http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ith-putin.html
Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin
The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.
A series of classified exercises over the summer has raised concerns inside the Defense Department that its forces are not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, two defense officials told The Daily Beast.
Many within the military believe that 15 years of counter-terrorism warfare has left the ground troops ill prepared to maintain logistics or troop levels should Russia make an advance on NATO allies, the officials said.
Among the challenges the exercises revealed were that the number of precision-guided munitions available across the force were short of the war plans and it would be difficult to sustain a large troop presence.
“Could we probably beat the Russians today [in a sustained battle]? Sure, but it would take everything we had,” one defense official said. “What we are saying is that we are not as ready as we want to be.”
One classified “tabletop exercise” or “TTX”—a kind of in-office war game—“told us that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] have depleted our sustainment capability,” a second defense official explained, using military jargon for the ability to maintain a fight. The exercise was led by the Department of Defense and involved several other federal agencies.
In recent months, the top officers of the military have begun to call Putin’s Russia an “existential threat” to the United States. The results of those exercises—and Russian-backed forces’ latest advance in Ukraine—didn’t exactly tamp down those fears.
But these concerns about readiness and sustainability are not universally held—not even inside the Pentagon. Nor is there a consensus about the kind of risk Putin's Russia really poses. Everyone in the U.S. security establishment acknowledges that Moscow has roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s third-largest military budget, and an increasingly bellicose leader. There’s little agreement on how likely that threat could be.
“A war between Russian and NATO is an unlikely scenario given the severe repercussions Russia would face. In addition to the overwhelming reaction it would provoke, Russia’s aging military equipment and strained logistical capabilities make a successful offensive attack a very difficult proposition for them,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “In short, direct conflict with Russia is a low-probability, high-risk situation. The challenge of Putin’s erratic leadership is that low-probability events are slightly more probable.”
The U.S. military still has the upper hand in so many ways, after all. But there are limits—severe limits—on those advantages. For its airpower, for example, the U.S. military would be leaning on worn out fighter pilots and limited maintenance abilities for their planes. And the surveillance drones needed would have to be drawn from other conflict zones.
“Against an adversary like Russia, we can’t take the kind of air dominance we’ve had in conflicts since 9/11 for granted,” a second defense official explained. “Any conflict of significant magnitude against an adversary like Russia means we’d need to commit airmen and resources that are now operating in other parts of the world at a rate that minimizes their ability to train for that kind of fight.”
The official added, “We may very well be able to provide the airpower that would allow us and our allies to prevail in a high-end fight, but the current state of our air forces definitely doesn’t make that a sure bet.”
Around the time of that TTX, in June, the U.S. military also conducted four major field exercises with its NATO counterparts, called Allied Shield, consisting of 15,000 troops and 19 member countries. In March, Russia conducted its own exercises, at one point deploying as many as 80,000 personnel.
“The focus of the exercises is on what each side sees as its most exposed areas, with NATO concentrating on the Baltic States and Poland whilst Russia is focusing primarily on the Arctic and High North, Kaliningrad, occupied Crimea, and its border areas with NATO members Estonia and Latvia,” is how one report summarized the dueling manuevers (PDF).
And like the tabletop exercise, Allied Shield suggested the U.S. could not maintain a sustained fight against the Russians.
Moreover, Russia’s blend of special forces, local proxies, weaponized propaganda, cyber espionage, and sneak attacks has many in the U.S. military struggling to figure out how to respond. Of course, they want to check Russian aggression—especially if Putin makes a move for America’s NATO allies in the Baltics. They’re not sure how do to that without starting down the path toward World War III. Especially now that Russia has declared itself open to the notion of using first-strike nuclear weapons in a conventional conflict.
The Daily Beast’s Anna Nemtsova, who is currently with U.S. military trainers in Ukraine, asked one of them what they would they do if their units were suddenly surrounded by Russian-backed forces.
“Let me think for a moment, that is a difficult one,” the American soldier said.
At his last briefing with reporters, Army General Raymond Odierno, the outgoing Chief of Staff of the Army, said NATO exercises conducted in Europe exposed even small challenges that could have outsized impact in a fight against Russia.
“One of the things we learned is the logistical challenges we have in Eastern Europe. For example, Eastern Europe has a different gauge railroad than Western Europe [where U.S. has traditionally trained] does so moving supplies is a more difficult. So we are learning great lessons like that,” Odierno said.
More serious was Odierno’s warning that “only 33 percent” of the U.S. Army’s brigades are sufficiently trained to confront Russia. That’s far short of the 60 percent needed. Odierno said that he does not believe the Army will reach those levels for several more years.“We may very well be able to provide the airpower that would allow us to prevail in a fight, but the current state of our air forces definitely doesn’t make that a sure bet.”
During the height of the Cold War, there were roughly 250,000 U.S. troops deployed to Europe. After the first Gulf War, that number fell to roughly to 91,000. That number today stands at 31,000—although some additional troops have been added since the stealth invasion of Ukraine.
