• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

US military's vulnerabilities vs. China, Russia

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Ah yes, it must have been the recognition by Canada in 1970 that convinced the rest of the world. Or were we 20 years late in accepting reality?

7 January 1950: Unconditional recognition of Mao Zedong’s regime as the legitimate government of all China sees the withdrawal of support from Nationalists

(of course there's more to the story)
France under de Gaulle recognized PRC in 1964. Much more significant than Canada:

Mark
Otawa
 

YZT580

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
198
Points
630
Never said Canada was first. Point is that there is a second side (not very common I will admit) to the one China story.
 

FJAG

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
1,805
Points
1,040
A first look at the Biden administration's look at defence:

Defense secretary lays out vision of future in first major speech​

By Oren Liebermann, CNN

Updated 8:49 PM ET, Fri April 30, 2021
Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin listens to a reporter's question while addressing the media following talks at the German Defense Ministry on April 13, 2021, in Berlin.


Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin listens to a reporter's question while addressing the media following talks at the German Defense Ministry on April 13, 2021, in Berlin.
Honolulu (CNN)In his first major policy speech, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin laid out a vision of warfare starkly different from how "the last of the old wars" of the past two decades were fought, urging the military to move toward a faster, more innovative approach capable of acting at the "speed of war."
Austin stressed the importance of emerging technology and the rapid increases in computing power to push the military into the future -- and away from the more traditional wars of the Middle East fought on conventional battlefields.
"Galloping advances in technology mean changes in the work we do to keep the United States secure across all five domains of potential conflict -- not just air, land and sea, but also space and cyberspace," Austin said, speaking Friday afternoon at the change of command for US Indo-Pacific Command at Joint Base Pearl Harbor-Hickam. "They mean we need new capacities and operational flexibility for the fights of the future."
Austin's speech hardly mentioned any specific ally or adversary, but the impetus behind the secretary's remarks was clearly a rapidly modernizing and increasingly aggressive China intent on spreading its influence in the western Pacific -- and more willing to act against the US in cyberspace.


"What we need is the right mix of technology, operational concepts and capabilities -- all woven together in a networked way that is so credible, flexible and formidable that it will give any adversary pause," Austin said. "We need to create advantages for us and dilemmas for them."
The secretary, who rose in the ranks fighting the wars of the Middle East, put forward a new paradigm of deterrence across all domains of warfare. It will rely on investing in cutting-edge technologies like quantum computing and artificial intelligence, Austin said, concepts that have little to do with fighting ISIS in Iraq and Syria or the Taliban in Afghanistan but are a critical element of deterrence against China.
Though Austin didn't explicitly mention China, the outgoing commander of US Indo-Pacific Command, Adm. Philip Davidson, speaking after Austin, issued a blunt assessment of the state of affairs.
"The strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific is not between our two nations, it is a competition between liberty -- the fundamental idea behind a free and open Indo-Pacific -- and authoritarianism, the absence of liberty and the objective of the Communist Party of China," Davidson said. "This competition does not have to put us on the road to conflict. Our number one job is to keep the peace, and to do that, we must be prepared to fight and win."
Two weeks ago, the nation's top spy chief warned that China poses an "unparalleled priority for the intelligence community," with cyber capabilities that can, at the very least, affect and disrupt critical infrastructure in the United States.
Top military official warns China and Russia are modernizing nuclear weapons faster than US

Top military official warns China and Russia are modernizing nuclear weapons faster than US
Austin's speech underscored the fundamental shift in the Pentagon's thinking from fighting wars in the Middle East to planning for a future conflict against China or Russia -- stronger, more capable adversaries willing to challenge the United States and its allies. Austin has referred to China as the "pacing challenge" of the American military and a "near-peer adversary." ...

Defense secretary lays out vision of future in first major speech - CNN Politics

🍻
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Plus the PLAAF's J-20, at AvWeek:

Face It: China’s J-20 Is A Fifth-Generation Fighter​


"The adversary gets a vote,” is a much-touted phrase in the halls of the Pentagon. Unfortunately, not everyone in the U.S. military is responding quickly enough to China’s vote: the development and fielding of its Chengdu J-20 fifth-generation fighter.

