It depends on the AUS strategy. If engaging PLAN force in ro around the SCS, then SSNs win. If it is clogging up the Indonesian choke points closer to home, then SSK have some utility. I would argue with the author that 25 SSKs for the price of 8 SSNs, gets you 25 capable crews. I am confident that RAN can separate the cream and man up 8 SSNs.
Again? They poached a bunch of USAF AWACS crews to build up their own AWACS force around 20 years ago. A captain of my acquaintance became a RAAF flight lieutenant with credit for USAF service toward his RAAF retirement.
Except the Australians were on contract to buy French subs, IIRC with a hull extension that would have permitted a nuclear plant, but chose to cancel the French contract and go American nuclear.
There never was any consideration of Japanese subs, the ones with lithium ion batteries.
You think that was pure ego?
Does that mean all our Los Angeles and Virginia class subs are pure ego?
It’s a long and twisted story, Sub Brief took over an hour to get through the complexities of the Japanese thinking they had a deal with the PM etc. But the French hiring the officer who wrote the white paper was a clever move.
The answer would be that defense of an island could be best accomplished by conventionally powered subs.
The boomers are nukes because they need the power to stay submerged for months at a time. The attack boats are nukes because they need to stay with the boomers.
The defense of Japan, or of Australia, presents a different set of challenges. Atomic power is noisy. Allegedly, our nukes are the quietest nukes, a point the French dispute. Electrical boats are far quieter than nukes, so there are advantages other than cost.
What do you think of Peter Zeihan's contention that China does not have the ability to protect its maritime supply lines in a conflict and that Japan is the more formidable maritime power of the two in the region, apart from the USA?
"Japan doesn’t only build but also designs its own naval vessels and has since the 1880s. Japan’s navy is easily the second-most powerful expeditionary force in the world…the entire Japanese fleet is blue-water capable." The JMSDF AOEs are on the older side and, starting within range of the PLA/PLAN, will not have the benefit of their counterparts in the USN of operating at the range fringes in the mid-Pacific.
"In a shooting war, the only tankers that reach East Asia are the ones the Japanese let through. Even worse (for the Chinese), the Japanese only have one-third of China’s oil import requirements, and Japan will have the option of sourcing fuels from the Western Hemisphere to boot." One of the lessons taken from the Tanker War is that, short of a mine, modern tankers are kinda hard to actually sink. Only 35% of the ~450 Tanker War attacks resulted in a complete loss of the vessel either due to sinking or just the damage being beyond repair. A missle warhead sufficient for a mission kill of a warship won't necessarily eliminate a tanker. Mines are great because of their warhead size and a detonation underwater. The JMSDF had better be planning on lots of mines and torpedoes to meet this particular promise.
Thank you Sicinnus. Point taken about the difficulty of killing tankers. The question remains, can China provide the escort power to protect tankers on their way to China? A tanker set ablaze on the open sea is hardly a tanker that can deliver its load. Multiply that by the number of tankers required to meet China's needs, the number of bulk carriers of foodstuffs, coal and whatever. The question boils down to how far from its shores can china really project power in a conflict, and how long can it sustain that?
Great question. From the POV of the PLAN it is when THEY think they have sufficient reserve escort capacity. As far as their coal imports go, I imagine that any of their planners are assuming that Australia and Indonesia will stop export and the beginning of any conflict in the SCS. Oil from the PG I would expect to be their primary focus. Iran will certainly continue selling to them. IMO
Please remember that PRC is busy building a pipeline that will eliminate a lot of their tankering requirements. OTOH, the shorter distance between the PG and the pipeline head will make it easier for submarines.
The USN has never tried to carry out an interdiction campaign against a navy with subs for 80 years, much less SSNs. I suspect it will be very bloody. And the first time the news shows 100 miles of tropical beach covered with oil things are going to get interesting in DC.
Peter Zeihan is right about China's vulnerability to import and export blockade. It's clear that China can produce many more escort type destroyers than the USA. Quantity, as we all know, is a quality. It's going to be difficult and expensive to slug it out with China and maybe even difficult to prevail.
Which got me to think about why does the US Navy have to be ships. Projection of power and control of blue water might be easier, more effective and way less costly if the US Navy relied on satellites and land based aircraft for defensive and offensive action. Maybe a much smaller US Navy in terms of ships but maybe a way bigger US Navy in terms of platforms.
