- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: US military could lose a war to China or Russia, study for Congress finds
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:12 pm to Tigeralum2008
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:12 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
But if you look at the wars fought amongst the European powers during the colonial era, you'd see you can defeat your rival without fully absorbing their country into your own.
Spain was the big swinging D*ck, then France, and finally Britain came out on top. None of those countries ceased to exist, they simply ceased to have the power they once held.
Yeah but there was a general European conflict every fifty or so years in those times and frankly, dating back to the fall of the Roman Emprie. Those were incredibly powerful countries in their own right and they were all within a month’s march of the other. We have a completely different situation here though because we are the lone power in our hemisphere. Whereas China is also competing with Japan and South Korea.
However, with the global world economy we have today, something happening in fricking Bangladesh or some other shithole like that could send ripples across the world.
What’s the old saying? “When goods don’t cross borders, militaries do”? Something like that.
1
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:13 pm to AUCE05
quote:
For funs, allow Japan to form an offensive military again to rustle China.
Japan stacked
Nanking fricked
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:17 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:
Things a supercarrier can do that a submarine or frigate cannot do as efficiently
Provide Combat air to ground support to troops out of range of artillery and faster than missiles. Longer time on target as well
Provide over the horizon airborne radar coverage
Supply other ships in the fleet
Command all military operations (Admiral and support staff onboard)
Hit targets of opportunity before a missile can even be spun up
Provide ASW operations over a larger area than any other platform
Provide medical treatment to all combat wounded
Be a big juicy target to hypersonic cruise missiles and autonomous submarines,
In the first 40 years of the 20th century, anybody who wanted to be a world player spent vast resources on battleships. Then in 45 minutes on a December morning, they all became obsolete. They clearly still have their uses, as did battleships during the rest of WWII. But keep in mind that carriers have not seen direct naval combat since 1945, and a lot has changed since then. Wedding ourselves blindly to outdated technology is a mistake we can't afford to make.,
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:18 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
What’s the old saying? “When goods don’t cross borders, militaries do”? Something like that.
I like that saying, have not heard it before
Our economic power is certainly eroding away
China is building stupidly advantageous agreements in Africa. They are are essentially the Payday Loan store for Africa. They will build something for you and then demand nearly complete ownership of your economy
Russia is doing the same thing but has also started sending ethnic russians to all of their former territories to tip the host country's political axis in their favor.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:18 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Niether has ours.
Huh? Those that have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc would probably disagree.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:20 pm to Wtodd
quote:
Huh? Those that have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc would probably disagree.
No, most would agree. A near-peer war would be totally different.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:24 pm to Jim Rockford
quote:
In the first 40 years of the 20th century, anybody who wanted to be a world player spent vast resources on battleships. Then in 45 minutes on a December morning, they all became obsolete. They clearly still have their uses, as did battleships during the rest of WWII. But keep in mind that carriers have not seen direct naval combat since 1945, and a lot has changed since then. Wedding ourselves blindly to outdated technology is a mistake we can't afford to make.,
i don't believe we have "wedded" ourselves exclusively to carriers. I am simply stating they are not obsolete.
the Navy has developed many new weapons platforms that can operate independently from carriers
One of the first actions an enemy is going to take against us is to eliminate our ability to remotely control the battlefield. GPS and satcom will likely be neutralized. In that situation, having a carrier offshore to run things is a good ace up our sleeves.
The Navy is developing and has deployed antimissle countermeasures. We also have the most sophisticated sonar systems in the world. The enemy will certainly get their licks in, but they won't be able to completely destroy all of our carriers
This post was edited on 11/14/18 at 12:26 pm
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:24 pm to Mear
We were effectively just playing around in our last two wars.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:25 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
China has us beat in manpower, yes.
But unless they learn to make a ball like ants in a flood and float their narrow asses over here, they aren’t going to get past our navy/Air Force.
With no invasion force they aren’t going to do much.
The west coast could use a good culling of the fold lately anyway. Trim some dead weight
But unless they learn to make a ball like ants in a flood and float their narrow asses over here, they aren’t going to get past our navy/Air Force.
