World, Writing, Wealth discussion
World & Current Events
>
Who has the strongest army?
Excuse me for saying this, Nik, but that list from the Business Insider is complete BS and amateurish as hell! It is obvious that it was done by someone with no real understanding of what makes a military force strong. Italy is more powerful militarily than the UK? Please! Also, the authors had some fixation on the number and important of submarines which, while significant assets, are by no means a good way to judge the overall power of a navy. The list also totally ignores important factors like troop training standards, state and quality of the equipment and combat experience of each force. There is also the context of which type of warfare setting we are talking about. In the real world of active war, that list would mostly prove to be trash, so here is my two cent on this:
- The most powerful military is still by a long shot the USA, which has also a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating any attacker if it wished so. It has also nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines galore. Training is good and there is plenty of recent combat experience to go around, while equipment is generally top rate, even if overpriced.
- The second-most powerful military, if you consider its large nuclear arsenal, is the Russian Federation. It has numerous mechanized forces with fair to good tanks and excellent artillery guns and rockets. However, its overall combat potential suffers from the fact that it is still mostly a conscript force, with a shortage of experienced NCOs and generally low morale due to poor service conditions and military housing. One on one against a Western European force like a German, French or British one, I suspect that the Russian force would soon show its hidden weaknesses.
- If you are talking purely about non-nuclear forces, then China would be the second-most powerful military in the World, due to the huge size of its army and tank fleet and its ever growing airforce and navy, plus its large conventional submarine fleet. However, the Chinese Army has not seen combat for decades now and the level of training of its personnel is suspect, in my opinion. History has repeatedly shown that large but untested and inexperienced armies often come to grief against more combat-savvy armies. In its last war experience (against Vietnam in the 1980s), China was roughly handled by the much smaller but vastly more combat-experienced Vietnamese Army. In a naval showdown in the South China Sea against the U.S. Navy, I believe that the Chinese Navy will be quickly shown the way back to its bases.
- I am sorry, but there is no way I will place Japan as 4th most powerful military, for many reasons. That place belongs to India, with its huge land army, nuclear arsenal and plenty of recent combat experience (mostly against its neighbor, Pakistan). Some may poo-poo the low level of education of the average Indian soldier, but if history has shown us something, it is that the Indian soldier is generally tough and quite brave. The Indian officer corps also enjoy close links with British forces and benefit from exchange training programs with the UK.
- Fifth, in my opinion, is South Korea, which has large, modern and well-equiped forces, with plenty of modern tanks, aircraft and warships. South Korean forces have also been kept on their toes constantly by having to watch constantly its aggressive and paranoid neighbor to the North.
- Next in sixth position is North Korea, because of its huge army and growing nuclear arsenal. However, there are important disclaimers about North Korean forces. First, it has zero overseas deployment capability and is geared strictly towards land warfare on the Korean Peninsula. Second, much of its equipment is dated or squarely obsolete, especially its airforce and navy. Third, both the morale and training standards of its huge army of conscripts are very suspicious. One could say that the North Korean Army is mostly a parade force with brainwashed but poorly fed soldiers. However, its nuclear arsenal and massive artillery force would cause a lot of damage to South Korean cities before it would collapse out of poor logistical support. In a sense, its deranged, megalomaniac leader is the main reason why the North Korean forces could be so dangerous...in the first week or so of a war against South Korean and American forces.
- Seventh, in my opinion, is France. Those who poo-poo the French forces (often Americans) should not ignore its long military traditions, modern forces, nuclear arsenal and strong military industries. French forces have been and are still engaging frequently in fighting, a lot of it around Africa, where its soldiers have proven to be tough and professional. As the French would say: on ne fait pas dans la dentelle (loosely translated as 'we don't pussyfoot around').
- Another bunch who don't pussyfoot around when the going gets serious are the British, in eight place. Among the most professional soldiers on the planet, the British have unfortunately been stuck in the past decades with a series of incompetent, uncaring governments that cut both the budgets and size of the British forces. The British Navy, still highly competent and experienced, has lost many of its ships to cuts, with the result that the Royal Navy isn't what it used to be anymore, while the RAF is losing squadron after squadron. However, the British are still no pushovers.
- I put Japan in ninth position, mostly because of its modern, top notch ( but way overpriced) equipment and good personnel training. However, the Japanese forces have one major drawback: zero combat experience since 1945. They also have no nuclear weapons, two reasons why I rated Japan behind both France and the UK.
- The next positions are tricky to fill, because so many factors are involved. However, one factor that will always count heavily in my opinion is the combat experience and proven fighting ability of a national force in real wars. That is why I put Israel in the tenth position. A tiny country with a disproportionately large and well equiped military, Israel has been mostly undefeated on the battlefield, losing some battles but always winning its wars. Israel is also a good example of why I think that Business Insider list is BS. That list placed Israel in at number 14, while putting Egypt at number 12 and Italy (?) at number 8. Now, how many wars has Egypt won over Israel since 1947? And would you say seriously that Italy could kick Israel's ass in a real shooting war? I will now let others put in their own two cents on this subject.
- The most powerful military is still by a long shot the USA, which has also a nuclear arsenal capable of incinerating any attacker if it wished so. It has also nuclear aircraft carriers and nuclear submarines galore. Training is good and there is plenty of recent combat experience to go around, while equipment is generally top rate, even if overpriced.