I do think a US Navy less ship oriented could continue to dominate, including against an aggressive China.
"Catalina Aircraft, holder of the Type Certificates for the 28-5ACF Catalina, today announced on Jul. 25, 2023 during Oshkosh AirVenture the rebirth of the iconic and legendary Catalina as the Catalina II Amphibious Turboprop."
Why bother? The CL-415 is already in being. And I'd bet the useful loads are similar. And if you need open ocean the Japanese boat is far, far superior. (And in being.)
My comment was vis' a vis' the Catalina. Fuel consumption with a turboprop is going to double. Couple that with a big fat airfoil design that's basically 100 years old? My bet is it's about a wash with the CL-415 coming out looking pretty good due to a much higher cruise speed.
I like this part. "The NGAA Catalina II will be the largest, fastest, longest range, highest payload, and most capable amphibious aircraft available worldwide with Western Certifications." In an era where conventional thinking is high tech with stubby legs (sports car), someone is thinking there is a market for a C10 pickup truck. Now the question is - will parts be source domestically.
I like competition, but the Japanese Amphib exists. This alternative seems to leverage an FAA cert, with no factory, and a new design. 10 years to FOC?
Smells like the Hornet/Super Hornet ......bait/switch
And unless it's using R1830 engines? They'll have to re-engineer the engine installation and get that certified under a TCDS Amendment. - Not cheap.
And even with derated turbine engines? The cruise fuel burn is still going to be almost double the R1830. Especially down low. So there goes any useful load advantages along with the claims of range (Unless they get the airplane up to 20K feet.)
IMO, this is a non-starter unless it becomes a government contract for at least 100 airplanes. (And it should remain a non-starter for government use.)
They're talking about using some PT-6 variant. And you're right, no legs.
But thinking is good. I will never forget the fate of the OMAC Laser 300, though. Basically, a Cessna 337 with one turboprop engine in the back, a canard in the front to keep the stall speed down. and while they built one airframe (I saw it at 29 Palms airport) it never progressed.
Yeah, calling bullshit on this. As I discovered when I was going to buy an Albatross (SA-16) and put PT-6's on it (paying for the engineering and owning the STC), the only great advantage to a recip engine is you can reduce power a hella lot, and stay flying...which gives you range.
That ability is how a Catalina could fly from the US West Coast to Hawaii...at 90 knots. A SA-16 or PBY cannot carry enough fuel to match performance like that with a turboprop.
Though I think the Catalina is the most beautiful aircraft ever made, we need what we can get now, not starting in 5-10 years. Buy the US-2 now if we want an amphibious aircraft.
Yeah, that's just vaporware. They may, eventually, get the Catalina through certification...and they may sell a few. But there is no commercial mission there.
And for military use, the US-2 is better all around. Although it's still being a long way from optimized for CSAR use.
Apparently ShinMaywa made a version for CSAR. "During 2009, the first production US-2, which was outfitted for the search and rescue mission, was delivered to the Japan's Ministry of Defense." https://bit.ly/3OezcKw
Yeah, we saw pictures of it bobbing off Guam. But, it's got limitations for CSAR - no ramp, and no decent way for parachute bundles or jumpers to get out.
"Due to its limited production capacity, ShinMaywa would have a hard time building the US-2 for anyone other than the JMSDF, so allowing the plane to be made in another country under license would be a good idea"
I'd bet that LockMart could find room on the line at Marietta to build them since they are of a similar size.
Adding a ramp would be problematic, but a much larger door for air drops, and perhaps split, allowing a boarding ramp capability for people if not boats, is not.
It's gonna' get interesting if and when Xi decides to get frisky. IMO, only Japan and South Korea will be ready to play with skill, competence, and readiness on day one.
They make good kit. Mebbe we should send them 3 DDG something-or-others that now are the most expensive lightly armed ships EVAH, and have them make a real warship out of the hulls. Couldn't cost us anymore that what we're spending now.
I did stop what I was doing and reviewed the link to the white paper. I found some comfort in that for its 29 pages there was only one sentence on page 16 and three on page 26 about Climate Change and those seemed innocuously half-hearted.
I wonder how two Koreas, the Philippines, and the countries in Southeast Asia feel about Japan doubling its defense budget. Likewise, I wonder how the countries in Europe feel about a renewed Wehrmacht - I mean the Bundeswehr. Maybe Germany and Russia will carve up Poland as they have done several times in the past. I think it's time to call in the diplomats. Real ones. Not Blinken or Kerry. Recognizing your adversary has a point is not necessarily appeasement. Coming to an agreement is not necessarily Munich 1938.