The U.S. Air Force has launched a series of projects to produce revolutionary air combat capabilities, but those programs will not bear fruit until the latter half of the decade or beyond. Any changes in the next five years may be tied to altering procurement of existing platforms. But Adm. Philip Davidson, Indo-Pacific Command chief, says the time to transform is now. “Our adversaries are developing or are fielding already fifth-gen fighters themselves,” he says. “To go backward into fourth-generation capability as a substitute, broadly, would be a mistake in my view and would actually put us at a severe disadvantage over the course of this decade.”

For years, the Air Force touted the advantage that its fifth-generation Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor and F-35 Lightning II would hold over their fourth-generation adversaries. The notion that the service’s fourth-generation Lockheed F-16s and Boeing F-15s soon will be confronted by significant numbers of advanced Chinese aircraft has not sunk in [emphasis added]. Yet the emerging arena of fifth-generation versus fifth-generation fighter combat still looms on the horizon...

Western sources describe the J-20 as a low-observable (LO) interceptor operating within an anti-access/aerial denial (A2/AD) framework, optimized to target tankers and command, control, computers, communications, intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (C4ISR) aircraft—thereby eroding U.S. power projection capabilities. Domestic sources, however, universally describe the aircraft as China’s premier air-superiority fighter meant to engage other fighters..

...Even though all performance claims in exercises are generally subject to scrutiny regarding the rules of engagement, scenarios and so forth, J-20s are continually pitted against other fighters, affirming the aircraft’s role in air dominance. Andreas Rupprecht, author of Modern Chinese Warplanes, notes in a recent interview with Hush-Kit digital magazine that the F-22 was the benchmark against which Chengdu evaluated the J-20’s performance.

Moreover, the J-20’s design features—the extensive flight-control surfaces on its wing, its bubble canopy, the use of foreplanes for angle-of-attack control, among others—point toward a platform expected to operate in air-superiority missions or even within-visual-range engagements. Chief test pilot Li Gang described the J-20 as having comparable maneuverability to the F-16-class Chengdu J-10 while having significantly better LO performance. The J-20 could act as an interceptor against high-value targets, just not exclusively so.

Clearly, Chengdu’s engineers understand the foundation of fifth-generation design: the ability to attain situational awareness through advanced fused sensors while denying situational awareness to the adversary through stealth and electronic warfare. The J-20 features an ambitious integrated avionics suite consisting of multispectral sensors that provide 360-deg. coverage. This includes a large active, electronically scanned array radar designed by the 14th Research Institute, electro-optical distributed aperture system, electro-optical targeting system, electronic support measures system and possibly side-array radars. In a 2017 CNTV interview, J-20 pilot Zhang Hao said: “Thanks to the multiple sensors onboard the aircraft and the very advanced data fusion, the level of automation of J-20 is very high. . . . The battlefield has become more and more transparent for us.”..[read on]

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
The only fight the US should be planning well ahead for, is a peer adversary. While both Russia and China are named, I'd strongly suggest it is the latter who they really need to focus on in terms of equipment design & procurement, strategy, etc etc - and how to counter not only their military & cyber capabilities, but their financial and political capabilities also.

Any other 'enemy' in the form of a nation state is unlikely, and wouldn't be a particularly prolonged engagement - especially if we are focusing primarily on the air domain as the article above does.

The US could have, and should have, purchased a fleet of light attack planes for places like Iraq and Afghanistan that could deliver the same ordinance as a Strike Eagle at a fraction of the cost -- if another conflict of that nature drags the US into it, they would be well advised to take that step quickly, as they've demonstrated they can do.


But in the long term planning, keeping China in mind as the most likely adversary would be wise. As upgraded as some of the 4th generation planes can be (which absolutely gives them some impressive & deadly capabilities) -- relying on upgraded 4th gen tech against an adversary like China could very well a huge, huge mistake.

I understand the F-35 was supposed to replace several of those platforms with a state of the art 5th gen platform -- and from everything I've read officially, as well as having some good talks with a friend of mine who is now flying F-35C's for the USN - he wouldn't want to take any other plane into combat. While it may still have teething issues and plenty of growth still planned, anybody who flies the F-35 has stated it would be their choice of aircraft in a peer combat situation, hands down.


