Things to improve, new ways to use them, iron out their proper utilization. Other nations took notice since I've read about numerous UAV programs being pushed quite fast by other countries.

What I thought was that given time and technological maturity, the idea of combat aircraft designed for unmanned / computer / "drone" usage isn't too ridiculously far off. Combat aircraft that can be somehow flown without the restrains of consideration for a live pilot? What power and maneuverability can be made into that aircraft? It threatens the near Chivalric Combat Aviator image... Maverick being replaced by a computer? Think about that.

A couple of years ago I got in a debate while writing a thesis paper with a a pair of US Colonels about this very subject. UAVs I think are part of a different revolution, but its not one you suggest. Airpower hasn't really changed in employment and theory for quite some time. If you can find the book, Read Airpower and Armies by John Slessor and them compare it to Ben Lambeths book The Transformation of American Air Power. Its actually pretty fascinating. Now I'm not saying its exactly the same as between the 1930s and now. However airpower hasn't really had a revolutionary development in the past 30 years, in what its supposed to do or how it organizes units (discounting strategic nuclear theory). While technology has increased the accurracy and effectiveness of units, its not a "revolutionary change." Many of the technologies we talk about today as being decisive really have their roots in the 1960s 70s and 80s. Precision guided munitions, drones, stealth technology are all parts of this slw evolutionary change.

Where UAVs have made a difference is not in carrying Mavricks or anything like that. Its just a more sophisticated tomahawk with a man in the loop. Rather UAVs are part of a greater revoluition described as "Net centric warfare" or C4SIR. Sure airpower has benefited from this revolution, through UAVs and JSTARS and other systems, this is actually part of a greater revolution, one that has actually diminished the Airforce's role to one of being described as a "bomb truck" in many cases. Unlike airpower, this is not a slow evolution, but a real revolution, with forces not only undergoing technological, but structural changes. How units fight, communicate, and organize themselves have changed radically over the past 15 years. Units have far more awareness of their surroundings, and able to operate with greater independence, mobility and flexibility. I could go on, but thats the jist of it.

Edited April 3, 2007 by Noyhauser

[Warmaker]

My train of thought I feel still holds.

The reason being is that I feel unmanned aircraft presents a bigger potential for growth in implementing technology and new doctrines. The immediate form of control will be remote (a guy in a trailer far back). But how far away will advancements in computers be to make fully automated weapons?

Command and Control improvements is a gradual thing that I expect from any competent military with the funds.

Combat Aircraft will still be limited by what the man in the cockpit can withstand. We can throw engines that are x3 more capable than today's best. You can try to design aircraft that could be maneuverable. But as good, as strong as you make that aircraft, it is still limited by what the pilot can take.

It will take developing technology and new doctrines.

Let's use your improved Command and Control example and my very vivid imagination

- Imagine improved Command and Control with advanced, manned combat aircraft.

- Imagine improved Command and Control with unmanned (fully automated) combat aircraft, that are fully optimized for war with no care whatsoever in taking care of living pilots inside them.

I know I'm reaching a bit, but I feel airpower has a real chance of changing drastically than ground power can at the moment. The potential is there.

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

My train of thought I feel still holds.

The reason being is that I feel unmanned aircraft presents a bigger potential for growth in implementing technology and new doctrines. The immediate form of control will be remote (a guy in a trailer far back). But how far away will advancements in computers be to make fully automated weapons?

Command and Control improvements is a gradual thing that I expect from any competent military with the funds.

Combat Aircraft will still be limited by what the man in the cockpit can withstand. We can throw engines that are x3 more capable than today's best. You can try to design aircraft that could be maneuverable. But as good, as strong as you make that aircraft, it is still limited by what the pilot can take.

It will take developing technology and new doctrines.

Let's use your improved Command and Control example and my very vivid imagination

- Imagine improved Command and Control with advanced, manned combat aircraft.

- Imagine improved Command and Control with unmanned (fully automated) combat aircraft, that are fully optimized for war with no care whatsoever in taking care of living pilots inside them.

I know I'm reaching a bit, but I feel airpower has a real chance of changing drastically than ground power can at the moment. The potential is there.

