"In the past we would have a British army division working alongside an American division."Now it might be a British brigade inside an American division, or even a British battalion inside an American brigade.Is that fair?
How big should a nation's military be? We always talk about commitments to NATO but what exactly is NATO's role? If its to stand up to the Soviet Union then its time has passed. If its to stand up to Russia then can we really complain about our allies defense spending? Is it for out of area missions in the Middle East or the Pacific?
Bringing this thinking home....what if the US was just focused on defending its borders. What would be the appropriate size force? Should we really be focused on fighting two regional wars at the same time? Why? What's in it for us? If we do size our forces that way, aren't we actually doing what we complain about---subsidizing the defense of others?
I don't know but before we complain about the size of other nations forces perhaps we need to figure out why we're sized the way we are.
My opinion is your army should be 100% of your population. If you can't be arsed to fight for your country, you deserve to be stateless. The problem comes when your politicians want to start sending people off to far, far away hellholes for the lutz, though if your politician was a soldier too, you could send him in the first batch. Might make him a little less eager.
ReplyDeleteI am looking forwards to the reactions here, expecting them to be very informative!
ReplyDeleteMy first answer: I do not know, but in many cases bigger then they are now in Europe....
....or alternatively.. we need more European cooperation on defense, instead of each country trying to maintain a full spectrum military. Some of that certainly is hapening, The Dutch Marines are for a large part integrated in the British ones and together they form a stronger force then the two separate added up.
There also is a lot of cooperation with Germany and Belgium.
So choose: pay up or give up some national sovereignty.
The US needs to realize the consequences of choices also. Focusing only on defending America's borders certainly is a valid and cheaper choice, that requires a lot less carriers and such....
... but realize intervening abroad also furthers American interests. Retreating from lets say the Middle East or Asia will open the door for others to step in. These others will unavoidably also partly control the resources and politics over there.
So choose: pay up or give up some of your power.
Unfortunately true on the aviation part. I don't see anything wrong with having LCUs on davits, they look fine, unless you are cutting costs like the New Zealander's Canterbury.
ReplyDeleteIf you looked at the Singaporean's Endurance, it has 6 (3 on each side) + 2-4 in the well deck. That's 10 LCUs (or rather FCUs for them), each capable of taking a Stryker. That's a fairly decent lift at a nice speed.
And one thing I really like about those sneaky bastard Singaporeans? They lowball their capabilities though you have to look closer to find out. Their "LST" is 6,500 tons. Totally empty. The Thais reported theirs as 7,600 tons.
Wiki only tells you 2 LCP + 4 LCU, but look at the locations listed, 4 on davits, 2 in well deck. So why are there 6 davits for 4 boats? Because there are 2 extra boats and the well deck is only half utilized.
Sneaky bastards.
They sure won the media war! :)
ReplyDeleteEXTREMELY WELL SAID!!!!
ReplyDeletethey're going to take us as being weak....in a region where weakness is frowned upon and only the strong are respected.
ReplyDeletei really don't know. whatever it once was its no longer the case. quite honestly i'm ready to follow the Russian system and simply number our ships.
ReplyDeleteI'm thinking Switzerland.
ReplyDeleteExactly!
ReplyDeleteThey should expand the National Guard and reserve
ReplyDeleteWow, euromaidan. Look where Euromaidan took Ukraine and tnink twice about all their information. They still "fighting" the millions of russian soldiers near Donestk, already destroyed all the Special Forces and etc.
ReplyDelete>interviewed Siberian separatists inspired by the ones in East Ukraine,
that want independance from Russia, since all the oil and gas is
theirs.. How ironic..
Oh, it is that ten students, who were already "teached" by FSB? How ironic. They want independance only in the their blog.
>applaud fighting the Chechens.. funny...
I see you havent seen war.
In the first war Chechens simply bought all the intel about russian forces - and planned their strikes cleverly. When russian army finally managed to caught them - politicians signed a humiliating peace. It was a shock for an army.