Regardless of anything, the "Great Pacific Brawl" will be a bloody fight for both sides.

But I don't think the US should put all of their eggs in one basket. Especially the F-35 basket. Issues with the aircraft aside, I have absolutely ZERO CONFIDENCE that critical intelligence about the F-35's capabilities, cyber weaknesses, maintenance security, etc etc - is not already well secured by Chinese intelligence, as they hacked & browsed the F-35 development program for quite some time before the breaches were caught.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
Interesting read -

Just a reminder that the Battle of Kapyong occurred during this era - April 22 to 25, 1951.
The PPCLI Presidential Citation was awarded contrasting the actions of the PPCLI, RAR and Glosters to the "Bug-Out Fever" that the US Army was fighting.

 

Weinie

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
1,233
Points
1,010
Interesting read -

Just a reminder that the Battle of Kapyong occurred during this era - April 22 to 25, 1951.
The PPCLI Presidential Citation was awarded contrasting the actions of the PPCLI, RAR and Glosters to the "Bug-Out Fever" that the US Army was fighting.

IMO, the author has cherry picked events to support his article. The U.S and others fought this to a stalemate that was overtaken by world events. Had the U.S. been completely engaged (and not tired of WWII, and focused on Europe), the history of SE Asia would be completely different.

.02c
 
Last edited:

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
OK. Now they have gone too far.

Last week they shut down the oil supply to the East Coast of the US. Meh!
To be fair they did apologize for the inconvenience they caused.

This week they have out done themselves. They shut down the supply of burgers on Memorial Day, the start of barbecue season. And worse. They did it here in Alberta. And Australia.


I wonder what happens next?


 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
Debate in US about how practical all the fancy new plans--USAF agile basing, basing US Army long-range fires, Marines' plans for EABO--actually are, plus an fancy example of new think from the army:

1) From a June 7 story in Foreign Policy:

Pentagon Faces Tense Fight Over Pacific Pivot
The Defense Department is in an internal tug of war over the practicality of putting more U.S. troops in the range of Chinese missiles.
By Jack Detsch, Foreign Policy’s Pentagon and national security reporter.

The U.S. Department of Defense is locked in a tense debate over whether to base American troops and high-end weapons within reach of newly capable Chinese missiles, multiple current and former officials with knowledge of the talks told Foreign Policy, a battle pitting the agency’s more risk-averse analytical wing against other parts of the Pentagon and Capitol Hill.
The battle has come to a head after the Pentagon’s budget loaded a fund that lawmakers designed last year to position more U.S. forces near China in the Western Pacific with research and development for destroyers, fighter jets, and submarines that could end up outside the region, prompting near-instantaneous anger from Congress, where many insist that the Pentagon isn’t abiding by the law.

“If you wanted to improve force posture west of the international dateline, it would be funded,” said one congressional aide, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss budget deliberations.

The battle dates back to the Trump administration, which first called for forward-deployed U.S. troops to sit in the so-called first island chain that rings China in the Western Pacific, including Japan. The fight came to a head this spring as outgoing U.S. Indo-Pacific Command chief Adm. Phil Davidson began privately and publicly urging a buildup of American assets in Guam, including onshore Aegis missile defense batteries, in his final days as commander [emphasis added].

Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin and top officials have indicated to Congress they were interested in moving more U.S. military forces into close quarters with China. But Davidson and parts of the Pentagon supporting the effort have been met with stern opposition from the agency’s budget analysts at the Office of Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation office, known as CAPE, and the Defense Department’s Office of Net Assessment, an internal think tank that conducts long-term planning. Both offices hold a pessimistic view of the ability of the U.S. military to withstand attacks from China’s new generation of highly capable missile and rocket forces, sources familiar with the debate said [emphasis added]. China has tested long-distance missiles that can knock out U.S. carriers and even hit Guam, but its ranged forces are still mostly untested in combat.

Capitol Hill is still struggling to understand the disconnect.

“DoD has produced a lot of products countering the rise of China, we expected this to be more robust than it is,” a senior House Republican aide said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss ongoing budget talks. “And we’ll be holding DoD to account for all these other briefings and strategy documents and how they’re reflected in this budget request. We’re very concerned that they are not reflected in this budget request.”