With no invasion force they aren’t going to do much.
The west coast could use a good culling of the fold lately anyway. Trim some dead weight
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:26 pm to Tigeralum2008
Need to get rid of surface ships and just put 300-400 submarines in the water.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:27 pm to Tigeralum2008
I can see some President and/or admiral making the political decision that he doesn't want to be the one to lose 5,000 sailors and $15 billion and keeping the carriers in port or far out to see out of harms way.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:28 pm to TigerFanInSouthland
quote:
US military could lose a war to China or Russia,
Bull fricking shite
quote:
It recommended that Congress lift budget caps on defense spending
well there's your answer
More money to defense contractors, they need new bentleys and private jets and shite.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:29 pm to fr33manator
quote:
With no invasion force they aren’t going to do much.
They could strangle our economy without setting foot on this continent. One might argue that they are implementing the nonmilitary phase of that plan right now.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:30 pm to terd ferguson
How about that space force?
You’ve seen the Rod From God?
You’ve seen the Rod From God?
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:30 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:CAS is going the way of the dodo bird too. It's too expensive and too logistically exhaustive. It's not nearly as responsive as land or ship based indirect fires and it takes a frickton of coordination and deconfliction. Frankly, CAS is fricking dumb. And the average playtime of an F-18 is like 20-30 minutes...max. Then they have to turn around and go find gas from a tanker. The amount of people and millions of dollars that go into CAS is wastful and not nearly as effective as indirect fires. Artillery and surface to surface missiles now have a range of hundreds of miles and are just as accurate as a JDAM.
Provide Combat air to ground support to troops out of range of artillery and faster than missiles. Longer time on target as well
quote:Meh
Provide over the horizon airborne radar coverage
quote:So can regular supply ships
Supply other ships in the fleet
quote:So can other ships. In fact, we have ships designed for just that.
Command all military operations (Admiral and support staff onboard)
quote:I don't know the exact time it takes to spin up a tomahawk but it has to be less than fueling and arming some jes, briefing a bunch of pilots and then launching them, probably refueling them in flight and then have them transit to target.
Hit targets of opportunity before a missile can even be spun up
quote:With what? The same SH-60 that nearly every other ship in the fleet carries?
Provide ASW operations over a larger area than any other platform
quote:We have other ships that can do this.
Provide medical treatment to all combat wounded
quote:We have other ships that can do this.
provide a base for humanitarian efforts or to rebuild island bases
Again, I'm not saying that aircraft carriers have zero use. But the use of supercarriers as our capital ships is outdated. We'd be better off having a bunch of smaller carriers who's main mission was fleet defense and let the surface and sub fleet do the heavy lifting on striking targets inland. Having a ship that carries 80 fricking jets is just wasteful and risky.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:32 pm to Wtodd
quote:Well I’ve been to all three and I’m here to tell you that almost zero of all the experience gained in those conflicts translates over to war with Russia or Chine. It probably hurts more than it helps us to be honest.
Huh? Those that have been in Iraq, Afghanistan, Africa, etc would probably disagree.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:32 pm to terd ferguson
quote:
Need to get rid of surface ships and just put 300-400 submarines in the water.
Run Silent, Run Deep
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:41 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Well I’ve been to all three and I’m here to tell you that almost zero of all the experience gained in those conflicts translates over to war with Russia or Chine. It probably hurts more than it helps us to be honest.
Would you say the Army is too focused/positioned on littoral operations?
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:42 pm to GeauxxxTigers23
quote:
Well I’ve been to all three and I’m here to tell you that almost zero of all the experience gained in those conflicts translates over to war with Russia or Chine. It probably hurts more than it helps us to be honest.
At least you’ve gotten to deploy.
Posted on 11/14/18 at 12:42 pm to Tigeralum2008
quote:Well I would say that the littoral should be the purview of the USMC and that the army should be primarily a national guard function full of tanks and artillery behind a glass wall that says “Break in case of massive war”
Would you say the Army is too focused/positioned on littoral operations?
Page 3 of 5
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News