Russia will certainly sit there dumb and happy for us to wage war against them. Plus, why worry about pissing off a country with one of the world's largest nuclear weapons stockpiles? What could go wrong?
My thoughts exactly especially in today's tense atmosphere. We need to avoid combat in eastern Europe like plague. Even assuming we can build weapons fast enough, we can't transport them over a 5,000 mile contested supply line fast enough to properly support the large numbers of troops necessary against a peer level enemy on their home ground.
In the case of Lithuania very true...but...where do you make a stand ? Some higher elevations on the east side, the "Baltic Uplands". But those M1 tanks if shipped get unloaded right up the road from Kaliningrad...
Do you know how many current Army generals name’s I actually remember? Exactly one. This turd. He first came to my attention during the Covid fiasco, dressing down an enlisted person on X. Then the whole Afghanistan fiasco where he prioritized war trophies over people. Now he’s been promoted to a major NATO assignment? Talk about failing upwards.
General Donahue might want to pay attention to what Russia makes clear WILL happen to if NATO tries anything on Russian territory (Kaliningrad). For one thing the good General and his staff will not be with us any more... Much of NATO Baltic assets won't be around either. WHERE do we get these people...?
I'm old enough to remember when it was reckless for Russia to invade Ukraine. Now we're discussing how much of Ukraine Putin deserves, and the answer is always a far bigger chunk than Kaliningrad. We should have made it clear to him at the outset that attacking Ukraine put Kaliningrad at risk. But we held back when it would have been a proportionate response, and now after three years it has grown in our minds into a major escalation — a perfect example of how we end up negotiating with ourselves and losing.
Threatening Kaliningrad would have stopped the proxy war dance. Russia and NATO are 'not at war' now because we are just helping our proxy. If we loudly proclaim that Russia and NATO are at war by threatening Kaliningrad, we push Putin into a corner we really don't want him in. We prefer him not actually using his nukes.
If Kiev is fair game, so is Kaliningrad. If we have only one general who can see that, I'm glad he's where he is. If we won't provide Ukraine the conventional weapons she needs, we should restore the nuclear arms she gave up at our behest. And if we can't respond to the heroism Ukraine and Zelensky have shown in defense of their freedom, it's useless for us to prate about defending Taiwan.
Sure-----for the Ukrainians. For the US? Nope. You want to go to war? Fine by me, the Ukrainians accept foreign volunteers, just leave me and mine out of it.
K'grad was fair game once Putin attacked Kiev. Even more so now that he has killed half a million people rather than accept a loss. We really didn't start this.
Here, as in East Asia and the Middle East, Americans who say "Leave me out of it!" will NOT ultimately be allowed to retire to a neutral corner.
Kiev is headed by a pro-Western fighting man and national hero who deserves our support. DC is run by an anti-American cabal who just at present are getting what they deserve.
Actually it may make sense to spend more on weapons and ammunition than your opponent if you factor in the damage they can do and which you want to prevent.
Also attrition must be considered. Grant may have taken higher casualties than Lee in the Wilderness but what was the outcome?
You just violated Front Porch rules. You non-ironically and in bad faith insulted your host, personally. You can insult my ideas everyday and twice on the Lord's Day...as many of them are hot garbage...but going personal? Naw...we don't play that game on my property.
You have a 30 day suspension on the Tree of Woe in order to ponder why your parents did such a poor job teaching you manners.
I had an "aha" moment years ago while participating in YAMA SAKURA as a staff planner. The event was led by the Army but was a "joint scenario". At one point the JTF commander (Army 2 star) decided to have our one TICO go toe to toe with an "East Asian Coalition" 155 MM gun battery. Much to my non-surprise our two gun cruiser lost to the 12 or more guns of the EAC divisional level battery. I couldn't understand why we sacrificed our multi billion dollar cruiser, 300 sailors, our ABM sensors and kinetic effectors, and a bunch of TLAMS - for negligible impact on one of many EAC 155MM batteries. Then I watched the Army feed two battalions of Bradley's into a meat grinder. Rather than fret over that loss, they moved the remains of those units to the rear and started a timer. 24 hours later those units were returned to the field at 80% strength. Where they got replacement Bradleys and personnel was never explained to me. When asked what the reset was on our cruiser my response was "she is in 800 feet of water, we can't just buff out the scratches and put her back in the field".