The United States has more than 70,000 troops in Japan and South Korea, including many grouped together at major installations, which has raised fears in Congress and policy circles that China could wipe out thousands of American forces in a single attack. One solution to that would be to disperse U.S. troops and platforms around the region, leaving them in place to respond to any threat from China—but equally or even more vulnerable to long-range attack. Sources said CAPE, which is focused on investing in hypersonic strike weapons, the B-21 bomber, and mobile platforms, has pushed for keeping American troops and assets outside of China’s range, in places like Hawaii, Alaska, and California, using nascent long-range firepower and stealth bombers capable of withstanding Chinese air defenses [emphasis added].

“They’re essentially saying that if something ever happened we’re going to hightail it out of the region, get the ships out, get the aircraft out beyond the second island chain, and we’re going to have all of these magic weapons and we’re going to gradually fire our way back in, because we can’t be inside,” a former Senate aide with knowledge of the debate said, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss closed-door policy talks. “That’s an absolute fairy tale [emphasis added].”..

Read on. The end of the article:

“You want to be inside so that you have forces there if and when the fight starts, as opposed to trying to fight your way back in,” said Heino Klinck, who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia until January. “On the other hand, you want to have forces outside of the [Chinese military] strike envelope. That’s the dilemma.”

For sure.

2) US Army island-hopping (to the max) demonstration (with video), at Defense News:

US Army fires autonomous launcher in Pacific-focused demo​

The U.S. Army fired an autonomous launcher in a June 16 demonstration at Fort Sill, Oklahoma, focused on how it might be deployed to take out enemy ships and other defensive systems in multidomain operations in the Indo-Pacific theater.

A concept video shows C-130 transport aircraft landing on a strip in an island in the Pacific Ocean. The Autonomous Multidomain Launcher, or AML, comes off the C-130′s ramp while a High Mobility Artillery Rocket System, or HIMARS, drives out of the other aircraft. The two launchers deploy as a manned-unmanned team to strategic points on the island. One launcher fires a simulated Precision Strike Missile, or PrSM — the future Army Tactical Missile System replacement — to hit an enemy ship detected in the nearby ocean. The other fires an extended-range version of PrSM to take out an air defense system located on an enemy-occupied island.

Once the missiles destroy their targets, the launchers head back to the bellies of the C-130 and the aircraft takes off while U.S. fighter jets deploy during the window of opportunity created by the destruction of those enemy targets.

In the demonstration, according to Brig. Gen. John Rafferty, who is in charge of the Army’s long-range precision fires modernization effort, the AML repeated the process and subsequently deployed to two other islands following the first scenario.

Far out, Man.

Mark
Ottawa
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
I say this with a 'bit' of experience... not as much as many of you.

But, I'm already missing the good old days of people just shooting each other. Horrible thing to say, and something I never thought I ever would say.

In my ideal world - adults would sit down and talk to other adults, nicely, be empathetic to each other's concerns, and work together for the common good. But, it isn't so.



At least when human beings were engaging other human beings, there was a chance of mercy, civility, compassion, and honour when the battles were raging.

Now? Everything is shooting at each other from 1000km away with a missile that travels at Mach 5, or dropping a pallet of 20 cruise missiles out of the back of a C-17 to go pummel a ton of targets 3 time zones away.

We avoid engaging hospitals and schools at all costs, and there are usually investigations and accountability when it happens. Now? Shutting down the power grid of an entire city, or an entire part of a country, is part of a strategy. Hospitals, grocery stores, houses, police stations, emergency services, water purification, sanitation, etc etc all need electricity to work. What about banking, when ATMs and debit cards won't work? When people's mortages, savings, investments, etc all disappear?

We may not drop bombs on each other's hospitals in a peer vs peer conflict, but we are still using a strategy of "Let me f**k with your basic infrastructure, which will result in dead or injured civilians, in the hopes that will help dissuade you from continuing the war."


Anyways, sorry for the rant. There really is some far out stuff, and to be fair - some pretty neat tech. I know war has actually never been simple, but I really do have concerns about what war is turning into.

