[MB.]

Y'all know where this is going, but let me try to put a little spin on it first of all:

What is better? Owning and operating a hundred 1960-70s airplanes/ships/submarines/vehicles, or owning and operating ten 1990-2000 additions of the same catagories?

I think this is the delema the US is facing right now:

The vast majority of United States equipment, with the exception of land vehicles, were built in the 60s and 70s (or at least planned out then), such as Super Carriers, Fighter Jets and Submarines. The US posses a massive abundance of these vehicles, such as the Las Angeles class SSN or the Nimitz class Super Carrier. The problem lies within upgrading a military of this scale to the 21st century: one will be forced to reduce the size of the military to afford the upgrade (for example, think of what's going to happen to all those A-10s, F-16s and B-52s parked in Navada? Or all those SSNs which are more or less obsolete by modern standards?), now one can assume that this is not that major of a problem- simply reduce the size of the military and start building more modern submarines planes and ships (as the US has been attempting to do for the past two decades). However, what does one do when one realises that the programs being forwarded as 'upgrades' are actaully impractible?

I think this is problem the US is running into now- their last decade of equipment has seen almost no improvement in comparison to toehr nations (Germany, Russia, France, Japan, etc), where it should have been upgrading. Instead, the vast majority of programs flopped (the Sea Wolf, the F-22, etc), leaving the US roughly a decade behind in technology. So while the States may possess one of the most powerful militaries in the world, it is by no means one fot he most advanced. Trend setting is clear enough: smaller faster and cheaper as opposed to bigger, labour intensive, and expensive. Only in the catagory of the UAVs is the US making real progress- due to the fact that military theoriests are clearly aware that the only way to bridge the gap between equipment is by purusing a totaly revolutionary process, rather then clinging to programs that would, while bringing the US into the 21st century, would cost a near furtune to implament, and still not actaully place the US as the technological leader in terms of the world's more advacned militaries.

In conclusion, the US' military is indeed obsolete. Running around trying to implement programs that didn't work last decade is not the sollution. A complete overhaul of the military is nesccary to bridge the technology gap: Smaller indepent carriers over massive craft. Faster lower profile fater cheaper tanks over bulkier less mobile vehicles (Strykers being a classic example), and so on.

[scottishtom]

I Agree that the US military is obsolete but as Stalin (i think) once said "Quantity has a quality all of its own". True the B-52 is completley out dated but it can deliver 50 tonnes of bombs or 24 cruise missiles.
There is one thing i think we should remeber about the US armed forces. They like big shiny things (rather like children). That is why they are commited to keeping the B-52s flying until 2040 (almost 90 years after there invention) and why they insist on their super carriers. A smaller more mobile force is indeed better. This was proved by an exersise i heard about when a USN nimitz battle group took on a RN Invincible battle group in the atlantic. The US carrier with its 100 planes was completly destroyed by the British carrier with its dozen and a half planes. This was due to two reasons. Firstly the Harrier is a better plane than the F14/15/18, it simply out maneuvered them. And secondly the US realies too much on sheer brute force. The Harrier pilots under go more training and can do more with less and so held their own.
The US does think towards the future but it seems to have trouble pulling it off. For example the F/A-22 raptor is one of the best planes designed but is years behind schedule and massivley over budget. The JSF is not even in production and the projected in service date has already been put back a year and a half. The V-22 opsrey is now just being built on a large scale and that is twelve years late.
I think that the US military will bring on more technology but it will always keep some obslete big shiny things just for the fun of having them.

[TROI]

A smaller more mobile force is indeed better. This was proved by an exersise i heard about when a USN nimitz battle group took on a RN Invincible battle group in the atlantic. The US carrier with its 100 planes was completly destroyed by the British carrier with its dozen and a half planes. This was due to two reasons. Firstly the Harrier is a better plane than the F14/15/18, it simply out maneuvered them. And secondly the US realies too much on sheer brute force. The Harrier pilots under go more training and can do more with less and so held their own.

Is that so? Do you have any links?

[scottishtom]

Unfortunatley no links, it is something i heard from a friend who is up in the miltary world. I think it was quite a while ago. I heard that the harriers could not be shot down. If there was a missile aimed at a harrier it just hovered in the air. The missiles doppler radar (which needs things to move fast for a lock) lost contact and looked for more targets. The only things moving fast for a lock where the american jets. Of course this doesn't work with IR missiles but they are only effective at short range.