I agree. Besides the G-Lmits and endurance limits of a human pilot, there are quite a few things a computer can do quicker then a human in a pure 'go out there and blow the other guy up' scenario.

I suppose the next next leap for air combat will be when the weapons and detection gets so good that a laser takes out any flying object in detection range.

[Phyrox]

Even an ultra-high performace UAV doesn't change the nature and role of airpower. It's whizz-bang, but it's not truely transformative.

UAVs are the future I'd agree, but it is the technology that supports them and has created network-centric warfare that represents the sea-change, as Noyhauser said.

[Coota0]

A few thoughts on the last couple of threads:

UAVs-

I think UAVs will swing like a pendulum from the very limited use we've seen over the last 7-10 years to an over dependence/ over use of UAVs (basically the idea that every job can be accomplished by a UAV) swinging back to a midway point in which it is realized that UAVs are a niche weapon and excel in some areas while being less than adequate in other areas. I also believe that politicians as well as the public will always desire a human in the loop. It would have been far more efficient to have to not have two people in a nuclear missile silo. I think you will still have pilots, just in some areas you will have a guy sitting at a computer fighting instead of in a cockpit. I do not think we are anywhere near being able to replace rotary -wing pilots with a computer, and I believe some aviation jobs will be able to be accomplished easier or cheaper in a convential means.

Air Power Revolution-

I believe the revolution in air power will be in troop movement, getting troops to the conflict zone faster (strtegic lift) and to the battlefield faster (tactical lift) the V-22 and C-27 are the beginnings of this IMO.

Ground Side-

I think we're in a difficult spot for ground warfare. We've moved to a lighter force that is no longer capable of defeating a determined enemy with numerical superiority (China) and we've yet to find a superior way to handle what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If our leaders come to view China as a major threat then I forsee a reinvestment in heavy forces (Armor) to defeat the Chinease military.

If we see terrorism as the greater threat I bleive that infantry/ special operations will become the primary branch within the Army. The battles we tend to see with terrorist groups seem to be in cities with street to street fighting, new tactics will ahve to be developed for these battles. To thsi end I think there will be a enlargement and emphasis placed on the special operations to elimenate these threats at their source before they emerge and wreak havoc on the United States or their allies.

I believe that there should be a reimergence of the Air Cav concept. I think it would be instrumental in helping to pacify(?) Iraq as well as in a conventinal large scale conflicts. In Iraq an Air Cav division could be used as a quick reaction force, one battalion could be stationed in three regional zones, with the headquarters battalion in Baghdad. When trouble arises in an a region anything from a platoon to battalion sized element could be quickly dispatched to deal with the situation. This would not work in the largest of Iraqi cities(I have other ideas there, but that is for a different thread.) In a conventinal war you would have a force that could be moved behind enemy lines to cut off enemy supplies our sow confusion while still being able to be resuplied form the air, much in the same way Airborne Divisions were able to do the same in WWII. Unlike an Airborne unit, however the Air Cav unit could be moved or retrieved by helicopter if needed and would have an organic form of close airsupport in it's attack helicopter and scout helicopter units. Air Cav could also be equipped with artillery or light armor (Stryker) flown in by CH-46s or C-130s, or C-27s if fielded. While this is similar in concept to the mission of Air Assault as I understand Air Assault their mission is to assault a target and then retreat, the Air Cav Unit would act in the same way as a conventinal infantry division (not saying that the 101st can't, just that they speaclize in a different mission.)

Finally I would like to argue that Cavalry has been pushed aside and instead argue that Cavalry has eveolved into new forms. First was the idea or Armored Cav with the tank forces of the U.S. Army in WWII, then the Air Cav concept in Vietnam, and today while the Army still fields Armored Cavalry, and Air Cavalry (in the form of the OH-58D) and many Stryker units have been flagged as Cavalry not because they ride horses but because they perform the traditional Cavalry mission of screening the flanks of a force, scouting, and breaking through to the enemy's rear and sowing confusion.

Sorry to jump from aviation to ground pounder stuff.

My $.02 worth.