0.02
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
702
Points
1,060
Your point is taken but war is always, IMO, ultimately about the civilians and their willingness to be deprived in support of national objectives. Sometimes it is taxes. Sometimes it is butter and sugar. Sometimes it is bread and water. Sometimes it is their lives.

I'm not sure that there has ever been a time when that wasn't true.
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
From near the start and the latter part of an article at War on the Rocks:

Sailors, Sailors Everywhere and not a Berth to Sleep: The Illusion of Forward Posture in the Western Pacific​


Graham Jenkins

...in their article, “The State of (Deterrence by) Denial,” Elbridge Colby and Walter Slocombe propose to buy many more boxes of real-life military forces while disregarding where exactly they might fit. The authors are the latest to sign onto the illusory prospect of a large-scale forward positioning of U.S. forces, particularly land-based missiles, in the Western Pacific. They add their voices to a years-long chorus of commentators who insist that only by “strengthen[ing] its Western Pacific forward posture” and stationing vast numbers of manpower and materiel in-theater — proving the ability to resist “Chinese aggression” — will any degree of deterrence be secured. But the very idea of “sufficient” foreign posture is an illusion: No additional countries in Asia (with the exception of tiny Palau) are interested in hosting U.S. troops at all, much less the quantity and type of forces for which Colby and Slocombe advocate. At the same time, merely increasing troop numbers at existing U.S. and partner bases would not meaningfully alter the strategic calculus, and new weapons systems like theater missiles are particularly unlikely to be welcomed with open arms...

The fact remains that, except for Palau, no additional country will agree to host large numbers of U.S. troops or any ground-based precision strike assets at all, even on an ad hoc basis. This has persistently been the refrain of many who opposed the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Forces Treaty and the development of these types of missile capabilities. Even though China may have a significant advantage in the number of, specifically, land-based short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles, it does not logically follow that the United States or its allies should therefore field those precise weapons as well. Clearly it has not been the presence of such weapons that has deterred China from an invasion of Taiwan for the past 30 years.

There are plenty of alternatives to a massive forward presence in order to contribute to regional security without destabilizing the strategic situation. For the reasons above, land-based precision strike may well be a nonstarter. As the head of Air Force Global Strike Command recently said of the Army’s multi-domain transformation concept, “Honestly I think it’s stupid … I just think it’s a stupid idea to go and invest that kind of money that recreates something that the [Air Force] has mastered and that we’re doing already right now. Why in the world would you try that?” With significant investments already underway in the realm of survivable precision strike, both with aircraft as well as extended-range air- and sea-launched munitions, the need for an entirely new capability without a logical home seems a stretch.

Likewise, focusing on land-based missiles ignores the assets already available to the United States. There is a reason the Tomahawk land-attack missile has been one of the most used munitions since the end of the Cold War. Sea-based assets hold the promise of mustering massive amounts of distributed firepower in international waters, and, with the current surface fleet aging and ailing, an imminent push to recapitalize is underway. This presents an opportunity to reconceive of the nature and purpose of modern naval platforms, and to look at even longer-range capabilities that would allow the Navy to play a part in a conventional seaborne deterrent strategy without having to risk forward-deploying huge numbers of ships. It is worth considering whether the guided-missile submarines converted from Ohio-class nuclear missile subs could serve as a possible template for a future platform. Given that their “replacement,” the Virginia-class attack submarines with the Virginia payload module, has only about a third of the capacity, a true purpose-built successor guided-missile submarine could perform the same mission at a fraction of the cost. As it is, to replicate the current combined Tomahawk total of 616 missiles across four guided-missile submarines, it would require no less than 22 Virginias with the Virginia payload module, at a total cost premium of $8.8 billion over models without it. A limited magazine size in the Virginia payload module also means that missiles would run out sooner and that underway replenishment missions would be executed across a much greater area. But a dedicated guided-missile submarine would offer survivability, capacity, and, most importantly, it would not require basing or access rights. Disaggregated surface ship capabilities — for instance, a number of vertical launch tubes operating as an unmanned swarm in a joint command-and-control network — would provide similar strike potential in an even more survivable and less expensive form.