- The second-most powerful military, if you consider its large nuclear arsenal, is the Russian Federation. It has numerous mechanized forces with fair to good tanks and excellent artillery guns and rockets. However, its overall combat potential suffers from the fact that it is still mostly a conscript force, with a shortage of experienced NCOs and generally low morale due to poor service conditions and military housing. One on one against a Western European force like a German, French or British one, I suspect that the Russian force would soon show its hidden weaknesses.
- If you are talking purely about non-nuclear forces, then China would be the second-most powerful military in the World, due to the huge size of its army and tank fleet and its ever growing airforce and navy, plus its large conventional submarine fleet. However, the Chinese Army has not seen combat for decades now and the level of training of its personnel is suspect, in my opinion. History has repeatedly shown that large but untested and inexperienced armies often come to grief against more combat-savvy armies. In its last war experience (against Vietnam in the 1980s), China was roughly handled by the much smaller but vastly more combat-experienced Vietnamese Army. In a naval showdown in the South China Sea against the U.S. Navy, I believe that the Chinese Navy will be quickly shown the way back to its bases.
- I am sorry, but there is no way I will place Japan as 4th most powerful military, for many reasons. That place belongs to India, with its huge land army, nuclear arsenal and plenty of recent combat experience (mostly against its neighbor, Pakistan). Some may poo-poo the low level of education of the average Indian soldier, but if history has shown us something, it is that the Indian soldier is generally tough and quite brave. The Indian officer corps also enjoy close links with British forces and benefit from exchange training programs with the UK.
- Fifth, in my opinion, is South Korea, which has large, modern and well-equiped forces, with plenty of modern tanks, aircraft and warships. South Korean forces have also been kept on their toes constantly by having to watch constantly its aggressive and paranoid neighbor to the North.
- Next in sixth position is North Korea, because of its huge army and growing nuclear arsenal. However, there are important disclaimers about North Korean forces. First, it has zero overseas deployment capability and is geared strictly towards land warfare on the Korean Peninsula. Second, much of its equipment is dated or squarely obsolete, especially its airforce and navy. Third, both the morale and training standards of its huge army of conscripts are very suspicious. One could say that the North Korean Army is mostly a parade force with brainwashed but poorly fed soldiers. However, its nuclear arsenal and massive artillery force would cause a lot of damage to South Korean cities before it would collapse out of poor logistical support. In a sense, its deranged, megalomaniac leader is the main reason why the North Korean forces could be so dangerous...in the first week or so of a war against South Korean and American forces.
- Seventh, in my opinion, is France. Those who poo-poo the French forces (often Americans) should not ignore its long military traditions, modern forces, nuclear arsenal and strong military industries. French forces have been and are still engaging frequently in fighting, a lot of it around Africa, where its soldiers have proven to be tough and professional. As the French would say: on ne fait pas dans la dentelle (loosely translated as 'we don't pussyfoot around').
- Another bunch who don't pussyfoot around when the going gets serious are the British, in eight place. Among the most professional soldiers on the planet, the British have unfortunately been stuck in the past decades with a series of incompetent, uncaring governments that cut both the budgets and size of the British forces. The British Navy, still highly competent and experienced, has lost many of its ships to cuts, with the result that the Royal Navy isn't what it used to be anymore, while the RAF is losing squadron after squadron. However, the British are still no pushovers.
- I put Japan in ninth position, mostly because of its modern, top notch ( but way overpriced) equipment and good personnel training. However, the Japanese forces have one major drawback: zero combat experience since 1945. They also have no nuclear weapons, two reasons why I rated Japan behind both France and the UK.
- The next positions are tricky to fill, because so many factors are involved. However, one factor that will always count heavily in my opinion is the combat experience and proven fighting ability of a national force in real wars. That is why I put Israel in the tenth position. A tiny country with a disproportionately large and well equiped military, Israel has been mostly undefeated on the battlefield, losing some battles but always winning its wars. Israel is also a good example of why I think that Business Insider list is BS. That list placed Israel in at number 14, while putting Egypt at number 12 and Italy (?) at number 8. Now, how many wars has Egypt won over Israel since 1947? And would you say seriously that Italy could kick Israel's ass in a real shooting war? I will now let others put in their own two cents on this subject.
Michel wrote: "Excuse me for saying this, Nik, but that list from the Business Insider is complete BS and amateurish as hell! It is obvious that it was done by someone with no real understanding of what makes a m..."Good analysis - I would have put Israel higher but that's just me. You correctly describe the impact of training hours and combat experience. I would also add defence v offence. Fighting to protect your own country always provides a greater strength of force than fighting in a foreign land even with an all professional force.
Also do not forget the impact of media and public opinion on willingness to wage war. Again defending homeland is easier sell than some arbitrary fight overseas for misunderstood reasons even if justified. E.g dropping drone strikes on IS in Syria is still viewed as unpalatable in the West even after terrorist outrages whereas a direct attack can allow politicians and military to act with near impunity e.g. West in Afghan post 9/11 and prior to that Kuwait invasion v Iraq 2.
Forgot to mention Turkey - large conscript force and largest in NATO as standing ArmyIran - again conscript force and more homeland defence
For all forces political or religious indoctrination tends to fall apart on battlefield - well aimed bullets see to that hence large role of sniper in conventional wars - to take out leaders on the field.