[Attila The Nun]

No, because it's an outrifght lie. Harriers are 60s planes which have a little less capability than F-14s, and two dozen of them COULD NOT take down a hundred F-14s and F-16s.

And how is the F-22 a flop?

[scottishtom]

I can tell you have never seen a harrier fly. They can do things that no other plane can do and are probably the most manuverable plane in the world, like a fixed wing helicopter. I belive the incident took place during the Combined joint task froce 96 exersie. Whilst it was not a full war game and i might be exagerating the engagment, the harriers were certainley able to hold their own against superior forces. A harrier can outfly just about anything, especially if it has a good pilot. And a Harrier could easily take down a couple of F14/15s. It can outmaneuver them and any missiles they launch, then pop up behind and launch its Air to Air missiles. Bye bye F14s.
As for the F-22 it is a good airplane. But it has been in development since the start of the 1980s. It was first proposed in 1981. That means that it is over twenty years old and is not even in service. As of now there are none in operatrional service, with only thirteen test aircraft delivered. The program has almost been cancelled twice. Whilst the F22 is an effective aircraft it was designed and built for a threat ten years ago. It's stealth technology is no longer effective as radar systems have been developed that can detect, track and fire on a stealth plane. Billions have been spent for nothing, now i call that a flop.

[Attila The Nun]

The only way a harrier is special is it's ability to hover. That's it.

[fastspawn]

Apparently the policy is to sell all outmoded weapon systems and ships and tanks which has been going on for many many years. 1970s American technology is good enough for many many countries.

[scottishtom]

Have you ever seen a harrier? It can fly backwards, sideways, hover, turn on a penny, take a bow and go up vertically. It can land and take off on a large bath towel. It can do all the things the apache does but flys faster. Look at these pics for examples:

This is a harrier hovering in an atack position. What other plane in the world can do that?

This is a harrier landing vertically on a normal road way in a forest. Can any other plane do that? Also if you have every seen the Royal Navy in action they land all their harriers sideways. It can parellel park!!! Much safer and less damaging to the plane and pilot than all that messing about with hooks and catapults.

[scottishtom]

Apparently the policy is to sell all outmoded weapon systems and ships and tanks which has been going on for many many years. 1970s American technology is good enough for many many countries.

I agree fatspawn that a lot of it is being sold off. But a lot more of the really outmoded stuff is being kept. Look at the B-52. it is a 50s plane designed for carpet bombing the vietcong (and my wasn't that succesful) and the USAF have decide to spend millions keeping it flying until 2040. This is when they also have the B1 heavy bomber the B2 and F117 stealth bombers as well as all the usual multirole planes. And not all the US equiptment is sold off. A lot of it is sent to the desert (ithink Nevada) were it sits all nicely shrink wraped aiting for a really big war to break out. The US have a entire second air force in reseve and these are the really really old planes. Like F4s and things.

[Boondock Saint]

You do know the Harrier is used they US armed forces as well right?

Its not a plane that only the British use ... and its not considered an air superiority fighter.

I am sorry but you saying you heard something from a freind some time ago about something that happened sometime around something just doesnt cut it for me.

I would take an F-16 over a Harrier in a dogfight let alone six F-14's ... and the hundred or so planes on the supercarrier isnt exactly 100 fighter jets.

I agree though about the supercarrier business, not really a shocker that Billy boy stuck them in there, he hates them like I hate wet willies.

The idea that the US military is obsolete is just that, an idea.

Its not obsolete until someone else proves it obsolete, and thus far, no one has.

Wargames mean about as much to me as the pre-fight smack talking between boxers.

What my dear man Bill has left out of the thread is ...

- The only stealth aircraft utilized by a military, tested in war.

- The only military save Isreal that utilized unmanned drones in wartime and assassination missions.

- The only military aside Israel that is testing out robotic drones in combat.

- Currently attempting to better equip the common soldier, including a new modernized assault rifle/light machine gun.

- The only nation to thus far successfully in war time situations utilize a control and command scenerio that has airstrikes taking place in no time at all.

Now I do agree with Bill that certain things need to be modernized, the armor forces of the US need updating. The Abrams is a lumbering beast though proves its worth every time infantry need to open a door in falluja. The Stryker was not the answer ... I have no problems with the Bradley and think its a fine fighting vehicle.

What Billy doesnt know is that Bush is just waiting for the right to unleash the terminator armies which are nearly prepared.