The Polish have tanks, the Russians have tanks, the Germans have tanks, but right now nobody has an advantage. The price of peace is at an all time low. This is the time to sit down and hemmer out an agreement.
Sure. The Russian non-negotiable condition is that every part of Ukraine they claim is theirs, including the parts they don’t occupy. Anyone in Ukraine who agrees to that without the US stationing an armored division outside Kharkov will be found to have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 60 times with an AK-74.
In retrospect, however, Putin’s 2020 Russian constitutional amendments also foreshadowed his intentions in Ukraine. The changes included an obscure provision that forbids the Russian Federation from giving back any territory that is declared to be a part of the country. The article was initially thought to deal with Crimea (and the Kurile Islands). The decision to annex several Ukrainian provinces (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia) in 2022, however, now puts this provision in a new light.
Essentially, Putin cannot withdraw from – or even negotiate about – these provinces without undermining one of his new core principles. Therefore, Putin cannot simply declare victory and go home, since such a declaration would now lead to the alienation of “Russian” land.
Thus, observers contemplating any possible end-game scenario to this tragic war must consider that from Putin’s standpoint, all of Russia’s territorial integrity – including the newly annexed provinces – is on the line.
Annexation of areas populated by ethnic Russians would satisfy their requirement to protect ethnic Russians. Russia will probably annex more provinces that are ethnically Russian. They're not interested in annexing areas occupied by ethnic Ukrainians.
The best spend for the Germans at this point is to buy the Ukrainians as much arms and ammunition as they can. I think we are to the point where there will not be enough left of the Russian military when Ukraine is settled (not today but in 12 months) for Russia to threaten Europe conventionally for the next 20 years.
My concern is keeping the Poles on a leash once this is over since they have many debts that have yet to be settled and are arming up to be the most powerful military in Europe.
So Germany is going to further tax its ailing economy to provide arms for a war it really wishes would end?
I think your error is thinking that US and German interests are in alignment. If the current government in Germany doesn't change their course of action, the Germans will elect a government that will.
Ah, the old ailing economy bullshit. Did you know that the rate of inflation under President Biden is lower than it has been at any time since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
Arms production, like it or not, builds jobs too. Good jobs. The Krupp family had a pretty good run until they tied their fortune to the racist painter.
A few years ago, our POTUS entertained President Xi at his estate in Florida. His beautiful wife wore a lovely Chinese dress. His grandchildren sang Chinese songs. Today, we are making war plans to fight China. What happened?
So, if we just took the entire defense budget and only paid for Active duty salary’s and war fighting procurement (all procurement jobs should be active duty imho), we could have a helluva war fighting capability.
That is a horribly formatted card. FY 2024 PB Submission carries MILPERS, RDT&E, and OM directly from their respective sections of the card but for others you need to have a handy calculator, including Family Housing. Frickin Byzantine!
Providing adequate housing for the troops and their families should be among the top priorities. Anyone that has served knows how crappy, unsafe and unsanitary some of our military housing is.
$72B divided by the half million active-duty sailors and Marines works out to $11.5k/mo. Now THAT will get you some pretty sweet digs off base no matter where you are stationed. Stop paying for the crappy military housing and cut them that check. It might actually help with recruiting problems too. $11.5k/month tax free housing benny? Sweet!
Once I was "allowed" to live off base I did. Especially fun and educational overseas. My concern is for the lower ranks that are forced to live on base housing, much of it WWII vintage (or earlier). The Walter Reed debacle comes to mind, and the frigging Navy knew of the deplorable, unsafe, unsanitary conditions for years.
Australia's decision to buy/build American nuclear SSNs is a case of Australia coming to the same conclusion as Japan as to who is the theater threat.
I think the challenge is, we have only about 13 months to get ready. I am now firmly in the camp this is going down next fall.
If not sooner. President Xi paid good money for the Biden crime family, and would be loath to see that investment lose its value.
Towards the end of the Pacific typhoon season. Say November.
Yep, or slightly before the U.S. election.
When is Reagan scheduled for an extended maintenance period?
I was guessing that long term theyd wait til the SSGNs retire, and short term, use the fwd CVNs whereabouts as a kickoff day...