Excellent and grounded rating! I knew we could count on our military experts here much more than on Business Insider in this aspect.On the other hand, the history teaches us that an allegedly stronger army does not necessarily come out victorious from wars and conflicts..
Hope there will be time when all those tremendous stocks of weaponry well turn into a strategic reserve for recycling. Not in our era though it seems...
Hum, lots of nice recyclable steel in all those tanks and artillery guns. Those big aircraft carriers also look juicy!
Unfortunately, I agree with you that we probably won't see that happen in our lifetime, Nik. In fact, I see three potential flash points ready to explode at any time:
- First, while Syria is already a devastated sh_t pit, we still could see U.S. or NATO forces enter the country in force in order to finish off ISIS (a la Afghanistan with Al Qaeda), in which case things could get even worse.
- Eastern Ukraine, which has not been exactly quiet lately, could trigger a direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces, possibly through accidental clash or miscalculation.
- The South China Sea dispute (and also the Senkoku/Diaoyu Islands). Just one ship captain with a itchy trigger finger could start a really nice ball in the region.
Unfortunately, I agree with you that we probably won't see that happen in our lifetime, Nik. In fact, I see three potential flash points ready to explode at any time:
- First, while Syria is already a devastated sh_t pit, we still could see U.S. or NATO forces enter the country in force in order to finish off ISIS (a la Afghanistan with Al Qaeda), in which case things could get even worse.
- Eastern Ukraine, which has not been exactly quiet lately, could trigger a direct confrontation between NATO and Russian forces, possibly through accidental clash or miscalculation.
- The South China Sea dispute (and also the Senkoku/Diaoyu Islands). Just one ship captain with a itchy trigger finger could start a really nice ball in the region.
Tim wrote: "Get one private soldier from every country in the world in one room and have a arm wrestle contest. It is simple, the winner represents the strongest army... :D
A soldier in the British army used ..."
Iceland could send one soldier for such a contest: Halfthor Bjornson, aka 'The Mountain', of Game of Thrones fame. Ok, ok, Iceland doesn't even have an army, but I couldn't help it. But seriously, when a war starts, there are no winners, just losers. You simply hope to be the smallest loser.
A soldier in the British army used ..."
Iceland could send one soldier for such a contest: Halfthor Bjornson, aka 'The Mountain', of Game of Thrones fame. Ok, ok, Iceland doesn't even have an army, but I couldn't help it. But seriously, when a war starts, there are no winners, just losers. You simply hope to be the smallest loser.
I think Michel's rating was probably spot on. There is no doubt the US has the best equipment, and the best trained soldiers, but then again it probably depends on what sort of war is going to be fought. For example, anyone trying to invade Russia has the problem (assuming they don't try to nuke Russia into the ash age) of size. To occupy a country, you have to leave occupation forces such that there can be no internal rebellion. Only China, and maybe India, could do that right now. Just let's hope we don't have to test this.
Michel wrote: "Excuse me for saying this, Nik, but that list from the Business Insider is complete BS and amateurish as hell! It is obvious that it was done by someone with no real understanding of what makes a m..."The man with a military intelligence background hath spoken! Does anything else need to be said, really? :)
Leonidas!"I am Sparta!"
Or words to that effect.
I hope we don't have to have a war and kill a few million people to build community spirit. My view is community spirit is really another topic. I think the problems we have there is the fragmented nature of our society, not helped by technology and the web. I really have more communication with people in different countries than in my own street.
Building community spirit and male bonding through war? That kind of ignores the hundreds of thousands or even millions who were either just killed, wounded or maimed in that war, or lost a dear one, or lost all that they had possessed, or a combination of the above. I thus find this community spirit building concept rather heartless. Also, thanks to modern long range weapons, chances are that innocents will most probably suffer on both sides. So much for community spirit building. A soldier as hardened by war as the Duke of Wellington said once, while contemplating a battlefield, with its thousands of dead and wounded men: 'the next saddest thing to a battle lost is a battle won'.
Serving together and risking lives in the battle seem to create a special bonding, not sure it's a panacea for multiple divisive factors though. In the face of a common danger or under a common grief people feel united too, but this feeling doesn't last for long once they are over..
Returning to army strength, interestingly, Saudi Arabia rated 3-d-4-th in the world on military expenditure: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of... doesn't make any rating, neither by our experts nor on most lists... Why is that?
Strong community feeling and unique relationship are something very positive. It's just them originating from war cause people wish the same result from a different source
For anyone who thinks war is glorious, I strongly recommend becoming acquainted with the Battle of Passchendaele. As far as NZ was concerned, it made farces like Gallipoli seems almost desirable. Getting wounded meant your biggest danger then was drowning.Whys is Saudi Arabia not mentioned? Effectiveness in war is helped by equipment, but by far the most critical element, I believe, is training, discipline and experience. That is why, really, in my opinion, the US is at the top. They really do train, and because they always seem to be deploying somewhere, they get battlefield experience, which is particularly critical for command. This would be Russia's big weakness. They may or may not have equivalent equipment (we really don't know about some critical things like electronics) but they are rather short on experience.
Ian, I agree about Saudi Arabia's true military power not being reflected by its military expenditures. The Saudi forces actually have very little combat experience. They had a minor role in the First Gulf War and now they are fighting with Yemeni insurgents in Yemen, but mostly through airstrikes and naval bombardment. The true mettle of the Saudi Army still needs to be proven.