[JLB]

Have you ever seen a harrier? It can fly backwards, sideways, hover, turn on a penny, take a bow and go up vertically. It can land and take off on a large bath towel. It can do all the things the apache does but flys faster. Look at these pics for examples:

This is a harrier hovering in an atack position. What other plane in the world can do that?

This is a harrier landing vertically on a normal road way in a forest. Can any other plane do that? Also if you have every seen the Royal Navy in action they land all their harriers sideways. It can parellel park!!! Much safer and less damaging to the plane and pilot than all that messing about with hooks and catapults.

Yes, the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can hover.


Click here to see it in action:
http://www.airspacemag.com/asm/Web/Site/QT/X-35.html

[Attila The Nun]

Have you ever seen a harrier? It can fly backwards, sideways, hover, turn on a penny, take a bow and go up vertically. It can land and take off on a large bath towel. It can do all the things the apache does but flys faster. Look at these pics for examples:

This is a harrier hovering in an atack position. What other plane in the world can do that?

This is a harrier landing vertically on a normal road way in a forest. Can any other plane do that? Also if you have every seen the Royal Navy in action they land all their harriers sideways. It can parellel park!!! Much safer and less damaging to the plane and pilot than all that messing about with hooks and catapults.

Hooks and catapults are plenty safe. And the hovering is quite hard to control, so it takes an experienced pilot to fly one (which is why only the US Marines use them).

[Boondock Saint]

Yes, the new F-35 Joint Strike Fighter can hover.

Can you please tell me how this is relavant to today?

As far as I know there are no JSF's on any carrier in the entire USN.

Hooks and catapults are plenty safe. And the hovering is quite hard to control, so it takes an experienced pilot to fly one (which is why only the US Marines use them).

The Harriers are useful jets seeing that the Marines can launch them from their smaller landing ships but the navy doesnt use such small ships. The development of the JSF though (as pointed out by someone above) may show a change in the trend of the USN.

But I still refute the concept that the Harrier is the ultimate fighter jet. It simply is not. Its almost as if some folks are trying to imply that the jet can, at any time change direction as the pilot pleases while maintaining an optimal combat speed.

It cannot.

Perhaps when scientists solve the issue of G-force we can have planes changing directions at 600mph on a dime, till then the Harrier is just a mediocre jet that can take off vertically.

[Attila The Nun]

Boon, I meant that's why the Marines only use them. Because it's so hard to fly, and because its main benefit (not having to tke off from a strip) is only useful enough for the Marines.

[Piano Red]

Bill, I still fail to see how the US military is "obsolete" from your perspective, it spends more money on R&D than the next 5 other nations in the world and overall the majority of it's combat power is very modern, although I would agree that some of it's logistical support systems are in need of some serious overhauling. Implying that the US military is obsolete would also mean that every other military in the world would also be obsolete by default.

[Boondock Saint]

Implying that the US military is obsolete would also mean that every other military in the world would also be obsolete by default.

True but only if you assume that the US military is the most advanced which Billy seems to be implying that it is not ... and he may be correct in that assertion.

Big ships and bombs isnt anything new ...

Nations like Germany have newer tanks, aircraft, small arms and so on ... of course they do though, they have such small militaries. A smaller military is much easier to modernize, its the huge militaries that are not. Hence you see nations such as the US, Russia and China still using small arms from the 70's and unable to utilize more modern firearms due to the logistical mess it would create.

So instead of upgrading small arms you modify them, such as the move to carbine with the AR-15 rifle or the AK-74 over the AK-47 ...

Boon, I meant that's why the Marines only use them. Because it's so hard to fly, and because its main benefit (not having to tke off from a strip) is only useful enough for the Marines.

I don't think Marine pilots are really that much more capable then Airforce or Army or Navy pilots. I think the Marines use the Harriers because that is the only jet aircraft that fits in their doctrine. Which you hit on with the last part of your post above ...

