US repeatedly defeated in high end wargames

a reply to: Zaphod58

The default US response is to throw more budget at it.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result".

a reply to: Fallingdown

Russia with a GDP of just about equal to America's student loan debt gets more bang for the buck when it comes to defense. I will bet anyone they do not pay 500usd for a hammer as the USA has in the past...

I think of the days when a piece of paper and a design concept and then the finished flying product was in the air within 6 months (thinking P-38 lightning). It now takes how many years to get one flying and how many more years does it take to fix all the bugs ? .. "Oh but everything is more complicated now !" It is a frigging airplane where most of the stuff that goes to build one is already known and or off the shelf.... Fly by wire was used in the old B-58 Hustler so it ain't nothing new..

I saw a video where the F-35 was used in Australia during their war games.. As long as everything was done beyond visual range the f-35 WAS SUCCESSFUL... However if an engagement was within visual range the F-35 lost big time as they said "It can not turn. It can not climb and it can not run away from the Russian aircraft used in the war game." Maybe they were just trying to dis the aircraft, maybe not ? I can think of all kinds of low level missions where the enemy gets close with over whelming force and does a number on assets before the gear even gets up on the F-35 in Europe.

How stealth works is the video ... Say a given radar can detect an F-16 100 miles away that same radar would detect the F-35 only 15 miles away. youtu.be...


I looked for the video (Australian) but could not find it... Really does not matter as those who have a vested interest in the F-35 will come by an defend the outlandishly expensive program. Also the doubters in the government lost out as Australia is taking deliveries of the F-35 and are now singing it praises... Great for the MIC and America's accounting bottom line. I just hope the people who fly off to war in the aircraft are victorious for if not, the ending does not bode well for the USA and her allies in a conflict.

China, once focused on a given task is not a country that should be taken lightly IMO. They are not the same backward 3rd world country they were even 30 years ago. The stuff they are doing and claiming, for their own ends, in the South China sea is going to be settled one day in the future IMO.. Probably before 2025 but maybe as late as 2030 or as soon as an accidental event happens. We will get to count our Carrier task forces after that crap goes down as see just how many are still above water.. Would they USA/China start a nuclear war and destroy both countries and many others or will they back down before everything is turned into ashes ? I would bet there would be a Big King's X between the warring parties unless they welcome suicide..

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: imitator

It's not an inventory issue, is a doctrinal issue. Pretty much forever the doctrine has been that the Air Force defends its own bases, using its own assets. Fighter squadrons defend themselves, they don't let the Army defend them. Despite multiple lessons demonstrating that mentality is outdated, it's still holding strong.

I'm pretty sure you could be right, as I don't keep up with this kind of stuff. I would bet $24 billion a year, could fix both inventory, doctrinal issues... which is less than four percent of the Pentagon budget, as stated in the article.

Even if those war games are rigged for increased budget spending, I don't have a problem with that... and I'm sure Trump doesn't either. : )

a reply to: Zaphod58

Guess it just goes to prove the only way to win is not to play the game, nuclear or conventional.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I guess not even agaisnt Nano Sized Carrying ones of the future?

a reply to: 727Sky

People that bash the F-35 for not being perfect in everything are missing the point. Well in this case, two points. The first being that at that point they had a pretty limited envelope due to software restrictions. They couldn't take full advantage of the aircraft in WVR fights.

The bigger point is that the F-35 is completely changing the way air wars will be fought, and they don't even have to fire a shot to do it. Yes, they are used to deploy weapons, but the almost more important mission is that of battle manager. The comments made, especially about the latest Red Flag show some of that capability.

You have an aircraft that no longer has to fly welded to its partner aircraft, and when flying together can see everything for hundreds of miles or more, and can direct any other aircraft against those threats, or engage them itself. It's no longer required to have support aircraft close to the battlefield to support strike packages, as they have an aircraft that can do just about every support role required, while flying ahead of them.

originally posted by: imitator
This looks more like a inventory problem, in the article it states more money and more missiles could solve the problem.

If we went to war with either China or Russia... I'm pretty sure our inventory will go up pretty quick. To me it sounds like these war games are rigged to increase military spending.

Production requires lead time. If you order an increase of production tomorrow, you can get a small short-term boost on what is on hand and near ready, but ultimately every sub-component needs to increase production and in most cases you need to find the raw materials, get it, increase your man power, beyond a certain point it requires more floor space, and more tooling. Even raw materials take time to spool up. Once everything on hand is assembled, the production lines have to stop and let logistics catch up; you are several months from any real increase in production of most weapons systems.

Though these things normally get blown out of proportion to generate budget increases, there is no doubt we have a serious numbers problem. And a lot of the resources we have invested in won't be terribly useful in a large-scale conflict against near-peers. It's aggravated by the fact we'll almost certainly be politically (and hence militarily) behind the eight ball if a shooting war starts. A war against Russia or China would be no picnic.

a reply to: Zaphod58

We could nuke the planet but to win conventional wars on multiple fronts?
Not real confident there; China has the manpower to overwhelm us and Russia would own us on continental Europe.

