China & Russia close the tech gap vs USA in weapons race

US Concerned by Growing Expertise of China, Russia Space Capabilities

Below is military spending comparisons as of 2014 (SIRPI).The good news is that Russia+China is spending on PPP as much or more than USA, that is, Russia/China get much more for their money. USA would have to double their spending in order to catch up with Russia/China (in terms of development and production of new weapons). Also to note that a big portion of USA military spending goes on maintaining their troops that are heavily placed accross the globe and on consultants, which to a big extent is what would in other parts of the world be called corruption.

http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150410/1020735305.html

The Pentagon's unchanging force structure has already become obsolete, undermining US deterrence and creating strategic risks, says Robert Haddick, an expert and independent contractor at US Special Operations Command.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150410/1020735305.html#ixzz3ZSHshYPk
The United States' unchanging military force structure is "wasteful and miserly," it significantly undermines America's ability to cope with new complex challenges, underscored Robert Haddick, an expert, former US Marine Corps officer and independent contractor at US Special Operations Command.

"It is increasingly difficult to argue that the unchanging US force structure over this two-decade period of rapid change is a smart "all-weather" portfolio of capabilities, well-suited for the challenges of both 2001 and 2019. Instead, adversary adaptations have undercut the value of significant portions of the US force structure," the former officer claimed.

Referring to the document "The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review" the expert pointed out that the Pentagon's planned combat force for 2019 is strikingly similar to the force structure of 2001.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150410/1020735305.html#ixzz3ZSHybAe6
The unchanged force structure does not satisfy the needs of modern warfare and has already resulted in expensive overstocking of many assets.
According to Robert Haddick, China and Russia, America's potential adversaries, have outstripped the United States, by developing new types of weaponry and improving their capabilities in hybrid warfare.

The US's geopolitical rivals have grasped an opportunity to exploit design problems of US military forces, their operational limitations and outdated concepts, the expert underscored.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150410/1020735305.html#ixzz3ZSI2W5Bd

One of the most important challenges the Pentagon has faced is the development of long range precision anti-ship and land-attack missiles, as well as command networks managing them, by China and America's other potential rivals.

"For decades, US policymakers and commanders have assumed that they would have access to bases on the periphery of Eurasia and that those bases and naval task forces would be largely free to project power at will," Robert Haddick emphasized, bemoaning the fact that such an ambitious task has yet to be accomplished.

The former US Marine Corps officer noted that "breaking through institutional barriers" to much anticipated reform of the American armed forces will require the next president of the United States to work closely with Congressional and Pentagon officials.

The American policymakers should truly understand that the 21th century creates the need for new defense capabilities, the expert stressed.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/analysis/20150410/1020735305.html#ixzz3ZSI6gFrB

The core problem here is, weapon making is the way to increase national defense or to fill the moneypocket of Wall Street Oligarchs ?

Whether wars are made for the interest of the American nation, or for the benefit of billionaires behind the White House ?

By understanding these issues, we can understand the current situation of U.S. army and weapons.

higurashihougi wrote:The core problem here is, weapon making is the way to increase national defense or to fill the moneypocket of Wall Street Oligarchs ?

Whether wars are made for the interest of the American nation, or for the benefit of billionaires behind the White House ?

By understanding these issues, we can understand the current situation of U.S. army and weapons.

In my view, if a conflict -I don't hope- starts now, if a think is sure, America will be K.O. The criminal american war machine is a giant blind, deaf, completly inefective, and unable to win. I don't despise them. It is an objective view. We've seen this during Korea, in order to push back chinese, US military asked help from the world wide. In Vietnam, if soviets delivered the adequate weaponneiries, the war might last only few years. But Moscow refused to deliver them because they feared chineses, and they feared US could use atomic weapons.
In 1991 against Iraq, they won because at first France, Germany exposed all secrets of Iraqi air defense and iraqi fighters. In 1999, Russia gave up Serbia, and refused to help their slavish brothers. Moreover, US had all secrets of serbian weapons, unable to fly their aircrafts.

Nowadays, it is completly different, America is going toward a disaster worst than Dien Bien Phu a nightmare for frencheese army, or Singapur for the british army. If a things are sure F-22, and even less F-35 could match Mig-35, SU-35 or J-10, J-11, J-15, and J-16. No use to tell more about F-15, F-16, or F-18. The only western aircrafts that could match chinese, and russian air force are Rafale, Typhoon, and Grippen.

nemrod wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:The core problem here is, weapon making is the way to increase national defense or to fill the moneypocket of Wall Street Oligarchs ?

Whether wars are made for the interest of the American nation, or for the benefit of billionaires behind the White House ?

By understanding these issues, we can understand the current situation of U.S. army and weapons.

In my view, if a conflict -I don't hope- starts now, if a think is sure, America will be K.O. The criminal american war machine is a giant blind, deaf, completly inefective, and unable to win. I don't despise them. It is an objective view. We've seen this during Korea, in order to push back chinese, US military asked help from the world wide. In Vietnam, if soviets delivered the adequate weaponneiries, the war might last only few years. But Moscow refused to deliver them because they feared chineses, and they feared US could use atomic weapons.
In 1991 against Iraq, they won because at first France, Germany exposed all secrets of Iraqi air defense and iraqi fighters. In 1999, Russia gave up Serbia, and refused to help their slavish brothers. Moreover, US had all secrets of serbian weapons, unable to fly their aircrafts.

