Military Tech Thread

[Exhausted]

I wonder if recent events in the Western Democracies have made an alliance between Russia and China a renewed possibility.

There's no way in hell China wants to fight us. Even authoritarian regimes create big domestic issues when they send their under-equipped and under-trained forces to die en masse in front of a much more powerful nation's force. The next large war will crash economies almost instantly through hacking. Since hacking your enemy doesn't mean you have to get close, then maybe this is the kind of distance fighting China is preparing for.

[11bee]

Even authoritarian regimes create big domestic issues when they send their under-equipped and under-trained forces to die en masse in front of a much more powerful nation's force. The next large war will crash economies almost instantly through hacking. Since hacking your enemy doesn't mean you have to get close, then maybe this is the kind of distance fighting China is preparing for.

I wouldn't make the mistake of classifying China's military as "under-equipped and under-trained". Even if they are, I seem to remember that other nations that fit that category have sent us packing.

China seems to be preparing to fight a "full spectrum" conflict. Hacking is just one facet of this.

[niart17]

Ok, since we've obviously dived head and feet first into political talk, I'll add a bit. One thing about the U.S. is we want to be a policing power yet don't want to be an Empirical power and that is next to impossible to do effectively. Because of the way we were founded, some of us assume that given the power of choice, other countries will decide freedom and democracy. We feel that because it is inherent in our culture it must be in others as well. As recent events have shown, it is not. Two ways to lead are by example or by power. The U.S. seems to want to be stuck somewhere in the middle and that's what causes problems at times.

At least that's my 1 1/2 cent take on it... I think.

Bill

[Exhausted]

They "sent us packing" when the United States constrained its military power, such as Vietnam and Korea (maybe even the recent "brush fires"?), to a degree. But that's not to say that the United States couldn't have killed its enemies, and then some, in those conflicts. It's these ideas about how the United States, in all its virtue, glory, and power, should use its military that have everyone confused on what to do with it. I don't think the Chinese could equip every one of its soldiers with a rifle in a time of war, but come to think of it, I don't think the US military necessarily has a rifle to issue to all of its troops either.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Exhausted

[11bee]

They "sent us packing" when the United States constrained its military power, such as Vietnam and Korea (maybe even the recent "brush fires"?), to a degree. But that's not to say that the United States couldn't have killed its enemies, and then some, in those conflicts. It's these ideas about how the United States, in all its virtue, glory, and power, should use its military that have everyone confused on what to do with it. I don't think the Chinese could equip every one of its soldiers with a rifle in a time of war, but come to think of it, I don't think the US military necessarily has a rifle to issue to all of its troops either.

The US will always be constrained by political factors in any war. That's the nature of things. The closest we came to unrestricted warfare was WW2 and even there, politics (both global and domestic) still played a huge role in shaping America's war effort. We could have killed everyone in any of our post-ww2 conflicts but we chose not to and instead we suffered the consequences of those decisions (or reaped the benefits depending on your perspective).

Not sure if the US has enough rifles for everyone in uniform but that's not a major issue. I'm guessing only around 25% of the servicemen (and women) are trigger-pullers. The rest are engaged in more non-violent pursuits. If we need to issue M4's to payroll specialists, pastry chefs, military band members, etc and send them to the front as grunts, we are already in serious trouble. My apologies to any ARC member who proudly served as a payroll specialist, pastry chef or in a military marching band. No disrespect intended, thank you for your service.

I do agree with Niart, we (the US) seem to be a bit uncertain about our role on the global stage these days. I hope that statement won't unleash all the political rhetoric, I truly think that this is an issue that has been ongoing for the last few decades.

Edited August 7, 2014 by 11bee

[Exhausted]

I agree with that statement about not knowing what our role is these days. Not knowing may already have starting costing us. There should be no political rhetoric here. I also don't think China has a glass jaw, or is unable to fight a 21st century-style war. I just perceive that they aren't able to keep up with the threats Americans pose to them. But the kind of conflict we seem to hint at, "all out war," would demand a lot of rifles and other fighting equipment. I really don't think they want war though.

Edited August 6, 2014 by Exhausted

[SBARC]

I really don't think they want war though.

Wars are expensive and they seldom give much in the way of monetary gain. And by expensive I'm not just referring to the cost of fighting the war or the loss of life and wonded vets returning home. Usually the bigger cost is the cost of damaged infastructure that will have to be rebuilt and repaired once the war if over. The US (and Canada) are fortunate to be isolated from much damage to it's own infastructure during times of war.

The Chinese know that they would pay a massive cost with their infastructure if they got into a major war and the Chinese more than anyone understand the value of not getting stuff broken that would then have to be replaced at a big cost. They have quite a few major cities that are recently rebuilt....they aren't about to set themselves back with a costly and damaging war.

My guess is they will be content to build an intimadating military force and then bully their smaller and less equipped neighbours. Needless to say....the smaller players are all forming military alliances with anyone that is listening. It's good to see the US moving back to its bases in the Philippines. In the end....military alliances will balance the playing field and stop one country with a bigger military from getting out of hand.