Edited April 4, 2007 by Coota0

[Retracting Head Ter Ter]

Ground Side-

I think we're in a difficult spot for ground warfare. We've moved to a lighter force that is no longer capable of defeating a determined enemy with numerical superiority (China) and we've yet to find a superior way to handle what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

If our leaders come to view China as a major threat then I forsee a reinvestment in heavy forces (Armor) to defeat the Chinease military.

I don't see any reason for the US to want to land armies on the Chinese mainland short of Space War 1 starting. And the Chinese are far far away from moving even a fraction of their army across the pacific and I don't see any reason they would want to even if they could (again, short of Space War 1).

Anti insurgency forces for the ground, continued investment in carrier groups and rapid deployment of air assets with overwhelming superiority in technology seems to be the way for now.

[kalvasflam]

I don't see any reason for the US to want to land armies on the Chinese mainland short of Space War 1 starting. And the Chinese are far far away from moving even a fraction of their army across the pacific and I don't see any reason they would want to even if they could (again, short of Space War 1).

Anti insurgency forces for the ground, continued investment in carrier groups and rapid deployment of air assets with overwhelming superiority in technology seems to be the way for now.

Amen, to even think about having US Army and Marines taking on the Chinese army is folly. The lift capability to get the troops there is non-existent, and China doesn't have enough blue water capability to sealift its armies. The US Army has been, and will be a force that is geared to destroying other armies, it is not a fit force to occupy territory.

UCAV development will be interesting though, but I'm not sure if its enough savings to really justify taking out the man in the loop. I just can't believe a UCAV vs a manned aircraft that the former will ever be able to take on the latter in a dogfight unless the UCAV is totally autonomous. I still don't see how several UCAVs can work as well as say an F-15 loaded with SDB.

[Coota0]

While I agree that terrorsim is most likley the more reasonable threat to defend against, to quote an old pilot axiom "It's the one you don't see that gets you." Besides a scenario in which the United States is in a land war with Chinease forces doesn't mean it will start with an invasion of China or the U.S. China signed a non-agression treaty with Russia several years ago which could blossom into more and mean a war in the middle east or Europe. (most unlikley scenario in my opinion) China is becoming an industrial giant and will be resource hungry. There is a possibility of an attack on Formosa, it would take a lot less in sea-lift capability in this case. China could side with the NKs again (wouldn't be the first time) or move agressivley toward one of it's neighbors in a desire to gain more resources. China also recently commissioned a carrier.

Edited April 6, 2007 by Coota0

[kalvasflam]

While I agree that terrorsim is most likley the more reasonable threat to defend against, to quote an old pilot axiom "It's the one you don't see that gets you." Besides a scenario in which the United States is in a land war with Chinease forces doesn't mean it will start with an invasion of China or the U.S. China signed a non-agression treaty with Russia several years ago which could blossom into more and mean a war in the middle east or Europe. (most unlikley scenario in my opinion) China is becoming an industrial giant and will be resource hungry. There is a possibility of an attack on Formosa, it would take a lot less in sea-lift capability in this case. China could side with the NKs again (wouldn't be the first time) or move agressivley toward one of it's neighbors in a desire to gain more resources. China also recently commissioned a carrier.

Going off topic once again, for China to successfully attack Taiwan, they need to hold the straits long enough to land lots of ground pounders. It really depends on whether or not they can achieve air superiority, otherwise, it becomes a blood bath for whatever phibs they have. China does have a sufficiently large air force, so, if they get in enough numbers, they can probably overwhelm Taiwan. But this is fantasy talk, there is no way China would risk a shooting war that would essentially throw all those years of progress down the drain. The same would be true for NK, I mean, why would China stick up for a nobody? There is not much in the way of profit, no goal is advanced by acutally siding with Korea militarily.

Back on topic. For UCAVs, if they can make each one at the cost of 1/10th of an F-16, then they start becoming economical. Because then, they essentially become disposable units. Otherwise, it's a lot of money to maintain them, and then you don't even have a man in the loop. The Predator itself is not a bad start, but early models were still a bit too expensive. And they don't deliver much ordinance. The one that I like the most in economic terms is the Minion, assuming if that ever comes to fruition. Then that would truly be an interesting UCAV.

