Results 1 to 20 of 1935

Thread: Ukraine (closed; covers till August 2014)

Threaded View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #11
    Council Member AmericanPride's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    "Turn left at Greenland." - Ringo Starr
    Posts
    965

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stan View Post
    Degraded military capacity ? Got a link or is this conjecture ? The Russians are better and the Americans are degrading ?
    Not conjecture. Military capacity does not equal military capability - so while absolute US military capability increases with the introduction of every new weapon system (at least that's the assumption and I'll stick to that for now), it does not necessarily mean US military capacity is improving or even sustaining. By capacity, I mean the culminative capability to wage war effectively. The F-35 and F-22 programs are perfect examples. I discussed in this thread how US purchasing power for military capabilities is actually degrading US military capacity. From that thread in 2012:

    Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride
    So how we measure relative combat power between, say, the 1973 aircraft and the 2012 aircraft is to find their ratio of cost-per-unit to how many units are active. The F-35 costs between 197 and 237 million dollars. One of the aircraft it will replace is the F-16, which cost 14 - 18 million dollars per unit. If we assume that the amount of combat power that a dollar can buy is fixed, then in order for the F-35 to be "worth it", it must provide at least 1,316% more combat power than the F-16. By anyone's definition of combat power, does it? The US has 2,230 F-16s, 335 A-10s, and 409 F/A-18s (the other two aircraft the F-35 will replace), for a total of 2,974 aircraft. The official plan is to buy around 2,400 aircraft. If we assume that to be the case (even though procurement has been both delayed and reduced because of cost of growth), and use the DoD/NATO definition of combat power, then even though the US intends to buy 20% less aircraft than current inventory, for now it is purchasing an equal or greater amount of combat power. For the US to replace F-16 combat power 1:1 (assuming the F-35 can provide 1,316% more combat power), the US must purchase at least 1,600 new F-35s.
    The sequester has only intensified this problem because the cost per unit for weapon systems is increasing faster than the anticipated DoD budget, which means the absolute number of dollars (and therefore the purchaseable combat capacity) is decreasing. This has been partially offset by trimming personnel benefits but since operations and maintenance already consumes approximately 50% of the DoD budget and I think personnel takes about 10% in comparison (I'll have to double check), there's only so much that can be cut. And there's the added problem of increasing, not decreasing, security commitments.

    The other problem is that in recent history the US has not been able to effectively tie together political aims with military means - so while it's awesome to have a handful of high powered combat systems, we don't know how to employ them in a way to achieve our political ends. We can debate if this is a political problem or military one but since some weapon systems now take upwards of 40 years to develop and field, I lean towards our inability to properly forecast threats and to synchronize long-term strategy with military development.

    Are the Russians better? Depends on the metrics. If we compare conflict outcomes between 1991 - 2014, the Russians have won 7 of 11 conflicts (63.6%) with 2 on-going, and only one defeat (First Chechen War). In the same time period, the US fought in 8 conflicts with 5 clear victories (62.5%), one on-going and at least won I would argue is a defeat (Iraq). The on-going conflicts for Russia are Caucaus insurgency and eastern Ukraine insurgency, while the US conflict is Afghanistan. We know how Afghanistan is going to end, so it appears that in the near future, Russia will keep the better track record in conflict outcomes.

    And here's the last problem: one of perception of relative power. Sure, there's concern about China's rapidly growing military capabilities, which implies that US military capabilities are not increasing fast enough (and they're not). Russia is also on the ascendent, flushed with confidence in the stability and limited achievements of the Putin administration. Even if Russia is a mile away in absolute capabilities, that's less important than if their relative power or growth of that power is increasing compared to the US. A survey came out today that stated a record 60%+ of Americans feel the US is headed in the wrong direction. Perceptions matter. Relative power matters. And Russia's relative power is growing. That's a problem.
    Last edited by AmericanPride; 07-01-2014 at 06:21 PM.
    When I am weaker than you, I ask you for freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because that is according to my principles. - Louis Veuillot

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 457
    Last Post: 12-31-2015, 11:56 PM
  2. Replies: 4772
    Last Post: 06-14-2015, 04:41 PM
  3. Shot down over the Ukraine: MH17
    By JMA in forum Europe
    Replies: 253
    Last Post: 08-04-2014, 08:14 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •