Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
You still do not "get it"...the US Army does not even have a weak EW ability and yes the AF flies but it cannot constantly park aircraft over a ground manuever unit in order to provide a constant 24 X 7 EW protection...Finally believe me when I say there is none to a little EW ability inside a US BCT…Same goes for ground air defense abilities at low flying attack targets...is the Army going to wait for some USAF aircraft to arrive to down a Mi24???? The US military is not hiding anything as it got basically out of and rid of EW equipment, manning and officers in the 90s and that has remained that way since…Why is it so hard to envision that the US military is actually behind in something???? The F35 EW mission you so talk about is not for ground support but for SEAD....simple as that..there has been some talk about bringing back the A6s again for that mission set as they did in VN.....as the A6 is cheaper and can loiter longer. ARE you trying to sell me that a F35 will loiter for hours over ground troops?? Last time I checked the only loiter ac the AF has for that type of mission is the A10 but it is certainly not an EW ac...
Outlaw,

Firstly, I am not trying to sell you anything. What I am asserting however, is that the situation is perhaps not as dire as various analysts and commentators make it out to be. Here are some points to consider:

  • The Russian Army is effectively on its own and is not composed as a global expeditionary force. It is intended to operate without significant support from the other services and close to its supply lines. This is why the Russian Army will always place a premium on generating organic fires, air defense and EM warfare
  • The U.S. Army is intended for expeditionary purposes, making it lighter for ease of mobility
  • The U.S. Army also operates as part of a Joint Force and is reliant upon air superiority or supremacy by U.S. aviation (USAF and USMC)
  • The U.S. Army as a bureaucratic institution has been a major beneficiary of defense largesse during the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and it is acting to find new missions to ensure funding


For instance, the endless refrain about NATO assets in the European theater being unable to prevent or repel a Russian invasion in the Baltics without reinforcements and mobilization, is disingenuous. Even with 60% of U.S. forces committed to the Asia-Pacific theater, the USAF and USN assets can saturate Russian air defenses and other targets with cruise missiles from stand-off ranges before Riga falls i.e. well within the 60-hour window.

The reports by RAND and Carnegie are thinly-veiled attempts to expand USAE and make it the primary instrument of conventional deterrence against Russia. Given that the Army’s primacy caused the F-22 production to be capped at under 200 aircraft, the gall is quite astounding.

Secondly, as regards the role of U.S. aviation in EM warfare, this is part of the Third Offset. Have you considered EMW missiles eliminating threats ahead of the ground forces or EMW UAVs loitering overhead? The F-35 is not a like-for-like replacement but a new concept altogether. It may well prove to be a failure in practice, but conceptually, it is the future.

Thirdly, I agree that the Army needs to be bolstered in key areas, but it also needs to be cut down to size.

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
This is why there's growing European discussion of an extreme option to replace US commitments: a Euro nukes program
No, Outlaw. You’re missing the real story here, which is that Germany is willing to pay some or most of the costs of maintaining the French nuclear deterrent in exchange for being covered by it, because this is less expensive than conventional deterrence i.e. spending 2% or more of GDP on defense.

Every country is aware that nuclear deterrence is cheaper than conventional deterrence. Yet the idea of Germany controlling nuclear weapons will have the same reactions in many European countries as the idea of Japanese nuclear weapons would have on Southeast Asia.

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Merkel's comment didn't come out of nowhere. Germans have spent months contemplating – and preparing for – a break with the US.

One sr German official really stressed this: Our closest ally is not just going away, but may turn its power against us. Think about that.

Their fear wasn't just that Trump would be an unreliable ally, but that his attacks on the EU and NATO would make the US a threat to Europe.

The Germans really fear Europe will fall apart w/o the US. But they saw Trump as a potential threat to their most core national interests.

They were quite open about their plan: appease Trump and proceed normally. But quietly prepare a Plan B in case that fails. We may be there.

New NATO motto: Keep the Americans out, the Russians in, and the Germans up.
Huh? Talk about the tail wagging the dog. This is utterly ludicrous. Europe will not accept Germany as its leader for obvious reasons and Germany is not about to break the Trans-Atlantic Alliance. However, the German government knows the anti-Americanism and “Progressive” values sell well in Germany, and are a convenient distraction to Germany backstopping the Euro, dealing with migrants, hollowing out the Bundeswehr, etc.

Quote Originally Posted by OUTLAW 09
Azor...something for you as this development has been ongoing for the last two years....

Russia is Bringing Back Its World War II 'Shock Armies'
Yeah, I’ve known about this since it was announced. A big yawn here.