Finally, even if war did break out in the Western Pacific, the United States should challenge Beijing in areas outside of merely the military domain and the First Island Chain. Washington has many economic levers and tools to punish military aggression without resorting to direct violence: Sanctions and embargoes can be applied. Likewise, even with America’s overseas reputation greatly diminished after decades of war and unilateralism, it still has valuable political currency with allies and international organizations alike. Laying the groundwork in those fora now — as a means of reestablishing a moral high ground — would enable a broader coalition to apply its own diplomatic and economic pressures to China. Unlike the idea of responding to adversary missiles simply by developing missiles of one’s own, this approach would be asymmetric. Finding alternatives to force-on-force clashes would play to America’s strengths by working with its considerable number of allies and partners, leveraging its existing naval power, and decreasing the risk that a crisis could turn into a great-power war.

Conclusion

Despite fears of an overly small military presence, the United States is already redeploying forces from Europe and the Middle East to existing bases around the Western Pacific. These bases are in allied countries that have already welcomed large concentrations of U.S. military forces and have no objection to a few more. The region has been at relative peace since the end of the Sino-Vietnamese War in 1979, with no major interstate wars (unless one counts the intervention in East Timor in the 1990s). Even with the end of the Cold War and ensuing force reductions, the U.S. force posture in the Western Pacific has actually increased over time, providing a steady and continuous presence.

Is that sufficient for deterrent purposes? It clearly has been so far. One doubts whether reintroducing the permanent presence of U.S. airpower at Clark Air Base in the Philippines or a triumphant return by the Navy to Subic Bay would make the difference in a war for Taiwan. In short, given the unpredictability of security partners and even treaty allies at providing the barest wartime support, proposing to position significantly more U.S. forces in the region runs up against an unmistakable reality: There is nowhere to put them. The geopolitical realities of the Western Pacific mean that, as much as some American commentators might wish for a stronger U.S. forward presence there, without greatly expanded basing and access rights, they are simply that: wishes. And yet, if there is no way to win the “blunt” phase of the National Defense Strategy given the current footprint in the region, then what correlation of forces would actually allow that? While an alarmed chorus insists that more is needed, they do not even ask, much less answer, the question of “how much is enough?” Is it simply “as many missiles as China has” — or is it possible that the question itself is the issue?

The problem lies not with the quantity of forward-deployed resources so much as with the strategic assumptions underpinning their requirement. Rather than proclaiming the need to flood the zone with tremendous amounts of equipment and end strength and then having nowhere to put them, the United States is better off developing naval platforms like submarines and unmanned surface and underwater vehicles that would provide precision strike capabilities without requiring overseas basing. Additionally, the United States should enable its partners and allies to defend themselves if need be, whether that means selling them the very weapons systems they would rather not see on their territory under U.S. control or simply conducting the necessary bilateral work to ensure U.S. wartime access. Such a restrained posture is one of neither abandonment nor appeasement — it is recognizing the limits of the possible and tailoring a strategy to support and defend the U.S. partners that make the region one worth caring about.

Graham W. Jenkins is a senior principal analyst in Northrop Grumman’s Aeronautics Sector and a young leader with the Pacific Forum. He was previously a contractor for the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence and a research assistant at the Institute for Defense Analysis. All views are his own and do not reflect those of his employers, customers, or the U.S. government.

Mark
Ottawa

westernpacific.jpg
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,741
Points
940
IMO, the author has cherry picked events to support his article. The U.S and others fought this to a stalemate that was overtaken by world events. Had the U.S. been completely engaged (and not tired of WWII, and focused on Europe), the history of SE Asia would be completely different.

.02c
Had the US Kept troops in South Vietnam after the Peace Treaty was signed, then things would have been different as NV would not have broken the agreement and invaded. We might be looking at two Vietnam's or reconciliation on more equal terms.
 

Blackadder1916

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
452
Points
1,030
Had the US Kept troops in South Vietnam after the Peace Treaty was signed, then things would have been different as NV would not have broken the agreement and invaded. We might be looking at two Vietnam's or reconciliation on more equal terms.

You mean the peace treaty which required

Article 4
The United States will not continue its military involvement or intervene in the internal affairs of South Viet-Nam.