Nowadays, it is completly different, America is going toward a disaster worst than Dien Bien Phu a nightmare for frencheese army, or Singapur for the british army. If a things are sure F-22, and even less F-35 could match Mig-35, SU-35 or J-10, J-11, J-15, and J-16. No use to tell more about F-15, F-16, or F-18. The only western aircrafts that could match chinese, and russian air force are Rafale, Typhoon, and Grippen.

I wonder what opinion has airbornewolf about all this who has fighting experience with the americans.

F-22 is a nice plane .

The original of the text :


http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-military-dangerously-obsolete-12598

America's Military Is Dangerously Obsolete



"The Pentagon’s unchanging force structure is simultaneously wasteful and miserly."
Robert Haddick

April 10, 2015
inShare4
Printer-friendly version

In a speech on February 18 to the Chicago Council on Global Affairs, likely presidential candidate Jeb Bush declared “the next president should launch a strategic review of our military strategy so that we meet 21st century needs with a 21st century defense capability. Then we should fund that strategy.”

We should expect virtually all of the forthcoming U.S. presidential candidates to make a similar declaration. Come January 2017 there will almost certainly be a new leadership team at the Pentagon that will want to implement its views on defense strategy.

A new start after the election will also raise hopes for a resolution to Washington’s budget war, which Bush also called for in his speech.

Bush’s call for “a 21st century defense capability” implies he doesn’t believe the United States currently has such a force. Supporting Bush’s assertion is a force structure that, in spite of dramatic changes in technology and the geostrategic situation, has been largely frozen for nearly two decades.

The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review’s lists the “objective force,” the planned combat force for 2019. It is remarkable how similar this force is to the force structure from 2001 (found in the 2001 QDR). Active duty ground combat forces are virtually identical: ten U.S. Army combat divisions, plus three Marine Corps divisions and aircraft wings in 2001 and 2019. There are also few changes for the Navy over this long interval: one less aircraft carrier in 2019; 51 attack submarines in 2019, down from 56 in 2001; and 92 cruisers and destroyers, an increase from 81 in 2001. The most notable change for the Navy is the steep reduction in amphibious ships, from 41 in 2001 to 31 in 2019. Active duty Air Force fighter squadrons were also cut from 46 in 2001 to 26 in 2019, while combat-coded bombers were trimmed from 112 to 96.

During this 18-year span the Pentagon will increase missile defense and special operations capacity and stand up a significant number of cyber warfare units. These are important adaptations but constitute only a small fraction of the Pentagon’s total budget. Beyond these adjustments and the notable drawdown in the Air Force’s tactical fighter squadrons and the Navy’s amphibious shipping for the Marine Corps, it is remarkable how little else will change between 2019 and the post-Cold War, pre-9/11 force from eighteen years earlier.

One could scan the history of the U.S. military over the past century and struggle to find other cases of virtually matching force structures over two-decade spans. And for good reasons. New military technologies, along with rising and vanquished challengers, alter the strategic landscape, creating the need for innovation, adaptation, and a reallocation of defense resources.



The span between 2001 and 2019 will not lack for profound strategic changes. The most important challenge to the design of U.S. military forces and their long-standing operational concepts is the rapid proliferation of long range precision anti-ship and land-attack missiles and the sensors and command networks directing them.

This development, most notably exploited by China but also by other potential adversaries, is undermining the central assumptions behind the fundamental design of U.S. expeditionary forces and their plans for employment. For decades, U.S. policymakers and commanders have assumed that they would have access to bases on the periphery of Eurasia and that those bases and naval task forces would be largely free to project power at will. The curtain is falling on that era, a watershed development that has yet to register with the Pentagon’s force structure or plans.

The period has also witnessed the rapid rise of well-armed and organized non-state actors, both those with political objectives (such as al Qaeda and ISIS) and those strictly commercial yet violent transnational criminal organizations whose capacity for subversion can in many ways be even more threatening to state authority. We have learned from recent experience that U.S. conventional military forces struggle to be suitable and sustainable matchups against these aggressors.

Russia’s employment of hybrid warfare in Eastern Europe is similarly flummoxing policymakers and military planners, another example of a smart adversary exploiting the design problems and operational limitations of legacy conventional forces and concepts.

It is increasingly difficult to argue that the unchanging U.S. force structure over this two-decade period of rapid change is a smart “all-weather” portfolio of capabilities, well-suited for the challenges of both 2001 and 2019. Instead, adversary adaptations have undercut the value of significant portions of the U.S. force structure.

The unchanging force structure has resulted in expensive overstocking in many assets that potential adversaries, using tools such as irregular warfare or precision missiles, will be able to counter, reducing or negating their battlefield utility and deterrence value. Meanwhile, the quantities of other force structure elements, such as submarines, long-range airpower, special operations forces, and Marine Corps crisis response units, will fall well short of the demands made by regional commanders, especially if multiple contingencies break out. The Pentagon’s unchanging force structure is simultaneously wasteful and miserly, undercutting deterrence and increasing strategic risk.

The Office of the Secretary of Defense and the Joint Staff at the Pentagon have elaborate force structure planning processes. But in spite of this army of smart and experienced strategists, numerous institutional barriers to reform have frozen resource adaptation.

Some defense analysts have hoped that the Pentagon’s budget crunch would force creativity and innovation as it did during the two decades before World War II. That austere period saw the U.S. Army divert substantial resources from its traditional ground troops to airpower and especially strategic bombers, then a controversial concept. The Navy took funds that could have gone to the battleship “gun club” and spent it instead on aircraft carriers and aviation, submarines, and Marine Corps amphibious experimentation. When the U.S. entered World War II it had the doctrine, training, and operational concepts in place to dominate each of these recently emerging fields.

