More
6

Wars of attrition are won with factories, not bullets. The US manufacturing capabilities can no longer compete with all nations, and they are likely to continue that downward trend. Combine that with war machines that are very complex, and you have a very limited production speed.

The top tier equipment is often overpriced for what they deliver, and can't be rapidly replaced. The F35 is a good example. Super expensive per unit because it is a multi-purpose craft. Meaning it's not quite as good as a bomber, and not quite as good as a fighter, but way more expensive than eaither. I'm not even sure if the US has the capability to make one by itself. There's just no way they can 'pump them out' if it faced real adversity.
They are powerful aircraft, but they have a low power to cost ratio, and are exceptionally difficult to produce.

It doesn't matter if the F35 is able to take out 5 enemy craft for each one lost, if the enemy craft is 1/10th the cost and time to manufacture.
In a practical sense, China probably has the most dangerous air force. Each individual plane may be a shitty knock-off, but they can produce new ones faster than the US can mobilize existing forces.
Same, to a lesser extent, is true with Russia. Russia is often closer in ability though. The SU50 could (though probably not) even be a superior plane. It is more capable in maneuverability and radar detection, so who knows.

I think the US military has also realized this. I think that it the real impetus behind the light attack project. It is not just about saving cash, it's also a means of sustainable warfare. I think it will continue with light designs for other roles, as well as land and sea versions of the program.
Wars of attrition are won with factories, not bullets. The US manufacturing capabilities can no longer compete with all nations, and they are likely to continue that downward trend. Combine that with war machines that are very complex, and you have a very limited production speed. The top tier equipment is often overpriced for what they deliver, and can't be rapidly replaced. The F35 is a good example. Super expensive per unit because it is a multi-purpose craft. Meaning it's not quite as good as a bomber, and not quite as good as a fighter, but way more expensive than eaither. I'm not even sure if the US has the capability to make one by itself. There's just no way they can 'pump them out' if it faced real adversity. They are powerful aircraft, but they have a low power to cost ratio, and are exceptionally difficult to produce. It doesn't matter if the F35 is able to take out 5 enemy craft for each one lost, if the enemy craft is 1/10th the cost and time to manufacture. In a practical sense, China probably has the most dangerous air force. Each individual plane may be a shitty knock-off, but they can produce new ones faster than the US can mobilize existing forces. Same, to a lesser extent, is true with Russia. Russia is often closer in ability though. The SU50 could (though probably not) even be a superior plane. It is more capable in maneuverability and radar detection, so who knows. I think the US military has also realized this. I think that it the real impetus behind the light attack project. It is not just about saving cash, it's also a means of sustainable warfare. I think it will continue with light designs for other roles, as well as land and sea versions of the program.

22 comments

[–] doggone 3 points (+3|-0)

I think it would depend on the goals of the conflict. The US would may not be able to raise the flag over Moscow or Beijing, but they couldn't do that in Washington either. It's said that neither Russia or China can project power far from their boarders, while the US can.

The most likely scenarios, say Russia invading Poland or China invading Taiwan, are still beyond Russia or China's capabilities, from what I've picked up from casual reading.
[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0)

It's said that neither Russia or China can project power far from their boarders, while the US can.

The US navy is insane. If we're talking about combat in international waters, out of air range, the US could take on China and Russia at the same time (assuming no ICBMs are used).
[–] doggone 1 points (+1|-0)

I don't doubt it (reports of the USN inability to navigate, aside).
[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0)

reports of the USN inability to navigate, aside

LOL. I'm starting to think their official strategy is "have so many ships that we're always in the right place"
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+1|-1) Edited

I agree that the nature of the conflict is important.
Under just about all scenarios occupying the US, Russia, or China, is just not feasible for anyone.

The scenarios you suggest are more what I was thinking. But I don't think they are beyond their capabilities. China is rapidly developing its military, it's capabilities grow daily.
I believe Russia is already very capable, but fortunately mostly unmotivated to cause harm.
I think, hypothetically, if Russia decided to take Poland, and was willing to deal with the consequences, they could.
A combined force could out produce them and probably push them back, but not the US alone. I think the US could inflict devastating damage at first, but it would dwindle to nothing as their forces are taken out faster than they can be replaced. It takes years and nine nations to make an F35, but only a few weeks for an SU. Even at 10-1 losses the Russians would prevail.
That assumes that things don't escalate to atomics or space-cannons. I'm also ignoring economic and political factors.