Truth be told is that Joint operations are the way to win wars in the modern age. Goldwater Nichols (GDN) had the right idea. But it failed in that it didn't enforce truly joint practice. The Navy-Marine Corps team has always been joint. Air, Land, Sea. Where GDN failed was that it tried to level the field by pulling us all down to the Army's level, when it should have dragged everyone up to our level.
I am for guns on a ship, but much less incluned to send that ship for ngfs where there are better ways to do it whipe not exposing the ship to counter battery fire.
Just a 6 round? Why not a full 12 round? Even better.... quad pack them into a Mk41 VLS container for 32 in an 8 cell module? Seems the USN was curious about doing it with a MLRS round once upon a time but didn't decide to do the development.
Yeah, the VLS for certain. But why put anything at risk aside from the launcher and munitions itself. Break it down. If we can put 2 NSMs on JLTV with all that extra weight designed into it to protect manned crews. We already see Oshkosh marketing Rogue Fires with GMLRS. Put it on the water, distribute it.
Two observations (former Army armor Bde Cdr and ground system operational tester in second life);
1. Seems to me he's got it backwards. I want whatever I shoot at a target to be less expensive than the target -- and I want a lot of munitions. Just as Cdr S has advocated for retaining naval rifles/cannons on surface ships -- dumb bullets are cheap, useful, and are hard to jam or spoof.
2. Optionally manned is a designer's nightmare. The Army looked at USAF big drones and said, "gimme some of that" -- not considering that unmanned systems still have to be fueled, armed, maintained, etc. The USAF does that from air bases. The Army does that in the mud, over weeks and months. So who maintains and sustains the unmanned system employed as a wingman? Some other soldier who's already got his own system to maintain. So let's go "optionally manned." Well, the savings in space, weight, power, and cooling in an unmanned system just went up in smoke. If it's optionally manned, that means you have to make accommodations for the meat puppets to live, operate, and survive when it's manned. All the seats, space, handles, operating knobs, sight interfaces, intercoms, NBC systems, etc., that you threw out to get a smaller, more agile, less detectible system now have to be put back in. Everything gained from unmanned design is now moot -- you now have a system the size of the Abrams with no crew to maintain it over the length of a campaign, let alone a battle.
agree completely on point 2, though I would say its worse than you postulated. you end up with a system that must include the human interfaces and also the machine interfaces whether for remote control or autonomous control. So your system cost, weight, cubage etc are greater than either manned or unmanned.
On point 1,cheaper interceptors are great, but sometimes a few, expensive interceptors can still have a role in complicating the enemy targeting problem. Take nuke targeting. You'll never have enough ABM to stop all the incoming MIRVs, but having some functional ABM means that the attacker overkill important targets to ensure at least 1 hit. Not knowing which targets will be defended means allocating more weapons against each location in a smaller target list.
I’d rather have manned and unmanned. If they are close make the manned variant and unmanned variant keeping as much common as possible. lRUSV prototype and the 40’ pb for instance.
As I read through, I was wondering…. Is this guy talking Mackinder? He’s not channeling Mahan, for sure. Reverse Corbett, maybe? By implication, he’s doing a Billy Mitchell on the Navy. And it sounds like he wants the USAF back under control of the Army. Meanwhile…. “One System?” Seriously? Okay…. Let’s rid ourselves of Army branches.
I am all for them rediscovering their roots as naval infantry. They have been playing with all kinds of small boats and I think that is a good path. They also care about being light enough to move around on their own gear which is also a worthy pursuit. Yet they are constantly getting knocked around over force design by those judging an old, complete force structure to one that is still very much being formed.
USAF would be okay...if it weren't for pilots being in charge*. Their REMFS ("nonners" from non-essential personnel) are probably not any worse or better than anyone elses**, but of course they'll never be in charge of much.
The guys who seem to have it together are the maintainers who are the ones who keep it all running at that pointy end. Their SPECOPS/PJ/CT/CSAR seem to be pretty hard corps too.
*Assuming that whoever was in charge understood that wars aren't won by airpower, just made easier for someone else to win it.
**I will say that the support ratings in the USN are typically not the 9-5 you see elsewhere. I attribute that to them getting underway with everyone else and taking the risks that one does on the front lines. When you either fight the ship well, keep it afloat after it's hit, or swim home, you have a different attitude than the Fobbit.