Tim, your fixation about men being men through war, ignoring the awful costs and human suffering caused by wars, frankly baffles me. You say that wars are inevitable. Maybe, but there is no need to glorify them as a way to prove one's manhood. There are much more positive and rewarding ways to prove you are a man than to go kill others in wars. I also served in the military and saw from up close many active war zones, so I am not talking through my hat. You want to show some testosterones and enjoy some camaraderie? Go play football! The sad reality is that too many soldiers return from wars to experience PTSD, physical and mental disabilities and broken lives rather than 'community spirit'.
Tim, your fixation about men being men through war, ignoring the awful costs and human suffering caused by wars, frankly baffles me. You say that wars are inevitable. Maybe, but there is no need to glorify them as a way to prove one's manhood. There are much more positive and rewarding ways to prove you are a man than to go kill others in wars. I also served in the military and saw from up close many active war zones, so I am not talking through my hat. You want to show some testosterones and enjoy some camaraderie? Go play football! The sad reality is that too many soldiers return from wars to experience PTSD, physical and mental disabilities and broken lives rather than 'community spirit'.
Trade wars, arms races, NATO's renovation, so who needs to spend the most to address the challenges? Does Europe, for example, need to become less dependent on US military strength?
Nik wrote: "Trade wars, arms races, NATO's renovation, so who needs to spend the most to address the challenges? Does Europe, for example, need to become less dependent on US military strength?"
I would say yes, as the USA under Trump now has little credibility as a dependable ally. Like the saying goes: with friends like Trump, who needs enemies?
I would say yes, as the USA under Trump now has little credibility as a dependable ally. Like the saying goes: with friends like Trump, who needs enemies?
I agree with Michel. Europe needs to be a lot less dependent on the US military, especially since it wants to have its own independent foreign policies. If it has a strong military, odds on it won't have to use it, and peace is obviously the best outcome. The problem with Trump, in my opinion, is he is so erratic it is hard to know what will happen next, and that is not good for stability.
Chinese military spending will surpass the US in the 2030s.Some opinion pieces.
REF: AsiaTimes: https://nationalinterest.org/blog/the...
REF: Bloomberg: https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articl...
Ian wrote: "I agree with Michel. Europe needs to be a lot less dependent on the US military, especially since it wants to have its own independent foreign policies. If it has a strong military, odds on it won'..."We need to differentiate European members of NATO from European members of the European Union from European countries. e.g The Republic of Ireland is not a NATO member but is a full EU member (including EURO) and has historically been neutral like Switzerland who are also outside NATO but also outside EU.
One of the Brexit issues from me was the EU trying to establish an EU army whilst neutral members were attempting to use majority EU vote to decide where the UK deployed its NATO assigned troops reassigned to EU policy and not paying for either.
The European continent (Now including former Warsaw Pact nations) is dependent on NATO for security; however, the only country to invoke Article 5 (attack on one is attack on all) is the USA 24hrs after 9/11
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2006...
The EU did nothing (issuing statements is meaningless), NATO responded and not just European NATO and not just NATO as has been mentioned in other topics. Canada (NATO) but also Australia and New Zealand responded to the US call for action initially in Afghanistan. Casualties followed. Treaty obligation fully met. There is no Treaty obligation for % of GDP spent.
Although I've jokingly included the spending reference in the One Day In Office satire (see forum) , Trump only wants 4% if it is spent on US military equipment. If European NATO went and purchased more Eurofighters or Airbus tankers I'm not sure he would be happy. It was nothing more than a sales tour for Boeing etc. Better stick some more tariffs on European products.
If the US wanted a better demonstration of allied cooperation and NATO working than 9/11 I'm not sure what it expected - at that point it was the USA under attack not just on home soil but also around it's embassies and military units.
As an alternate controversial view - how about US allowing fund raising for IRA terrorists in Boston bars whist the same Republic of Ireland as above provided physical shelter and political cover. Thankfully that one seems to be still holding. Would the USA have helped attack terrorists in the Republic if the UK had invoked Article 5.
Philip raises a good issue that Europe as such does not really exist as a unit. There may be a EU, but it does not really act as a country, and the countries in it still demand their own policies. The idea of "neutral" countries deciding how to employ someone else's troops while not paying for them is ridiculous. I also agree that Trump's call for an increase in military spending was mainly aimed at purchasing US equipment. I often wonder what he would say if they purchased a lot of Russian made equipment, some of which appears to be of quite a high quality?For some reason, Russia is considered to be an enemy. I am not sure why this is, and I suspect in part it is because there is a need to keep NATO going - it needs something to defend against. Meanwhile, Russia desperately needs to build up its military, or so it thinks, to defend against NATO. In principle a lot of money could be saved if these two views could be made to be redundant.
Ian wrote: "I often wonder what he would say if they purchased a lot of Russian made equipment, some of which appears to be of quite a high quality? ..."From people in defense biz I heard it would be hardly possible or involve a lot of investment, as NATO and Soviet standards were often incompatible and having, say - squadrons of Sukhoy and Fs at the same time would be impractical, but I guess ex-military guys here would know better..
I don't think Russia is inimical towards US or Eastern Europe, but it can be aggressive, expansionist and revanchist at least to some of its neighbors, while the US can also be aggressive, but not for expansionist reasons - rather ideological and/or economic..
