Military Discussion 101

[Mal]

Jan 17, 2012 21:51:36 GMT -5 Surdra said:

Moving on to the next topic. In April the B-52 will have been around for sixty years, longer than any other aircraft in the US armed Forces. It is the only aircraft in the world where you have a grandparent, father, and son all that have served on the same aircraft. Not the same type of aircraft mind you, but the same actual plane. How is it that we are not only using sixty year old aircraft but there is no real plan by the US Air Force to replace them?

I think I talked about this a while back. The Air Force spent considerably on the B-1 and the B-2, but as I understand it, they've cancelled new orders for the B-2. It's expensive, it's even more expensive to maintain, and quite frankly, the threat that necessitated their development and manufacture is perceived to have been reduced, at present.

I compare the B-52 to the C-130. Both are venerable, and very capable in what they can do. Modeernization programs have kept both flying for what is long past the normal effective life of modern aircraft.

The B-52s capabilities, coupled with its low maintenance costs, support the decision to keep it flying.

I got a tour of a C-130 a few years ago. On one of the bulkheads, I saw some initials with the year "'72" next to it. They had been gouged into the bulkhead with a knife (most likely) and I thought it was really cool that the plane had been flying for at least 36 years (at the time), and that the ground crews that came and went over the years saw fit to leave it there.

[Shemiki]

Oh yeah, the whole SOPA and PIPA protests. I'm personally against those bills, but I don't have a say because I'm Canadian, not American.

Back on topic, it just seems the B-52 is so good at its job, it doesn't need to replaced. For now, the Air Force doesn't need to replace it, because it is good enough already.

[Mal]

Jan 19, 2012 17:59:52 GMT -5 Shemiki said:

Oh yeah, the whole SOPA and PIPA protests. I'm personally against those bills, but I don't have a say because I'm Canadian, not American.

Back on topic, it just seems the B-52 is so good at its job, it doesn't need to replaced. For now, the Air Force doesn't need to replace it, because it is good enough already.

Here is an article that is not exactly favorable to the B-1:

www.brookings.edu/opinions/2010/0715_airforce_shachtman.aspx

Note that for every hour of flight time, it needs 48 hours of maintenance.

The B-2 bomber fleet numbers 20 aircraft total. Thus, I think it's safe to say the B-52 will be flying for some time.

[Free Scania]

Well....with the risk of sounding cheap and calculating; What every military force is interested in (and the public as well) is "most bang for the buck". I myself am Swedish and our army uses a lot of "older" munitions. Sure, we've got cutting edge weaponry, but the majority of our armed services use a lot of systems from the 80's and even 70's. The reality of war as well as in the armed services is that, at least in a democracy, cutting edge systems costs money. Take an Abrams M1A2 tank (export version). This particular system costs, according to internet sources, 13 million smackers per unit (tank).

Still, two, say russian Kornet ATGM teams would be able to knock it out. They cost, again according to internet sources, 875.000 dollars a pop. Each unit is equipped with 10 missiles. So a lucky shot with a Kornet atgm would knock out a 13 million dollar tank at the price of 87500 dollars (or less, since the actual missile is not a tenth of the price of the system which includes the launcher).

This is not economically sound. Sure, you can talk about the cost of human life, but if it makes too big a dent in a nations economy it will NOT be a winning path. You can't compare, say Japans attack on Pearl Harbour to what happened on 9/11. Pearl Harbour brought the US into a world wide conflict. A conflict where, if you didn't win, you'd perish. 9/11 brought the US into a small scale war. A bushfire war, where you fight in a far off land and the normal citizen, even though they might be supportive of the war at the beginning, soon start calculating their personal cost, actual as well as percieved in the loss of their soldiers. This leads to war weariness, something which was virtually unknown during WWII because of the aforementioned situation of win or be perished. Regardless of whether it was true or just percieved as such.

This is why, in history, nations have used mercenaries or mercenary-like units like the French Foreign Legion or British dominion troops. This negates the percieved, if not actual, monetary cost of human life. Taking this out of the equation leaves a nation with the actual monetary cost, the cost payed by the population of the warring nation, making it much more bearable to the average citizen.

To boil it down into a couple of points, albeit removed from human feelings and somewhat rudimentary:
1. War costs money and resources.
2. The nation with the biggest surplus of both will win.
3. If you can keep down the spending of the above mentioned, you will suffer less war weariness and thus you can re-read point 2 (since I count civilian "good-will" as a resource.)

This does also apply to a nation fighting a war of "win or perish", however in this scenario the civilian "good-will" will not be as affected by costs or usage of resources.

Just think of the Vietnam war, hypothetically, being fought not by draftees from the US, but perhaps mercenary regiments. Sure it would have cost more, but would the US population have had such adverse feelings towards US involvment?

