Are you asserting that the Chinese are a similarly overblown threat?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Europe under extreme duress
- Thread starter Randy Daytona
- Start date
Are you asserting that the Chinese are a similarly overblown threat?
Is it bad tactics or is it increasingly sophisticated weapons systems that are causing the high losses? Its a legitimate question of which current weapons systems are approaching obsolescence that General Ryan brought up.
Although primarily for range and weight issues, Commandant Berger is also scaling back Marine HML/A squadron, tube artillery and complete disinvestment of tanks.
Interesting read.
The Return of Industrial Warfare
Can the West still provide the arsenal of democracy?The war in Ukraine has proven that the age of industrial warfare is still here. The massive consumption of equipment, vehicles and ammunition requires a large-scale industrial base for resupply – quantity still has a quality of its own.
In line with the discussion of this thread - PBS News Hour aired a nice segment interview with Admiral John Aquilino, Commander of the United States Indo-Pacific Command. It's refreshing to see a senior Navy leader speak directly to the public in a a direct pragmatic manner - without the PAO handlers at the side. Can't help but chuckle as the Admiral, a Tomcat and Hornet guy, walks past a B-2 and F-22. He looks great at 60 years old and honestly the NWU uniform in this context is pretty squared away looking!
Last edited:
Before we go down this theoretical rabbit hole - How about you tell us what they are doing right? The inability of Russian aircraft to fly and operate effectively at night alone is noteworthy, but their mission analysis and planning has been atrocious as well. Particularly in the first 96 hours of the conflict, and consistently ever since.
…or did you really think a combined day time SEAD, air assault, and airfield seizure mission with fully loaded IL-76s into a heavily defended major urban area with was a normal conventional operation?
So yes, I’d fault more shitty planning than equipment at this point, but I’m happy to hear your dissertation on the comparisons of American and Russian ASE RW/FW systems and threat counter tactics. I’m sure the former Aussie general can elaborate with distinguished clarity on that subject as well.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Yes. If they tried to invade Vietnam or Laos, let alone Korea or Japan, it would result in a similarly disastrous outcome.
Something we as Americans have gotten used to is historically very low losses, particularly with aircraft, in war since the end of Vietnam. the number of aircraft lost in combat since Grenada are extremely low, in part because we have often faced unsophisticated enemies but even when faced with somewhat credible air defenses those losses have remained very low. Why? Part of it was the enemies we faced but another large part of it was the change in training and tactics in how we have conducted war from the air after Vietnam, and our continuous improvement in that time. So 'high losses' is a bit subjective.
A more important thing that a lot of folks seem to forget is there is a MASSIVE supporting infrastructure that ensures that when our troops and equipment are deployed in peace and war they go with equipment that works along with plenty of fuel, food and parts to keep them going and informed about the who, what and where of what they face.
To use the example of naval aviation, a carrier air wing deploys with combat ready aircraft and aircrew that have all been thoroughly tested and trained and is continually supplied with enough fuel, parts, weapons and information to do its mission. They will know exactly who they are reporting to, what their orders are, how they are getting them and doing so in a clear, coherent manner that actually works and is largely transparent to the folks executing the missions. And when it comes time to put 'warheads on foreheads' the weapons used will work pretty damn well and a very high percentage will hit enemy targets.
To make it abundantly clear, very few of the things I just listed are actually happening with the Russian campaign in Ukraine. Yes, they are that bad. We have done war from the air so well for over 30+ years now folks tend to forget it was a long and hard road to get where we are and we have to continually work at it to stay that way. This simple fact is something that I find even some of our more ground-oriented brothers in arms seem to not be cognizant of, particularly in the Army.
I would be wary of comparing the Chinese and Russians, especially since the Chinese have poured vastly more resources into their military and weapons development than the Russians and don't suffer anywhere near the same level of endemic corruption and other issues that Russia suffers from. I would also not compare weapons effectiveness or capability either, as China has taken whatever they can from wherever they can and often improved on it in the last two decades.