Unless you plan on having the US give up any amphibious capability and have only sailors on ships. If you plan on training and equipping Army troops for amphibious operations and shipboard service you might as well call them Marines.
Though, to be fair, sometimes even really brilliant diplomacy just isn't going to solve the problem. Like when the barbarian hordes are pillaging the borderlands.
Russian doctrine assigns much of that country’s aviation arm as “airborne artillery,” very much subordinate to the people in charge of ground operations. Yes, there are many other aviation taskings in the Russian setup. But the DNA of Russian aviation is to support the army.
The Army apportions it's forces to the Corps and below, and what's the Corps Commander's is that Corps Commander's. His assets stay in his "bowling alley" and if they're needed elsewhere, he either doesn't know that or is reluctant at best to share it.
Independent air can flex to crisis points as required (often at the Army Commander's request) and it isn't restricted to one guy's bowling alley. It can rapidly respond to needs in a way that the Army's organic fire cannot.
Besides, the Army has exactly zero understanding of the logistics required to operate fixed wing units en masse. Everything...aircraft generation, fuel supply, weapons storage/buildup/safety would require an understanding of such requirements that the Army doesn't have and, by definition, doesn't need to have.
It also has a doctrinal command and control approach that is anathema to the air arm. When you assign the airman (USAF or USN/USMC...okay, maybe not USMC) a mission, after he launches, the tactics he uses and the decisions he makes are his to make and he doesn't have the over-the-shoulder C2 that the Army's Deep Ops centers insist on.
Finally, when the Space Force was created, the USAF didn't rend its garments. It just got on with it.
And ask any infantry officer who has seen combat who he would rather support him, a Navy/USMC team or a flight of Hogs.
Jets get old so by your logic we’d still be flying P-47s. But I defer to no one on who are the best CAS pilots in the business, who take the same ferocity to the fight whether they be flying A-10s or F-35s.
The best close in air support is provided by Naval Aviators. Maybe if your chair jockeys would spend a week camping with some soldiers, they could start to rival the professionals in the USMC. Maybe.
" Everything...aircraft generation, fuel supply, weapons storage/buildup/safety would require an understanding of such requirements that the Army doesn't have..."
And if they did have such understanding, it would be the functional equivalent of a separate Air Force, so why not just have a separate AF?
We likely assume, however misguided his thinking, that his heart is in the right place and he truly cares about the NATO countries and their people, and the warfighters they’ve given him. But, maybe his speech, and all the thinking behind it, wasn’t for them at all. Maybe it was for the defense contractors. If they chase the holy grail of “one system” and he gets an executive level job leading the chase, well that might just be the victory he seeks.
I think the creation of the Air Force was a mistake. At best, we could have a small force dedicated to strategic bombing, but all air support for ground forces should be under the Army. I recently read a book about the Korean War that mentioned how Army soldiers were envious of the close coordination between Marine Air and Ground forces. Institutionally the Army may have difficulty matching the Marines but if your objective is taking a hill, having everyone on the same team would help.
The AAF was basically stolen by the bomber Generals. I have no trouble with having a "Strategic Air Force," which would have a SAC, adn the associated accouterments needed to support such a thing, with ADC and TAC remaining as the AAF.
The overwhelming majority of the missions the USAF has flown since WW2 have been to support ground forces (CAS and interdiction). Hardly any have been missions the USAF “wants” to do (air superiority and strategic bombing). We already have an Air Force dedicated to supporting the Army.
The worst part of all of this is the politicans have no idea of what we are talking about, the defense contractors love a General like Donohue and to add insult to injury the USMC has had two consecutive Commandants (Berger and Smith) who drank the Army kool aid and pushed the MAGTF to the side. Hopefully Berger and Smith’s fever dream of Force Design is on the outs, but that remains an open issue. Now if one believes that Pax Americana is forever, you need a Navy and Marine Corps configured to meet Title X mandates. (3 Divisions and 3 Wings to meet the mission) we have SLOC’s to maintain (why do we do this service for free?) and the world is a mobile place. If one believes that American Hegemony is unlikely to be sustained than we still need a Navy and Marine Corps that is flexible, very fast ships and naval air assets to meet the occasional dust up, or bad actor, acting badly. This force is needed whether there iarw two or three global powers exercising their spheres of influence or not. The Army needed the Joint Command concept more than any service, as it allowed them to wedge themselves “everywhere” verses what they are supposed to do. Follow the amphibious fleet with shock troops AKA Marines, support the assault post landing then take on the massive tasks of mopping up and or the additional duty of occupying force. Further joint command has not lived up to the promise. The combatant command system needs a look see, and at some point national interests have to have a military that is aligned with the goals of the nation. You don’t need a joint system that is jointly for joints sake to do that. The Army has done its best to insert itself everywhere time for it to go back to being The Army.