When chechen got their independance - they began raiding nearby regions - stopping trains, kidnapping, etc.I'm not mentioning weapon and narcotic traffic. It was a damn Mordor, which finally went to full scale attack on Dagestan, region of Russia. At this point Putin started to beat the hell out of him. Complete victory has been achived years later.
>Only in his third term did Putin bring the hammer down.
Because times has changed. Remember who attacked russian peacemakers? And who trained him? And who was blamed by West in that incident?
I agree with Dracae about Europe they either need to pay up or give up some sovereignty maybe even go with Germany's plan to create one European Army. Individually the European countries are relatively weak however together they could be a military superpower. I would not say that they necessarily need to expand their individual militaries though.
ReplyDeleteFor the US. I would say a regular Army of 10 divisions each having 4 brigade combat teams, 1 aviation brigade, 1 fires brigade, 1 engineers brigade and 1 sustainment brigade. Also I would propose 5 independent combat brigades for over seas stationing in Europe and Asia. Massive Expansion of the National Guard with 18 divisions with a similar organization as the regular divisions. I would propose something for the Army something like the Marine Corps individual ready reserve with 27 division headquarters on standby to be filled with the IRR manpower only in the case of full emergency wartime mobilization. Air Force and Navy are fine with their current size. I would propose adding one more expeditionary force to the Marines
The Purpose of the Army and Air Force should primarily be to defend the borders of the United States. It should be the role of the Marine Corps and the Navy to advance the international interests of the United States, to be the fire brigade going to where the crisis is and dealing with the crisis.
I don't believe the country requires a standing army. In fact, the Constitution suggests a standing navy but not army. The U.S. because of its geography and its neighbors is not threatened on land, and the presence of a large army has only led to misbegotten international adventures which served no purpose except to enrich war profiteers.
ReplyDeleteAnd for those who are not American?
ReplyDeletethat's almost a no brainer but the cost will get in the way. how big do you want to expand it? how about the Coast Guard. its too small for the missions it gets so how much bigger for it? the Navy? the USAF?
ReplyDeleteok, so you're a traditionalist. so i assume you want to fight two major regional wars at the same time. why do you feel that is necessary? playing devils advocate.
ReplyDeleteThe height of the Cold War in the 80s saw the US Army with 18 active divisions and another 10 National Guard, USMC with 3 active and 1 reserve, NAVY with 16 carriers and over 500 ships, and AF with 24 fighter wings and 12 in reserve, over 200 bombers, and 1000 land based ICBMs. Just for some perspective.
ReplyDeleteConservative research group, The Heritgae Foundation suggests several options for today's security environment with the following standard being the largest on the scale and giving the U.S. the ability to win two nearly simultaneous MRCs plus the ability to conduct smaller operations:
ARMY: 12 active divisions and 8 guard/reserve divisions
NAVY: 12 carrier battle groups
AIR FORCE: 14 active fighter wings and 10 guard/reserve fighter wings
MARINE CORPS: 3 active MEFs and 1 reserve division (the beauty of the Corps is its small, elite, and expeditionary nature)
Superpower means superpower through overwhelming force....even if it just the PROJECTION of that force. Enough to deter the enemy and simply make them think twice before starting trouble....A large force PREVENTS wars to a degree.
Studies suggest for the Army, a 50 brigade active duty force, which you could either combine into 12 active divisions as above if each had 4 maneuver brigades, or move to a 16 division active force by continuing to utilize the 3 maneuver brigade formations. And that still leaves 2 independent brigades for regional rapid reaction.
Many different options, and maybe we do or do not need the Cold War formations, however with all to consider in 2015 and beyond, this hollow force we have now needs to be reversed. Task Force Smith anybody???
But it seems they will use old weapons in support to NATO in Recponce force
ReplyDeleteI'll bite....resources, trade and commerce concerned, China and Russia pose our biggest threats to those interests. They have been posturing and growing their forces for years now. Iran is a middleweight threat, as is North Korea who is so radical and bat shit crazy they risk plunging that whole region into nuclear conflict. Plus all the non state actors and start ups in the Middle East and around the world as that third and final tier. Maybe not simultaneously, but that does not alleviate us from preparation.