Edited April 7, 2007 by kalvasflam

[Mislovrit]

Ground Side-

I think we're in a difficult spot for ground warfare. We've moved to a lighter force that is no longer capable of defeating a determined enemy with numerical superiority (China)

Only reason China is even a threat in a possible war is the U.S. Govt. would be too timid around the idea of the opposing side (combatants) suffering too massive loss of life, ie the Highway of Death during ODS.

and we've yet to find a superior way to handle what is going on in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Answer Gen. Petraeus

If our leaders come to view China as a major threat then I forsee a reinvestment in heavy forces (Armor) to defeat the Chinease military.

Army never stop investing in armor to reinvest.

If we see terrorism as the greater threat I bleive that infantry/ special operations will become the primary branch within the Army.

Since it's inception the Army is the infantry and it supporting arms. Special operations will never replace the infantry, as the gene and talent pool only haves so many people capable of performing it's missions.

The battles we tend to see with terrorist groups seem to be in cities with street to street fighting, new tactics will ahve to be developed for these battles. To thsi end I think there will be a enlargement and emphasis placed on the special operations to elimenate these threats at their source before they emerge and wreak havoc on the United States or their allies.

It's all about ROE. Give the U.S. Forces of today the ROE of their WWII counterparts, and the terrorist threat would be greatly reduced.

I believe that there should be a reimergence of the Air Cav concept. I think it would be instrumental in helping to pacify(?) Iraq as well as in a conventinal large scale conflicts. In Iraq an Air Cav division could be used as a quick reaction force, one battalion could be stationed in three regional zones, with the headquarters battalion in Baghdad.

My $.02 worth.

Army never got rid of Air Cav. or it's concept. Edited April 12, 2007 by Mislovrit

[Noyhauser]

Only reason China is even a threat in a possible war is the U.S. Govt. would be too timid around the idea of the opposing side (combatants) suffering too massive loss of life, ie the Highway of Death during ODS.

Oh god Mislovrit, That and the fact they have 55 ICBMs to hit the United States, and 50 more that can hit all of our allies in the region.

Answer Gen. Petraeus

and

It's all about ROE. Give the U.S. Forces of today the ROE of their WWII counterparts, and the terrorist threat would be greatly reduced.

Thats strange Mislrovit because Petraeus would never say that. Actually its that sort of narrow minded thinking that he's very much against. Here's a quote from the Forward of Field Manual-2.24 (Counterinsurgency) written by Petraeus

Western militaries too often neglect the study of insurgency. They falsely believe that armies trained to win large conventional wars are automatically prepared to win small, unconventional ones. In fact, some capabilities required for conventional success—for example, the ability to execute operational maneuver and employ massive firepower—may be of limited utility or even counterproductive in COIN operations. Nonetheless, conventional forces beginning COIN operations often try to use these capabilities to defeat insurgents; they almost always fail. The military forces that successfully defeat insurgencies are usually those able to overcome their institutional inclination to wage conventional war against insurgents.

Then again, maybe we should carpet bomb Najaf, just to see what happens.

Army never stop investing in armor to reinvest.

Does the word Crusader ring a bell? Though they haven't stopped spending, much of the capital budget has been directed towards current operational needs, and other programs, not the Future Combat System.

Edited April 12, 2007 by Noyhauser

[kalvasflam]

Does the word Crusader ring a bell? Though they haven't stopped spending, much of the capital budget has been directed towards current operational needs, and other programs, not the Future Combat System.

That is true, the military budget is really directed toward operational needs now. I can foresee when Iraq and Afghanistan is over, there will likely be a lot of replenishment of warstock and equipment. I wonder when the next generation MBT will be developed; the M1s aren't going to be the king forever.

[Mislovrit]

That is true, the military budget is really directed toward operational needs now. I can foresee when Iraq and Afghanistan is over, there will likely be a lot of replenishment of warstock and equipment.

Replenishment had already started but with armor and logistic fleets being huge as they are, the Military is looking at the process taking decades to complete with the current (broken) procurement system in place.

I wonder when the next generation MBT will be developed; the M1s aren't going to be the king forever.