I realize this is the long way round to explaining why it is a sound policy to keep the B-52, but what it actually boils down to is who can get the most bang for the buck. You don't want to stretch your resources, and upgrading 10 B-52s will surely be a lot cheaper than building a modern Stealth Bomber. Simple as that. You can rouse a populations heart and feelings for a certain ammount of time, but when it starts taking too big a toll on their personal life, you WILL loose support. History has taught us this time and again.

And finally, in closing. I hope I have not offended any US citizen by my somewhat crass comparisons. If so I apologize from the bottom of my heart since it was not my intent. It is just current and good examples to use. I also apologize if my reasoning is somehwat incoherent as I have been drinking tonight. And finally, sorry for the wall of text needed for me to elaborate on this issue.

[Mal]

No offense taken here. But as you pointed out, it's not just weaponry, but the will to win. You can have all the technology in the world. But if you don't have the desire to adapt and overcome, you may as well not even try.

[Surdra]

The BUFF is one of those rare aircraft that by accident they made a truly great aircraft. When they first built it they did not sit down and try to design an airframe that would be in use for almost a century before retirement. They just tried to make the best possible craft they could and boy they sure did. ;D

Alright we are a little late starting this topic but I was busy with court the last two days so I was unable to update the class. The nuclear armed ICBM replaced the BUFF it the nuclear deterrence role. While it was the threat of a nuclear armed B-52 flying over the north pole 24/7 that kept the USSR from attacking western Europe in the early days of the Cold War, it was the ICBM and the submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) that kept the Cold War from going hot. But the Cold War is now over and the USA and her allies are more likely to be fighting locally created insurgents than a nuclear armed nation. Because of this there are many people within NATO countries that argue that the need for nuclear armed ICBM/SLBMs is pretty much a thing of the past.

So, ICBMs, do we still need them?

[NeoYundar]

I think so. Russia is still a threat to America. Every tinpot dictatorship on the planet wants the nuke. I would get rid of them if eveyone else promised to as well. BUt frankly you can't trust some of those people with a pointy stick. like Iran or NKorea. or russia for that matter. i think the fact that we can glass Iran is a major deterant to them actually doing anything. I shudder to think of a world where we disarmed our nuclear arsenal and IRan just made one.

[Mal]

Unless we can somehow ensure that all nukes have been destroyed and there are none left, yes.

The deterrent is Mutually Assured Destruction, correct?

So, unless there is a way to ensure all stockpiles have been decommissioned, it makes no sense to disarm.

[Shemiki]

I agree with Malecia. As long as other nations have ICBMs, the US needs them. The whole thing that prevented the Cold War from going hot was the mutually assured destruction that would go with launching the nukes. I don't think Russia is that much of a problem anymore, it's more those unfriendly Third World countries in the Middle East, but hey, as long as someone has nukes, there is a risk. If the US and other countries have them, but don't launch them, both are safe. It can't be until every other country has disarmed their nukes before the US can disarm their own.

[Ad Infinitum]

I'm with Shemiki and Malecia. The term "deterrence" is just another word for "going into the showdown with a much bigger gun" really. The fact that we have them, we have a lot of them, and we will use them if we need to is enough to keep the world quiet (and existing).

In a perfect world, though, we'd get rid of ours if another nation got rid of theirs. Unfortunately, no other nation is ready to do that. And even if they did, we wouldn't get rid of ours because we wouldn't trust that the other guys actually did. On top of that, they would know that, so they would also just keep them. It's folly, really.

Similar to the reason I carry a sidearm on my person 'round the clock, US has the idea that they'd rather have them and not need them than need them and not have them. Plus, the cost to disarm and dispose of our stockpile would just further destroy our weak-as-it-is financial position.

Or we could just blow up the moon with 'em.

[-Valoniah-]

I agree with AD. throwing away our nukes now is like selling your gun right before the crackhead down the hallway buys one. Its a dog eat dog world, and the dog with the biggest fangs is the one that doesn't get its leg hunped. So in conclusion to this classy post, we still need our nukes to scare the buttholes of the world into not doing anything too drastic.

[NeoYundar]

whoah val, that could be a whole episode of south park. good metaphore

[Shemiki]

Well, since it seems everyone wants to keep our nukes, we should just move on to the next topic early lol.

[Surdra]

Or I can ask every one a question.

What do you think about arms reductions? The current US stockpile can wipe out all life on this planet three times over. Some have suggested that the US retire the whole or a very large part of the land based ICBM and make the US Navy's SLBM the center of the USA's nuclear arms.

[Ad Infinitum]

Only three? We must have reduced a bit already then.

