3 ms·

> they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine The U.S. military lacks critical funds at this point due to defundin

> they can't fully defund it as it is mission critical for the military industrial machine The U.S. military lacks critical funds at this point due to defunding, depending on how you define "critical". The service chiefs testified that they will not be able to defend the country unless they get more money. http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-they-cant-defend-us-under-sequestration/ http://breakingdefense.com/2016/09/four-service-chiefs-say-t...

SEJeff 10y ago
They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I genuinely don't buy it. It is just like Trump's alarmism over the size of our military (the navy specifically) shrinking under Obama post-GW Bush surge. The technology has gotten so much better and automation in specific allows us to do more with less people. This is by design and I'd almost argue if the tech wasn't getting better and needing less humans, our R&D is clearly failing. The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. They're coming to grips that with unconventional warfare, you simply need a LOT more boots on the ground trudging around. Our technology advantage alone allows us to realistically probably coast for 6-8 years and still be matched only realistically by China. Russia has a few things that can match current US kit (their new tanks are excellent and they have some of the best anti-air kit in the world), but the Kremlin simply far and above lacks the cash to be in a position to afford to pay for a serious modernization. Obama's sanctions along with the massive drop in oil have put a dent in Russia's economy regardless of Putin's posturing. Sure they have very nice new jets, but they have precious few of them. We have nice new jets, better radars, and all of our older jets can spank the pants off of their older jets, etc, etc. This is really just my anecdotal experience as a US Army veteran who was in OIF II 2003-2004.
- hackuser 10y ago
  > They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC, and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs. However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for it all.
  - SEJeff 10y ago
    Having been in the US military, the command was always alarmist about troop sizing even in the blatant face of improving technology. We have counter-defilade rifles now (XM25). This puts the best part of a small mortar in the hands of an infantry rifle platoons. Does it mean you can get away with less artillery platoons and mortar squads? It might, yes. Does it mean you can retrofit counter-defilade capabilities into normal infantry operations allowing smaller units to do more? It does. This was my point. I saw this directly while I was in the service and it has always been that way. Yes we've done budget cuts under Obama for the US military, but we also had an unprecedented "surge" during GW Bush, meanwhile tech has been improving. Look at an older Nimintz class Aircraft Carrier with their 5000+ crew. Compare that to the newer Gerald Ford class carriers with their increased operational velocity and 2600 crew. Will some admirals tell you they're hamstrung due to having fewer soldiers? No doubt. Does that always reflect reality since they can literally do more with less? Nope! The "Order of Battle" is US Military terminology to denote the composition of a military unit to respond to certain threats. It is most commonly used from Division / Brigade level and lower by the intelligence officers, but goes all the way up to the Pentagon & Department of Defense. An order of battle is designed to solve the question of, "How do I shape a military unit to best defeat the adversaries they're pledged or expected to fight against?". Absolutely nothing in the US's two war doctrine says for us to fight a medium war and be prepared for another medium sized war. Not sure what you think, but Iraq and Afghanistan are both big wars where we've simply de-emphasized "winning" them to optimize for less soldiers dying. The land mass is enormous in both and since a war is basically about owning a piece of land, it is easier to judge the size by the size of the land being attempted to liberate. Also, if we were fighting a larger conventional war (sans nukes) we would likely win/lose much quicker with much lower casualties. The asymetric warfare we're currently waging is something the US simply isn't very good at (nor is any conventional military really). What do you think? For instance, I was a member of the US's first "Stryker Brigade Combat Team" (D Troop, 1/14th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Ft Lewis, Washington). Our Brigade of ~5500 soldiers replaced the 82rd Airborne division of ~19000 soldiers and did equally well due to our Order of Battle emphasizing speed (via the Strykers mainly) over sheer massive footprint and heavy slow armor. This was due to the enemy not being heavily armored and primarily using small pickup trucks "technicals". In this area, we pretty much dominated it as you'd have a fully loaded Stryker squad across the city (Tall'Afar or Mosul primarily) before anyone even realized it as they were much quieter than say a Hummvee.