"Why do we do this service for free?" We are an island nation dependant on trade. It is in our national interest that the sea lanes remain open to trade and commerce.
Well understood, and to a large degree very much appreciate your point. However, it is also in the trading partner’s interests that the SLOCs remain viable. Now one could argue, we are out at sea anyway so why not? But, we need to start pinching the edges of the various military budgets unilaterally and find more “revenue” so to say. Just something to consider.
I think it is our nation's abandonment of the US Navy's post-war role in keeping the sea lanes open that has lead to China's naval expansion. We are far too parochial when it come to China, we fail to consider how things look from their perspective.
The fact of the matter is that China is dependant on ocean trade. Their population will starve without ocean shipping. If you ran China and saw the withering US Navy, what would you do?
I think we hoped that the policy of “engagement” with CCP and China as a whole would yield different results, and as we move to a policy of “containment” we better have a Navy that can project force. One could say at the moment the Peoples Liberation Navy is still very much a “brown water’ Navy, they are enforcing their large and parochial TAOR and just in the past couple of years built the sort of peer foe fleet that would give serious pause for concern. Agreed, can’t blame them for filling a void. The question is can we reinvigorate our shipbuilding, meaning the trades and manufacturing of all the materials needed to build a modern vessel of war, quickly enough. There is room enough at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine to build out a yard for small frigate class vessels, or even icebreakers, but that requires a lot of money, political will and some vision. So we shall see.
Mistaking what Ukraine has done to the Russian Navy in a restrictive body of water with what is possible in real open ocean shows that everything else this idiot has to say should be taken with a huge grain of salt if not actively ignored.
I think General Donohue’s comments about Kaliningrad were reckless. It’s the type of comment that the Kaiser made prior to WWI. How did that work out?
Russia will certainly sit there dumb and happy for us to wage war against them. Plus, why worry about pissing off a country with one of the world's largest nuclear weapons stockpiles? What could go wrong?
My thoughts exactly especially in today's tense atmosphere. We need to avoid combat in eastern Europe like plague. Even assuming we can build weapons fast enough, we can't transport them over a 5,000 mile contested supply line fast enough to properly support the large numbers of troops necessary against a peer level enemy on their home ground.
Correct...as the saying goes, "amateurs talk tactics, professionals talk logistics."
More over the terrain in the Baltic states is not the most exciting for a defensive action.
Great tank country, though
The Fulda Gap was famous for a reason.
The reason the US Army changed their uniform for the first time since the start of WWII?
In the case of Lithuania very true...but...where do you make a stand ? Some higher elevations on the east side, the "Baltic Uplands". But those M1 tanks if shipped get unloaded right up the road from Kaliningrad...
Same for that country 6,000 miles west of us.
TR was right: Speak softly and carry a big stick.
I think TR mean tactfully as well as in a calm voice.
Exactly. I'm saying he is NOT doing what TR would do.
Do you know how many current Army generals name’s I actually remember? Exactly one. This turd. He first came to my attention during the Covid fiasco, dressing down an enlisted person on X. Then the whole Afghanistan fiasco where he prioritized war trophies over people. Now he’s been promoted to a major NATO assignment? Talk about failing upwards.
I wonder how much blame you can assign to a general for losing a war that began when he was a captain. Just a thought.
I was specifically referring to to the Afghanistan withdrawal, when he was CG of the 82nd Airborne. https://taskandpurpose.com/news/toyota-kabul-fort-liberty/
Maybe not a lot of blame, but certainly no credit without a victory.
General Donahue might want to pay attention to what Russia makes clear WILL happen to if NATO tries anything on Russian territory (Kaliningrad). For one thing the good General and his staff will not be with us any more... Much of NATO Baltic assets won't be around either. WHERE do we get these people...?
West Point and Harvard.
