It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: face23785
They're not talking about the status of just our forces. Russia and China have completely rewritten how they fight based on what they've learned from watching our operations over Syria and Iraq the last few years. And that's discounting the electronic data they've gotten from SIGINT/ELINT operations.
Add in the AF doing nothing about the loss of a dedicated EW platform over 25 years ago, and you see a paradigm shift of huge proportions. We're no longer leading the way in terms of military capabilities, and not just because we've worn out our equipment.
As for escorts, China already has some seriously capable air defense ships and escorts available, already built.
originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: Vector99
There's a huge difference between what anyone makes for selling to the public, and what they make for military use. When you're selling to the public, you can get away with making things that die in a few years. People expect it, and the tech changes so fast they don't bitch much.
Build something for the military that's crap quality and doesn't last long, and you're risking potentially billions in sales by getting frozen out of future contracts. And that's if the government of somewhere like China doesn't throw you in jail and seize your company, or worse.
originally posted by: gariac
a reply to: C0bzz
I don't think I want to invest 48 minutes of my life on that lecture. I view carriers as sitting ducks. Their mobility in the 21st century is basically nonexistent. The fleet is easily tracked.
I don't see the point of projecting power with carriers. Any major country can below them out of the water by a number of means. The Russians will gladly sell whatever you need to whack a ship.
The Navy is a jobs program. I do see some value in underwater craft, but submarine detection isn't that difficult these days for modern countries.
The DPRK just laughs at our power projection.
For this question, we turned to an official Pentagon accounting of U.S. military bases around the nation and the world, the "Base Structure Report, Fiscal 2010 Baseline."
According to this report, the U.S. has 662 overseas bases in 38 foreign countries, which is a smaller number than the 900 bases Paul cited. But here again, the list omits several nations integral to active operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, so it’s conceivable that the actual number of sites approaches 900.
Still, caveats are in order here, too. Of the 662 overseas sites listed -- that is, those outside the active war zones -- all but 32 of them are either small sites (with a replacement value of less than $915 million) or sites essentially owned on paper only.
For instance, the sole site listed for Canada is 144 square feet of leased space -- equal to a 12-foot-by-12-foot room. That’s an extreme case, but other nations on the list -- such as Aruba, Iceland, Indonesia, Kenya, Norway and Peru -- have just a few U.S. military buildings, many of them leased. Some of the sites are unmanned radio relay towers or other minor facilities. "Most of them are a couple of acres with a cyclone fence and no troops," Pike said.