SEJeff 10y ago

They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I genuinely don't buy it. It is just like Trump's alarmism over the size of our military (the navy specifically) shrinking under Obama post-GW Bush surge. The technology has gotten so much better and automation in specific allows us to do more with less people. This is by design and I'd almost argue if the tech wasn't getting better and needing less humans, our R&D is clearly failing. The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. They're coming to grips that with unconventional warfare, you simply need a LOT more boots on the ground trudging around. Our technology advantage alone allows us to realistically probably coast for 6-8 years and still be matched only realistically by China. Russia has a few things that can match current US kit (their new tanks are excellent and they have some of the best anti-air kit in the world), but the Kremlin simply far and above lacks the cash to be in a position to afford to pay for a serious modernization. Obama's sanctions along with the massive drop in oil have put a dent in Russia's economy regardless of Putin's posturing. Sure they have very nice new jets, but they have precious few of them. We have nice new jets, better radars, and all of our older jets can spank the pants off of their older jets, etc, etc. This is really just my anecdotal experience as a US Army veteran who was in OIF II 2003-2004.

hackuser 10y ago
> They've been saying that since the dawn of the US Military. I follow foreign policy issues closely, and I disagree. > The current Order of Battle of the entire US Military calls for us to be able to fight two large scale wars simultaneously. We've done that arguably well/poorly with Iraq and Afghanistan. I'm not sure what you mean by that usage of "Order of Battle". IIRC US military planning calls for them to fight one war, a medium-sized one IIRC, and keep a second medium-sized war in a holding pattern. Iraq and Afghanistan are small wars against very weak opposition whose best weapons are IEDs. However, there isn't much here beyond claims with no basis. I'd be interested in seeing some evidence for it all.
- SEJeff 10y ago
  Having been in the US military, the command was always alarmist about troop sizing even in the blatant face of improving technology. We have counter-defilade rifles now (XM25). This puts the best part of a small mortar in the hands of an infantry rifle platoons. Does it mean you can get away with less artillery platoons and mortar squads? It might, yes. Does it mean you can retrofit counter-defilade capabilities into normal infantry operations allowing smaller units to do more? It does. This was my point. I saw this directly while I was in the service and it has always been that way. Yes we've done budget cuts under Obama for the US military, but we also had an unprecedented "surge" during GW Bush, meanwhile tech has been improving. Look at an older Nimintz class Aircraft Carrier with their 5000+ crew. Compare that to the newer Gerald Ford class carriers with their increased operational velocity and 2600 crew. Will some admirals tell you they're hamstrung due to having fewer soldiers? No doubt. Does that always reflect reality since they can literally do more with less? Nope! The "Order of Battle" is US Military terminology to denote the composition of a military unit to respond to certain threats. It is most commonly used from Division / Brigade level and lower by the intelligence officers, but goes all the way up to the Pentagon & Department of Defense. An order of battle is designed to solve the question of, "How do I shape a military unit to best defeat the adversaries they're pledged or expected to fight against?". Absolutely nothing in the US's two war doctrine says for us to fight a medium war and be prepared for another medium sized war. Not sure what you think, but Iraq and Afghanistan are both big wars where we've simply de-emphasized "winning" them to optimize for less soldiers dying. The land mass is enormous in both and since a war is basically about owning a piece of land, it is easier to judge the size by the size of the land being attempted to liberate. Also, if we were fighting a larger conventional war (sans nukes) we would likely win/lose much quicker with much lower casualties. The asymetric warfare we're currently waging is something the US simply isn't very good at (nor is any conventional military really). What do you think? For instance, I was a member of the US's first "Stryker Brigade Combat Team" (D Troop, 1/14th Cavalry, 2nd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division out of Ft Lewis, Washington). Our Brigade of ~5500 soldiers replaced the 82rd Airborne division of ~19000 soldiers and did equally well due to our Order of Battle emphasizing speed (via the Strykers mainly) over sheer massive footprint and heavy slow armor. This was due to the enemy not being heavily armored and primarily using small pickup trucks "technicals". In this area, we pretty much dominated it as you'd have a fully loaded Stryker squad across the city (Tall'Afar or Mosul primarily) before anyone even realized it as they were much quieter than say a Hummvee.