Nik, the biggest single problem to my tongue in cheek suggestion is that if Europe were to fight Russia, getting parts for Russian equipment might be difficult :-)However, different standards, etc, are not a huge headache. In WW II, British and US had different standards, and the US shipped stuff to Russia.
About some NATO nations possibly acquiring Russian military equipment, it still could happen on a minor scale, concerning simple weapons. However, sophisticated weapons systems are another thing: different programmings, different frequencies, different calibres, etc.. A NATO country like, say, Canada, which has American made planes and air munitions and missiles, would need to buy complete new stocks of spare parts and missiles and bombs if it wanted one day to buy Russian jets. At present, Canada is still unsure about what new fighter to buy to replace soon its aging CF-18s. There were talks of buying the French Rafale, among others, but that would imply switching to French electronic systems and missiles, a very costly and complicated move. To switch to Russian systems would be even more complicated, although the latest variants of the Su-27/30/35 FLANKER are very good and highly capable planes.
Ian wrote: "Nik, the biggest single problem to my tongue in cheek suggestion is that if Europe were to fight Russia, getting parts for Russian equipment might be difficult :-)
However, different standards, et..."
We are not in WW2 anymore, Ian. The tanks and planes of the time had hardly any electronics in them apart from their radios. Today, different standards in weapons systems ARE a huge headache.
However, different standards, et..."
We are not in WW2 anymore, Ian. The tanks and planes of the time had hardly any electronics in them apart from their radios. Today, different standards in weapons systems ARE a huge headache.
The electronics is an interesting problem because in the event of a serious war it is in the interest of one party to try to take out the satellites of the other, and use EM pulses to cancel electronics.Hopefully we shall never have to see whether that happens.
Michel is correct. The logistics and maintenance regimes for major modern weapons platforms (aircraft, helicopters, ships, submarines, tanks, and other vehicles), plus all the associated electronics is a major cost and complication associated to fielding those systems.
Logistical and maintenance issues can render a $100M aircraft completely useless in very quick order.
Graeme wrote: "Logistical and maintenance issues can render a $100M aircraft completely useless in very quick order...."
Lockheed F-35 anyone?
Seriously, acquiring, operating and maintaining advanced weapons systems is a lot more complicated than many people think. It is not as if you are shopping for a new car by visiting the various car dealers in your area. I myself would like to see a non-American fighter plane replace the CF-18 in Canadian service, since Lockheed and Boeing are proving so greedy and bullying, but changing our source of spare parts, electronics and air ordnance away from the USA would cost a fortune. It is too bad, as some foreign aircraft types look just right for Canada. In terms of long range interceptor, basically what Canada needs to patrol its huge territory and intercept intruders, the Russian Mig-31 looks ideal: long range, very speedy (Mach 2.8) and heavily armed. With a new radar, electronic warfare suite and Western-made air-to-air missile, it would be perfect for Canada as an interceptor. In the fighter-bomber role, the French RAFALE is an excellent plane already proven in combat and would be a better deal in my opinion than the problem-plagued and expensive F-35.
Those factors apply to every country, which is why I am not expecting to see NATO countries rearm with Russian or Chinese equipment. Turkey's buy of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air system was made more out of spite to thumb nose at the USA than out of straight logic. Yes, the S-400 is an excellent system, but remember that the Russians have all the functioning programming codes for it. So, when Russian planes will intrude into Turkish airspace, what tells you that they won't be able easily to jam or freeze your new S-400 radars?
Lockheed F-35 anyone?
Seriously, acquiring, operating and maintaining advanced weapons systems is a lot more complicated than many people think. It is not as if you are shopping for a new car by visiting the various car dealers in your area. I myself would like to see a non-American fighter plane replace the CF-18 in Canadian service, since Lockheed and Boeing are proving so greedy and bullying, but changing our source of spare parts, electronics and air ordnance away from the USA would cost a fortune. It is too bad, as some foreign aircraft types look just right for Canada. In terms of long range interceptor, basically what Canada needs to patrol its huge territory and intercept intruders, the Russian Mig-31 looks ideal: long range, very speedy (Mach 2.8) and heavily armed. With a new radar, electronic warfare suite and Western-made air-to-air missile, it would be perfect for Canada as an interceptor. In the fighter-bomber role, the French RAFALE is an excellent plane already proven in combat and would be a better deal in my opinion than the problem-plagued and expensive F-35.
Those factors apply to every country, which is why I am not expecting to see NATO countries rearm with Russian or Chinese equipment. Turkey's buy of the Russian S-400 surface-to-air system was made more out of spite to thumb nose at the USA than out of straight logic. Yes, the S-400 is an excellent system, but remember that the Russians have all the functioning programming codes for it. So, when Russian planes will intrude into Turkish airspace, what tells you that they won't be able easily to jam or freeze your new S-400 radars?
Also, maybe I'm confusing something, but I remember reading about some problem connected to Friend or Foe identification systems..
Nik wrote: "Also, maybe I'm confusing something, but I remember reading about some problem connected to Friend or Foe identification systems.."
That too, although it is a minor one. You would need to change the IFF transponders and codes in your new (Russian/Chinese) planes. However, all NATO aircraft use the same standardized IFF system, so no problem there. The Greeks and the Turks may be shooting at each other from time to time, but that is simply because they hate each other's guts, not because of incompatible IFF systems.
That too, although it is a minor one. You would need to change the IFF transponders and codes in your new (Russian/Chinese) planes. However, all NATO aircraft use the same standardized IFF system, so no problem there. The Greeks and the Turks may be shooting at each other from time to time, but that is simply because they hate each other's guts, not because of incompatible IFF systems.