The lack of a vigorous adaptive response today was enough to cause recent Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and his deputy Robert Work to launch the Defense Innovation Initiative, with an aim of energizing the Pentagon’s adaptive technology, wargaming, and personnel policies.


Still, we have yet to see the major adaptive reforms and resource reallocations that were more common in the past. Breaking through institutional barriers to reform will require the next president to personally attend to the problem and to work with Congressional leaders and senior Pentagon officials to achieve reform. The president will also need to find military leaders who are committed to providing the most well-adapted forces to joint force commanders, regardless of which service, platform, or concept supplies the forces and needed capabilities. Effective adaptation will require a rigorous defense strategy process that questions previously unexamined assumptions and insists on operational concepts suited for the future, not the past. Only then will policymakers truly understand the 21st century defense capability they need to acquire. The Pentagon has adapted before and can do so again.

Robert Haddick is a former U.S. Marine Corps officer and an independent contractor at U.S. Special Operations Command. He writes here in a personal capacity. He wrote “Fire on the Water: China, America, and the Future of the Pacific,” published by Naval Institute Press.

Image: U.S. Air Force Flickr.

b-b-but muh black projects, muh darpa, muh skunk werks...

Hannibal Barca wrote:

nemrod wrote:

higurashihougi wrote:The core problem here is, weapon making is the way to increase national defense or to fill the moneypocket of Wall Street Oligarchs ?

Whether wars are made for the interest of the American nation, or for the benefit of billionaires behind the White House ?

By understanding these issues, we can understand the current situation of U.S. army and weapons.

In my view, if a conflict -I don't hope- starts now, if a think is sure, America will be K.O. The criminal american war machine is a giant blind, deaf, completly inefective, and unable to win. I don't despise them. It is an objective view. We've seen this during Korea, in order to push back chinese, US military asked help from the world wide. In Vietnam, if soviets delivered the adequate weaponneiries, the war might last only few years. But Moscow refused to deliver them because they feared chineses, and they feared US could use atomic weapons.
In 1991 against Iraq, they won because at first France, Germany exposed all secrets of Iraqi air defense and iraqi fighters. In 1999, Russia gave up Serbia, and refused to help their slavish brothers. Moreover, US had all secrets of serbian weapons, unable to fly their aircrafts.

Nowadays, it is completly different, America is going toward a disaster worst than Dien Bien Phu a nightmare for frencheese army, or Singapur for the british army. If a things are sure F-22, and even less F-35 could match Mig-35, SU-35 or J-10, J-11, J-15, and J-16. No use to tell more about F-15, F-16, or F-18. The only western aircrafts that could match chinese, and russian air force are Rafale, Typhoon, and Grippen.

I wonder what opinion has airbornewolf about all this who has fighting experience with the americans.

there is so much to talk about. so many factors that work against the U.S or in extension the NATO warmachine. but since the topic is about U.S technology against the Chinese i can point out a few things in U.S/NATO weapon developments that indeed suggests its about making the millitary industrial complex richer while delivering overpriced inferior platforms in comparison to their "eastern" counterparts. to make the reply here easier im keeping out the EU weapon manufacturers, while EU politicians dance to Washington's tune EU arms industry's are in fierce competition to that of the U.S and even actively try to undermine U.S influence in "their" arms industry.

for example, HK (Heckler and Koch) got an government order to develop an new machinegun based on 5.56MM. the HK4. HK's technicians advised the german government its round peformance was inferior to that of the 7.62MM proven performance. and HK could easily made it work with the specified requirements. HK felth this project was under their capability's in weapon design and suspected U.S lobbying to make the german millitary dependant on U.S ammo as used in the belt-fed M-249. HK started the HK4 project as requested by the german government. but, initiated the MG5 project in parallel to the MG4. fully funded by HK itself. the HK 5 adapted the 7.62 MM round with the best features of the MG3.


anyway, back to the topic. even when keeping it to the U.S alone i do not even know where to start, but ill glance over the U.S airforce capability. the U.S airforce lost any sort of capability to even start to fight an conventional war. in Afghanistan American pilots where so unoccupied they used stimulants to keep flying their sorties. this resulted in some nasty friendly fire incidents. including an A-10 strafing an English column. i was there at the time and while i got no love for the U.S now, it really was horrible for both that A-10 pilot and the english troops on the ground. the guy had been flying for 72 hours straight on these "mental stimulants" with just quick reloads on the ground before flying another sortie in the Helmand Province. and he mistook the collumn for jeeps of Taliban that where nearby.  but still, it illustrates the serious pilot shortage the U.S has at least since 2006 if you force your own pilots into such drastic situations.

also, years of warfare in harsh conditions such as Iraq/Afghanistan made both NATO and the U.S burn trough their cold-war stockpiles of ammunition and spare parts. speaking out of personal experience more than once i returned back to base after intense firefight's where we shot almost all weapon systems empty. from small calibre to large vehicle weapons. at some point in 2009 weapon manufacturer's had trouble keeping up with demands even. and all that fine dust, harsh terrain and weather conditions literally grind down the mechanical parts of the vehicles both ground and air at an rate you wouldnt believe. that desert dust is like throwing sandpaper into your engine block, and it really gets EVERYWHERE. including your underpants. NATO simply put has no more stockpiles left, in Libya they resorted to concrete training bombs as they ran out of real bombs. dont get me wrong, the kenetic velocity of such an concrete bomb almost has the same effect of an real one. but in airforce terms its pretty much close to start throwing the kitchen sink at the enemy.