Hadn't thought about the SSGN.
I think Australia chose with their ego, rather than their mission requirements.
The Japanese subs are a better choice for Aus' requirements, I think.
https://chinamatters.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/SSN-vs-SSK-by-Hugh-White-29-September-2021.pdf
It depends on the AUS strategy. If engaging PLAN force in ro around the SCS, then SSNs win. If it is clogging up the Indonesian choke points closer to home, then SSK have some utility. I would argue with the author that 25 SSKs for the price of 8 SSNs, gets you 25 capable crews. I am confident that RAN can separate the cream and man up 8 SSNs.
Maybe. The RAN was having trouble manning their subs a few years ago - they were trying to poach crews from other navies.
Again? They poached a bunch of USAF AWACS crews to build up their own AWACS force around 20 years ago. A captain of my acquaintance became a RAAF flight lieutenant with credit for USAF service toward his RAAF retirement.
"Indonesian choke points closer to home"
and/or..........out in that wide Indian Ocean, anywhere to interdict mid-east oil.
lots of room for SSN to play in, neh?
Except the Australians were on contract to buy French subs, IIRC with a hull extension that would have permitted a nuclear plant, but chose to cancel the French contract and go American nuclear.
There never was any consideration of Japanese subs, the ones with lithium ion batteries.
You think that was pure ego?
Does that mean all our Los Angeles and Virginia class subs are pure ego?
If not, why not?
It’s a long and twisted story, Sub Brief took over an hour to get through the complexities of the Japanese thinking they had a deal with the PM etc. But the French hiring the officer who wrote the white paper was a clever move.
The answer would be that defense of an island could be best accomplished by conventionally powered subs.
The boomers are nukes because they need the power to stay submerged for months at a time. The attack boats are nukes because they need to stay with the boomers.
The defense of Japan, or of Australia, presents a different set of challenges. Atomic power is noisy. Allegedly, our nukes are the quietest nukes, a point the French dispute. Electrical boats are far quieter than nukes, so there are advantages other than cost.
What if the Japanese and/or Australians do not wish to limit themselves to "defense of an island [or island continent]"?
What is their motivation for wishing to project power?
The sheer size of Australia might be a reason to go nuke.
Theater threat? Sounds like a big theater. China is a long way from Australia.
Not in these times of Hypersonic Missiles and fast as hell torpedoes.
What do you think of Peter Zeihan's contention that China does not have the ability to protect its maritime supply lines in a conflict and that Japan is the more formidable maritime power of the two in the region, apart from the USA?
While I am certainly not our gracious host, I would challenge some of his positions. https://www.rethinktokyo.com/news/2022/04/19/peter-zeihan-japan-future-asian-superpower/1650324647
"Japan doesn’t only build but also designs its own naval vessels and has since the 1880s. Japan’s navy is easily the second-most powerful expeditionary force in the world…the entire Japanese fleet is blue-water capable." The JMSDF AOEs are on the older side and, starting within range of the PLA/PLAN, will not have the benefit of their counterparts in the USN of operating at the range fringes in the mid-Pacific.
"In a shooting war, the only tankers that reach East Asia are the ones the Japanese let through. Even worse (for the Chinese), the Japanese only have one-third of China’s oil import requirements, and Japan will have the option of sourcing fuels from the Western Hemisphere to boot." One of the lessons taken from the Tanker War is that, short of a mine, modern tankers are kinda hard to actually sink. Only 35% of the ~450 Tanker War attacks resulted in a complete loss of the vessel either due to sinking or just the damage being beyond repair. A missle warhead sufficient for a mission kill of a warship won't necessarily eliminate a tanker. Mines are great because of their warhead size and a detonation underwater. The JMSDF had better be planning on lots of mines and torpedoes to meet this particular promise.
Thank you Sicinnus. Point taken about the difficulty of killing tankers. The question remains, can China provide the escort power to protect tankers on their way to China? A tanker set ablaze on the open sea is hardly a tanker that can deliver its load. Multiply that by the number of tankers required to meet China's needs, the number of bulk carriers of foodstuffs, coal and whatever. The question boils down to how far from its shores can china really project power in a conflict, and how long can it sustain that?