Article 5
Within sixty days of the signing of this Agreement, there will be a total withdrawal from South Viet-Nam of troops, military advisers, and military personnel, including technical military personnel and military personnel associated with the pacification program, armaments, munitions, and war material of the United States and those of the other foreign countries mentioned in Article 3 (a). Advisers from the above-mentioned countries to all paramilitary organizations and the police force will also be withdrawn within the same period of time.
 

Colin Parkinson

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,741
Points
940
The US army had smashed the NVA and VC, had they said FU in the negotiations to such clauses, there was nothing the North could do and they could not withstand another offensive or the continued grind. the US should have bombed the docks the Soviet used to off load supplies. The big lesson there is when the enemy makes such demands they are lying about their intent, they hoped the politicians would agree to that for a short term gain.
 

shawn5o

Full Member
Reaction score
17
Points
230
Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow's air show
Vladimir Isachenkov

The Associated Press

Published Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:12AM EDT
Last Updated Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:37AM EDT

MOSCOW -- Russian aircraft makers say they will present a prospective new fighter jet at a Moscow air show that opens next week.

...

Russian media reports said that the new jet has been built by the Sukhoi aircraft maker in a program of development of a light tactical fighter.

...

Unlike Russia's latest Su-57 two-engine stealth fighter, the new aircraft is smaller and has one engine.

The Su-57 has been built to match the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, but unlike the American aicraft that has been in service since 2005 its serial production is just starting and a new engine intended to give it the capability to cruise at supersonic speed is still under development.

The new warplane's name is unknown, and there is no information about its capability and deployment prospects.

The prospective Russian fighter jet appears intended to compete with the U.S. F-35 Lightning II fighter, which entered service in 2015. Russia hopes to eventually offer the new aircraft to foreign customers.

Rostec, the state corporation that includes Russian aircraft makers, said the "fundamentally new military aircraft" will be unveiled Tuesday at the Moscow air show. "Russia is one of the few countries in the world with full-cycle capacities for producing advanced aircraft systems, as well as a recognized trendsetter in the creation of combat aircraft," it said.


More at links provided
 

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
73
Points
560
JCS not happy with results of this war game, hoping to defeat PRC with lots of new super-duper high tech (JADC2 etc)--at Defense One:

‘It Failed Miserably’: After Wargaming Loss, Joint Chiefs Are Overhauling How the US Military Will Fight​


In a fake battle for Taiwan, U.S. forces lost network access almost immediately. Hyten has issued four directives to help change that.​


A brutal loss in a wargaming exercise last October convinced the Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen. John Hyten to scrap the joint warfighting concept that had guided U.S. military operations for decades.

“Without overstating the issue, it failed miserably. An aggressive red team that had been studying the United States for the last 20 years just ran rings around us. They knew exactly what we're going to do before we did it,” Hyten told an audience Monday [july 26] at the launch of the Emerging Technologies Institute, an effort by the National Defense Industrial Association industry group to speed military modernization.

The Pentagon would not provide the name of the wargame, which was classified, but a defense official said one of the scenarios revolved around a battle for Taiwan. One key lesson: gathering ships, aircraft, and other forces to concentrate and reinforce each other’s combat power also made them sitting ducks [emphasis added].

“We always aggregate to fight, and aggregate to survive. But in today’s world, with hypersonic missiles, with significant long-range fires coming at us from all domains, if you're aggregated and everybody knows where you are, you're vulnerable,” Hyten said.

Even more critically, the blue team lost access to its networks almost immediately [emphasis added].

“We basically attempted an information-dominance structure, where information was ubiquitous to our forces. Just like it was in the first Gulf War, just like it has been for the last 20 years, just like everybody in the world, including China and Russia, have watched us do for the last 30 years,” Hyten said. “Well, what happens if right from the beginning that information is not available? And that’s the big problem that we faced.”

In response, the Joint Chiefs have since October been shifting the U.S. military to a new concept of warfighting operations they call “Expanded Maneuver.” Hyten wants the U.S. military to be ready to fight under the new operating concept by 2030, using many of today’s weapons, aircraft, and ships [emphasis added].