[Surdra]

Ya before the signing all those treaties with Russia I believe it was five times over.

[-Valoniah-]

Hmmmm, I'm all about redundancy. I think enough nukes to blow up the world 3 times over is appropriate. I am of the ideology of "plan for the worst, hope for the best." Maybe we need that many nukes so they all cannot be neutralized.

[Surdra]

Thats why the people propose becaoming a SLBM centric nation, there is no way to assume that you could get even a fourth of the enemy missile boat fleet.

[NeoYundar]

I dont want to reduce any military spending, in any way, ever. so i say keep 'em all. until we make something better, like an anti matter bomb or something.

[Free Scania]

Well...in my oppinion nukes are of no real use. Everyone talking about them being a deterrant; In what scenario would it be feasible to actually launch a nuclear strike? When a rogue state has launched nukes against you? What would it accomplish? Yeah, you get revenge, but you'll be just as dead. Nukes are more or less obsolete, even in a geopolitical sense. If terrorists used nukes against you, who would you target? They're not exactly a precision weapon, so you'd target a whole region, what with fallout and everything. Mutually assured destruction was feasible during the cold war because the US faced an atheist country who actually assesed things, but what if the guy who has the nukes believes it is god's will to launch them and that he will go to heaven for doing so? What will it accomplish to retaliate? Nukes costs gazillions of dollars to maintain, put that money into researching preventive measures instead. You guys all talk about the US not being able to get rid of its nukes because someone else might keep theirs....well, flip the coin and you'll hear the same argument in North Korea and Iran. They want to build up their nuclear capabilities because the US have nukes (or in Irans case, Israel). Sooner or later someone will push the button, and as mentioned before; It will be of small reassurance that you'll take the other guy out when the nukes starts raining and any survivors on the planet will have to look forward to an atomic winter and famine for at least 3 years. I'm old enough to have played the Amiga game "Nuclear war" and the end scene after winning with a lone guy jumping up and down amid the backdrop of a nuked city, waving a flag and shouting "I won!" springs to mind...

[Surdra]

Agree completely ^^

Glad someone brought up all those points.

[Ad Infinitum]

Jan 27, 2012 18:12:21 GMT -5 Free Scania said:

Everyone talking about them being a deterrant; In what scenario would it be feasible to actually launch a nuclear strike? When a rogue state has launched nukes against you? What would it accomplish? Yeah, you get revenge, but you'll be just as dead.

That's exactly the point. Being one side in an equal standoff is a much safer place to be than in an asymmetrically armed opponent's crosshairs. If everyone has nukes, no one's going to fire because they would just be killing themselves. If only one side has nukes, there's no penalty. Problem is, someone will always have nuclear capabilities... so we might as well have ours bigger and better.

[Free Scania]

Jan 27, 2012 18:20:39 GMT -5 Ad Infinitum said:

Jan 27, 2012 18:12:21 GMT -5 Free Scania said:

Everyone talking about them being a deterrant; In what scenario would it be feasible to actually launch a nuclear strike? When a rogue state has launched nukes against you? What would it accomplish? Yeah, you get revenge, but you'll be just as dead.

That's exactly the point. Being one side in an equal standoff is a much safer place to be than in an asymmetrically armed opponent's crosshairs. If everyone has nukes, no one's going to fire because they would just be killing themselves. If only one side has nukes, there's no penalty. Problem is, someone will always have nuclear capabilities... so we might as well have ours bigger and better.

And if we build up extremely large alliances no-one would dare go to war because the cost would be too high...oh wait...someone shot the Arch Duke of Austria.....

[NeoYundar]

I still think we need em buds, Violence pretty much solves everything. and nothing spells violence like nuclear holocaust.

[NeoYundar]

perhaps i should elaborate... that was vague. I'd rather everyone lose than the other guys win. if we got blown to smithereens and didn't wipe the other country from existance I'd be pissed. ITs spiteful and full of hate but perhaps thats just the soldier in me.

[Ad Infinitum]

If a victory isn't Pyrrhic, is it a victory at all?

[-Valoniah-]

Nice new masking PAI. I bet you've even been an RL XO before. I had to look up Pyrrhic Victory. Awsome word.

I gotta say, the idea of an alliance so large that nuclear weapons were no longer needed sounds nice, but lets face it. Never gonna happen. Thats like saying, I know, lets all be friends!" The world isn't the magical candy land that is My Little Pony's, its a fricken violent hate filled world filled with crazies, and the only language they speak in is bullets. So in the words of the Nebraska National Guard unit that replaced my unit at the end of OIF 2, "Grab yer guns!" I think history is in for a messy ride from now until the end.