weaponry, air to ground weapons seem to have gone the way of inbreeding with all negative associated effects. while their manufactorers claim it to be all "next gen" and "high tech" i have rarely seen it work.  JDAM is something everyone heard off and its really the biggest lemon i have ever witnessed. JDAM or Joint Direct Attack munition is basically strapping an TomTom (gps guidance)  to the nose of an dumb bomb, add some steering fins and thats it!. this weapon poses an bigger danger to own troops than it does to the enemy by the sheer ammount of failures and inaccuracy it has. an nice documentary that illustrates this is the documentary added. trust me, those SF and pilots DID program the bomb correctly. the technology is just beyond crap. http://www.myvideo.ge/?video_id=1614767
also, the "newest" weapons utilizing self-guidance and new recognition methods proved not perfect either. the only weapons that proved reliable where cold-war era weapons such as the Paveway series. sure, the weapons of that time require lazing in most cases. but they do not veer off suddenly unintended because someone is keeping direct or indirect control over the launched weapon. i really liked the Paveway's. it was as safe to handle as an Forward Air Controller and knowing it would go for the damn location you pointed it on.

about AA combat, i cant say much. altough i know from one pilot involved in the Kosovo war about when they took off to intercept the serbian migs about "slavic mentality" saying they will keep coming even if they know they will die. and that that fact scared him more than anything, he said when he heard afterward those migs barely could fly he has goosebumps all over. "imagine if they where fully operational?. fully armed?".  but he said even during the cold war it was a question of time anyway, for every Dutch/NATO fighter the Russians put 3 Mig's against it.
but what i do hear regularly is the importance of being able to engage in dogfights. the Dutch pilots are pretty pissed the F-35 can not even fire their main gun, referring to "the blunders with the F-4 in Vietnam". apparently, even in Vietnam then the americans where horny on guided AA missiles. but as they ran out those Migs kept coming and without an gun american F-4 pilots where unable to defend themselves. Dutch pilots in private talk about the F-35 is toilet paper to the upgraded versions of the MIG-29 and Sukhoi's.  not only the aircraft tough, i asked about the BUK-m1 to start off with and they already laughed at me. saying to just pull the ejection seat as that BUK will get you no matter what you will do. same goes for systems as the TOR or S-300. most Dutch pilots want an upgraded F-16 back with current technology. they compare the F-35 and F-22 as expensive luxury italian cars. that it looks nice in an show and peforms nice, but the costs and maintenance is astronomical and not anywhere near suitable for wartime conditions. even laughing about the sensitivity of the engines if they suck up some "minor" FOD (foreign oject debri).

i could go on and on, anyway any questions and ill try my best to answer. but NATO in the conventional sense is an paper tiger. it can not do anything anymore, it wasted all its ammo, manpower and equipment in its "expeditions" all over the world. all what is left now is simply window dressing, because behind that there is nothing left to back it up.

nemrod wrote:The only western aircrafts that could match chinese, and russian air force are Rafale, Typhoon, and Grippen.

I disagree. Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen are actually modified version of Ye-8. They have cylindrical hull delta-wing, and due to the fusing of wings with horizontal tail, the veritical tail is completely blocked in high AoA (unlike MiG-21, the horinzontal tails are in lower plane compared with the wings, and airflow can still contact with vertical tail).

Aerodynamic-wise, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen is even inferior to MiG-21, and cannot match the aerodynamic design of MiG-29, Su-27, F-15, F-22. Rafale even have outdated ram inlet, unlike MiG, Su and F already have electronic-controlled air intake. And even MiG-21 has conical air intake.

The Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen are good aircraft with reasonable but not outstanding aerodynamics, but generally very good electronics and systems.

They either have their engines too close together (Rafale and Typhoon) or only have one engine (Gripen) so they would not benefit from thrust vector control engines the way the MiG-29 and Su-27 designs do... where the widely spaced engines allow roll control with differential thrust vectoring... ie one engine nozzle up and one down can roll the aircraft left of right fairly rapidly on the MiG and the Flanker, but the Typhoon and Rafale with its engines mounted very close together would not generate such a roll force so effectively... meaning their benefit from TVC would be rather less effective... which is why they are not in such a hurry to develop such technology no doubt.

i felth the urge to rant a bit more on NATO's readiness in an war.

in another topic here about the USS cooke's thread where it got crippled by an DFRM attack i glanced over it. NATO's rediculous sensitivity to electronic warfare. ever since the end of the cold war around 1993 NATO's electronic warfare stopped developing. some EU nations still utilize FM radio's witch is limited to say at least. an FM vehicle radio gives you an 25 KM range at best. its extremely easy to jam, its that it can "jump" to an frequency that aircraft can hear otherwise i'd written it off as complete garbage. just for the record, NATO's BMS (Battlefield Management System) uses the same obsolete 1993's FM systems in its network. you have to be an idiot NATO officer to think the Russians and Chinese have not figured out how to patch in your 1993's network. i have no words to even discribe NATO linked their weapon systems into the BMS.  maybe for the better of world peace i guess. it would make any NATO-BRICS war definatly shorter.