I think a lot of the western military doctrine is based on outdated remnants of cold war theory.
They thought if they have the ability to strike a devastating blow anywhere, they wouldn't need to. Peace through superior firepower.
Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria have exposed some flaws in that thinking. If Syria can bleed them to the point of strain, imagine if they were actually taking losses.
[–] [Deleted] 2 points (+2|-0) Edited

My take away from total war is that there must be three nations... I read 1984 not too long ago and Orwell went well into the reasoning why 3 works to control how people think and use their means of production in trade. Any more nations is just excess without total control over the population that would come with the package of a fourth nation.

edit: fixed a crazy run on sentence.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

Three was also important for balance.
A war with two sides will eventually end. A war with three sides will continue indefinitely because the weaker two will always be incentivised to band together against the strong one.
War forever.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

yeah thanks... I didn't really drive the point home there did I? lol. That's the point, for sure.

[–] Sarcastaway 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I agree if we're talking sustained warfare, but any of the three countries could destroy the next if they didn't have to worry about the third one getting them. The threat of open nuclear war is the only thing stopping a sustained land war. Well, that and the fact that China and the US are completely economically codependent.

Keep in mind that if one of these countries decides to invade the other, it wont be a land campaign like WW1 and 2. The opening move will most likely be a covert cyber attack on the power grid. Sleeper agents would use the cover of the chaos to sabotage key infrastructure. While the infrastructure of that country crumbles, civil unrest will begin, military personnel will abandon posts to protect their families, fuel will stop being delivered, and after a few months the weakened country would either be divvied up between the other two, or just left to rot.

As you said, "Wars of attrition are won with factories, not bullets." So to win that war, you take their factories.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 1 points (+1|-0)

All good points.
An epic scale war today would have unexpected, and unpredictable, elements, due to modern technology and economic integration.

[–] PMYA 1 points (+1|-0)

I'm not sure this scenario would ever occur. From the 50s onwards, the kind of conflict that would involve troops landing on US soil has not been viable. Wars involving major nations are fought diplomatically, with quiet attacks on infrastructure or through limited warfare in "third party" nations.

If it did happen, I'm inclined to agree with you, at least in the short to mid term. I think the US would need to be extremely cautious in the way military assets were used. China and Russia's militaries are the way they are because they've been constantly playing catch up for decades. The US has had a lot of time to make a bunch of shiny and impressive war toys that are highly advanced, but not suited to manufacturing at a rate needed during war time. Russia has also started doing this, but to a limited extent in comparison to the US, due to the difference in military budget.

I think it is quite difficult to predict what would happen in terms of military advancement. There are tactics developed by the end of WWII that are still applicable in conflicts today, for example, so what would the playing field look like after 5 years of war between major nations today? (Assuming nuclear weapons weren't used, which I do not think would be the case). There is a strong case to be made that it might not even be a war of attrition. The destructive power of even conventional weapons is far superior to anything used in a major war up until this point.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+1|-1)

I'm not sure this scenario would ever occur.

I also doubt it would. Almost everyone has too much to lose to let things escalate to those levels.
But things can change.

There is a strong case to be made that it might not even be a war of attrition.

That's a real possibility. With a mid-tier military (Turkey, India, Canada) I believe the US could destroy their ability to wage war, before taking enough losses to be in any danger or need of industry.
But that is less certain with Russia/China, and if trends continued without change, it could get worse.

The trends will change, though. Future combat-tec is probably beyond imagining at this point.
But my money is still on 'Orbital Kinetic Cannons'. My tinfoil hat tells me that's what the X37 is.
[–] PMYA 2 points (+2|-0)

Kinetic space weapons are a possibility. They actually came up in MP, though the post was not allowed due to the player controlling Saudi Arabia, which clearly does not have the ability to put weapons like that in space.

Laws/treaties regarding weapon usage in space only applies to the use of nuclear weapons, not conventional ones.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0)

You're describing a Cold War. We just won one against one of those Communist foes.
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] 0 points (+1|-1)

I don't understand what you're trying to say. I didn't describe the cold-war anywhere, though I did mention it.
You can't 'win' a cold-war, it's a phrase that describes a state, not an action.
[–] [Deleted] 1 points (+1|-0) Edited

I meant unintentionally describing the Cold War.

We are not in a cold war with the USSR. Our desired outcome was to defeat the USSR.

How else would you describe the current state of war or affairs with the USSR besides that we won the Cold War?

Edit: Is the misunderstanding because you erroneously responded to my initial post of Cold War to cold-war?
[–] InnocentBystander [OP] -1 points (+0|-1)

I meant unintentionally describing the Cold War.

Can you quote that part, I'm still not seeing it.
A Cold War is a state of tension between nations. I am not talking about or describing that, I am talking about a theoretical conventional war.

How else would you describe the current state of war or affairs with the USSR besides that we won the Cold War?

That is not at all how I would describe it. There is no current state of war between US and Russia.
I think I know what you mean, but that is an incorrect slang usage of the phrase. The cold war state ceased when the ussr collapsed, and you can call that a win, I guess. You can't 'win' a cold war, though. It is a description of a state, not an action.
©2016-2022 Phuks LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ToS | Privacy | Changelog | Canary | Donate | Bugs | License
Served by 08495c768707