I'm old enough to remember when it was reckless for Russia to invade Ukraine. Now we're discussing how much of Ukraine Putin deserves, and the answer is always a far bigger chunk than Kaliningrad. We should have made it clear to him at the outset that attacking Ukraine put Kaliningrad at risk. But we held back when it would have been a proportionate response, and now after three years it has grown in our minds into a major escalation — a perfect example of how we end up negotiating with ourselves and losing.
He who will not when he may,
When he will, he shall have nay.
Threatening Kaliningrad would have stopped the proxy war dance. Russia and NATO are 'not at war' now because we are just helping our proxy. If we loudly proclaim that Russia and NATO are at war by threatening Kaliningrad, we push Putin into a corner we really don't want him in. We prefer him not actually using his nukes.
Strongly prefer, yes.
Biden made no negotiations with Putin. Putin knew that any threat or redline that Biden made was toothless.
If Kiev is fair game, so is Kaliningrad. If we have only one general who can see that, I'm glad he's where he is. If we won't provide Ukraine the conventional weapons she needs, we should restore the nuclear arms she gave up at our behest. And if we can't respond to the heroism Ukraine and Zelensky have shown in defense of their freedom, it's useless for us to prate about defending Taiwan.
"If Kiev is fair game, so is Kaliningrad"
Sure-----for the Ukrainians. For the US? Nope. You want to go to war? Fine by me, the Ukrainians accept foreign volunteers, just leave me and mine out of it.
1000%.
OK.
If Kiel is fair game, then so is Kaliningrad. Or Bremerhaven. Or Cuxhaven. Or Gdansk. Or Riga, or Vilnius, or, or, or.
It’s a big leap from supplying Ukraine to taking part in the fight. If Kaliningrad is fair game then so is Alaska.
K'grad was fair game once Putin attacked Kiev. Even more so now that he has killed half a million people rather than accept a loss. We really didn't start this.
Here, as in East Asia and the Middle East, Americans who say "Leave me out of it!" will NOT ultimately be allowed to retire to a neutral corner.
He attacked Kiev not DC. Big difference.
Kiev is headed by a pro-Western fighting man and national hero who deserves our support. DC is run by an anti-American cabal who just at present are getting what they deserve.
Zelensky looks like a grifter to me.
My assumption is they would fire the nuclear missiles that are in there before they are overrun.
Actually it may make sense to spend more on weapons and ammunition than your opponent if you factor in the damage they can do and which you want to prevent.
Also attrition must be considered. Grant may have taken higher casualties than Lee in the Wilderness but what was the outcome?
For example, how much is it worth to take out a cheap oncoming missile that can take out a power plant?
You just violated Front Porch rules. You non-ironically and in bad faith insulted your host, personally. You can insult my ideas everyday and twice on the Lord's Day...as many of them are hot garbage...but going personal? Naw...we don't play that game on my property.
You have a 30 day suspension on the Tree of Woe in order to ponder why your parents did such a poor job teaching you manners.
🫢🤭
Lord only knows what this soul said to you CDR but your castle your rules! Love it!
Hmmm. So if we make a good-faith effort to be ironic....?
Tim…I think you have Front Porch tenure…special dispensation applies ;)
I had an "aha" moment years ago while participating in YAMA SAKURA as a staff planner. The event was led by the Army but was a "joint scenario". At one point the JTF commander (Army 2 star) decided to have our one TICO go toe to toe with an "East Asian Coalition" 155 MM gun battery. Much to my non-surprise our two gun cruiser lost to the 12 or more guns of the EAC divisional level battery. I couldn't understand why we sacrificed our multi billion dollar cruiser, 300 sailors, our ABM sensors and kinetic effectors, and a bunch of TLAMS - for negligible impact on one of many EAC 155MM batteries. Then I watched the Army feed two battalions of Bradley's into a meat grinder. Rather than fret over that loss, they moved the remains of those units to the rear and started a timer. 24 hours later those units were returned to the field at 80% strength. Where they got replacement Bradleys and personnel was never explained to me. When asked what the reset was on our cruiser my response was "she is in 800 feet of water, we can't just buff out the scratches and put her back in the field".
Truth be told is that Joint operations are the way to win wars in the modern age. Goldwater Nichols (GDN) had the right idea. But it failed in that it didn't enforce truly joint practice. The Navy-Marine Corps team has always been joint. Air, Land, Sea. Where GDN failed was that it tried to level the field by pulling us all down to the Army's level, when it should have dragged everyone up to our level.