also, incompetent leadership. while every army got their own examples of Darwinian geniuses among their ranks, none tops the U.S leadership. and this is again from personal experience, hence why it formed my opinions in majority about their incompetence. the U.S troops doing the actual ground work have literally zero initiative. its taught to them at boot camp. they do not think, they do not question, and thats exactly what they do to this day. in Afghanistan, one logistical buddy of mine was tasked to refuel the american generators on the american camp next door on an daily basis. one day, my buddy forgot his I.D and drove down the american camp. the same american gaurd that saw him come in the past three months for every freaking day refused to let my buddy in. even worse, he pointed his gun at him and ordered him to leave!. one thing that stands out with Dutch people is stubborness. so my friend said "okay, then fuck your generators". and went back to the dutch camp. Result?, the american camp's generator's ran out of fuel and had to be refueled, de-aired and re-started.

an example of Tactical genius on the americans. but with all respect tough i carried the coffins to the aircraft's of the dead guys that died of incompetent leadership by the asshole that was still alive. they where more like victims to me instead of viewing them as an bunch of rednecks from the south as i do most of them now. Afghanistan is divided in Regional Commands, and under that its devided in AO's. or area of operations. in 2008, some american "special forces" where called in to take care of "our" problem that we felth we could handle ourselves. Special forces being U.S army Rangers. it took two days before we had our first fight at our camp between Dutch and Americans while we had no problems before with our Aussie allies in 3 damn years, then the day after some Aussie went to their throats...
so, the Ranger's would go take care of some Taliban infested town, it really already went south in the preperation stage. while Aussie and Dutch officers brought in my opinion really good hard information to the table and honest, clear assessments this asshole redneck with an southern accent just waved it away with an second tought. "nothing we cant handle". we where talking about 40 ranger's against 120 taliban....armed with RPG's, .50 call Dushka's, fortified positions, Foreign mercenary's among them. i remember the Dutch Luitenant saying. "... we will be 6 kilometers from your position, we will be unable to reinforce you in the first 10 minutes". this american was so full of himself and treated both the Aussie and Dutch commander like children. "we will show you boy's how its done". who talks like that?. with 40 guys under him that trust him with his life?. and honestly when "we" guys told our commander's that they'd be massacred they just shrugged. "get more medical supplies, do not sacrifice yourself for them when the time comes, take enough gear to do the job ourself". we all knew already what was going to happen. it was the worst night of my life, some of us tried to tell those Ranger guys that the Plan was an massacre. they just laughed at us, saying "we where just cowards" and a lot of things else. some australian sargeant even snapped an punched an U.S sargeant in the gut screaming he would got his men killed.

next day it exactly happened as we feared it would, we had two extra AH-64's on T-5 on Tarin Kowt. the Dutch Airforce shared our concerns and placed our own dutch Apache's on emergency standby of five minutes while they where scheduled for maintenance. it was very special, as all air assets fighters and helicopter's alike are very tightly planned by Regional commands in Afghanistan mostly weeks in advance for operations.

the Dutch platoon i was part of took the western overwatch ,witch was this hill overlooking the town the Ranger's would go in. and the Aussies took with an Platoon the Eastern flank.  seeing people die is one thing, but knowing it in advance and seeing it happen is just an nightmare. the first styker got hit with an IED. sending its gunner out the hatch up into the sky and flipping it. the Aussie platoon commander was already requesting to advance to Contact to Command but got ordered to stand by and stick to our platoon. then the Duskha's got in play and we saw Tracer after Tracer plow trough that U.S collumn. i heard trough our channels the Apache Pilots where already running to their choppers and ground crew removing safety's out of the weapon's.  command saying they'd be there within 5 minutes. while the U.S ranger's should just have retreated and kept behind as much cover as possible they even deployed!. in open ground!. who does that when Dushka's are firing at you!?. the effect of an .50 call to an human body is not pretty, i saw two guys just torn appart by these things. one's leg flew off by an ricochet and another went straight trough this guy's two plates in his vest.  Command ordered us to advance to vehicle weapon range of the town to cover the americans. but to hold in support of our gunships before advancing in enemy weapon range, notifying us of two refueling french Rafale's that be tasked in supporting Prio-1 medevac.  most of you know my position to America and its foreign policy. but when people do end up in an meat grinder in front of you you just want to get them out. guys torn appart, other guys trying to pull them to safety, getting their own limbs blown off in the process. unless its an terrorist you do not wish such an scenario to anyone. even worse, when everyone saw it coming except the arrogant assholes getting themselves killed.  but these where just kids, 20 year old sargeants...what should one expect of wisdom and experience?.

from the 40 rangers only 7 where not injured, there where 13 dead already when the Dutch and Aussies assaulted the Town ourselves with Apache air cover. an additional 7 died while Medevaced and some "litter" as we describe injured but mobile. and get this, NO CASUALTIES among Dutch and Aussies. the PZH 2000 artillery got into emergency deployment and blew a Path with its 155 MM to the town for us to use free of I.E.D's. with all the dust and smoke it was  perfect concealed entry to the town. textook WW2 assault. Apache's made short work with their 30MM's and hellfire's of any fortified fighters.