The Abrams won't be leaving service until sometime in the 2040ies or 2060ies depending on technological development from now until then.

[Mislovrit]

Oh god Mislovrit, That and the fact they have 55 ICBMs to hit the United States, and 50 more that can hit all of our allies in the region.

Nuke us and the favor will be return several fold.

Then again, maybe we should carpet bomb Najaf, just to see what happens.

Something that should have been done to it and/or Falluja back in 2003/4.

Does the word Crusader ring a bell? Though they haven't stopped spending, much of the capital budget has been directed towards current operational needs, and other programs, not the Future Combat System.

Wrong bell Crusader, is artillary not armor which runs along side of and in front of infantry.

[Noyhauser]

Nuke us and the favor will be return several fold.

It cuts both ways Mislovrit. The fear of nuclear escalation is enough of a deterrant for the United States as well. Why don't we go bomb north Korea then, and then Iran too?

Something that should have been done to it and/or Falluja back in 2003/4.

Yeah, and look how well that worked on a limited scale. We used a large amount of PGMs, and fire, probably killed 80% of the insurgents in the city, and well, two months later the city was again a no-go area. You just alienated a greater proportion of the population Sunni population, inciting more people to fight against the United States and the Current Iraqi government. The French used horrific tactics during the algerian war to coerce the population, conducting mass killings, the blantant use of torture, and strong armed tactics: Far beyond the ROEs that anybody conducted in WWII. And they failed, miserably. What you propose is exactly the type of tactics that has created the current difficulties we now face.

Counterinsurgency is like a political campaign, where you can't bomb your enemy into submission, particularly if you want to create a democracy. Did you even read Petraeus' quote? What you suggest is his worst nightmare.

Wrong bell Crusader, is artillary not armor which runs along side of and in front of infantry.

Its a supporting piece to counduct heavy conventional warfare, the type that a war with China would clearly necessistate. What do you think we can just do without heavy conventional artillery to conduct mobile warfare?

Face it Mislovrit, you're wrong on both counts. It seems like your only solution to all the world's problems is to conduct strategic bombing.

[Lynx7725]

Guys, this is an aircraft thread. At least post something that's got wings and flies, and rockets/ ICBM doesn't count!

[Mislovrit]

It cuts both ways Mislovrit. The fear of nuclear escalation is enough of a deterrant for the United States as well.

Thank you for stating the obvious, and you're the one brought up nuking first. U.S. policy is to never nuke first but to respond in kind. That and I assume you mean China lobbing them off first.

Why don't we go bomb north Korea then, and then Iran too?

The nuclear option is still in the cards depending on what develops in the next 18 months

Yeah, and look how well that worked on a limited scale.

With most of the city still there it wasn't even a attempt to level it.

We used a large amount of PGMs, and fire, probably killed 80% of the insurgents in the city, and well, two months later the city was again a no-go area.

Bush lost his nerve and ordered Army and Marines to back off from there. Had the they been left alone, Al Sadr would have been killed or captured removing the principal Shiite agitator in Iraq.

You just alienated a greater proportion of the population Sunni population,

Najaf and Falluja are Shiite cities.

inciting more people to fight against the United States and the Current Iraqi government.

And the people were alienated because we stopping killing the insurgants everytime Bush got weakknees.

Far beyond the ROEs that anybody conducted in WWII. And they failed, miserably. What you propose is exactly the type of tactics that has created the current difficulties we now face.

I propose using a looser ROE not the both hands and legs behind our back ROE currently use now.

Counterinsurgency is like a political campaign, where you can't bomb your enemy into submission, particularly if you want to create a democracy.

It work damn well for the Russians against at least against the East German, and Polish partisans after WWII. Even then those methods wouldn't be use by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Its a supporting piece to counduct heavy conventional warfare, the type that a war with China would clearly necessistate.

Not any less needed like the airlift transports the Air Force been unwilling to buy more of to haul the Army's lighter stuff around or the Navy unwillingless to buy more transports to move the Army's heavier stuff around.

What do you think we can just do without heavy conventional artillery to conduct mobile warfare?