A good example of the difference between the two countries would be their aircraft carriers. The sole Russian carrier is now over 30 years old without a replacement in sight and not even in dry dock anymore because the dry dock itself sank. China has three carriers, up from 0 a decade ago with two launched in the last 5 years, and the two that have been commissioned so far don't sit in port and rust at the pier. It isn't a perfect example but one that illuminates that China ≠ Russia.
The big question, and it is a really big unknown, is just how well the military itself will perform with their new kit having last fought a war over 42 years ago.
Bottom line, I would not discount the Chinese and their capabilities just because the Russians suck.
Last edited:
In my experience, Lung is a straight shooter, a professional, and a great communicator. I can't think of a time I've seen the guy speak when it hasn't been immediately apparent what he needs out of his staff or the direction he's expecting INDOPACOM to go. And when he needs to step in and correct something, without fail, you're getting 4 pieces of info right off the bat:
- Your shit's fucked up.
- This is how and why your shit's fucked up.
- These are the negative effects on my job or the command resulting from your shit being fucked up.
- When your shit is no longer fucked up, this is what it will look like.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
You said you'd be weary of comparing them... And then you compared them at a unit level.
Russia focused its limited resources more heavily into nuclear attack and guided missile submarines. Its Naval strategy is to be able to forward project power and be able to hold another nation at risk. Most of its national interests are land-based in Europe, so Russia doesn't have a need for a large surface fleet of ships.
China is employing a bastion strategy inside the first island chain, which inherently requires more ships. However, it has very limited ability to forward project any power. Yes, it has carriers (that are from an old Russian design), but their ability to operate them in conflict let alone keep them afloat after taking damage would be similarly embarrassing.
Which country has the ability to park an SSGN off our coast and aim land attack missiles at DC? Pro tip: not China.
Anyway, what I was more getting at is that China's ability to exercise the C2 and logistics required to win an offensive ground war to annex its neighbors, who also have theoretically inferior militaries, would look similarly embarrassing. Their equipment and training is similarly shitty with a heavy emphasis on quantity over quality.
But I suppose if we keep using the phrase 'high end fight' in DC to justify military budget priorities, enough people eventually believe it.
Based on how every other piece of gear they have has worked so far, we could all point and laugh while it blew itself up Kursk-style.
Fixed that for ya.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
So the Liaoning commissioned by the USSR in 1985 will do better? What about all those Kilo submarines China bought from the USSR that they have no idea how to operate and maintain, are those suddenly going to be more reliable? Are all the Russian jets they bought suddenly going to work better with superior Chinese maintenance?
Oh and China can get gas and food and munitions from point A to point B better than Russia because reasons?
The Chinese are hoping we won't stomach a jab to the face. Otherwise a war with China looks like Tyson vs. Marvis Frazier.
Last edited:
I did...wary actually...but only as an example of more recent Russian and Chinese weapons development to highlight their differences. I also made sure to say this:
I used the example of the carriers because I thought they are indicative of the current state of Chinese and Russian weapons development, across the board. Some Chinese weapons might be of subpar quality but many are not and work quite well, with the Chinese regularly training on and testing them. Simply put, just because they are deficient in some areas doesn't mean they aren't very capable in others and are a very significant threat to us and our allies in the Pacific and elsewhere with not just quantity but proven quality.
And it isn't Laos, Vietnam, Korea or even Japan I am worried about China attacking.
It isn't just rhetoric and a ploy for more money, anyone with access to the right info and paying close enough attention would know that.
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Yeah, AW.com isn't a classified space so I'll just end with you don't know what you're talking about.
Last edited:
Since we travel within the same circles, I'm pretty sure he does. You seem particularly angry, which doesn't make for productive dialogue. Maybe it's that soda straw you're peering through. In either case, why don't you take a break and come back when your vision has cleared.