US ‘Gets Its Ass Handed To It’ In Wargames: Here’s A $24 Billion Fix

Time for a wry smile. According to the views of a Rand analyst, every time a war-game is run by the US vs Russia and China, the US "gets its ass handed to it".

The vastly expensive US war machinery just isn't up to the job apparently.

But the analyst has a solution. And it doesn't take a brain surgeon to know what that is: throw more money at the problem. A mere $24 billion a year extra on the defence budget will throw a bandaid over the problem.

That's what the US forever war elite want apparently.

It's so predictable a 'solution" that it should mandatorily be accompanied by collective sighs all round.

https://breakingdefense.com/2019/03/us-gets-its-ass-handed-to-it-in-wargames-heres-a-24-billion-fix/

 

All aircraft are most vulnerable when on the ground. This is hardly a revolutionary discovery. Which is why during a war time situation you get as many airborne as quickly as you can. This was part of the plans in West Germany if a Soviet attack was considered imminent.

And it overlooks the fact that Russian and Chinese aircraft are just as vulnerable on the runways.

Finally, wargames have one huge flaw: They have ALWAYS overrated the performance of long range missiles. Mainly because you can only wargame missiles by giving a mathematical estimate of how many will hit their targets. So if 1,000 enemy missiles are launched at U.S. targets, wargame participants simply decide a certain percentage will hit their intended targets which is almost all ways too high.

 

And here I though war games are specifically designed to make it as hard as possible to win.

You learn more from losing than you do from winning. They are specifically designed to test strategies and tactics in various scenerios. Failure in this case is progress. especially when considering new enemy weapons systems and exploring their possible deployments.

Unless of course one assumes that the whole idea of war games is to get your forces used to winning.

 

Right Dayton - those crazy RAND analysts are obviously not intelligent enough to understand your brilliant analysis.

 

They are. I've seen several of the basic assumptions put forth for U.S. wargames on computer, exercises with allied nations, and work at the National Training Center. The situation is ALWAYS heavily loaded against the U.S. forces. Always. Of course that means that in exercises with allies you get India Chile or Belgium crowing about how they "beat" the mighty U.S. military. But that's part of the price you pay.

 

Mmm.

I note that you are designedly missing the central point of the OP. Colour me unsurprised.

Better to talk about the minutiae - which you always enjoy doing - thereby throwing dust in taxpayers eyes. Or are you innocent of this accusation?

Loading war-games against the US is the whole point of the exercise. As you say it almost always happens.

If that didn't happen there wouldn't be a need for the solution: adding a further $24 billion to the annual budget to bring the Pentagon's shiny toys back into line.

 

If the military doesn't work and you're going to lose anyway, it's best to cut the budget in half and save $350billion. That's enough for the wall to protect the US from those women and children coming up from Central America. They pose a much bigger risk anyway.

 

The point was not missed. A different point of view was expressed. That's what happens when you post on a forum. You would like us to view weapons as "shiny toys" so that you can make your point. We get it; you think its an excuse to spend. You are right. The only question is what level of preparedness is appropriate and if there is some history on the subject we can learn from.

Is there a time in history where being over equipped and over prepared was a mistake? What about being under equipped and under prepared?

 

If the US keeps losing in war games, they are being run properly and achieving their mission objectives.

They'll have encountered the best and most insidious SNAFUs the planners can come up with. Sounds like a pretty damn good approach to me.

 

Ok point one is a given..aircraft all of them are vulnerable on the ground

but point two? Can you source the basis for that opinion because I read the article and that is our own military stating our missile defense is practically non existent. Our bases are unprotected and our ships at sea are big fat targets. This isn't opinion its fact. We can't defend them against a focused bombardment.

Then there is the added facet of even our very limited missile defense systems in all theaters as well as offensive military apparatus being made non effective against cyber and other electronic attacks of which the Chinese in particular are very highly advanced in and practice all the time.

So ah I appreciate your patriotism but the facts in the field speak otherwise. As does the OP our bloated military which budget focuses on being stronger versus smarter. The latter almost always winning in everything from a fist fight to large scale war..hence our continued whippings in these war games..that WE sponsor..so no one is shaving any numbers.

 

Of course we can't. It takes several times the number of anti missile and anti aircraft (SAM) missiles than the U.S. has to defend against a "focused bombardment". Basically the U.S. has enough to defend against small scale missile attacks.

But I don't see the U.S. Congress and U.S. public lining up to fund and deploy a bunch of extra naval vessels that carry interceptor missiles and every time the smallest expansion of U.S. ballistic missile defense comes up a bunch of people start jumping up and down claiming it can't be done.

The U.S. could probably win any conceivable future conflict if it was willing to strike first though.

 

Did Dayton 3 hand over his mouth to you to perform ventriloquism on his behalf?

As for the rest of your post - I assume your post anyway? - I find it equally lamentable.