[TaiidanTomcat]

It cracks me up how the article talks about the awesomeness of Chinese missiles.

And doesn't mention until towards the end of the article that said Chinese missiles haven't even been tested yet .

Don't go pointing that out,we are trying to create the perception of a missile gap.

That statement is truly worrisome.

One of the catch-22s is that the military is never right. If you keep ASW training going while there is an insurgency going on, people crow that you are fighting the last war and refusing to adjust to current threats. so you shut the ASW training down, to fight the current threat. Then that threat changes and suddenly you need ASW again but you were fighting the last war so you "shortsidely" shut down the ASW school, thus not adjusted to the current threat, thus fighting the last war.

the whining about high-end conventional weapons being unneeded because they won't work in A-stan is a perfect example. With the amount of money the usa spends on the military, we should have a "diverse portfolio" Its easy for the pendulum to swing too far.

[11bee]

One of the catch-22s is that the military is never right. If you keep ASW training going while there is an insurgency going on, people crow that you are fighting the last war and refusing to adjust to current threats. so you shut the ASW training down, to fight the current threat. Then that threat changes and suddenly you need ASW again but you were fighting the last war so you "shortsidely" shut down the ASW school, thus not adjusted to the current threat, thus fighting the last war.

the whining about high-end conventional weapons being unneeded because they won't work in A-stan is a perfect example. With the amount of money the usa spends on the military, we should have a "diverse portfolio" Its easy for the pendulum to swing too far.

Correct. I remember Dick Cheney shredding the military brass because they were prepared to fight the last war, not the two that were currently ongoing. Now we have a wonderfully well-trained force that excels at fighting low-intensity conflicts but is maybe just a wee bit rusty at fighting a major conventional war.

I wonder how useful all those "humane" bombs we developed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan (the ones with the tiny warheads to limit collateral damage) will be in the next conflict.

[niart17]

One of the things my dad taught me when I was learning any type of sport or competition applies here. He told me if you're the best at what you do then you should always learn to offensively beat your own defense and defensively shut down your own offense. In some ways that's what I feel the military should be able to do. We should be able to defend and against anything that we could throw against ourselves as a threat, within reason of course.

[Exhausted]

Correct. I remember Dick Cheney shredding the military brass because they were prepared to fight the last war, not the two that were currently ongoing. Now we have a wonderfully well-trained force that excels at fighting low-intensity conflicts but is maybe just a wee bit rusty at fighting a major conventional war.

I wonder how useful all those "humane" bombs we developed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan (the ones with the tiny warheads to limit collateral damage) will be in the next conflict.

GBU-52 'low collateral' munitions, with a 27lb warhead, should come in handy anywhere there is urban fighting against concealed positions. Our military has a lot of experience quelling unrest in places that share very little in common with the Western Democracies. This is probably great practice if we ever get in a war with another European nation that involves urban warfare... such as Russia. There would probably be more people ready to provide intel on urban targets instead of seeing certain death fighting for the other side.

I agree with what Taidan Tomcat said about civilians bitching about buying F-22s while we're fighting the brush fire wars. They are some bad mammer-jammers.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Exhausted

[Don]

...This is probably great practice if we ever get in a war with another European nation that involves urban warfare...such as Russia. There would probably be more people ready to provide intel on urban targets instead of seeing certain death fighting for the other side.

I agree with what Taidan Tomcat said about civilians bitching about buying F-22s while we're fighting the brush fire wars. They are some bad mammer-jammers.

Well, I guess that depends on what said civilian intelligence sources deem to be "the other side" (us in the west or, to use your example, Russia). We would be remiss if we assume that, should there indeed be another war, most people in the war zone or international community as a whole would side with the western power(s) involved (some of which are Republics and not Democracies ;) ). Believing that we can sway the general populace of war torn nations to the western way (or American way) of thinking has proven incorrect with disastrous results many times in the past and even today. Many people don't want to live a western life, or they simply trust us less then they do "the other side". Bottom line, you can have the most powerful and well trained/lead military in the World with the greatest weapons and gadgets known to man...but if your politicians and bleeding hearts are not willing to commit said military fully to the task of actually winning said conflict/war as quickly as possible, at all cost and whatever it takes...then you already handcuff those down range. We have seen this over and over again since World War II... and even then we had people arguing that we went too far with the atomic bombs. I don't see this changing.

I to agree with the point about civilians moaning over the cost of weapons and having a well trained, educated, prepared, well rounded, and equipped standing military. Sadly though, its not just a segment of the average civilians that gripe...but some of our nations leaders as well. Remember...the 1980's are over...so we were told .

Personally...I hope we NEVER have to find out what the next big war will be fought like! I would just as soon not have one.

[Exhausted]

Don't be too quick to attach reputations. It was a 'bleeding-heart' that authorized the atomic bombs to be dropped, and it was arguably the opposite that tied America's hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I share your hope, but I also sense the winds of war (large scale, not brush-fires) to be picking up.

