AHC: A more competent U.S. Armed Forces

[Snake Featherston]

Originally Posted by ccdsah

Well, we never had strategic nuclear bombing
I'm sure that could win a war against a non-nuclear state.

I'm fairly sure that there's no winner of a strategic nuclear exchange outside the cockroaches.

[marcus_aurelius]

Originally Posted by Snake Featherston

Has strategic bombing ever won any war at any point? Has it in fact ever delivered a fraction of what it's promised at any point?

Does the Gulf War count?

Marc A

[SergeantHeretic]

Originally Posted by TxCoatl1970

@ Sergeant Heretic- We've all got our areas where we're geniuses, but as you said, whether they're applicable to the problem at hand...
FWIW I'm in the same boat, sister.
Genius at wastewater treatment and water-resource management, not an economist or political analyst that could sort this all out in the la-la land where nobody's in charge and everyone has an opinion.

BW, I'm with you. We need a Truman to keep Congress and contractors honest. Congress has too much of a vested interest in distributing the pork rather than a functional military.

Most of your suggestions are pretty neat.
My biggest problem with the America CV's you want to refit is their need for fuel and the oilers' need to refuel them as well as aviation fuel.
Cheaper to refit but cost out the a** in operational costs.
I agree nuclear power's got a high initial cost and unique safety issues. For our conventional power projection platform though, I like 'em nuclear.

I think we can all agree nobody really sat down in 1992 and said, "What are going to be the challenges to the US military, and who will do what when we respond to them?"

Much as I love to bag on Marines as an ex-squid, they do very well as FILO force that never really get their due or consideration when it comes to budget and force structure. They and the Airborne/Delta Force should have a common command and doctrine responding to hotspots.

HOWEVER, keeping the Marines lean has avoided a lot of problems the Army has with bloat BUT the Navy does a lot of the support stuff-engineering, logistics, and so forth allowing the Marines to be mostly on the pointy end.

This brings me to a painful subject as an ex-squid. How many Ohio-class boomers and VA-class attack subs, not to mention carrier groups do we need?!?

Much as I love to bag on the F-22 and F-35 boondoggles, I'd slash carrier groups down to six and gut the attack sub fleet. We're not hunting Red October now or for the foreseeable future.

We need a decent FFG/DDG design between Perry and a Burke for anti-piracy and ASW, no to mention air picket duty.

What doesn't the Army do? Sure, they have Special Forces and assault units (Airborne, Air Assault, Delta), tanks, AFV's, Artillery, Aircraft, ships, combat and construction engineering units, MPs, supply and logistics folks, and on down the list. Do we stay with heavy-metal mech infantry prepositioned in trouble spots or a FILO force prepped for OOTW?

We WI'd in the Army Air Corps thread AAC being integral CAS and MAC planes and crews tasked to serve grunts' needs instead of being an afterthought as it was 'til Nam while the "Air Force" focused on strategic offense and defense.
Would some division of responsibilities have served the USAF to answer in post-Cold War "defense" needs?

I'm no aviation expert, but determining what power needs to projected in what time frame for how long at what cost is the key to the Air Force's mission profile.

IMO, stealth technology proved a blind alley that sucked a fuck-ton of $$$$
to accomplish little extra functionality and made perfectly useful birds- F-15's and F-16's seem "obsolete" when they really weren't. It puts in the
dilemma of relying on really old airframes when we've killed the "next-step" birds being a complete replacement.

How have armed drones changed the battle space? Can we get away with using A/SLCM's or do we still need manned CAS mud-movers?
(I'd argue YES against the PLA or NKPA, but not in Iraq or Afghanistan beyond Apaches or AC-130's. I'm sure veterans of both campaigns'd vehemently disagree.)

Rethinking the strategic purpose of the US Military takes a paradigm shift NOBODY OTL was ready for in 1992. New enemies and technological advances
completely altered the scale and nature of combat.

This has been quoted for truth.

[marcus_aurelius]

Probably shouldn't resurrect my own dead thread, but I'm having a lot of ideas lately about U.S. military equipments in an ATL. I'll post what I have when I'm done figuring out all of it.

Marc A

[TheMann]

Originally Posted by marcus_aurelius

Probably shouldn't resurrect my own dead thread, but I'm having a lot of ideas lately about U.S. military equipments in an ATL. I'll post what I have when I'm done figuring out all of it.