I'm just wondering about drones. Is anyone else worried about them as an effective means to take out targets in the US and elsewhere? I'm thinking about the Revolutionary War and how the British marched in straight lines and were taken out by colonists firing from cover. The British failed to adapt to a new kind of warfare. Are we failing to adapt to the possibility of drone strikes?
Scout, most armies have trouble in a new war. In WW II, it took the allies some time to adapt to Germany's Blitzkrieg, but that was because the German High Command had spent a lot of effort working out how to fight a new war, and France did not, while Britain had not upgraded its equipment. I suspect the US is probably leading the way in thinking about new ways to fight. It should, because it spends more money on it than anyone else.
Scout, drones typically don't have intercontinental range, so the USA is fairly safe from drone strikes (unless they would come from Canada or Mexico). Second, drones work well against enemies with little or no air defense systems (like the Taliban or ISIS), but tend to be shot down rather quickly when encountering a modern air defense system (like in Israel or Russia). Third, directing a drone from afar means using a satellite link, which means a limited bandwidth available, thus a limited number of drones that can be operated at a time. Finally, satellite links to drones can be detected, which means that your drone control center may attract within hours a few missiles. Those who claim that drones will dominate the battlefield of tomorrow or will replace completely piloted combat aircraft are no more than lounge-bound video 'warriors' in my opinion.
Well, that allays some of my fears. I've seen a couple of movies in which drone strikes take out a car in a convoy or a building in another country. Pretty scary. I know Obama ordered drone strikes. I have no idea how that's possible, but if we're able to hit such specific targets in other countries, I'm wondering why they couldn't do the same.
Hi Michel,I think the issue will be "drone swarms," mass manufactured in large numbers at relatively low costs and used to overwhelm defenses.
Seriously being looked at right now by multiple countries, with both evolving offensive/defensive systems being developed.
Also need to look at the use of these systems in underwater modes versus larger high-value targets like submarines.
The cheapest to deploy will be anti-personal types of weapons like, REF: Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLQUD...
Graeme, drones cheap enough to be built and used in 'swarms' will be limited in both performance (speed and range) and payload. What costs the most in building a drone is not the airframe or engine: it is the electronic guidance and communications package, by a far shot. As for overwhelming defenses, look at the Israeli 'DOME' system, which routinely intercept whole swarms of unguided rockets and mortar bombs fired by either Palestinians or Hezbollah fighters. Also, you forgot the range factor. The USA is completely isolated and far from its potential enemies (no, Canada and Mexico are not enemies of the USA). The Nazis tried a variant of a drone swarm assault against Great Britain in WW2, firing thousands of V1 flying bombs. Those V1s, and the V2s that followed, cost the Germans a large portion of their industrial production capacity, at a time when it was desperately needed for more effective weapons, like submarines and fighter aircraft, all for some spectacular but ultimately minor results. I know about the research being done now in attack drones, but they will never replace completely manned weapons systems or play truly significant roles in a modern battlefield, as modern weapons can take them down quickly and cheaply (think about battlefield lasers for one). The British were stupid enough to believe in the 1950s that they didn't need manned fighter aircraft anymore because 'guided missiles made them obsolete'. The same was said about portable anti-tank missiles rendering tanks obsolete and they were dead wrong in both cases. I may be retired now, but I still keep abreast of developments in military technology and also have an open mind, yet I simply don't believe that drones will dominate the battlefield any time soon.
Michel, I'm largely in agreement with all your points, I wasn't implying 'drone dominance,' but they will be another factor.
Drones are just another tool in the box, no more.
Drones and satellites have taken over more and more surveillance duties. Supported by those other drones - satellites - guess we need to define what me mean by a drone.Drones were used extensively in Syria alongside normal combat aircraft
Drones are doing more and more land mine clearance
Some of this activity is moving very quickly to autonomous operations - especially surveillance. Dropping the cockpit gives more space for weapons, fuel or other payloads.
The new specification for a fighter aircraft in the UK has both drone and human cockpit variants - I suspect by the time it gets built the human cockpit version will disappear.
Yes a predator drone with hellfire missiles is being flown by a qualified pilot back at a safe operating base; therefore the connections are a vulnerability. But pre-programmed routes, operating areas and with advances in recognition certainly large targets can be attacked. We have bombs dropped with GPS targeting or cruise missile strikes now. The vehicle that drops them does not need to be manned. This is more suited to general war e.g. Iraq both wars, than an asymmetric conflict where targets are unclear.
Philip wrote: "Dropping the cockpit gives more space for weapons, fuel or other payloads...."You can also pull more gee's without turning the human payload into sauce.
Philip wrote: "Yes a predator drone with hellfire missiles is being flown by a qualified pilot back at a safe operating base; therefore the connections are a vulnerability. But pre-programmed routes, operating areas and with advances in recognition certainly large targets can be attacked. We have bombs dropped with GPS targeting or cruise missile strikes now. The vehicle that drops them does not need to be manned. This is more suited to general war e.g. Iraq both wars, than an asymmetric conflict where targets are unclear..."
And those PREDATOR drones were targetting enemies with no sophisticated air defense weapons or radars. Against an air defense belt of modern radars and multiple surface-to-air missile batteries, your drone will be shot down quite quickly, as it happened to the Iranian-designed drone that tried to penetrate Israeli airspace, or to the American stealth drone that was downed over Iran.