Great question. From the POV of the PLAN it is when THEY think they have sufficient reserve escort capacity. As far as their coal imports go, I imagine that any of their planners are assuming that Australia and Indonesia will stop export and the beginning of any conflict in the SCS. Oil from the PG I would expect to be their primary focus. Iran will certainly continue selling to them. IMO
Please remember that PRC is busy building a pipeline that will eliminate a lot of their tankering requirements. OTOH, the shorter distance between the PG and the pipeline head will make it easier for submarines.
The USN has never tried to carry out an interdiction campaign against a navy with subs for 80 years, much less SSNs. I suspect it will be very bloody. And the first time the news shows 100 miles of tropical beach covered with oil things are going to get interesting in DC.
Peter Zeihan is right about China's vulnerability to import and export blockade. It's clear that China can produce many more escort type destroyers than the USA. Quantity, as we all know, is a quality. It's going to be difficult and expensive to slug it out with China and maybe even difficult to prevail.
Which got me to think about why does the US Navy have to be ships. Projection of power and control of blue water might be easier, more effective and way less costly if the US Navy relied on satellites and land based aircraft for defensive and offensive action. Maybe a much smaller US Navy in terms of ships but maybe a way bigger US Navy in terms of platforms.
I do think a US Navy less ship oriented could continue to dominate, including against an aggressive China.
More here: https://rreisner.substack.com/p/the-future-us-navy-needs-to-be-more
If only we'd get serious about long range CSAR …
"Catalina Aircraft, holder of the Type Certificates for the 28-5ACF Catalina, today announced on Jul. 25, 2023 during Oshkosh AirVenture the rebirth of the iconic and legendary Catalina as the Catalina II Amphibious Turboprop."
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/iconic-catalina-amphibious-flying-boat-production-to-restart/
Why bother? The CL-415 is already in being. And I'd bet the useful loads are similar. And if you need open ocean the Japanese boat is far, far superior. (And in being.)
Upvote for the US-2, anyway. The legs on the CL-415 are pretty damned short.
By the time you throw turbines on a PBY with all that drag? I doubt there would be much to choose from between the two.
There is that, too...
The US-2 has ~3,000 mile range. CL-415 has ~1,500 mile range.
My comment was vis' a vis' the Catalina. Fuel consumption with a turboprop is going to double. Couple that with a big fat airfoil design that's basically 100 years old? My bet is it's about a wash with the CL-415 coming out looking pretty good due to a much higher cruise speed.
Ahh, okay.
The CL-415 has 3 hour legs in loaded configuration.....1500 in ferry config.
What does this mean? That it can burn some $100/gal bio-jet fuel?
"Utilizing green energy power initiatives, the NGAA Catalina II provides civilian, commercial, government and military operators ... "
I like this part. "The NGAA Catalina II will be the largest, fastest, longest range, highest payload, and most capable amphibious aircraft available worldwide with Western Certifications." In an era where conventional thinking is high tech with stubby legs (sports car), someone is thinking there is a market for a C10 pickup truck. Now the question is - will parts be source domestically.
I like competition, but the Japanese Amphib exists. This alternative seems to leverage an FAA cert, with no factory, and a new design. 10 years to FOC?
Smells like the Hornet/Super Hornet ......bait/switch
Or turns into a LCS, DDG-1000 debacle.
Military aircraft don't need certification.
And unless it's using R1830 engines? They'll have to re-engineer the engine installation and get that certified under a TCDS Amendment. - Not cheap.
And even with derated turbine engines? The cruise fuel burn is still going to be almost double the R1830. Especially down low. So there goes any useful load advantages along with the claims of range (Unless they get the airplane up to 20K feet.)
IMO, this is a non-starter unless it becomes a government contract for at least 100 airplanes. (And it should remain a non-starter for government use.)
unpressurized, twin turboprop,
They're talking about using some PT-6 variant. And you're right, no legs.
But thinking is good. I will never forget the fate of the OMAC Laser 300, though. Basically, a Cessna 337 with one turboprop engine in the back, a canard in the front to keep the stall speed down. and while they built one airframe (I saw it at 29 Palms airport) it never progressed.
Personally, I'd go with a PWA 1XX and derate it. But, again that's a TCDS mod and = $$. (Not to mention marinizing costs for the engine.)
Old Man's Aircraft Company. I remember it.
The PWA-1xxx is a PT6 variant - they scaled a PT-6 way up (about double SHP).
But it'd be silly to take an engine, double the size and then derate it especially when you're not flying at altitude.