U.S. got heavy conventional artillery in spade abeit short range as nobody bothered to upgrade the Pallys with a longer barrel, in addition to the N-LOS arty system nearing completion.

It seems like your only solution to all the world's problems is to conduct strategic bombing.

Nope that's would be the USAF's answer if they ever look at dirt side.

I can't seem to get the quoting right.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Mislovrit

[Nied]

Well David gave it the OK so I'll wade in.

Frankly all this talk of the "coming confrontation with China" reminds me of all the "Japan the next world hyperpower" talk of 20 years ago, and it's complete BS for the same reason. China is demographically constrained, flat birthrates are going to lead to the same greying population problems that Japan is having, only made worse by China's growing imbalance between men and women (IIRC the split in the newest generation is getting close to 60 - 40). In a few more decades China wont have the economic muscle or even the population to sustain a world threatening army.

What worries me more is a conflict between India and Pakistan spiraling into a world war.

[kalvasflam]

Well David gave it the OK so I'll wade in.

Frankly all this talk of the "coming confrontation with China" reminds me of all the "Japan the next world hyperpower" talk of 20 years ago, and it's complete BS for the same reason. China is demographically constrained, flat birthrates are going to lead to the same greying population problems that Japan is having, only made worse by China's growing imbalance between men and women (IIRC the split in the newest generation is getting close to 60 - 40). In a few more decades China wont have the economic muscle or even the population to sustain a world threatening army.

What worries me more is a conflict between India and Pakistan spiraling into a world war.

That's a good point, a regional war is far more likely to escalate into something big and go nuclear as these smaller powers gets nukes. Control might be lacking, and there might be a willingness to use these weapons. The whole reason places like Iran and Pakistan are even considered a threat on nukes is due to likelihood of terrorism.

Both China and the US has too much to lose going at it. That way nobody is a winner, the one likely area of conflict "Spately Islands" is likely going to be worked out into some type of energy sharing deal unless there is a gigantic energy crisis all of a sudden. Taiwan, is really a non-issue, it'll go back to China eventually, it may be a million years, but it won't matter.

The big question on the military development is the width and depth of those development. It will continue to expand intoo space in the next century for sure. But in terms of in atmosphere aircrafts, it'll be two fronts, stealth and sensor platforms, as well as integration and expansion of unmanned vehicles into all the services.

[Nied]

It work damn well for the Russians against at least against the East German, and Polish partisans after WWII. Even then those methods wouldn't be use by the U.S. Armed Forces.

I forgot to reply to this last night but it stood out in my mind. You do realize the problem with using the Soviet Union's repression of East Germany and Poland as examples of how to build a democracy don't you? What made the USSR successful was setting up two of the most brutal and repressive regimes of the Warsaw Pact in those countries after their counter insurgency. They would have been right back at square one if they tried to install a liberal democracy in the aftermath.

Edited April 13, 2007 by Nied

[Lightning]

Well, in light of the current posts on the Aircraft thread, I decided to put one up about the groundpounders, and the stuff on the sea too.

I think the topic was about the U.S. and China.....armies, planes.....if Russia will sell it's Aircraft Carriers...etc.

Carry on!

[David Hingtgen]

I'm thinking I'll move all of the recent posts from the Aircraft thread here, so you can continue the conversation. Yay/nay?

[Warmaker]

I wouldn't mind. It sort of looks out of place on an aviation-themed thread.

[David Hingtgen]

Due to the way the forum works, it arranges posts by time, so they're all in order relative to themselves---but they're also "in front of" the first post in this thread.

So everything after this should be in order, and I think I snagged all the relevant posts. Debate away!

[Noyhauser]

With most of the city still there it wasn't even a attempt to level it.

Bush lost his nerve and ordered Army and Marines to back off from there. Had the they been left alone, Al Sadr would have been killed or captured removing the principal Shiite agitator in Iraq.

Najaf and Falluja are Shiite cities.

And the people were alienated because we stopping killing the insurgants everytime Bush got weakknees.

I propose using a looser ROE not the both hands and legs behind our back ROE currently use now.