[Surdra]

While I fully support keeping our nuclear weapons, I also support a nuclear force reduction. The US currently has over 5,000 nuclear warheads, at its peak it had 32,000. The few experts in nuclear warfare that I have met during my job have told me that the US could safely operate with a stockpile at around 2,500, half of the US current. They argue that the extra money could be better spent else where in the defense budget.

Now we move on to the topic that I have been wanting to do and a few of you have also told me you want to do. Just recently the US Navy allowed women to serve on subs. Women serving in the military has been one of the longest debates in human warfare. Some people argue that women would disrupt a combat unit's esprit de corps. Some also say that the psychological impact of seeing wounded females is another.

So, Women in the combat, asset or dangerous distraction?

[Ad Infinitum]

This is something that has been a back-and-forth issue in my mind for quite some time. I'm neither for nor against it, and I believe it should be determined on a case-by-case basis for all people of both (all?) genders.

Experience in both OIF and OEF have made it clear to me that being in an infantry or armor unit does not mean that you'll be the only one experiencing combat. In fact, quite the opposite is true, as the enemy evolves to adapt to the US military's current approach to combat. The battlefield in Afghanistan right now is set up very much like it was in Vietnam, with FOBs (alike to fire bases in Vietnam) and transpo lines connecting them. The VC quickly learned to hit US forces in transit rather than assault face-on, as they had done to the French and NVA for years before. Taliban forces are now getting scarily adept at taking down helicopters, ambushing convoys, and generally leaving the combat-ready forces alone completely. This leaves support units extremely vulnerable to attack, and our assaulting forces are stuck on the move constantly hunting down the opposition.

This not only leaves combat troops more vulnerable while in transit, it also means that rear units such as supply and artillery companies taking fire more often than previous conventional wars. The Marine Corps mantra of "every Marine a rifleman" should be extended to all ground forces in theatre. In the big picture, women can't avoid combat, so they may as well be allowed to look for it rather than just take it.

In the smaller picture, it comes down to individual troop mentality while under fire. There are pros and cons of having both sexes trading bullets with the enemy.

On the pro side, men will naturally feel protective of women and try to keep them safe under any circumstances. Of course, this is a fairly broad generalization, but it holds true to every example I can think of. This can translate its self to more conservative and defensive orders from male officers with female troops to try and minimalize casualties while in an assault formation. It's not unheard of for an officer or NCO neglect unit security when advancing, such as checking flanks and mandating bounding overwatch positions for the sake of time and efficiency. If the officer feels more protective of the men and women under his command, they're more inclined to perform operations in a manner that is generally more safe for the troops involved. They just want to bring everyone home.

This extends to even smaller units. A squad may rush to defend or provide suppressing fire for a female squadmate that is stuck in a forward position or needs to move up to join the rest of the unit. This usually isn't a problem, soldiers are going to try their damnedest to keep everyone alive either way, but once again, there's the inherent protective urge from men that will overpower direct orders under duress.

On top of this, there's no reason women can't be utilized in non-engaging direct and indirect fire units. If a female soldier can carry a mortar tube and drop a round with precision, let 'em go for it. If a female sniper can put a .338 through the ten ring at a thousand yards, let 'em send it.

On the con side, however, APFT standards are lower for women than they are for men. A 100% pass on a physical fitness test for a female may only be an 80% or so for a male soldier using the same numbers. The scale is consistent with the capabilities of the female body, but I know for a fact that there are women out there who can whip my ass up and down that test. However, a majority of female soldiers may perform very well on the APFT scale for their gender, but (to be blunt) just may not be able to handle the rigors of combat. A simple solution would be to require a certain (high) bar to be met on the APFT for a female soldier to qualify for a combat unit, or perhaps females desiring a combat unit may be required to pass the APFT on the non-graduated scoring system. Seems fair that if a woman can do physically perform the exact same as a man that they are allowed to perform the same actions as a man, right?

That said, overhaul should be on the Pentagon's agenda regarding this rule. The military can't guarantee that a woman will avoid combat, so they might as well train them for it just the same.

[NeoYundar]

Women, in my small military world, caused far more trouble than they were worth. I was in a combat unit, and the only women were the handful in our support company, which we called fox company. I went to a special school in Alabama for UAV's with maybe 20 joes, including one lady we shall call "Wendy". Wendy want out late and didn't come back for formation. The sargent in charge was about to discipline her when she threatened to blackmail him. she threatened to say he sexually harrassed her if he disciplined her in any way. He had to drop it because it would be her word against his, and she would win. I hate to say that this was an isolated occourance but this shit happened all the time. the ladies may be fine in the rear with the gear but I say keep them the hell away from combat troops, we don't need the extra problems.