i hold U.S airforce medics in high regard, yes..they indeed sport the stereotype "modern warfare" masks. but they are very realistic of the situation, got common sense and listen to every word you say. these guys are really heroes, they are not combat troops and are just out to save lives. ive seen an medevac blackhawk land under fire to get one of our own dutch injured guy  out. that chopper got hits, i never witnessed the damage but by the amount of tracer's going trough the air it just had to endured damage.  when seeing we had afghan people hiding in an ditch the medevac officer ran back. screamed at us to send the family to the chopper shouting in millitary jargon they would make a quick drop at our camp before returning to KAF that had the main surgery hospital of RC south. Staying on the ground is an dead zone for helicopters. i understand the response of their "video game masks in war" but i hope you take my word for it these guys are the real deal. they risk their own lives to safe other's.

back to the point of why americans cant win against Russia or China.

the aftermath, 23 dead in total. 3 of those died afterward in the hospital. its so infuriating to carry an chest with an 19 year old's body parts that in every sense, "died for nothing". and all because of incompetent leadership. and its not isolated this happens on an massive scale within the U.S command. its an combination of Arrogance, Ignorance, and just plain sheer incompetence. no matter if you pick an sargeant or general they all think they have "god mode" enabled in war.

i wish i could say it was an isolated incident, but somehow the U.S military manages to make this policy.

Please continue Airborne your stories are deeply intriguing.

I know a guy at work who served in Bosnia also Dutch forces, from what he told me he was mostly on guard duty, but i didn't pry to deep gonna ask him some more question next week, but i was more interested in the march to Pristina/Slatina AirBase sadly he was not part of that mission.

AlfaT8 wrote:Please continue Airborne your stories are deeply intriguing.

I know a guy at work who served in Bosnia also Dutch forces, from what he told me he was mostly on guard duty, but i didn't pry to deep gonna ask him some more question next week, but i was more interested in the march to Pristina/Slatina AirBase  sadly he was not part of that mission.

in ten years of infantry service you can imagine i have some stories and especially frustrations relating to the "exceptional" nation commanding NATO. but really, to this day i can look at myself in the mirror and tell myself i still believe in the morals and value's i feel is more important. it cost me several promotions but i will never sell my soul or even worse... shove the lives of my "allies" or civilians that are innocent in it all under the carpet just for sake's of "political correctness". i wish i could have said i "disliked" americans, it would have sounded better as "hating". but honestly today i'd describe my feelings as exactly that. as "hating" them.

sacrificing local populations of the country's they fight in, using allies as vassal troops and even their own combat forces as "expendable". for the politicians its easy, but im an human being. and when some injured afghan kid comes up to you bleeding everywhere, from nose and ears because of blast injuries. clothes torn off of him by the american bombing of his town crying to us to get his sister out of the rubble. while she was already dead, crushed by an piece of rubble. then some mother rushing to us with her dead 1 year old infant covered in the dust of their destroyed home, hysterically asking us to do something.

for what?. an B-1 unloading its remaining cache because it needs to return to its airfield in saudi-arabia empty? i never heard any request by our FAC on the RC south air support channel in the first place for air support.  that bomber propably just got re-assigned to drop its remaining ordnance there because the U.S amateur green berrets could not just man up and do the job themselves. wasting around 30 people in the process and letting their EU vassals to collect the bodyparts afterwards.


we radio'd for medevac, but the americans said "no medevac available for prio 4 casualties" as they labeled local afhan populations. and the americans had full authority over medevac assets in Afghanistan. so yes, while "we" airborne where desperately pulling people out of the rubble that where injured. the americans refused to send medevac birds. the only ones that came where our own Dutch Cougar's choppers that where not medevac birds but troop transport choppers.

aftermath?. this american lowlife officer came to the town to just pay off the debts. 300 dollars for an afghan life?. because that was its all worth apparently. the yanks did not even pay for the damn water well they destroyed.  us Dutch troops collected money ourselves on Base in an charity project for an new water well. you know its bad when even the Taliban says: "the dutch are not as bad as the americans". witch also translated to battlefield conditions as Taliban preferred american targets over Dutch convoy's if they could. "we" EU troops could have so much more for the Afghan people if only our top millitary commanders and politicians where honest about what was really going on.

its just one example why i feel the  U.S needs to be put on an F***ing chain like an rabid animal for what they do to people over the world. and within the EU NATO forces i am not alone in sharing that sentiment. its 2015, colonial times are over. im better than this, and so are a lot of other EU troops.

im seriously getting off topic tough my apologies to others reading this.

@ Alfat8, your guy might not be to talkative about Bosnia. things did not went too well for dutch troops there. its known among dutch troops as the "fall of srebrenica". and the resulting massacre as associated UN troops could not guarantee safety to the refugees as events unfolded.

GarryB wrote:The Rafale, Typhoon, and Gripen are good aircraft with reasonable but not outstanding aerodynamics, but generally very good electronics and systems.

They either have their engines too close together (Rafale and Typhoon) or only have one engine (Gripen) so they would not benefit from thrust vector control engines the way the MiG-29 and Su-27 designs do... where the widely spaced engines allow roll control with differential thrust vectoring... ie one engine nozzle up and one down can roll the aircraft left of right fairly rapidly on the MiG and the Flanker, but the Typhoon and Rafale with its engines mounted very close together would not generate such a roll force so effectively... meaning their benefit from TVC would be rather less effective... which is why they are not in such a hurry to develop such technology no doubt.

The problem here is eurocanard vertical tail is virtually blocked by the hull and wing in high AoA so I don't think TVC can help much.

The US and USSR only adapt the triangle-shaped airplane (Mirage, Draken, eurocanards,...)  in bomber/transporter/reconnaissance like Sukhoi T-4, Valkyrie, Blackbirds, and all theses were either experimental or limitedly used. The triangle shape facilitate the straight foward movement and is effective if the aircraft desires high maximum speed, long range, and simple trajectory.