Marc A

Mind if I critique?

[NothingNow]

Originally Posted by marcus_aurelius

Probably shouldn't resurrect my own dead thread, but I'm having a lot of ideas lately about U.S. military equipments in an ATL. I'll post what I have when I'm done figuring out all of it.

Marc A

I'd like to see it too.

[Ming777]

How unlikely would it be for the US Navy to adopt a derivative of the Canadian Halifax Class frigate instead of the MCS.

Do note that the Stryker was a derivative of the Canadian LAV III and was built in Canada.

As well, Ive heard that the M16A4 had incorporated some of the improvements from the Diemaco C7 after Colt bought the Canadian company.

[Riain]

I've had a read back over this thread and have been startled by the calls for the US Army to re-absorb the USAF. This would be a bad thing, the Air Force can and throughout history has achieved effects far beyond what is possible merely supporting the Army. While airpower zealots over state their case 'stategic' bombing can and has caused major dislocation among enemies and created synergies for ground forces far beyond what 'tank busting' can achieve.

[Matt Wiser]

That reminds me of someone over on the usenet group rec.aviation.military. He's constantly urging the Army absorb the Air Force, consistently is against any fifth-generation fighters (whether it's F-22, F-35, Typhoon, Rafale, take your pick), and he'd rather see the Air Force at least flying F-51s and B-29s, or at most, F-100s and B-47s. Oh, he was against the V-22 before he supported it, too.

Not to mention that such an idea of the Army taking back the Air Force would have no political support at all whatsoever....

[kessock]

Originally Posted by Riain

I've had a read back over this thread and have been startled by the calls for the US Army to re-absorb the USAF. This would be a bad thing, the Air Force can and throughout history has achieved effects far beyond what is possible merely supporting the Army. While airpower zealots over state their case 'stategic' bombing can and has caused major dislocation among enemies and created synergies for ground forces far beyond what 'tank busting' can achieve.

The problem is that the Air Force wants to get their hands on everything that flys but when it gets them, totally ignores what doesn't really pertains to the Air Force. The Air Force is needed however the roles need to be reassigned.

Air Force - Strategic Missiles, Heavy Bomber, Refueling, Inter-theater Transport, Strategic Reconnaissance, Deep Interdiction, NORAD

Army - Close Air Support, Battlefield Interdiction, Tactical Reconnaissance, Intra-Theatre Transport, Battlefield EW and Battlefield Air Superiority

The Army knows what it needs more than the Air Force and would be a better coordinator. Look at Marine Air and how well it's integrated with the Marine Land.

Unfortunately the best time this would have happened was at the end of WW2. Now the empire building is too entrenched.

[marcus_aurelius]

Originally Posted by TheMann

Mind if I critique?

Please, mein herr, go right ahead and do it.

Originally Posted by NothingNow

I'd like to see it too.

All in good time, friend. I have two papers due on Tuesday, after that, I'll see how things go.

Originally Posted by Ming777

How unlikely would it be for the US Navy to adopt a derivative of the Canadian Halifax Class frigate instead of the MCS.

Do note that the Stryker was a derivative of the Canadian LAV III and was built in Canada.

As well, Ive heard that the M16A4 had incorporated some of the improvements from the Diemaco C7 after Colt bought the Canadian company.

You'll just have to wait and see.

Originally Posted by Riain

I've had a read back over this thread and have been startled by the calls for the US Army to re-absorb the USAF. This would be a bad thing, the Air Force can and throughout history has achieved effects far beyond what is possible merely supporting the Army. While airpower zealots over state their case 'stategic' bombing can and has caused major dislocation among enemies and created synergies for ground forces far beyond what 'tank busting' can achieve.

If it were up to me I'd give Army the CAS assets (A-10s, AC-130s, and so on) and leave the rest to the Air Force, but that would be a turf war of epic proportions...

Marc A

[Riain]

Originally Posted by kessock

The Army knows what it needs more than the Air Force and would be a better coordinator. Look at Marine Air and how well it's integrated with the Marine Land.

When I look at Marine Aviation I see a very limited force, good at these very limited roles but not so much at the wider things that a balanced aiir force can achieve. It can get away with this because it is backed by USN Aviation which can do the wider things needed.