Yeah, calling bullshit on this. As I discovered when I was going to buy an Albatross (SA-16) and put PT-6's on it (paying for the engineering and owning the STC), the only great advantage to a recip engine is you can reduce power a hella lot, and stay flying...which gives you range.
That ability is how a Catalina could fly from the US West Coast to Hawaii...at 90 knots. A SA-16 or PBY cannot carry enough fuel to match performance like that with a turboprop.
Though I think the Catalina is the most beautiful aircraft ever made, we need what we can get now, not starting in 5-10 years. Buy the US-2 now if we want an amphibious aircraft.
We are tired of Paper Tigers w/their PPT promises. COTS is the way right now.
Yeah, that's just vaporware. They may, eventually, get the Catalina through certification...and they may sell a few. But there is no commercial mission there.
And for military use, the US-2 is better all around. Although it's still being a long way from optimized for CSAR use.
Apparently ShinMaywa made a version for CSAR. "During 2009, the first production US-2, which was outfitted for the search and rescue mission, was delivered to the Japan's Ministry of Defense." https://bit.ly/3OezcKw
Yeah, we saw pictures of it bobbing off Guam. But, it's got limitations for CSAR - no ramp, and no decent way for parachute bundles or jumpers to get out.
Feasible to modify it to meet our CSAR standards if we made it here under license?
https://bit.ly/3rTTpOp
"Due to its limited production capacity, ShinMaywa would have a hard time building the US-2 for anyone other than the JMSDF, so allowing the plane to be made in another country under license would be a good idea"
I'd bet that LockMart could find room on the line at Marietta to build them since they are of a similar size.
Adding a ramp would be problematic, but a much larger door for air drops, and perhaps split, allowing a boarding ramp capability for people if not boats, is not.
There is a company in Australia, with partners including P&W and ShinMaywa, that is about to start new-build Grumman Albatross production.
It's gonna' get interesting if and when Xi decides to get frisky. IMO, only Japan and South Korea will be ready to play with skill, competence, and readiness on day one.
Korea, your move...
They make good kit. Mebbe we should send them 3 DDG something-or-others that now are the most expensive lightly armed ships EVAH, and have them make a real warship out of the hulls. Couldn't cost us anymore that what we're spending now.
I did stop what I was doing and reviewed the link to the white paper. I found some comfort in that for its 29 pages there was only one sentence on page 16 and three on page 26 about Climate Change and those seemed innocuously half-hearted.
Japanese NSM and Tomahawk lines maybe?
Who can blame Japan for not relying on POTATUS and the US Congress. Look where it got Ukraine.
And South Vietnam, Afghanistan, ....
For Germany to rearm, they need cheap energy. Where are they going to get it from?
I wonder how two Koreas, the Philippines, and the countries in Southeast Asia feel about Japan doubling its defense budget. Likewise, I wonder how the countries in Europe feel about a renewed Wehrmacht - I mean the Bundeswehr. Maybe Germany and Russia will carve up Poland as they have done several times in the past. I think it's time to call in the diplomats. Real ones. Not Blinken or Kerry. Recognizing your adversary has a point is not necessarily appeasement. Coming to an agreement is not necessarily Munich 1938.
Poland now has 4 times the tanks of Germany. As for an Asian arms race, a bit of that could do us good.
Poland probably had more tanks than Germany did in 1932.
An Asian arms race did wonders for us in the 1930s.
Like I said it's time to talk.
Germanys tanks in 1932 isn't too worrisome. Germany's tanks in 1942, otoh...
Israel is negotiating with someone in Europe to sell them 200 older Merkava tanks.
And an old Merkava is still a better tank than a T-anything
The Polish have tanks, the Russians have tanks, the Germans have tanks, but right now nobody has an advantage. The price of peace is at an all time low. This is the time to sit down and hemmer out an agreement.
Sure. The Russian non-negotiable condition is that every part of Ukraine they claim is theirs, including the parts they don’t occupy. Anyone in Ukraine who agrees to that without the US stationing an armored division outside Kharkov will be found to have committed suicide by shooting himself in the back 60 times with an AK-74.