It work damn well for the Russians against at least against the East German, and Polish partisans after WWII. Even then those methods wouldn't be use by the U.S. Armed Forces.

Might want to get some of your facts straight Mislovrit, starting with Fallujah as a "shia city" and the 2004 Al-Fajr campaign as a strike against the Mahdi army.

[Coota0]

Dang, a guy goes away for a couple of days to get a flight physical and all hell breaks loose.

Army never stop investing in armor to reinvest.

Since it's inception the Army is the infantry and it supporting arms. Special operations will never replace the infantry, as the gene and talent pool only haves so many people capable of performing it's missions.

Army doctrine of the last 50 years has been based around the Armor division, it has only been in the last few years that the Army has sought to reorganize to a lighter force. During Vietnam the war there was considered a sideline, with the real threat being in Europe. Using the 1991 Gulf War and the 2003 Gulf War as refreneces you can see where an armored force was used to quickly overwhelm and defeat enemy ground forces (admittley the Marines had a twist on it in GFII) Army doctrine is based around Armor (even today it is being based around the Stryker in many cases,) Marine dactrine is based around the infantry.

I never said that Special Operations would replace the infantry, I said it would have more of an emphasis placed on it. That means enlargement and better procurament.

It's all about ROE. Give the U.S. Forces of today the ROE of their WWII counterparts, and the terrorist threat would be greatly reduced.

Army never got rid of Air Cav. or it's concept.

I've talked to a lot of Army Aviators in the last few months the only form of Air Cav left are the Cav Troops/Squadrons flying the OH-58Ds (armed scouts) and the few units designated as Air Cav because of their "mother unit" (i.e. 1st Cavalry Division air assets) I thought I was pretty clear in stating that I was referring to Air Cav in the divisional sense used in Vietnam. If it's still around (and I pointed out the doctrinal differences between Air Assault and Air Cav) please fill me in.

[Warmaker]

Well, this question could go into the Guns Thread but since this is ground military related, I figured I would pose it here.

Is the US military going to a new service rifle anytime?

I know the military was looking at H&K's XM8 for a while, namely the Army. I know even the Marine Corps took a look at some examples. But the program was put to a grinding halt, silently, especially after all the promotions and hoopla showing off the XM-8.

Since the XM8 has been canned, has anyone heard of a new service rifle down the sideline? OICW is no more. Some people have mentioned the FN SCAR's, but those are catered out for SOCOM.

I have also read years ago that the possible fielding of a new service rifle like the XM8 also opened the possibility of a new standard round. I read about the 6.8mm SPC and 6.5mm Grendels as possible replacements for the 5.56mm round.

I have extensively trained with and have supreme confidence in the M16A2, but the '16 is a weapon that demands alot of maintenance attention, especially compared to certain rifles out there (even the old AK-47's and such). A little bit of dirt? Stoppage. The carbon building up quickly? Stoppage. I was looking forward to a new service rifle... and I said rifle, not carbine!... that means the M4

[Coota0]

There was an article today on military.com about fielding a new rifle or at least a new upper reciever for the M-4, I'll see if I can find the link again.

[Warmaker]

I remember about a year ago H&K also developed a far more reliable and cleaner upper receiver for the M4, the HK416. I just remembered now that you reminded me of it.

I wonder if they'll try something for the full sized version instead of just the M4.

Edit to add: I know the Marine Corps refuses to bite onto the M4 carrot, and still does... thank goodness, IMO. I know the M4 has inherent reliability issues in the field. Anyways, even the Army refuses to adopt the HK416 ("Better than M4 but you can't have one") despite the great improvement in reliability.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Warmaker

[kalvasflam]

Might want to get some of your facts straight Mislovrit, starting with Fallujah as a "shia city" and the 2004 Al-Fajr campaign as a strike against the Mahdi army.

In either case, it would've been very convenient if Al Sadr died. And his replacements and so on. They might have been martyrs, but the funny thing about martyrs is that they're not around to shoot off their fat mouth.

In terms of Fallujah, there is a lesson to be learned, it is an age old lesson, one that the US failed to apply. Mess with us, and die. It was a lesson applied by the most successful military leader in the world. And as long as he lived, the spaces he conquered was fairly well pacified. but then I'm going off base here, we're in the age of media where death and destruction is abhorent.