[LostCosmonaut]

Originally Posted by kessock

The problem is that the Air Force wants to get their hands on everything that flys but when it gets them, totally ignores what doesn't really pertains to the Air Force. The Air Force is needed however the roles need to be reassigned.

Air Force - Strategic Missiles, Heavy Bomber, Refueling, Inter-theater Transport, Strategic Reconnaissance, Deep Interdiction, NORAD

Army - Close Air Support, Battlefield Interdiction, Tactical Reconnaissance, Intra-Theatre Transport, Battlefield EW and Battlefield Air Superiority

The Army knows what it needs more than the Air Force and would be a better coordinator. Look at Marine Air and how well it's integrated with the Marine Land.

Unfortunately the best time this would have happened was at the end of WW2. Now the empire building is too entrenched.

So, hypothetically speaking, the Army Air Arm (need a good name for it) would have some A-10s and C-130s in addition to the attack helos and such they already have?

[kessock]

Originally Posted by LostCosmonaut

So, hypothetically speaking, the Army Air Arm (need a good name for it) would have some A-10s and C-130s in addition to the attack helos and such they already have?

Yup. They ran exercises in the 70s and 80s with attack helicopters and CAS aircraft and the synergy effect of both working in concert vastly exceeded their individual abilities.

C-130s and smaller for the transport needs.
A-10s for CAS although I would have liked to have seen a rough airfield capability for it
AV-8s maybe for interdiction and recce or the F-16 for both interdiction recce and battlefield air superiority

Air superiority is one of those things that's hard to solve. CAS will probably need escort however area air defence is more of an Air Force thing.

[kessock]

Originally Posted by Riain

When I look at Marine Aviation I see a very limited force, good at these very limited roles but not so much at the wider things that a balanced aiir force can achieve. It can get away with this because it is backed by USN Aviation which can do the wider things needed.

But that's the idea. Marine Air concentrates on supporting Marine Ground. They don't have to worry about fleet defence, deep strike or ASW.

Right now the Air Force has CAS and to be honest they don't want it. How many time did they try to kill the A-10. It was shoved down their throats in the first place, only saved by the First Gulf War and fought tooth and nail before starting to update it. Same for the intra-theatre transport; they quite nicely totally screwed the Army over that one.

The idea is that the Army takes care of Army concerns because we know over and over, that the Air Force won't.

[La Rouge Beret]

That sounds like a really reasonable argument, leave interdicition, strategic bombing and transport to the sky blue scarf wearing types.

Army operating A - 10's sounds pretty good in my book, would they also use AC - 130's as well?

[marcus_aurelius]

Originally Posted by La Rouge Beret

That sounds like a really reasonable argument, leave interdicition, strategic bombing and transport to the sky blue scarf wearing types.

Army operating A - 10's sounds pretty good in my book, would they also use AC - 130's as well?

I would think so. Pretty much the only reason for it's existence is to support ground pounders close to the frontline. Air Force's got better stuff for battlefield interdiction and whatnot.

Marc A

[Riain]

I struggle to believe that this conversation is even taking place, the separation of air forces is so vital that even within the US Navy aviatiors have distignuished themselves from sailors by wearing different shoes. At no place in the world has it been seriously suggested that the Army should reabsorb the Air Force, not even in New Zealand which has no 'force' in their Air Force. To suggest that a major part of the world biggest, and perhaps most competent, Air Force is so shit that it should be absorbed into another service is ludicrous.

[MattII]

And if you read up you'll see that no-one wants the Army to reintergrate the whole air force, just the bits that pertain to it, like the CAS craft (specifically the A-10 and AC-130).

[Riain]

The F16 is used for CAS, should the Army reabsorb the F16 fleet? In Vietnam and again in the Gulf War the B52 fleet has been used for CAS, should the Army reabsorb the B52 fleet?

On the other hand the Patriot SAM is used to shoot down aircraft just like the F22, perhaps the Air Force should control the Patriot force. The Army has battlefield ATACMS missiles used for deep battlefield interdiction which is an Air Force role, perhaps the Air Force should control the ATACMS fleet. Or if we want to really go nuts the Israeli tanks on the West Bank of the Suez Canal in 1973 were tasked with destroying SAM sites to open paths for the Air Force, perhaps armoured divisions should be controlled by the air force.