I am for guns on a ship, but much less incluned to send that ship for ngfs where there are better ways to do it whipe not exposing the ship to counter battery fire.
Ship's a fool to fight a fort.
Unless you out-range/out-gun the fort. Up against 12 155mm? 6 or 9 406mm will do nicely.
Well, we not only have none that can fire, we have none that are safe to fire, nor any projectiles, nor powder.
And we better be planning on a "Come as you are" conflict, much like Fulda gap in 1986
When a 6 round GMLRS can ride on a vehicle that can ride in a C-130, imagine what we could do with one on the water?
Just a 6 round? Why not a full 12 round? Even better.... quad pack them into a Mk41 VLS container for 32 in an 8 cell module? Seems the USN was curious about doing it with a MLRS round once upon a time but didn't decide to do the development.
Yeah, the VLS for certain. But why put anything at risk aside from the launcher and munitions itself. Break it down. If we can put 2 NSMs on JLTV with all that extra weight designed into it to protect manned crews. We already see Oshkosh marketing Rogue Fires with GMLRS. Put it on the water, distribute it.
I wonder if the general was trying to repeat the mistakes of WWI. You know, just to waste everyone’s time.
Two observations (former Army armor Bde Cdr and ground system operational tester in second life);
1. Seems to me he's got it backwards. I want whatever I shoot at a target to be less expensive than the target -- and I want a lot of munitions. Just as Cdr S has advocated for retaining naval rifles/cannons on surface ships -- dumb bullets are cheap, useful, and are hard to jam or spoof.
2. Optionally manned is a designer's nightmare. The Army looked at USAF big drones and said, "gimme some of that" -- not considering that unmanned systems still have to be fueled, armed, maintained, etc. The USAF does that from air bases. The Army does that in the mud, over weeks and months. So who maintains and sustains the unmanned system employed as a wingman? Some other soldier who's already got his own system to maintain. So let's go "optionally manned." Well, the savings in space, weight, power, and cooling in an unmanned system just went up in smoke. If it's optionally manned, that means you have to make accommodations for the meat puppets to live, operate, and survive when it's manned. All the seats, space, handles, operating knobs, sight interfaces, intercoms, NBC systems, etc., that you threw out to get a smaller, more agile, less detectible system now have to be put back in. Everything gained from unmanned design is now moot -- you now have a system the size of the Abrams with no crew to maintain it over the length of a campaign, let alone a battle.
agree completely on point 2, though I would say its worse than you postulated. you end up with a system that must include the human interfaces and also the machine interfaces whether for remote control or autonomous control. So your system cost, weight, cubage etc are greater than either manned or unmanned.
On point 1,cheaper interceptors are great, but sometimes a few, expensive interceptors can still have a role in complicating the enemy targeting problem. Take nuke targeting. You'll never have enough ABM to stop all the incoming MIRVs, but having some functional ABM means that the attacker overkill important targets to ensure at least 1 hit. Not knowing which targets will be defended means allocating more weapons against each location in a smaller target list.
I’d rather have manned and unmanned. If they are close make the manned variant and unmanned variant keeping as much common as possible. lRUSV prototype and the 40’ pb for instance.
As I read through, I was wondering…. Is this guy talking Mackinder? He’s not channeling Mahan, for sure. Reverse Corbett, maybe? By implication, he’s doing a Billy Mitchell on the Navy. And it sounds like he wants the USAF back under control of the Army. Meanwhile…. “One System?” Seriously? Okay…. Let’s rid ourselves of Army branches.
If we need the Army, the State boys and girls have f*ck÷d up.
to provide coastwatchers on the first Island chain, embassy guards, a good band and a world class drill team...
I am all for them rediscovering their roots as naval infantry. They have been playing with all kinds of small boats and I think that is a good path. They also care about being light enough to move around on their own gear which is also a worthy pursuit. Yet they are constantly getting knocked around over force design by those judging an old, complete force structure to one that is still very much being formed.
Besides, without the Marines, who would the Army make fun of?
I'm Army and I respect the USMC and its members overall. FD2030? dumb, dumber, dumbest.
The USMC is one of our three military services and has a vital role to play which they seem to be walking away from.
The USAF is where my scorn is focused...
USAF would be okay...if it weren't for pilots being in charge*. Their REMFS ("nonners" from non-essential personnel) are probably not any worse or better than anyone elses**, but of course they'll never be in charge of much.