About the manned cockpit option being dropped from the design of future fighter aircraft in the UK and US, you are aware I hope that you are talking about the same mix of idiotic politicians backed by sycophantic generals who once decided in the 1950s that manned fighters would be replaced by missile systems, or that tanks were obsolete because of the advent of portable anti-tank missiles, or that guns were not needed anymore on combat aircraft, right? And what will you do when your precious drone systems get hacked by the enemy and turned against you in mid flight? I am very leery of people who claim that some kind of new technology is the wave of the future in warfare and will render obsolete the other weapons systems, especially when those people never saw a battlefield themselves. Remember this cardinal rule of warfare: every measure has a counter-measure. Drone guidance and communications systems can be hacked, but not a human pilot. And if you want to push this artificial intelligence context to the extreme, think one word: SKYNET.
And those PREDATOR drones were targetting enemies with no sophisticated air defense weapons or radars. Against an air defense belt of modern radars and multiple surface-to-air missile batteries, your drone will be shot down quite quickly, as it happened to the Iranian-designed drone that tried to penetrate Israeli airspace, or to the American stealth drone that was downed over Iran.
About the manned cockpit option being dropped from the design of future fighter aircraft in the UK and US, you are aware I hope that you are talking about the same mix of idiotic politicians backed by sycophantic generals who once decided in the 1950s that manned fighters would be replaced by missile systems, or that tanks were obsolete because of the advent of portable anti-tank missiles, or that guns were not needed anymore on combat aircraft, right? And what will you do when your precious drone systems get hacked by the enemy and turned against you in mid flight? I am very leery of people who claim that some kind of new technology is the wave of the future in warfare and will render obsolete the other weapons systems, especially when those people never saw a battlefield themselves. Remember this cardinal rule of warfare: every measure has a counter-measure. Drone guidance and communications systems can be hacked, but not a human pilot. And if you want to push this artificial intelligence context to the extreme, think one word: SKYNET.
Michel wrote: "I am very leery of people who claim that some kind of new technology is the wave of the future in warfare and will render obsolete the other weapons systems, especially when those people never saw a battlefield themselves..."This reminds me of Lord Kelvin's statement, "There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now, All that remains is more and more precise measurement." (Said prior to 1905).
(Note: Michel, I'm reflecting the content of your view, and agreeing with it, noting that the bias that you point out has a close cousin on the other side of the fence - neither of which I'm applying to you.)
There's a flipside for expectations for technology, people can radically undersell and oversell expectations about the future. I actually suspect that it is more common than not for people to fall into either of those camps, and that striking a nuanced, balanced assessment is enormously difficult.
On that spectrum, I'm probably more an overseller than an underseller.
Graeme, you must know by now that I have an open mind and plenty of imagination. I am not discounting completely drones, as they do have useful roles on the battlefield, but too many people, both in the past and in the present, claimed that some new type of military technology or weapon system will render obsolete the other weapons systems, and this without taking the time to analyze their strong and weak points and their vulnerabilities to other weapons. Too often as well, those same people, who may have scientific or technical diplomas, know of war only what they saw in books and movies. There were many predictions and claims done in the past about 'revolutions' in the art of war or in weapons. Some were proven right, some were proven wrong. One good example of a bunch of intellectuals who thought that they could make war 'more efficient' but failed miserably was the 'McNamara Boys' during the Vietnam War. Secretary of Defense McNamara, a big industrial executive and very intelligent but also very arrogant man, thought that he could use a bunch of young corporate graduates to 'teach' to the Pentagon generals and admirals how to fight a modern war. McNamara himself fell into micromanaging the war, often to an absurd level, like during the siege of Khe Sang, when he was studying air photos of the camp and telling his generals where more sand bags needed to be piled. That same bunch of 'know-it-all' decided that US jet fighters didn't need guns anymore, since they had missiles. That resulted in American F-4s getting caught in dogfights with more nimble (and gun-armed) North Vietnamese Mig-17s and losing, since American air-air missiles were still extremely unreliable and had large minimum firing ranges. Once a Mig-17 was on his tail, a F-4 pilot, unable to use his missiles or to out-turn his opponent, was left with only the option of speeding away and retreating.
A present case of ill-thought revised military policy is the idiotic way the British Defense Ministry has been handling the re-equipment of the British Royal Navy and RAF. With ever decreasing military budgets, the ministry, with top British generals following like sheep, decided to scrap many perfectly good aircraft, gutting British fighter and attack squadrons and all but doing away with its force of maritime patrol aircraft. In exchange, instead of buying more frigates (a ship type sorely needed) with the money thus saved, they had two large aircraft carriers built and bought American F-35 fighters to go on them. The troubles started when the F-35 program proved way late and over budget. Then, the geniuses at the Ministry of Defense and the Admiralty realized that they did not have the budgets to properly maintain or even operate their two new fancy carriers! Their 'solution'? To propose to 'share one of the carriers with France, which would help pay for its maintenance and operation. Now, remember that this is the same gang of 'visionaries' who decided in the 1950s that manned fighters were obsolete and could be replaced by surface-to-air missiles, and also nearly scrapped the British tank fleet when portable anti-tank missiles appeared. Thankfully, a few wars around the Middle East and Asia slapped back some common sense in their heads (have you ever tried to go check with a surface-to-air missile on an airliner that seems to be acting suspiciously?). That is why I am deeply suspicious and skeptical of 'visionaries' when it comes to war and military matters.