ReplyDeleteIt also is not always about what one wants, but what one has to do. Some wars indeed are a choice, others.. not so much..
ReplyDeleteOk I take that back, everything is a choice, one can also lay back and let everything happen without interfering one iota. That of course also is a choice.
Switzerland has a standing army, be it a small one. Switzerland also has an air force not capable of even policing, let alone defending its own territory. They only police their skies on workdays..during working hours.. and other European nations have to send planes during other times.
ReplyDeleteI used to be a 'fan' of the Swiss system, but not so much anymore, the Swedes are a better example.
Besides this it is impossible to do it the Swiss way if you are not Switzerland. It not only has a certain geographic and strategic position, it also since forever has had a particular functionality to other nations. Having the ill gotten gains from powerful people of all nationalities in your banks is a deterrence to being invaded in itself.
Oo and an other point. Switzerland actually recently took munition form the homes of their reserves because they were sick of all the shootings, suicides, murders. So now wile the reserves have a weapon at home, they have no ammo.
Of topic: Have you seen the US talking head on CNN who flat out stated Iran was the biggest state sponsor of terrorism?
ReplyDeleteits sad how they get away with that when it has been clearly shown Saudi Arabia is the biggest sponsor of terrorists and Iran is one of the biggest opponents of the biggest terrorist threat of today: ISIS?
Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Iran, but I am a fan of reality and frankly a bit fed up with SA being seen as our big friend in the Middle East wile they sponsor hate spreading Imans where I live.
More effective:
ReplyDeletehttp://qpolitical.com/norway-just-deported-824-muslims-every-american-needs-to-see-what-happened-next/
We (the USA) should have just enough conventional forces to repel any anticipated invasion of the US mainland, and just enough more to cover barbary-coast types of operations if our interests are directly threatened.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like I jumped the gun on this one. I remember reading that the Havoc was the winner, but I can't recall for the life of me where I read it; and being the super-genius that I am (*sarcasm*), I didn't think to bookmark it at the time.
ReplyDeleteThe Havoc did have the lead, however. It passed ballistic testing and swim testing first, and still maintained 100% readiness throughout the MPC trials. None of the other competitors could claim a flawless readiness rate --- though come to think of it, LM might have used some sort of deception to achieve this result, such as "float" vehicles.
Perhaps the Navy could go the extra mile, and re-turret all these ships with new 57mm guns that are manually-loaded?
ReplyDelete.....
Come to think of it, maybe I shouldn't have suggested that. There seems to be no end to the US military's self-destructiveness these days.
Er.. they passed the test first because they were the first on the schedule to be tested. lol. They were IIRC testing each model on a month by month +/- basis. See how even scheduling can be twisted by marketing? As for all the rest, they may have passed too, just that they did not have as "good" a PR department to go bragging about it.
ReplyDeletePerhaps they consider securing their southern flank by deploying into Sweden or even Finland if SHTF? Like E6 and E8 are easily defendable but its only 27 kilometers from the swedish border by E10 to cut off the troops further norh.
ReplyDeleteAnd btw Russia has moved its 80:th separate motorized rifle brigade to alakurtti.
It will take them an awesome amount of effort just to maintain all that equipment in all that snow and cold. The environmental toll on the equipment is going to be horrendous. I would really like to see the calculations and planning they have made to cope up with this kind of a "General Winter" onslaught. What equipment replacement intervals have been shortened, what scheduled checks have increased, what kind of repair and overhaul facilities they will have right down to Battalion Level etc.
ReplyDeleteI find that as a disgrace. There are a number of other naval leaders that deserve a ship named after them for the actions they have done. Fortunately, such valorious individuals wont have their name sullied by the LCS. I recall you mentioning a certain admiral that fought against the carrier lobby following WW2...
