Can Britain, France, or China spend like the US? - Page 3




 
--
 
June 13th, 2007  
WNxRogue
 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sukio
The irony of this is, look at the first war this nation fought, the war of Independence, we fought with similar tactics to some of the enemies we are fighting today.
I also found that very ironic - and look how effective it was for us against the British.
June 13th, 2007  
rock45
 

Topic: Equipment


WNxRogue
You mention streamline the military budget and increase training and had a few questions. Been watching the military channel and on certain shows they show units traveling and fighting in Iraq. Would doubling the amount of tanks for supporting the ground troops be helpful? I've seem shows about Marine convoys where there seems to be a lot of trucks, fuel tankers, and APC type or thin shin vehicles are more tanks needed? Could money be better spent in fielding more heavy fire power for the ground troops? On one show a convoy is being fired at from a row of low level houses I'm confused why the tanks didn't just level the block? It seem that nobody but bad guys were in this row of houses and they were throwing everything but the kitchen sink at these poor Marines. If you can in a very general way explain what you mean. Please keep online or even with what's shown on TV, or PM me. Thanks
June 17th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
Personally, I don't think more tanks would be much of an advantage in Iraq. After all, most of the fighting takes place in the cities, if the insurgents even expose themselves rather than launching mortars or planting IEDs.

I think the best thing the Army could invest in right now would be those new area denial weapons, like that device that shoots a sonic beam of painfully loud noise or those mircorwave emitters that burn everyone within a wide radius. Getting more of those recon drones like UAVs and those neat little throwable UGVs would probably also be immensely helpful (especially for spotting aforementioned mortar teams). Basically, I don't think weapons that rely on brute force would be much help, but ones that allow for effective crowd control would be cool.

But then I'm just a civilian in America...
--
June 17th, 2007  
WNxRogue
 
 
Im also of the opinion that no, more tanks wont make a significant diffrence in Iraq. As a matter of fact, they may actually cause more harm then good. The fighting that is done at this point is mostly in the city, where the advantages of tanks are largely mitigated. Im of the opinion that something like heavly armored humvees, or APCs would be more useful, as their lighter weapons can be used on insurgents with less collateral damage. I mean, just looking at the political battle there, a tank leveling a city block cant be good for american support.
June 18th, 2007  
phoenix80
 
 
Canada must take of its useless public health care first.... China has to take care of its HIV ridden people and France must deal with Islamic extremist cells in the country before being able to spend like the U.S
June 18th, 2007  
rock45
 
Hi phoenix80
Sorry for going off topic
I agree with all three of your comments by must admit I know little about Canada public health care system. I am not an expert by by any means on this subject but it's not a fair comparison. The United States economy is much large then the countries you listed and only China is close. I would never expect Britain or France to even come near the United States on what they can spend. I'm not saying there arms industries can't produce good weapons because they do. Just that the US has more and can even spend even more if needed to then either Britain or France can. I read somewhere that the US weapons sales total make up more then the 5th to the 16th arms producing countries combined. A lot of things comes down to money and can money be made from it. What markets are open and what futures does it have. Look at the Rafale, good fighter but it took so long to get produced and into the market if may fail to be a big seller. How many countries could take on the F-35 and F-22 programs at the same time?

Your comment on "France must deal with Islamic extremist cells in the country" seems very true to me.
June 18th, 2007  
Yossarian
 
 
The Russian Federation, almost did, releasing the Su 47 , which had some of the same qualities as the F/A 22, and the Su 37 Terminator, also was the most maneuverable fighter ever to come out of the new Eastern Block.

But, the spending, was again a issue. Since one was canceled after a terrible crash. And the other put on hold, until the Russian Government could afford to place funds on more research.

The U.S. technology may be good to have. But, I fear, that in the future, a satellite based Military, that is run by computers and drones. Maybe just another war machine with a Ar chillies heel. I mean, you could load SCUDs with shattered glass warheads. And calculate where to fire them, once the hit orbit, the glass hitting a Satellite moving a 20,000 to 100,000 miles per hour? A pebble would destroy key data equipment.

Just image ICBMs adapted to do such a thing? Everyone one on the ground would be partially blind, and everyone in the air, would almost be flying silent. Its hard to even wonder about the Navy. And Computers? As bloodless they make war seem. Look back at 1996, when a teenager from the U.K. hacked into the USAF computer mainframe.

I know that was almost 12 years ago. But, think, digital warfare is only a doorstep away. If a enemy found some way to hinder all our nation's military computers and super computer mainframes, then, not only would we have no first strike abilities, and very, very limited combat information, but we would be almost helpless, leaving only ground forces, and very limited air forces using old technology, such as radios, flag signaling, and so forth, our military would overnight, take huge steps back to the Vietnam Era........
June 18th, 2007  
rock45
 

Topic: Funding


Hi Sukio
I must admit I don't agree with some of what you stated about comparing the S-37/47 to the F-22 and or the program. The F-22 is a highly secret program how would Russian Federation even knows what was in it? I donít think you can really compare something without knowing really about it. I'm a big Flanker fan and even think Fulcrums have gotten a bad rep over years but the Su-37/47 were little more then air show examples mock ups and prototypes. You may be right about the Su-37 being the most maneuverable aircraft to come out of the Eastern Block. I do not classify the Su-37 as fighter since radar and other aircraft systems were never really produced. It never flew with all those important items in it, so do you see my point it was never operational. Put operational radar in it, strap on six to eight missiles, added a drop tank or two on to it, and then see what it can do. I think they found something good but lack the technology to produce the goodies that go inside of it, since Russia still lacks these things in there current aircraft. Some of the other stuff you mention has some merit but donít count out U.S. technology for still not having it first. Or a way of stopping it.
June 18th, 2007  
major liability
 
 
I agree with Sukio. With all of our advanced warfighting technology, we'd be the ones with the most to lose if the enemy found a way to counteract or disable our satellites. Those Chinese anti-satellite lasers are worrying. That's why I don't think America should rush the militarization of space until we have the plans and technology to maintain the advantage up there. Otherwise, we're just opening ourselves up for a lot of problems other countries just starting out won't face.

Also, I think eventually, in the far future, the military will be completely replaced by automations overseen by human officers. America has a low tolerance for loss of life and a lot of high technology. That path makes the most sense to me. And, if they mastered miniaturization on the microscopic scale ("nanites" some people call em) we'd probably just pump out a huge swarm of robots that get in everything and disable/eat the enemy equipment.
June 18th, 2007  
Yossarian
 
 
That would make automation in the military more vulnerable to sabotage, and countermeasures. What about EMPs? Counter Electronic devices. And other things? I mean, there is always a battle over Protection and firepower. Even in the digital age. But, what your saying, is decades away. This can be seen in the USMC's interest in low orbit insertion craft, sorta like putting a V 22 at 300,000 ft, and sling shooting it to the target area.

But, it makes since, that the richest nation in the world is looking into Science fiction like military approaches to the war of tomorrow. But, Major Liability, what you said, is like, the war of the day after tomorrow. There is a lot of time for war fighting to evolve between then , and now.
 


Similar Topics
How Close to Allies Were We? China and the USA.
China, Shy Giant, Shows Signs Of Shedding Its False Modesty
China plans to invade US!
japanese writer suggests few ways to defend aginist china
Chinese Military Doctrine