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

We could nuke the planet but to win conventional wars on multiple fronts?
Not real confident there; China has the manpower to overwhelm us and Russia would own us on continental Europe.

Correct me if Im wrong but isnt massive manpower practically worthless when you don't have technological superiority?

What good will billions of soldiers do against a far bigger number of aircrafts?

Of course Im over simplifying things but so is relying on manpower.

a reply to: 1337Kph

Quantity is its own quality. If you have 1000 aircraft, going against an opponent that can only get a couple hundred to the fight at any given time, you're going to get through eventually.

originally posted by: Zaphod58

Quantity is its own quality. If you have 1000 aircraft, going against an opponent that can only get a couple hundred to the fight at any given time, you're going to get through eventually.

Yeah but in regards to claims like 'they got the manpower to overwhelm us' - isn't aircraft number infinitely more significant?

a reply to: 1337Kph

And China has the numbers there too. Any fighter aircraft we have are going to be coming from pretty far away. That means tanker support and limited time on station. China on the other hand has a very short distance for their aircraft to go and can stay on station longer. Once they take out bases our fighters can fly from, the problem becomes exponentially more difficult.

a reply to: 727Sky

Russia ........

www.strategypage.com...

$600 hammer from the 1980s

www.govexec.com...

Comparing World War II technology with 21st-century technology . Is like racing a model T against a Ferrari .

The guy said it all in the opening statement. F-35s weren’t designed to be invisible. They were designed to be hard to see.

One thing I’ve noticed when people make those claims though. They always fail to bring up the F 35’s radar, sensors and EW package. The EW system can replace the growler and even be used as an escort for other aircraft . Along with unparalleled radar and sensor capabilities. It jams those pesky little radar sites that are probably under attack byJASSM and JASSM-ER both of which outrange S 400 surface to air missile‘s and they are stealthy. They began to integrate the counter electronics high-powered microwave package (A microwave burst gun that fries electronics) into the JASSM-ER In 2015 which has a range of 525 miles .


How smart is too smart? When F-35 Joint Strike Fighters flew simulated combat missions around Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, their pilots couldn’t see the “enemy” radars on their screens.

Why? The F-35s’ on-board computers analyzed data from the airplanes’ various sensors, compared the readings to known threats, and figured out the radars on the training range weren’t real anti-aircraft sites — so the software didn’t even display them. While the software and pilots on older aircraft hadn’t noticed the imperfections and inaccuracies in how the Eglin ranges portrayed the enemy, the F-35s’ automated brains essentially said, “Fake! LOL!” and refused to play.

The Eglin anecdote is just one example of how the F-35 Lightning and its twin-engine older brother, the F-22 Raptor — collectively called fifth-generation fighters — are overturning how the Air Force operates. The sophistication of fifth gen sensors, software, and stealth requires the Air Force to overhaul training and network infrastructure. They even challenge longstanding assumptions about who makes what decisions and who’s in command. If the pilot of a fifth gen jet infiltrating enemy airspace has a clearer picture of the battle than senior officers further back on a vulnerable AWACS command plane or back at base in Air Operations Center, why should they be telling him or her what to do?

[url]https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-22-f-35-outsmart-test-ranges-awacs/[/url[



I’ve seen videos from 2015 or 2016 where there’s mixed reviews by the pilots. This is what Group commander thinks now in 2019 .

[url]https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/avalon/2019/02/28/what-does-australia-think-of-the-f-35-one-air-force-commander-details-his-expe rience/" target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">www.f35.com...[/url[

Here’s some of that useless technology .

How smart is too smart? When F-35 Joint Strike Fighters flew simulated combat missions around Eglin Air Force Base in Florida, their pilots couldn’t see the “enemy” radars on their screens.

Why? The F-35s’ on-board computers analyzed data from the airplanes’ various sensors, compared the readings to known threats, and figured out the radars on the training range weren’t real anti-aircraft sites — so the software didn’t even display them. While the software and pilots on older aircraft hadn’t noticed the imperfections and inaccuracies in how the Eglin ranges portrayed the enemy, the F-35s’ automated brains essentially said, “Fake! LOL!” and refused to play.

The Eglin anecdote is just one example of how the F-35 Lightning and its twin-engine older brother, the F-22 Raptor — collectively called fifth-generation fighters — are overturning how the Air Force operates. The sophistication of fifth gen sensors, software, and stealth requires the Air Force to overhaul training and network infrastructure. They even challenge longstanding assumptions about who makes what decisions and who’s in command. If the pilot of a fifth gen jet infiltrating enemy airspace has a clearer picture of the battle than senior officers further back on a vulnerable AWACS command plane or back at base in Air Operations Center, why should they be telling him or her what to do?

[url]https://breakingdefense.com/2016/11/f-22-f-35-outsmart-test-ranges-awacs/[/url[



I’ve seen videos from 2015 or 2016 where there’s mixed reviews by the pilots. This is what Group commander thinks now in 2019 .