Related articles
Will 2021 Be the Year JADC2 Takes Off?
Pentagon’s Accelerating ‘Connect-Everything’ Effort Hinges on Uncertain Cloud Program
Hyten: US Must Broaden Its Strategic Deterrence Concept — and Keep Its ICBMs

Earlier this month, Hyten released four directives to the services: one each for contested logistics; joint fires; Joint All-Domain Command and Control, or JADC2; and information advantage. On Monday, he revealed new details about these “functional battles.”

Contested logistics. Creating new ways to deliver fuel and supplies to front lines. U.S. Transportation Command and the Air Force are working on using rockets and a space trajectory to get large cargo spaceships into and out of battlefields [emphasis added--Rube Goldberg/Heath Robinson].

Joint fires: “You have to aggregate to mass fires, but it doesn't have to be a physical aggregation,” Hyten said. “It could be a virtual aggregation for multiple domains; acting at the same time under a single command structure allows the fires to come in on anybody. It allows you to disaggregate to survive.” Hyten said the joint fires concept “is aspirational. It is unbelievably difficult to do.” And the military will have to figure out what part will be affordable and practical, he said.

JADC2: The Pentagon’s push to connect everything demands always-on, hackerproof networks, Hyten said. “The goal is to be fully connected to a combat cloud that has all information that you can access at any time, anyplace,” so that, like with joint fires, the data doesn’t get exposed or hacked because it’s housed in one centralized location, he said.
Information advantage: This element is the sum of the first three, Hyten said: “If we can do the things I just described, the United States and our allies will have an information advantage over anybody that we could possibly face.”

The new operating concept comes as the U.S. military reshapes its footprint in the Middle East to better prepare for a fight with China. On Monday, President Joe Biden announced U.S. troops will end their combat role in Iraq by the end of the year; the announcement comes just two months after Biden announced a full withdrawal from Afghanistan.
“You've seen it in Afghanistan and you're seeing it play out now in Iraq.” Hyten said. “We have to not ignore the threats in the Middle East, but deal with the threat to the Middle East in a different way, with a smaller footprint, so we can divert more of our body on threats in China and Russia."

Mark
Ottawa
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,627
Points
910
Russia to unveil new fighter jet at Moscow's air show
Vladimir Isachenkov

The Associated Press

Published Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:12AM EDT
Last Updated Saturday, July 17, 2021 9:37AM EDT

MOSCOW -- Russian aircraft makers say they will present a prospective new fighter jet at a Moscow air show that opens next week.

...

Russian media reports said that the new jet has been built by the Sukhoi aircraft maker in a program of development of a light tactical fighter.

...

Unlike Russia's latest Su-57 two-engine stealth fighter, the new aircraft is smaller and has one engine.

The Su-57 has been built to match the U.S. F-22 Raptor stealth fighter, but unlike the American aicraft that has been in service since 2005 its serial production is just starting and a new engine intended to give it the capability to cruise at supersonic speed is still under development.

The new warplane's name is unknown, and there is no information about its capability and deployment prospects.

The prospective Russian fighter jet appears intended to compete with the U.S. F-35 Lightning II fighter, which entered service in 2015. Russia hopes to eventually offer the new aircraft to foreign customers.

Rostec, the state corporation that includes Russian aircraft makers, said the "fundamentally new military aircraft" will be unveiled Tuesday at the Moscow air show. "Russia is one of the few countries in the world with full-cycle capacities for producing advanced aircraft systems, as well as a recognized trendsetter in the creation of combat aircraft," it said.


More at links provided
I can sorta see that Russia still steals and reverse engineers things. Not surprising at all
 

CBH99

Army.ca Veteran
Donor
Reaction score
691
Points
990
I can sorta see that Russia still steals and reverse engineers things. Not surprising at all
In all fairness, everybody does. And just to play the advocate, but why shouldn’t they?

Why do all the R&D on developing this type of technology, when this type of technology already exists? Better to steal what information you can, reverse engineer it as best able, then modify it/apply it to their own goals.

Is it fair? No. Strategically smart? You bet.

I genuinely don’t see Russia as our enemy. A potential threat, if world events evolve a certain & specific way? Absolutely. But I don’t see a fight against Russia coming anytime soon.

China on the other hand…
 
Top