[scottishtom]

Hello everyone,

well i seem to have stired up a lot of discussion. I have been having a chat with a friend of mine who is an Officer in the Royal Air Force. I asked him about the harrier force taking on a Nimitiz class and he confimed my story. Apparentley the Royal Navy won the engament by using a new data sharing system that the USN either doesn't have or doesn't use efectivley. In the exercise the British carrier sortied six sea harriers. One of them flew a dummy attack on the USN ships with four more riding point. This drew all the US fleet defence away from the carrier to attack these three fighters. Then, as the British knew were the americans were but not vica versa the sixth harrier was able to slip through the net. It was not attacked and virtually given an open invitation to attack the carrier. The Harrier suceeded in launching a dummy missile (no live munitions on an exercise) at the Nimitz class. The carrier was judged to have been severly damged and not usable. If the carrier is not usable that is the back bone of the US battle group gone. And so the britsih won the engagment against a far supperior force. And the harriers also mananged to evade the american missiles.
my friend is looking for some docmuents about this engament so i can post the links here. Apparently it is something all RAF officers are told about during there lectures.
The harrier land borne version is not an air superiority fighter i agree. But the Sea Harrier is and is enormously capable.
I disagree with what people are saying about the US being the only nation to use UAVs. Many nations currently have this system in test, including the UK who are developing the Watchkeeper system.
Hooks and catapults i would not describe as safe. True that the aircraft and pilots can take it but it wears out the equiptment very fast. Anyone who knows abpout structural engineering knows that having that kind of stress on an airframe severly reduces its fatigue life. In fact the F22 can not possibly developed for the carrier fleet as its composites can not take the strain. And the hook landing systme is definetley not safe. There have been dozens of crash caused by hooks being caught too late or the air craft slewing sideways. The RN fleet air arm, US Marines and Indian navy all use the ski jump system. This is an inclined ramp like a ski jump (hence the name) that lets a SVTOL aircraft (of which the Harrier is the only one) take off easily in level flight (no learching G's and droping off the end of the deck). Then when they fly back the harrier flys alongside the ship (the only plane that can fly straight and level at 30knots) and spots a parking space. it the slides in sideways (again the only plane that can do that) and lands vertically. Perfectley safe and easy.
I think that some off you may have misread my comments on the harrier. What i am saying is that the JSF can hover but thats all. The harrier, because of its engine design, can do much more than that. It can do everythng a helicopter can. And because of its engines it can turn faster tahn most planes. All right it can't circle around on a penny at 600mph but nothing can.
And if you want an airsuperiority fighter the only one worth mentioning is the Eurofighter Typhoon. A USAF comander was taken up (i belive he was the air force joint cheif) in one of the British two seaters.When he came down he said that it was the best plane he had ever flown in.

[Boondock Saint]

And if you want an airsuperiority fighter the only one worth mentioning is the Eurofighter Typhoon.

Ah and here we have it ...

I have debated so many Europeans who talk about that fighter as if Jesus himself had a hand in the design.

Basically this is like debating a Finnish guy about the difference between Finnish ammunition and Russian ammunition, everything Finland does is superior, we all know that. No nation on earth can match Finland, Finlands military could stop any invasion from any nation armed with only spoons and napkins.

Sorry for that little rant, not saying anyone else brought up Finland, nor am I bad talking Finland in anway just that it seems fanbois exist for certain weapons systems and not just video games.

I am amazed that a carrier task force cannot engage more then six Harrier jets at one time. What was I thinking?

I disagree with what people are saying about the US being the only nation to use UAVs. Many nations currently have this system in test, including the UK who are developing the Watchkeeper system.

Of course the UK is developing such technology ... why? Because the US is using it so successfully and the US tends to share things with the Brits and the other way around.

And of course many nations are testing it ... but how many are actually using it?

*waits to hear from some nationalist from country-x to tell me that their tanks, guns and soldiers are not only superior to anything the US can put on the field but are indeed themselves unmanned drones*

[MB.]

What my dear man Bill has left out of the thread is ...

- The only stealth aircraft utilized by a military, tested in war.

- The only military save Isreal that utilized unmanned drones in wartime and assassination missions.

- *The only military aside Israel that is testing out robotic drones in combat.

- Currently attempting to better equip the common soldier, including a new modernized assault rifle/light machine gun.

- *The only nation to thus far successfully in war time situations utilize a control and command scenerio that has airstrikes taking place in no time at all.

There's a reason I left those out (with the exception of stealth technology)- they're all moves in the right direction that the US is making. That's the killer- the US is moving in two directions: super advanced revolutionary modernization... and backwards out dated 1970s bullshit. The two points I've marked with a * are the most important by far, however the latter isn't true. The British in the Falklands for example were quite capable of the last point. Anyway, my point is, (as always) the US should get behind these new technologies faster, and stop wastng money on the old shit (or the old ideas that appear new, ie, the CNVX and the F22).

AND for the record, I didn't leave out UAVs:

Only in the catagory of the UAVs is the US making real progres