And yet, many throughout government are not nearly as worried as the military. In fact, these insiders suspect that the Pentagon’s warning is more a means to seek leverage amid threats of budget cuts. The military is hoping to stave off major cuts to its ground force and cash flow as the war in Afghanistan winds down.
Lawrence Korb—a senior fellow at the Washington, D.C.-based Center for American Progress, which is closely aligned with the Obama White House and the Hillary Clinton campaign, said he believes the military is taking advantage of Russian aggressions over the last two years to fight its budget battles.
Further, Korb is not convinced the exercises reflect reality, noting the U.S. spends roughly $600 billion on its defense compared to Russia’s $60 billion. Russian weapons are far less modern, and Putin had to abandon his $400 billion plan to upgrade them earlier this year as the Russian ruble fell.
“We’d clean their clocks. [Russian troops are] not that good. They are not as modern,” Korb said. “I think [the military] took advantage of recent Russian aggression because it has become clear we would not use large ground armies” to confront groups like the self-proclaimed Islamic State.
The U.S. military is now worried about Russia “in the same way the Navy [once] talked about the Chinese” to stop cuts to its budget, he added.
But Lieutenant General Mark Hertling, who retired in 2012 as the commander of U.S. Army Europe, said the Russian threat existed far before the latest budget squabbles. And when he raised them in 2010, they fell on deaf ears.
“We were beating the drum of Russia in 2010 and we were told [by Washington officials], ‘You are still in the Cold War.’ All the things we predicted would happen, happened, but it wasn’t at the forefront of the time,” Hertling said.
“This gets to a lack of trust between the government and the military,” Hertling added. “We were monitoring Russian movement and they were increasing not only their budget but their pace of operation and their development of new equipment. They were repeatedly aggressive and provocative even though we were trying to work with them.”
Since then, the Army has shrunk rapidly—by 80,000 troops. Should Congress enact the across-the-board budget cuts known as sequestration, the Army could fall from 450,000 soldiers to 420,000, making it the smallest U.S. ground force since the end of World War II. Odierno has called such figures dangerous.
“The unrelenting budget impasse has compelled us to degrade readiness to historically low levels,” Odierno said last month at a conference.
Either way, the London-based European Leadership Network released a report Wednesday, and concluded the dueling large-scale military exercises are aggravating tensions, not deterring the opposing side, as intended.
“Russia is preparing for a conflict with NATO, and NATO is preparing for a possible confrontation with Russia. We do not suggest that the leadership of either side has made a decision to go to war or that a military conflict between the two is inevitable, but that the changed profile of exercises is a fact and it does play a role in sustaining the current climate of tensions in Europe,” found the report, led “Preparing for the Worst: Are Russian and NATO Military Exercises Making War in Europe more Likely?”
So the Russians are going to kill you?
OK.
at least i wouldn't die a degenerate :-DD
so Russia spends $90 billion a year in defense and US spends $650 billion a year, yet Russia is going to win the war?
Okayy....
Right, you'll die a virgin.
you are a stupid "human being" and i use that term loosely. lmao keep spending trillions on that ty f35 while countries like russia and china simply move to counter your strenghts at a fraction of the cost with simpler, more effective capabilities. lmao can't even beat a ww2 era jet.
https://www.rt.com/usa/312446-f-35-inferior-foreign/
F-35 slammed as 'inferior' to older American & foreign fighters incl. Russia's Su-27, MiG-29
Published time: 14 Aug, 2015 12:36Edited time: 14 Aug, 2015 12:47
© Daniel Hughes / U.S. Air Force / Handout via Reuters / Reuters
4.5K8
The performance of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter is inferior to foreign jets it is expected to outperform in engagements and barely justifies replacing with it the older models currently deployed by the Pentagon, a scalding report says.
With an estimated price tag of $1.4 trillion, the Joint Strike Fighter is among Pentagon’s most expensive weapons program. The 5th-generation multipurpose fighter jets are meant to become the backbone of America’s air power for decades to come and play a significant part in defense capability of its allies.
But the performance characteristics of the advanced aircraft are inferior to those of 4th-generation aircraft deployed by advanced foreign power like Russia or China, which it is meant to dominate through superior technology, a scalding new report said.
The report released this week by US progressive think tank National Security Network identified four key areas in which the F-35 does not deliver: poor maneuverability that makes it vulnerable in dogfights, small internal payload capacity, short operational range and reliance on stealth technology for survivability.
“The F-35 will find itself outmaneuvered, outgunned, out of range, and visible to enemy sensors,” NSN’s policy analyst Bill French said. “Going forward, full investment in the F-35 would be to place a bad trillion-dollar bet on the future of airpower based on flawed assumptions and an underperforming aircraft.
