The Army is developing its weapons, technologies and platforms with a greater emphasis on being ready for great-power, mechanized force-on-force war in order maintain cross-the-board readiness and deter near-peer adversaries from unwanted aggression.
While the service aims to be prepared for any conceivable contingency, to include counterinsurgency, counterterrorism and hybrid-type conflicts, the Army has been shifting its focus from 15-years of counterinsurgency war and pivoting its weapons development toward major-power war.
The Army couldn't prepare for an annual picnic much less fighting someone like Russia or China. The problem isn't one of firepower or training, but expectations and mentality. The US has been taking on opponents so vastly inferior to it for so long that American military thought has degraded to the point where air superiority,
technological superiority, and dominance of the EM spectrum are taken for granted.
The Pentagon can plan for a great power fight, but given how often they redefine benchmarks for their weapon programs, justify various shortcomings via their spokespeople, and/or hide their foul ups only to blame it on the enlisted men and women, it's obvious the Pentagon is better at talking and PowerPoint presentations than actually fighting and winning wars.
The military has turned into a commercial venture and when profit becomes a greater motivator than victory, well, the outcome is going to be fairly predictable. Russia and China won't care about the excuses offered up for the F-35's redefined benchmarks or blaming enlisted personnel for the LCS's crippling itself not once but twice... they'll just line those targets up and shoot them down.
And all the Pentagon will be able to do is cry foul that Russia and China didn't give them a handicap on the battlefield.
Well good news is, nobody appears to want to fight - which is good. No one knows how to fight a nuclear armed country - I doubt anyone is eager to find out either.
Good lord , you people don't have an idea how wars are fought . you actually think the Sherman tank was better than the German tiger . Or American fighter planes were better than the Japanese Zero . In war you don't always have the best weapons you use effectively what you have . China and Russia have just as many problem with their arms as the US does .
The cost difference is the difference between what an American worker gets paid and what a Russian worker gets paid . The important thing is that the money is spent here in the US and not in China .
"The cost difference is the difference between what an American worker gets paid and what a Russian worker gets paid "
It's a difference between what american PRIVATE COMPANY gets paid and how much it's actually costing.
Poor USA. it is all you have left to manufacture. Means of destruction. Your country founding fathers turning in their graves.
A Refurbished M1 Abrams cost a little over $11+ million. Production line closed down decades ago. They don't have the factories to build new tanks nor the money.
Building lite vehicles such as JLTV makes sense for dirt-poor nations. I don't blame the Mad dogs.
Brand new M1A2 is about 8-9 million. So i dont see how the refurbished cost 11+ million. when most likely is was upgrade from the A1 spec which cost 4.5 million to build new.
'We are excellent at counterinsurgency'...Enough said
The growing Taliban would likely disagree. I guess Obama big problem when it comes to counterinsurgency is that he cant figure out if he should arm the terrorist or attack them.
本文章由 全讯网 //qxwz.zzrx.org/ 提供 美国陆军连一个年度野餐都准备不了更不要说准备和中俄这样的国家的战争了 //nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/us-army-getting-ready-great-power-war-think-russia-or-china-16010
美国译帖 - 热门推荐
双语美文 - 阅读榜
美国译帖 - 最新收录
国外优秀论坛 - 为您推荐
经验分享 - 阅读榜