ReplyDeleteOf course, maybe the navy is right all along. Maybe its a sick inside joke. It IS a pathetically lightly armed, ineffective, showboat-only wonder devise that fits Giffords' likeness perfectly. Maybe the name is more fitting than one would think?
WHY do smaller landing craft HAVE to be stowed in the wet well at all. Landing craft only need to go into the wet well to load Ro/Ro cargo. And since you and the USN have seemed to forgotten, pls remember MOST combat cargo used in WW2 went over the side by Lo/Lo.
ReplyDeleteAND if one want to lift more landing craft they can put them in davits. I had 12 LCVP in four Welins.
AND if one want to send more boats to the beach simultaneously then wet wells are not it, I could put 24 boats in the water in 26 minutes, and after the Marines got in them, they left at ONE assault wave.
Ok I'll accept that most Marines FLY over the beach now, but putting some platoons into a fast landing craft for a raid should NOT require the time and sailors to ballast down and that assumes the REQUIRED boats are aft in the well?
And remember some navies don't use wet wells, and some use steel beaches (ramp to ramp ops) quite succesfully in calm waters.
OWL, to ST Marine that is called Marketing~ And the Endurance LST are down to $250 mil bareboat now~ Marketing!
ReplyDeleteAnd you make my point about davits and deck loading and Lo/Lo quite well thanks.
And not the RN uses davits to launch their LCVP Mk 5. And the New Zealand Canterbury used a crane to launch its large LCM. I could go on but...
Little lesson. This gear comes from feministic extremists. Its promoted since many years. Seems to me like other stuff of them, they have distribitued the stuff to the army. Anyway. The discrace isnt just using that thing. The disgrace is to send woman in such situations where they need it. Women were always a factor in the military services. But such a BS was never necessary in the past. Now it is? What we do is wrong. If we send the ones who give live to the field to fight and probably also to die, something is wrong. A nation which discrace woman like that is wrong. Moms with PTSD? Future mothers fallen in a battle? If men are fallen, its ok and its the law of nature. But if women are out of the game, the nation is out of the game. That men protected always women and chidren, there was a reason for. Today seems to me not anymore. We are just a ressource. Ready to die for the 1%. just my 5 cent.
ReplyDeleteYou bring up a good point. Can and should are two different things; this is something that is never brought up.
ReplyDeleteUm, that little thing in front of the two guys in the deck chairs is a little gun, the result of gun control.......oh well. Now I feel like Rodney Dangerfield.
ReplyDeleteOh! Is that what it is? I thought it was a fire suppression hose.
ReplyDeleteOr, they could just place the zipper differently on women's combat fatigues.
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm not going to elaborate.
So much for the vaunted M1 ABV...
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like we've been wasting money all these years on the Growler.
ReplyDeleteNo wait, we were...;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81NFmOob2mA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGGg9njci0M
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9PBA6j87NkI
negative ghost rider. not unless you're talking about the habit of some navies to have LCU's on the deck of the ship instead of the well deck where they belong. additionally whether i like it or not, its an aviation centric Marine Corps. armor is going out of style.
ReplyDeleteYou have to love the fact that a ship that's excessively expensive, under-armed (the LCS' best weapon is a twirpy, single 57mm gun; they were originally supposed to have a 76mm gun), and vulnerable was named after a career politician that wants to ban all self-loading firearms in the US, and whose only claim to fame is being a gunshot victim.
ReplyDeleteNot that Gifford has a problem with personally owning the weapon she's trying to ban;
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/09/gabby-giffords-husband-buys-ar-15-announces-he-s-not-keeping-it-after-news-leaks-out/
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/03/14/mark-kelly-s-ar-15-stunt-provokes-giffords-photo-leak/
I.e., "Freedom to bear arms for me --- not for thee."
Still don't think that the US military's "leadership" aren't the biggest suck-ups and sellouts there ever were? Don't forget that naming the USS Gabby this was *their* choice.