I can imagine a Sherman, or a Patton alive today. That general would've been crucified by the press for any success they had. The US hasn't forgotten how to fight, but somewhere along the way, its leaders became spineless.

Moving back to the discussion on the army; it is really best defined by its role. The US army has been really molded into an offensive force. What Rumsfeld tried to do was to bring it in line with his vision of the world, one where armor doesn't matter quite as much as special ops, and plain old ground pounders backed up by lots of sophisticated tech like UAVs, GPS guided munitions and so forth. I think there is a role for both, the trick is finding the right balance.

Unfortunately, what's in Iraq right now isn't the right force. It really ought to be a bunch of special ops guys, and not the regular army who show too much presence, and give the media too much attention. All the infantry that's deployed there is a waste of time in my opinion. Remove them, and let keep special ops there, may be put a heavy brigade with good mobility up in Kurdish territory, and another in Kuwait, then call it a day.

Edited April 15, 2007 by kalvasflam

[Warmaker]

There is one thing that I find weird with the US Army since the mid 90's and end of the Cold War.

How very few bonafide Infantry Divisions there are.

I know the downsizing due to the end of the Cold War. Everyone got smaller in numbers. I know the Army even shut down some armored formations. Also, AFAIK, there's only one mountain div., the 10th Mountain Div.

I know the Army has a focus on offensive maneuver and firepower, i.e. Armored formations. But looking at the scarce number of Infantry divisions in the Army is kind of weird.

On another note is the US Navy. During the 80's Cold War, the Navy was at a strength of roughly 600 warships. Today? Less than 300! Every warship class has been cut down, but the only thing that has been maintained in improved strength are the Carriers.

For a military that's actively fighting the War on Terror, fighting in Iraq & Afghanistan, keeping watch in South Korea and the Western Pacific Rim, etc., our current strength isn't that high, IMO.

The downsized military would have been fine with the then-predicted "Peace & Harmony" with the end of the Cold War, but... we all know how that went.

------------

kalvasflam, regarding the force presence and Spec.Ops. in Iraq...

Turning it over to a Spec.Ops. dominant operation would be good, but there's not enough of these highly trained troops.

It would be good if the standing Iraqi military and police force are decent, but those guys still need time for proficiency and confidence, as well as strength. The US is turning over more duties to Iraqi gov't forces, but US formations are still standing by for the worse case scenarios. That alone says alot, which means that their military and police aren't fully ready to bear the burden of supporting the new gov't even against domestic problems.

They need time and experience. Until then US troops need to stick around for more duties and backing them up.

Edited April 15, 2007 by Warmaker

[Coota0]

Warmaker, back to the M-4, what do Marine Corps chopper pilots carry while flying? M-16 or just a service pistol?

[Warmaker]

Warmaker, back to the M-4, what do Marine Corps chopper pilots carry while flying? M-16 or just a service pistol?

I'm not in the Rotary Wing community my time has been in fixed wing (KC-130's, F/A-18's). Our guys in the Hercs and Hornets sport the M9 pistol, the standard fare for aircrew.

Like I said, I've been fixed wing. But I have seen the cockpits for the AH-1W's, and that's a tight fit for a carbine or even SMG. The aircrew for the transport helos like the '46 and '53 probably could bring larger defense weapons since they have the space. But I'm wagering their aircrew will prefer a pistol since it doesn't get in the way of their duties.

[Coota0]

I'm not in the Rotary Wing community my time has been in fixed wing (KC-130's, F/A-18's). Our guys in the Hercs and Hornets sport the M9 pistol, the standard fare for aircrew.

Like I said, I've been fixed wing. But I have seen the cockpits for the AH-1W's, and that's a tight fit for a carbine or even SMG. The aircrew for the transport helos like the '46 and '53 probably could bring larger defense weapons since they have the space. But I'm wagering their aircrew will prefer a pistol since it doesn't get in the way of their duties.

I was just curious, I know Army flightcrews carry an M-4 (even in the Apache and Kiowa) along with their M-9s.