[Don]

Don't be too quick to attach reputations. It was a 'bleeding-heart' that authorized the atomic bombs to be dropped, and it was arguably the opposite that tied America's hands in Iraq and Afghanistan.

I share your hope, but I also sense the winds of war (large scale, not brush-fires) to be picking up.

Ah...you as well. Your first comment is very debatable but outside the scope and "NO POLITICS" rules of ARC which I will gladly abide. Not my sandbox so I will play by the rules.

Sadly, my point of view as to why we may...may...be heading more towards more major conflicts/full out war in the last few years would also take the conversation too close to the political spectrum (but you can surmise my thoughts on that I am sure ;)). So I will again abide by the rules of ARC and decline to offer my theories as to why the "winds of war" may be picking up so that the discussion may continue for the other members of ARC.

Again, let's hope clearer heads prevail. Nobody will truly win a major war should one occur and everyone involved will end up losing, perhaps more then we can possibly imagine.

[11bee]

China has displayed another supersonic anti-ship missile

http://aviationweek.com/blog/zhuhai-surprise-china-s-third-russian-supersonic-ascm

Looks to be a copy (licensed or otherwise) of the Mach 3 Russian BrahMos missile. These missiles present significant challenges for the defenders. Last I read, the USN is not even sure if it's Phalanax close in defense systems can even engage something this fast. If introduced into service, this would give the Chinese three different supersonic anti-ship missiles.

On our side, the USN is still using the subsonic, 70's era Harpoon.

Here's what happens when a supersonic antiship missile hit's it target.

[11bee]

Looks like the "range war" is becoming a bigger issue due to adversaries advancements in both EW and new air to air missiles.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/04/pentagon-worries-that-russia-can-now-outshoot-u-s-stealth-jets.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+thedailybeast%2Farticles+%28The+Daily+Beast+-+Latest+Articles%29

The USN seems to have already come to the conclusion that it will be denied the full use of AIM-120's against a tech-savy adversary and have been working hard to develop an extended range version of the AIM-9X, which will at least give them some dependable mid-range missile capability.

To me, the AMRAAM still feels like cutting edge technology but the thing has actually been in service for over a quarter century. I know its had many upgrades but it sounds like its days may be numbered.

Only problem is that we don't appear to have anything even close to being ready to replace it. Some of our allies have superior AAM's that we could conceivably purchase but the problem is that these weapons were not sized to fit in the bays of the F-22 / F-35.

Edited December 4, 2014 by 11bee

[TaiidanTomcat]

Looks like the "range war" is becoming a bigger issue due to adversaries advancements in both EW and new air to air missiles.

This is why all those wackos said you can't just upgrade teen fighters...

The USN seems to have already come to the conclusion that it will be denied the full use of AIM-120's against a tech-savy adversary and have been working hard to develop an extended range version of the AIM-9X, which will at least give them some dependable mid-range missile capability.

To me, the AMRAAM still feels like cutting edge technology but the thing has actually been in service for over a quarter century. I know its had many upgrades but it sounds like its days may be numbered.

I take at the USN not so much losing faith in AMRAAM but looking to enhance the Aim-9X. Its almost like this WVR stuff is getting dangerous...

On our side, the USN is still using the subsonic, 70's era Harpoon.

We need more enemy navies to sink first.

Norway is working on JSM and NSM.

[11bee]

I take at the USN not so much losing faith in AMRAAM but looking to enhance the Aim-9X. Its almost like this WVR stuff is getting dangerous...

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. From all I have read, the USN is looking to drastically increase the -9X range because they feel that the AMRAAM's effectiveness will be significantly reduced by the new EW equipment starting to be fielded.

It's a bit of a desperation move (IMO) but they appear to have some real concerns about the AMRAAM.

[TaiidanTomcat]

I don't believe that's necessarily the case. From all I have read, the USN is looking to drastically increase the -9X range because they feel that the AMRAAM's effectiveness will be significantly reduced by the new EW equipment starting to be fielded.

It's a bit of a desperation move (IMO) but they appear to have some real concerns about the AMRAAM.

I stand corrected

[Alvis 3.1]

Ok, stand down, or I go nuclear on the thread.

Al P

ARC Moderation Team

[TaiidanTomcat]

Ok, stand down,

I thought I had...

[11bee]

I thought I had... :sunrevolves:/>

Contrary to popular perception, it's not always about you Tom..

:)

[TaiidanTomcat]

Contrary to popular perception, it's not always about you Tom..

:)

Did you not see the sun revolving?

[IrishGreek]

:sunrevolves:/> Did you not see the sun revolving? :sunrevolves:/>

I loved this... Killed me laughing. Good one.

Nice to know ones own perceptions!

[ElectroSoldier]

A question to all the experts here.

Is this actually real? I mean does China poses a technological edge over the western military in terms of missiles and rockets?