“To avoid such a catastrophic outcome, Congress and DOD should begin the process of considering alternatives to a large-scale commitment to the F-35. Staying the present course may needlessly gamble away a sizable margin of American airpower at great expense and unnecessary risk to American lives,” he added.
The report compared the F-35 against the Russian-made Mig-29 and the Su-27, which is also produced by China under a license, claiming inadequacy of the US fighter.
“Compared to both the Su-27 and the MiG-29, the F-35 is grossly inferior in terms of wing loading (except for the F-35C), transonic acceleration, and thrust-to-weight. All F-35 variants also have significantly lower maximum speeds,” the report said.
It added that there was insufficient data for comparison with the Russian and Chinese 5th-generation fighter jets, PAK FA J-20 and J-31 for comparison.
Comparison against the F-16, F-18 and AV-8B Harrier, which the F-35 is meant to replace in the US fleet, showed that the new aircraft was worse in thrust, acceleration and wing loading, according to the report.
“These performance factors are critical to building up speed and gaining or retaining energy that enables the aircraft to maneuver and gain advantages in firing position against other aircraft or defeating incoming missiles,” French wrote.
Earlier the blog War is Boring published a leaked report by a test pilot that said an F-35 performed sluggishly in mock dogfights against an F-16.
The F-37 JSF has marked a milestone this month, when the US Marine Corps declared their version of the aircraft ready for combat. The Air Force and the Navy are still struggling to cut through computer glitches and engine troubles plaguing their variants.
i seriously hope the first nuke somehow misses the mark and hits austin. i won't even be here in the states when this goes down. i may not even be in the states now.
Of course you're in the states. You're in the metroplex suburbs like you always are.
whatever makes you feel better sweetheart
You just wait! He's just got save up a little bit more and then he'll be on the first available one-way flight to Berlin!
Not being able to afford a plane ticket is pleb tier, I'm not an old but my net worth is still in the six figures. We still have 1940s money
rooting for Russia?
what persuaded you: the anti-semitism or the phobia, or both?
btw, are you a native Norteamericano, m<s?
if so, why are you rooting against the USA?
why do you hate America?
Putin has stated he will fly the first bomber towards the US himself. If Russia is attacked.
We don't stand a chance
I do not hate America but I hate our leaders and what we have become, this place is like a new Sodom or Gomorrah. This is a country that is obviously rabidly anti white, so why should I support them? Especially in going
to war with another
white country so that we can break them and bring in multiculturalism? No, Russia is our last hope at a multipolar world. Just look at what the USA has done to Europe, they killed ghaddafi knowing damn well that this immigrant flood would be an existential threat to Europe. The s want is gone because we will never bow or bend to their will and their greatest foe will be gone for good. And the USA is their #1 enforcement arm. Hopefully under president trump that will change.
yup, he is a hundred times the leader Obama is and Russian battle doctrine is superior to ours. They continually attack and then back up any forward progress or victories immediately and "hug the enemy" in order to negate any air superiority which I doubt we would even have because of Russian anti air capabilities. You have some of the toughest SOBs going up against obamas new rainbow military of gays and trannies.
You give off such a Napolean Dynamite vibe. Every time I read your posts I hear his voice and
Plus putin wont hessitate to rain nukes on every us city of russia is losing. Ues he will to there meanwhile obama will struggle to decide which White House toilet to use
I'd like to know where the riverboat sails tonight
To New Orleans well that's just fine alright
`Cause there's fighting there and the company needs men
So slip us a rope and sail on round the bendhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_LongstreetLongstreet was the only senior Confederate officer to join the Republican Party during Reconstruction. He endorsed Grant for president in 1868, attended his inauguration ceremonies, and six days later received an appointment as surveyor of customs in New Orleans. For these acts he lost favor with many Southerners. His old friend Harvey Hill wrote to a newspaper: "Our scalawag is the local leper of the community." Unlike Northerners who moved South and were sometimes referred to as "Carpetbaggers," Hill wrote, Longstreet "is a native, which is so much the worse." The Republican governor of Louisiana appointed Longstreet the adjutant general of the state militia and by 1872 he became a major general in command of all militia and state police forces within New Orleans. During protests of election irregularities in 1874, referred to as the Battle of Liberty Place, an armed force of 8,400 White League members advanced on the State House. Longstreet commanded a force of 3,600 Metropolitan Police, city policemen, and African-American militia troops, armed with two Gatling guns and a battery of artillery. He rode to meet the protesters but was pulled from his horse, shot by a spent bullet, and taken prisoner. The White League charged, causing many of Longstreet's men to flee or surrender. There were casualties of 38 killed and 79 wounded. Federal troops were required to restore order. Longstreet's use of black troops during the disturbances increased the denunciations by anti-Reconstructionists.[75]
suppose the reference to Jesse James fits too:
I'll take my horse and I'll ride the northern plain
To wear the colour of the greys and join the fight again
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