The guys who seem to have it together are the maintainers who are the ones who keep it all running at that pointy end. Their SPECOPS/PJ/CT/CSAR seem to be pretty hard corps too.
*Assuming that whoever was in charge understood that wars aren't won by airpower, just made easier for someone else to win it.
**I will say that the support ratings in the USN are typically not the 9-5 you see elsewhere. I attribute that to them getting underway with everyone else and taking the risks that one does on the front lines. When you either fight the ship well, keep it afloat after it's hit, or swim home, you have a different attitude than the Fobbit.
Unless you plan on having the US give up any amphibious capability and have only sailors on ships. If you plan on training and equipping Army troops for amphibious operations and shipboard service you might as well call them Marines.
Well....that is a regular occurrence.
Though, to be fair, sometimes even really brilliant diplomacy just isn't going to solve the problem. Like when the barbarian hordes are pillaging the borderlands.
The diplomatic answer is demonstrable - bring them across the Channel and put them up in London. Voila! No borderlands to defend. /sarc
Bring back the AAF.
The USAF belongs under the control of the Army. An Army needs and organic air arm. That's why the USA has recreated an air arm with helicopters.
All having an air force independent of the Army has done is multiplied the waste. We have two general staffs instead of one.
Ask any Infantry Officer who has seen combat who he would rather support him; the Navy/Marine Corps team, or the USAF.
Russian doctrine assigns much of that country’s aviation arm as “airborne artillery,” very much subordinate to the people in charge of ground operations. Yes, there are many other aviation taskings in the Russian setup. But the DNA of Russian aviation is to support the army.
Wrong.
The Army apportions it's forces to the Corps and below, and what's the Corps Commander's is that Corps Commander's. His assets stay in his "bowling alley" and if they're needed elsewhere, he either doesn't know that or is reluctant at best to share it.
Independent air can flex to crisis points as required (often at the Army Commander's request) and it isn't restricted to one guy's bowling alley. It can rapidly respond to needs in a way that the Army's organic fire cannot.
Besides, the Army has exactly zero understanding of the logistics required to operate fixed wing units en masse. Everything...aircraft generation, fuel supply, weapons storage/buildup/safety would require an understanding of such requirements that the Army doesn't have and, by definition, doesn't need to have.
It also has a doctrinal command and control approach that is anathema to the air arm. When you assign the airman (USAF or USN/USMC...okay, maybe not USMC) a mission, after he launches, the tactics he uses and the decisions he makes are his to make and he doesn't have the over-the-shoulder C2 that the Army's Deep Ops centers insist on.
Finally, when the Space Force was created, the USAF didn't rend its garments. It just got on with it.
And ask any infantry officer who has seen combat who he would rather support him, a Navy/USMC team or a flight of Hogs.
Your Air Force is budgeting $57 million to decommission remaining 162 Warthogs.
Jets get old so by your logic we’d still be flying P-47s. But I defer to no one on who are the best CAS pilots in the business, who take the same ferocity to the fight whether they be flying A-10s or F-35s.
The best close in air support is provided by Naval Aviators. Maybe if your chair jockeys would spend a week camping with some soldiers, they could start to rival the professionals in the USMC. Maybe.
Uhhhh...do you know what an "ALO" is?
" Everything...aircraft generation, fuel supply, weapons storage/buildup/safety would require an understanding of such requirements that the Army doesn't have..."
And if they did have such understanding, it would be the functional equivalent of a separate Air Force, so why not just have a separate AF?
Of course he wants the US Air Force under the Army, and wishes to deprecate the US Navy
He understands who the enemy is, while having no clue about the adversary.
Sounds like the General is angling for a post-retirement MIC job with a large defense contractor.
We likely assume, however misguided his thinking, that his heart is in the right place and he truly cares about the NATO countries and their people, and the warfighters they’ve given him. But, maybe his speech, and all the thinking behind it, wasn’t for them at all. Maybe it was for the defense contractors. If they chase the holy grail of “one system” and he gets an executive level job leading the chase, well that might just be the victory he seeks.
Future Combat System (FCS) has entered the chat.
Maybe he has a political career in mind
Both is always an option.
“Please clap” 🤣
/jeb bush is disappoint
I think the creation of the Air Force was a mistake. At best, we could have a small force dedicated to strategic bombing, but all air support for ground forces should be under the Army. I recently read a book about the Korean War that mentioned how Army soldiers were envious of the close coordination between Marine Air and Ground forces. Institutionally the Army may have difficulty matching the Marines but if your objective is taking a hill, having everyone on the same team would help.
