Posted on 02/21/2020 10:39:59 AM PST by Freeport
If one overall concept drives national security decisions in Washington, it is that technology in the form of highly complex, and thus massively expensive, weapons along the lines of the F-35 stealth fighter, the B-21 Raider long-range strike bomber, and Ford-class aircraft carriers are needed to accomplish our strategic goals. We saw this with the president’s $705.4 billion defense budget request that includes $2.8 billion for the new bomber and $11.4 billion for the troubled fighter.
The advocates of these programs often justify the cost associated with them by saying that their mere existence holds our potential adversaries at bay. Record defense budgets are often sold in such terms and prompt headlines like, “Pentagon’s proposed 2021 budget focuses on future weapons to compete with Russia, China.”
It turns out that when we need to send a message of deterrence, nothing works better than the humble main battle tank. At least that was the conclusion of a recent study by the RAND Corporation’s Arroyo Center, Understanding the Deterrent Impact of U.S. Overseas Forces. Keeping in mind that the Arroyo Center is RAND’s Army research division, it is still truly remarkable that any such conclusion could emerge with the RAND imprimatur, considering that the organization began as a collaboration between Army Air Force Commanding General H.H. “Hap” Arnold and the aircraft manufacturer Donald Douglas in 1945. RAND has put out works like The Transformation of American Air Power that attempt to make the case that combat aviation alone can win wars.
In the spirit of openness and transparency, I served as a Marine Corps tank officer and taught armor tactics at the U.S. Army Armor School. Because of that, some will doubtlessly cast accusations of confirmation bias in my direction. But I am also a military historian with an academic focus...
(Excerpt) Read more at defense-aerospace.com ...
While I can't disagree, we still need that high ground, so we still need a very effective Air Force.
You don’t necessarily need as many planes as possible. You need enough plus a bit extra to maintain clear skies. You need as many ground forces as possible.
Concur, with the addition of CAS. Like the article states, all 700+ A-10’s for the cost of two (2) F-35’s.
Seems like a good trade even though in a real shooting war we’d looks a lot of A-10’s. The flip side of that is the enemy would loose a lot more ground assets due to the our combined ground forces/CAS.
With precision, guided airborne munitions, unless tanks can effectively hide, they are quickly lost.
We had the P-51, P-47 and Typhoon.
Air power can and will contain tanks.
Saddam learned that lesson as well.
With precision, guided airborne munitions, unless tanks can effectively hide, they are quickly lost.
A tank is great until someone takes it out with a single strike.
Frankly, I think the future belongs to drones of all types.
“With precision, guided airborne munitions, unless tanks can effectively hide, they are quickly lost.”
Is it a tank or 1997 Chevy truck with new metal shell?
How do you get the tanks to the field of battle, they do not have wings and are designed for armored warfare in a field not much else...
Every tool has a purpose and tanks surely have theirs...
So unless we have a “gentleman’s agreement” with an adversary where we are going to stage this you have to think differently. WW2 especially in the Pacific brought the lack of transport and logistics to support the needs of the troops hopping islands. It took a long time even using air transports to prepare for battle in Iraq
A balance must be struck for what we hope to be a minimal conflict but deterrence of strike at a a distance provides a buffer. I believe that our involvement in regional conflicts is diminishing as the cost is too high and the return on it is long term presence and floods of money to support it.
If a global conflict were to appear you can bet your bottom dollar that Missiles will be used first to set the stage, and anything after will still have the same logistical issues.
Walk Softly and carry a big stick
Mutally Assured Destruction will be the theme in WW3 if and when it ever occurs
JMHO
So how do we deploy tanks without naval and air superiority? And, since Vietnam, our efforts to seize and hold ground, while initially successful, are defeated by superior resistance to our occupation as our politician’s resolve dissolves. A policy of stand off weapons denying our enemy leadership and resources is preferable IMHO without ground troops/tanks and inevitable casualties. The Navy and Air Force, guided by actionable intelligence, can easily provide this capability.
forget the skies look at the heavens
The Germans had the best tanks, the Allies had the best air power. Who won?
The Arabs had the most tanks, the Israelis had the best air power. Who won?
Also, a Navy to keep them supplied. And Marines (because Navy.) Also, Coast Guard, Merchant Marine, and Space Force. Plus Border Patrol, FBI, BATF, and SWAT. Finally, other city, state, and Federal employees (and retirees) with guns. We must have them always, at all times, everywhere. 24 Days a week. 365 Months a year.
Why? Because ALL world base belong to us. Because we pay.
it only takes one ground unit in every country to be king of the world... in Risk.
“one overall concept drives national security decisions in Washington”
National Security, or War? Two very different things.
In War, kill everyone, break everything, take everything of value, make what remains uninhabitable, then leave.
National Security needs two definitions: What “Nation”? What is “Security”?
The Bushies thought that slaughtering our warriors for Globalism was ‘Security” for their Bankster “Nation”.
PDJT believes that every citizen deserves a place, an opportunity, a fair shake, and we are NOT the world’s police force. “National Security” to Trumpeteers is a vision of a Safe, Prosperous, Happy and Energized America. Avoiding endless Bush/Clinton/Obambi globalist wars is a good first start. America First and Peace Through Strength are “National Security” policies we voted for.
I don’t think any bomber has much chance against Chinese or Russian air defense systems.
Only if the sky’s are swept first. Without air superiority, those tank forces would have taken far, far longer to beat if at all.
Which part of AIR SUPERIORITY is a necessity are you people not getting?
Air Superiority ALLOWS you the change to take territory. To HOLD TERRITORY REQUIRES BOOTS ON THE GROUND.
That has been true since before Roman times.
Deal with it.
What if Napoleon had a platoon of tanks at Waterloo?
Nothing. Wellington's A-10's would have taken them out.
But, but, but I was told on FR that the days of heavy armor are over.
We overwhelmed the German armor forces with more tanks aka death trap Shermans made possible by manufacturing and control of the seas.
We also had great maintenance crews to remove and restore damaged tanks capable of being repaired. We repainted the inside so new crews didn’t see the leftovers from the previous crew.
There are many Afghan soldiers with 16 years of combat experience under their belts.
They probably don’t need many American soldiers to help them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.