But the triangle shape sacrifices everything for foward movement, has low AoA, therefore the aircraft has very low maneuverability which is very critical for fighter and air domination.

Eurojets after WW2 like Mirage, Draken, eurocanards use triangle shape therefore, aerodynamically, they are not suitable for fighter role. Their aerodynamic shape are even more terrible than MiG-21 (at least MiG-21 vertical tail is not blocked in high AoA, air flow can still go through the space between horizontal tails and wings to approach vertical tail). Considering avionics and weapon system, of course eurocanards are more modern, but the aerodynamic design is damn pathetic.

USSR and US abandoned triangle shape long ago and gradually switched to broad hull, durable wings and 2 vertical tails, like in MiG-25/31/29/35, Su-27...37, F-14/15/22/35.

It is a diplomatic statement, the reality US are well aware that their only superiority is in fact the number. The russian fighters bombers are largely able to achieve a superiority against US. An ex-Head of the US Air Force General was aked wether he really believes claims he makes about F22, his answer was

I express opinions about F22 that I am told to express.
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/tag/f-22/

Isn't clear ?
US knows very well that the new generation of Mig-29, and SU-27 are largelly ahead of all US hardware nowadays.


http://presstv.com/Detail/2015/05/26/412872/US-Russia-China-air-power

General says Russia, China air power will be better than US in future

Head of the US Air Force Gen. Mark Welsh has warned about the rising air power of Russia and China, saying the two countries’ gap with the US military has closed.

“China and Russia are two good examples of countries who will be fielding capability in the next three to five years; if they stay on track, that is better than what we currently have in many areas,” Welsh told Fox News on Monday.

“Fighter aircraft in the next three to five years that have more capability than what we currently have sitting on the ramp. The F-35 will stay a generation ahead of them. F-22 will, too. Everything else we have will not stay ahead. The gap has closed,” he added.

The general made the comments during a three-day visit to Langley Air Force Base in Virginia.

Welsh also said dozens of countries around the world would use Russian and Chinese top-end fighters in the future.

American officials have expressed their concerns about the military power of China and Russia during the past years.


Gen. Mark Welsh



This is while figures compiled by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute showed that the United States spends more on its military than the next seven top-spending countries combined.

The US spends nearly three times as much as China and its military budget is more than seven times as much as Russia.

Washington’s relations have been icy with China and Russia over Beijing’s construction projects in the South China Sea and the Ukraine crisis respectively.

The US accuses China of undergoing a massive “land reclamation” program in the Spratly archipelago of the South China Sea, and says China’s territorial claims of the man-made islands could further militarize the region.

A Chinese state-owned newspaper warned Monday a war between the two superpowers is “inevitable” unless Washington stops demanding Beijing halt its construction projects.

“If the United States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea,” The Global Times, an influential newspaper owned by the ruling Communist Party’s official newspaper the People’s Daily, said in an editorial.

“The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as ‘friction’,” it warned.

im seriously getting off topic tough Off Topic my apologies to others reading this.

No, you are not off topic... you can read the specs from marketing departments and glossy magazines all day but actual combat experience with these systems really shows their actual worth.

The problem here is eurocanard vertical tail is virtually blocked by the hull and wing in high AoA so I don't think TVC can help much.

The tail surface is a conventional control surface so in normal forward flight it is critical to the safe piloting of the aircraft... with TVC however the moving bits like the horizontal tail and ailerons and other bits and pieces become irrelevant as there is no longer any air flowing over them they no longer function.

In an aircraft without TVC that is called a stall and is to be avoided at all cost, but with an aircraft with TVC you can maintain direction using differential thrust on the engines so you can keep pointing your nose where you want.

But the triangle shape sacrifices everything for foward movement, has low AoA, therefore the aircraft has very low maneuverability which is very critical for fighter and air domination.

TVC renders aerodynamic control surfaces less relevant...

Deltas... or triangle wings allowed fairly high wing sweep but with decent wing area.

Not perfect but a viable alternative to swing wing wanting mach 2 performance from a reasonable length air strip.

Modern designs like the MiG-29 and Su-27 mean there is no need for a severe wing sweep yet can still operate from short air strips because of fuselage lift.

Russia, China Air Military Influence to Exceed US in Future

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150526/1022570772.html


I've got some solid information which will certainly rock this thread regarding usa conventional military.

max steel wrote: Russia, China Air Military Influence to Exceed US in Future

http://sputniknews.com/military/20150526/1022570772.html


I've got some solid information which will certainly rock this thread regarding usa conventional military.

In fact we did not know, but the US decline started at the beginning of 2000's. Their F-15, F-16, F-18's fleet has been becoming to be aged. And they were not sure that the F-22 could give to US the definitive supremacy. The russian's intelligent response was to develop Mig-29, and SU-27 familly, as Russia in that time lacked of funds. On the other side, America started a ruinous ambitious program with their F-35, in the same time they forgot the disastrous F-4 Phantom, and F-105 Thunderchief's experience. As we've discussed previously, neither F-15, F-16, F18, or F-22 won't be able to provide US supremacy against Russia, or China, but with their numeric advantage they could attack less developped countries like Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Nicaragua, or Algeria. If Russia decides to provide SU-35, and Mig-35 to these countries, America's empire will implode.

I decided to place this here, cause it brings some interesting points in the Quantity vs Quality debate.