CAS in always a USAF unresourced requirement, to be gotten to later after the AIR WAR is won.
The AAF was basically stolen by the bomber Generals. I have no trouble with having a "Strategic Air Force," which would have a SAC, adn the associated accouterments needed to support such a thing, with ADC and TAC remaining as the AAF.
It's not too late to make it so.
Missiles are just long range artillery. The Army knows artillery.
The overwhelming majority of the missions the USAF has flown since WW2 have been to support ground forces (CAS and interdiction). Hardly any have been missions the USAF “wants” to do (air superiority and strategic bombing). We already have an Air Force dedicated to supporting the Army.
I guess that Masters degree General Donahue received at the Naval War College didn't take...
Maybe the guy got hit a little too hard in the noggin with a pugil stick during basic.
we’re so gonna win! i can feel it!
the army’s real motto: try harderer!
"Kalingrad? Just have a Burke fire off a couple 32-cell Mk. 41s from a minimally manned Fire Support Vessel, no fuss, they're mussed".
The worst part of all of this is the politicans have no idea of what we are talking about, the defense contractors love a General like Donohue and to add insult to injury the USMC has had two consecutive Commandants (Berger and Smith) who drank the Army kool aid and pushed the MAGTF to the side. Hopefully Berger and Smith’s fever dream of Force Design is on the outs, but that remains an open issue. Now if one believes that Pax Americana is forever, you need a Navy and Marine Corps configured to meet Title X mandates. (3 Divisions and 3 Wings to meet the mission) we have SLOC’s to maintain (why do we do this service for free?) and the world is a mobile place. If one believes that American Hegemony is unlikely to be sustained than we still need a Navy and Marine Corps that is flexible, very fast ships and naval air assets to meet the occasional dust up, or bad actor, acting badly. This force is needed whether there iarw two or three global powers exercising their spheres of influence or not. The Army needed the Joint Command concept more than any service, as it allowed them to wedge themselves “everywhere” verses what they are supposed to do. Follow the amphibious fleet with shock troops AKA Marines, support the assault post landing then take on the massive tasks of mopping up and or the additional duty of occupying force. Further joint command has not lived up to the promise. The combatant command system needs a look see, and at some point national interests have to have a military that is aligned with the goals of the nation. You don’t need a joint system that is jointly for joints sake to do that. The Army has done its best to insert itself everywhere time for it to go back to being The Army.
"Why do we do this service for free?" We are an island nation dependant on trade. It is in our national interest that the sea lanes remain open to trade and commerce.
Well understood, and to a large degree very much appreciate your point. However, it is also in the trading partner’s interests that the SLOCs remain viable. Now one could argue, we are out at sea anyway so why not? But, we need to start pinching the edges of the various military budgets unilaterally and find more “revenue” so to say. Just something to consider.
I think it is our nation's abandonment of the US Navy's post-war role in keeping the sea lanes open that has lead to China's naval expansion. We are far too parochial when it come to China, we fail to consider how things look from their perspective.
The fact of the matter is that China is dependant on ocean trade. Their population will starve without ocean shipping. If you ran China and saw the withering US Navy, what would you do?
I think we hoped that the policy of “engagement” with CCP and China as a whole would yield different results, and as we move to a policy of “containment” we better have a Navy that can project force. One could say at the moment the Peoples Liberation Navy is still very much a “brown water’ Navy, they are enforcing their large and parochial TAOR and just in the past couple of years built the sort of peer foe fleet that would give serious pause for concern. Agreed, can’t blame them for filling a void. The question is can we reinvigorate our shipbuilding, meaning the trades and manufacturing of all the materials needed to build a modern vessel of war, quickly enough. There is room enough at the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine to build out a yard for small frigate class vessels, or even icebreakers, but that requires a lot of money, political will and some vision. So we shall see.
Donahoe is the poster child for failing up.
Like Milley?
Mistaking what Ukraine has done to the Russian Navy in a restrictive body of water with what is possible in real open ocean shows that everything else this idiot has to say should be taken with a huge grain of salt if not actively ignored.
For me it was more the disgraceful disordered withdrawal from Kabul, but I guess multiple things can discredit Donahoe.