That has never been their negotiating position. They are more concerned with Ukraine neutrality & protection of ethnic Russians.
https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/putins-annexation-miscalculation
In retrospect, however, Putin’s 2020 Russian constitutional amendments also foreshadowed his intentions in Ukraine. The changes included an obscure provision that forbids the Russian Federation from giving back any territory that is declared to be a part of the country. The article was initially thought to deal with Crimea (and the Kurile Islands). The decision to annex several Ukrainian provinces (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson, Zaporizhzhia) in 2022, however, now puts this provision in a new light.
Essentially, Putin cannot withdraw from – or even negotiate about – these provinces without undermining one of his new core principles. Therefore, Putin cannot simply declare victory and go home, since such a declaration would now lead to the alienation of “Russian” land.
Thus, observers contemplating any possible end-game scenario to this tragic war must consider that from Putin’s standpoint, all of Russia’s territorial integrity – including the newly annexed provinces – is on the line.
Annexation of areas populated by ethnic Russians would satisfy their requirement to protect ethnic Russians. Russia will probably annex more provinces that are ethnically Russian. They're not interested in annexing areas occupied by ethnic Ukrainians.
Given they already have done exactly that, what makes you think they won't do what they have already done?
As you completely ignore the mass deportations and Russification of of those territories. Walter Duranty smiles.
Why should folks get annexed just because their grandparents lived in another nation? Seems like pure aggression to me.
Luzhkov disagrees.
Luzhkov is dead. He can take it up with the worms.
Then you acknowledge the problem predates Obama.
The best spend for the Germans at this point is to buy the Ukrainians as much arms and ammunition as they can. I think we are to the point where there will not be enough left of the Russian military when Ukraine is settled (not today but in 12 months) for Russia to threaten Europe conventionally for the next 20 years.
My concern is keeping the Poles on a leash once this is over since they have many debts that have yet to be settled and are arming up to be the most powerful military in Europe.
So Germany is going to further tax its ailing economy to provide arms for a war it really wishes would end?
I think your error is thinking that US and German interests are in alignment. If the current government in Germany doesn't change their course of action, the Germans will elect a government that will.
Ah, the old ailing economy bullshit. Did you know that the rate of inflation under President Biden is lower than it has been at any time since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.
Arms production, like it or not, builds jobs too. Good jobs. The Krupp family had a pretty good run until they tied their fortune to the racist painter.
What does the rate of inflation under Biden have to do with Germany's economy?
Every country in Europe has "debts to be settled", some going back millenia. Unlikely Poland would be willing to make an enemy of the U.S.
"Wehrmacht - I mean the Bundeswehr" Tom Lehrer fan?
Definitely.
A few years ago, our POTUS entertained President Xi at his estate in Florida. His beautiful wife wore a lovely Chinese dress. His grandchildren sang Chinese songs. Today, we are making war plans to fight China. What happened?
"81 million votes"
I hope they are happy.
The one before that kissed Xi's butt too. This has been coming since long before any of the current players.
right now, it's private money
So, if we just took the entire defense budget and only paid for Active duty salary’s and war fighting procurement (all procurement jobs should be active duty imho), we could have a helluva war fighting capability.
Here's the Navy budget request for FY24.
$50B for ships and aircraft
$7B for weapons
$22B for RDTE
$84B for Operations and Maintenance
$59B for Active/RC Manpower
$33B for Civilians
... lastly ...
$72B for "family housing"!?!?!? I think I see where the grift is in on the Navy's budget.
Source: https://media.defense.gov/2023/Mar/29/2003188744/-1/-1/0/DON_BUDGET_CARD.PDF
That is a horribly formatted card. FY 2024 PB Submission carries MILPERS, RDT&E, and OM directly from their respective sections of the card but for others you need to have a handy calculator, including Family Housing. Frickin Byzantine!
Move the fleet to Mississippi. Problem solved?
Providing adequate housing for the troops and their families should be among the top priorities. Anyone that has served knows how crappy, unsafe and unsanitary some of our military housing is.
$72B divided by the half million active-duty sailors and Marines works out to $11.5k/mo. Now THAT will get you some pretty sweet digs off base no matter where you are stationed. Stop paying for the crappy military housing and cut them that check. It might actually help with recruiting problems too. $11.5k/month tax free housing benny? Sweet!
Once I was "allowed" to live off base I did. Especially fun and educational overseas. My concern is for the lower ranks that are forced to live on base housing, much of it WWII vintage (or earlier). The Walter Reed debacle comes to mind, and the frigging Navy knew of the deplorable, unsafe, unsanitary conditions for years.