[url]https://www.defensenews.com/digital-show-dailies/avalon/2019/02/28/what-does-australia-think-of-the-f-35-one-air-force-commander-details-his-expe rience/


I gave my position on China earlier. I suspect by the time I got done with this novel you’ve probably read it already . Lol

Cheers

I think the myth of the invincibility of the American military is built on shaky grounds.

The role the US took in the European theatre is grossly exaggerated in WW2, and most of the glory should go to the Soviets there. They did something like 80% of the fighting in Europe.

I think the US can safely be credited with defeating Japan, but I would argue they were a much weaker foe with a lot less resources to work with, who made their resources go further.

Korea... not sure if you can count that as a real victory.

Vietnam... sort of complicated. You can argue the Viet Cong out-performed us there by a large margin, based on how each side was supplied. I think we could have won there if the gloves were off... but too complicated a situation to make a ruling on.

The other conflicts are mostly a superpower exerting its muscle in a developing country's arena, and don't signify much.

I'd argue that the US places far too much emphasis on Carrier strike groups, and that these would be lost very early in the fight, due to the wide array of specialized long-range torpedoes the Russians and Chinese have just for that purpose.

The US Navy probably underestimates the importance of subs, due to the difficulty in defending against their best weapons.

We don't get nearly the same value for what we spend that other countries do. Airpower helped win WW2, but just like our carriers, anti-air weapons have evolved so much since then that what we have in terms of aircraft would not be cost effective against its much cheaper counters. Some of the Russian long-range SAM's have a range of 1200 km. They can be launched from literally 2 countries away.

In a real war between Superpowers... I suspect all of the surface ships would be disabled in under a month, on both sides, because our anti-naval weapons are too good today across the board.

a reply to: 727Sky

I wouldn't take that bet corruption is rampant in the Russian military. In fact often times supplies are stolen long before they get to their units. I read an article that as much as 40 percent of Russian supplies only exist on the books and have been sold already.

originally posted by: RadioRobert

originally posted by: imitator
This looks more like a inventory problem, in the article it states more money and more missiles could solve the problem.

If we went to war with either China or Russia... I'm pretty sure our inventory will go up pretty quick. To me it sounds like these war games are rigged to increase military spending.

Production requires lead time. If you order an increase of production tomorrow, you can get a small short-term boost on what is on hand and near ready, but ultimately every sub-component needs to increase production and in most cases you need to find the raw materials, get it, increase your man power, beyond a certain point it requires more floor space, and more tooling. Even raw materials take time to spool up. Once everything on hand is assembled, the production lines have to stop and let logistics catch up; you are several months from any real increase in production of most weapons systems.

That might be true... though I'm going by how quickly the U.S. military expanded in World War II, the Army alone soared from 174,000 to over 11 million in a very short time period. The Navy quickly increased to 70% of the world's total numbers and total tonnage of naval vessels. The Air Force went from 152,125 personnel to 2.4 million with 80,000 aircraft. All in a very short time period.

There are hundreds of Missile and Rocket Manufacturers in the United States. If a major war broke out... if need be those numbers would triple in months. We have 100x the technology than we did in World War II. Even small start ups could build precision-guided munition on the fly.

We live in age where things can be built quickly, just look at how fast Tesla and SpaceX grew... even they could build millions of missiles cheaply.

a reply to: 727Sky

How stealth works is the video ... Say a given radar can detect an F-16 100 miles away that same radar would detect the F-35 only 15 miles away

Everyone thought that the F/117s were stealth to yet were two or out of three were destroyed by an old soviet/Yugoslavian anti air system.

What i am saying just because they say its stealth doesn't mean that the jet fighter likely is a stealth plane.

I would be very interested to know the scenarios. If we decide we want to fight either China or Russia in thier own backyard I can certainly believe it. They both spent what resources they have in the last couple of decades preparing to do exactly that.

We've spent our money on maintaining an ability to project power globally and intervening at great cost in blood and cash for no positive effect.

We can't afford to have a force capable of taking on both China and Russia. The correct move would have been to draw Russia into alliance (or at least not hostile) thus allowing focus mainly on China. At all costs we should have avoided them aligning together in mutual distrust/fear of us.

Both opponents require a very different balance of forces to counter and there's only so much money.

a reply to: Zaphod58

I suppose all this is true if they are using all the tools in the toolbox.... I doubt they would go to war with hammers in hand.
Space would be weaponized if it isn't already

All the teeth clenching and hand wringing is silly.

There will never be an all-out conventional war fought with these tools. Period. They can war-game all they want.

The minute one of the superpowers starts losing some serious real estate the nukes will come out. All those expensive toys won't mean S# then. And, when the nukes come out it's "Game Over...thanks for playing"...for EVERY-ONE! Nobody wins!!

I've said it a thousand times here...Conventional "war" is NOT winnable in the shadow of nuclear weapons! It's just not. And, anyone who suggests otherwise is simply foolish.