A present case of ill-thought revised military policy is the idiotic way the British Defense Ministry has been handling the re-equipment of the British Royal Navy and RAF. With ever decreasing military budgets, the ministry, with top British generals following like sheep, decided to scrap many perfectly good aircraft, gutting British fighter and attack squadrons and all but doing away with its force of maritime patrol aircraft. In exchange, instead of buying more frigates (a ship type sorely needed) with the money thus saved, they had two large aircraft carriers built and bought American F-35 fighters to go on them. The troubles started when the F-35 program proved way late and over budget. Then, the geniuses at the Ministry of Defense and the Admiralty realized that they did not have the budgets to properly maintain or even operate their two new fancy carriers! Their 'solution'? To propose to 'share one of the carriers with France, which would help pay for its maintenance and operation. Now, remember that this is the same gang of 'visionaries' who decided in the 1950s that manned fighters were obsolete and could be replaced by surface-to-air missiles, and also nearly scrapped the British tank fleet when portable anti-tank missiles appeared. Thankfully, a few wars around the Middle East and Asia slapped back some common sense in their heads (have you ever tried to go check with a surface-to-air missile on an airliner that seems to be acting suspiciously?). That is why I am deeply suspicious and skeptical of 'visionaries' when it comes to war and military matters.
An excellent litany of mistakes there.
I read all your posts, but I didn't see an answer to my question. If we're able to use drones to target something as small as a vehicle in other countries, why shouldn't we be worried that others have or will have that same capacity to use drones against us?
Michel wrote: "Philip wrote: "Yes a predator drone with hellfire missiles is being flown by a qualified pilot back at a safe operating base; therefore the connections are a vulnerability. But pre-programmed route..."Michael I'm well aware of the arguments for and against. I'm also aware from my own service the impact of decisions made decades earlier on weapons programmes and designs.
Politicians don't build anything or design anything. They take recommendations from senior military and civil servants plus lobbying from manufacturers. Years later a new system creeps into production and years after that front line service where it has to be radically redesigned on the fly to work.
I have had the misfortune to be involved in defence procurement from initial specification through to new system delivery and have directly seen how a requirement gets watered down.
Unfortunately the aircraft or tank that has human pilot or driver is also totally dependent on computers that can be hacked (as can autonomous cars, vehicle management systems, power stations etc). No modern plane civil or military can fly in the sense of glide. Controls are fly by wire dependent on multiple sensors and computers to keep going. Yes we have a human being who pulls a trigger to launch a weapon (In some Air Defence systems this is actually autonomous e.g. ship anti-missile) and that person is following instructions on rules of engagement from 1,000s of miles away.
Pilots can also be hacked. They can be bribed and coerced or just anti- the current operation. Pulling the trigger is the ultimate responsibility and its a personal one regardless of orders from above (See Nuremberg defence)
My final point is the one of attrition. Your Surface to air missile system has a set numer of missiles before reloading. You have two system each with 8 missiles each - 16 shots. Each missile costs $50k. I send 20 drones each costs $500 (They are not sophisticated) I then send two sophisticated drones each costing $50k they are through and destroy what remains of your air defence system
This this is unreasonable unlikely then check out every major aerial onslaught since Blitzkrieg. Overwhelming force, outnumber opposition. Only this time the ammunition is used up. The example of Dome is a case in point. Massively expensive air defence against $500 drones. With a simple radar deflector they could probably use $100 drones mixed in
By the way my background was Air Defence both creating and destroying systems alongside the endless electronic fight to gain an advantage.
At the time of my leaving it was with the attacker as a radar guided air defence system could not switch on without getting a radar guided missile landing on top. A drone swarm attack just adds to that. See ALARM and HARM capability for examples. Now add in on-patrol capabilities (CAP) for drones i.e. multiple hours without AAR, high loiter heights, very low radar signature.
My expectation of life expectancy as a SAM controller in the early 1980s was less than 5 mins if a shooting war started. My system had 6 missiles and then would take 30-45 mins to reload. Not much use when faced with a USSR attack of 30 plus planes.
The tank guys in West Germany had exactly the same arithmetic on round on-board.
Now add in a bunch of drones to the mix of attacking forces. How much ammo do I have to shoot right now.
Yeah, the economic factor can be decisive in low tech vs high tech. While Iron Dome performed admirably and proved highly effective the cost of each intercepting rocket I read is about -40-50k, while hamas is estimated to have like 10k cheap low tech rockets and hizballah maybe - 100k. Defending against these numbers if launched seem unfundable. Another question whether a missile should cost that much.As another example Hamas uses burning kites and balloons to cause fires wherever they land so far burning 3500 hectares of crops and other damage, while the army is instructed not to target launchers, as assaults are supposedly non lethal. Go defend against these primitive things..
Guys, I believe that I mentioned battlefield lasers in my post. Each laser shot costs only a few dollars and their reserve of fuel/power can last a long time. The US Navy is already testing laser weapons at sea that can easily shoot drones, even when they come in swarms. So, please, stop claiming that drones will take over the battlefield.
http://www.businessinsider.com/these-...
But should, for example, South Korea without nuclear capability be rated higher than Pakistan with one? Not obvious to me.
What criteria would you use to compare?