AlfaT8 wrote:I decided to place this here, cause it brings some interesting points in the Quantity vs Quality debate.

Thx very much AlfaT8.
It is a very interresting and usefull video, without having any knowledges neither about Lanchester's laws, or battle of France, anyone could guessed it, just by observing the build up, and compare between westerners and others. The figures gave me the responses several time ago, but I ignored for France Battle's case. In Vietnam, US outnumbered North Vietnam army with 10:1 ratio. Iraq wars in 1991, and 2003 there was the same ratio. Serbia's war it was a similar ratio. During the six days there was the same situation-as it was a surprise attack-. This is the reason now, as Russia and China rearmed in a serious way, , never US or Nato will be able to dictate anything to the world. Indeed it is a matter of mathematic, strategy, and mobility, other than quality that was very rarely in american side.
Thx Alfa, if you have more usefull videos like that, could you post them please.

You Can't Win Them All: This Time US May Lose New Arms Race

The United States may lose a new arms race in today's multi-polar world, prominent US writer and publicist David A. Andelman says, stating that Washington is currently facing new multinational, multidimensional threats.

According to prominent American writer and publicist David A. Andelman, Washington is facing a new arms race, potentially far more threatening than during the Cold War.

"All that is history. But not the arms race. It's still going on, though in a vastly different, expanded and far more expensive format that's potentially even more threatening. And this time we may be losing," the writer stressed.


Mr. Andelman pointed out that this year Moscow demonstrated "three new, utterly modern armored vehicles" during its May 9 Victory Day parade. Russia is seeking to replenish its military arsenal that now includes new MIG-35 multirole fighters, advanced Pantsir mobile artillery weapon systems, Bora-class guided missile hovercrafts and stealth submarines.

"In all, we are looking at a potent 845,000 troops, 22,550 tanks, and 1,399 combat aircraft, with 70% of Russian equipment defined as "modern" in the next five years," the publicist underscored.


Meanwhile, China is modernizing its People's Liberation Army at a steady pace. China's defense expenditures now amount "for more than a third" of all military spending in Asia. Furthermore, Beijing has already launched its first aircraft carrier Liaoning, a renovated 302-meter former Soviet vessel, and is currently building a second one, which is expected to be far more advanced.

According to the writer, China's military spending last year amounted to $216 billion, while Russia had spent only $84.5 billion. In contrast, the United States annually pours more than $600 billion in its military sector.

However, Mr. Andelman remarked that "such numbers don't tell the full story."

"Today's new arms race is not just with Russia, but an integral part of today's multipolar world. And certainly it's more expensive, in part because of the multinational, multidimensional threats… At the same time, we must not be distracted from our greatest, potentially existential, threats: terrorism and its special warfare requirements, and the cyber arms race," he stressed, insisting that China and Russia are matching the US here "step for step."


The author believes that Washington should spend more if it wants to come out on top, slamming the Senate for voting down an essential appropriations bill, after it approved a $600 billion defense budget.

At the same time Mr. Andelman pointed to the Pentagon's decision to supply heavy offensive weapons to the Baltic states and Poland, "all NATO members directly on Russia's frontiers."


"None of this should suggest that any armed conflict is imminent. But it's quite clear that on multiple fronts this time, we're in a new arms race, with no clear winner," he highlighted.

http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150627/1023929668.html#ixzz3eIyWr9kf

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/politics/20150627/1023929668.html#ixzz3eIyLhgve

Brand New Russian, Chinese Hypersonic Weapons Unnerve US

High-ranking US military officials acknowledged that highly maneuverable, ultra-fast and elusive hypersonic arms Russia and China are developing pose a strategic threat to the United States, who lacks hypersonics at the moment, national security expert Bill Gertz said.

"Nuclear and non-nuclear nations are prepared to employ cyber, counter-space, and asymmetric capabilities as options for achieving their objectives during crisis and conflict, and new technologies such as hypersonic glide vehicles are being developed, complicating our sensing and defensive approaches," Gertz quoted Admiral Cecil D. Haney, commander of the US Strategic Command (Stratcom), as saying.

Long-range precision strike weapons capable of accelerating beyond the speed of Mach 5 are considered to be hypersonic. What makes them so deadly is the unpredictability of their trajectory. They are virtually impossible to intercept by conventional missile defense systems.

Since hypersonic weapons have not entered service in any country on the planet yet, they remain "something that concerns us and may be an area of discussion in the future," Air Force Lt. Gen. James Kowalski said.

In June, military experts said that Russia was test-launching a new hypersonic attack aircraft (Yu-71) that could carry nuclear warheads and penetrate missile defense systems. The country is reportedly developing several hypersonic weapons systems, including air- and sea-launched missiles.

According to some sources, PAK DA, Russia's brand new fifth generation long-range bombers currently in development, could be equipped with hypersonic weapons.

China has reportedly conducted four tests of its hypersonic glider vehicle (HGV), dubbed by the Pentagon WU-14. The weapon could deliver either conventional or nuclear warheads and is reported to be capable of neutralizing the US anti-missile shield. It has a maximum speed of Mach 10 (around 7,680 miles per hour).

The United States is working on a similar device, known as the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (AHW) as a part of its Prompt Global Strike program, which is not covered by the 2010 New START Treaty with Russia. In late 2014, a hypersonic weapon the US was testing exploded several seconds after the launch.

Read more: http://sputniknews.com/military/20150731/1025260823.html#ixzz3hVtczQM3