The US spends as much as the next 8 major nations spend on their defence as they produce weapons like candy in a shop. I really don't, therefore, understand the point you are making about over or under equipped / prepared.

I seems to me that you are simply apologising for the defence industry because you don't really see what you say you see about this all being an excuse to spend --- which in reality is simply an excuse to buy more mansions, more private jets, more yachts, more private islands, more retainer mistresses penthouses along with sharing insider jokes with like-minded unethical executives of the defence industry white-collar versions of the Gambino family at the exclusive private club while quaffing ten thousand dollar bottles of French premiere growth Bordeaux ------ and all thanks to the daft American tax-payer who have been gulled into thinking it for "their" defence.

The biggest jokes require the biggest fools for them to be effective.

No other nation in the world would allow this extraordinarily massive transference of wealth from the many to the few, simply because they are have been socially engineered to be unable to think critically and are therefore unable to assess the sleight of hand that tricks them time after time after time.

 

lol That's what we always do for our problems - simply allocate a few zillion taxpayer pounds at it; it never works but hey, the problem goes away pro tempore, the sooner that the beneficent minister can return to Annie's Bar? He probably won't even remember doing it the next morning??

 

Or... the beneficent Minister chortles on his way home content in the knowledge that he has just secured a sinecure job when he leaves office / is booted out etc.

One of the rewards for PM's is to agree to a ghost writer to write his memoirs of his time in office (an offering of untruths, half-truths and pure fabrications mixed with timid revelations that no one gives a damn about anyway). He allows this travesty of publishing in exchange for a six figure sum. The book goes to the top of the best seller list this week and is remaindered next week --- where even at a fraction of the price it doesn't sell (and I know what I'm talking about, I had a business selling remaindered books at pennies on the pounds).

Other perks accrued in exchange for favours granted (laws enacted) while in office are non-voting directorships (or similar) that add those few comfy tens of millions to the pension bank balance when their number is up.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...vealed-Tony-Blair-worth-a-staggering-60m.html

**

https://www.networthstat.com/profile/john-major

**

https://www.therichest.com/celebnetworth/politician/minister/david-cameron-net-worth/

It seems that public service brings its own rewards....

 

Yes, a collective sigh.
Sigh....
If we are talking about Russia (you know, the country which leveled Chechnya
without comment) it's been involved in about 180 wars in its history - mostly
against its neighbors. But we won't read "The war elite have invaded Syria"
or "the war elite shot down MH17 passenger plane."
Nor will we hear "the Chinese war elite are compromising Western undersea
cables" or "the Chinese ware elite are engaging in massive island building,
espionage and debt trapping."
Because China, Russia, North Korea, Vietnam and Cuba don't have 'war
elite." So what do they have? They have DEFENSE PERSONNEL.

 

Completely irrelevant statistic. And if you research the details of the U.S. defense budget any, you would know that LESS THAN HALF of the defense budget is allocated for the purchase of weapons systems.

 

Another bout of buyers remorse manifesting in your usual drivel. Not interested, thanks. Try finding someone who doesn't know and understand your psychology.

 

Ah. Yet another deflective post to switch attention away from the real point and purpose of the OP.

You can't stop apologising and protecting - and deflecting away from - your beloved US military no matter what excesses they are guilty of.

Have you considered taking up harp lessons?

 

The U.S. military is guilty of "excesses"? What "excesses"? The U.S. military doesn't decide what their budget or force size will be.

 

Some things don't change across the pond.

 

The entire Russian defense budget is like $60 billion. What do we spend now, 12X that? The military needs to be rid of the waste and corruption, and certainly dumb **** like $24 billion fixes for stupid games.

 

What makes you think the Russian defense budget is "like $60 billion". You do know that at least during the time of the Soviet Union the Soviet "defense budget" included ONLY the pay and benefits of their soldiers. Nothing regarding the acquisition of conventional weapons. Nothing regarding nuclear weapons. I have it on good authority that to this day the Russians bury their budget for nuclear weapons and delivery vehicles in a separate budget for "Machine Parts".

 

Well, only if they increased it from 2017, which was $46 Billion at the then exchange rates. Straight from Putin's mouth...you may start at about minute 3:50.



People need to put down the CNN fake news and Deep State war mongering and actually do some of your own research. You may learn something. I'll be farting around the Kremlin next Wednesday, fyi. "On good authority?" haha

 

Why would you believe Putin? A lifelong KGB operative?

 

Oh yeah, it's just a big conspiracy. He's talking to his own people and they have a public budget.....sure, they're spending as much as us.....NOT. Even Putin admits they can't afford anywhere close to what we spend as their economy would collapse. (You didn't watch the damn video, did you?)

Just get over the rah rah rah ****. They do WAY MORE with WAY LESS.

I used to think like you do, just like the majority of Americans. Then I went there and educated myself. The Russian people are more like the center-right here than ANY OTHER country in the whole *******n world. France like us? The U.K? No sir.