Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: btd64

I sometimes do wonder. With all of the oceans that need coverage, we should have a minimum of 700 ships. But that's not gonna happen....GP

ORIGINAL: btd64

I sometimes do wonder. With all of the oceans that need coverage, we should have a minimum of 700 ships. But that's not gonna happen....GP

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

Pretty sure the Warsaw Pact forces had plenty of AAA assets.....

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

Agreed UAVs have come a long way but we haven't seen any high performance fighter types yet.

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

Cheaper ways of doing this....and only one of the many 'capabilities' the AF touts. And what does the AF NOT expect it to do? And what's the point of having 3 different versions with very little commonality rather than building what the Navy needs, the AF needs, and the Marines need? Round peg and square hole and all that.

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

Could not agree more, to pick on the F-35 a bit more - what is its readiness rate vs older platforms? And how many hours of maintenance are required between sorties vs the older platforms????

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

Don't disagree, but in any conflict today you are fighting with what you have in the portfolio day 1. No Liberty ship program, no training new soldiers, no building new ships, planes or tanks.

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Hmmm - not sure why that didn't quote properly - sorry guys.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy




The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...




Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.




The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe



The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

They still do the dispatches and hand written orders. You just don't see them or hear about them.

You never did state what your training was. I mean, how long did it take you to learn how to load and fire a TOW missile?

How long was your military training?

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

ORIGINAL: mind_messing



Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.



Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.



Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.



Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.



Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.



The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

They still do the dispatches and hand written orders. You just don't see them or hear about them.

You never did state what your training was. I mean, how long did it take you to learn how to load and fire a TOW missile?

How long was your military training?

Why, got a good Form 4 that you feel is worth mentioning?

I do like the direct ad hominem though.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What ad hominem attack? Direct or indirect? I simply asked a question since you state your opinion on the effectiveness of military training.

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

That's a big caveat.

What level of newly trained soldiers (as a percentage of the whole) can a unit absorb and still maintain it's previous cohesion and effectiveness?

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

The quality of which is linked with the time given to assimilate information. Unless you want to argue against decades of educational psychology, of course.

You speak from experience of course, which is?

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

Well that's a shame, you might have learned something.

How do you know what I learned and did not learn about the Soviet Union and its military? What is the basis of your knowledge?

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

Except that's not how military development works. If it did, I doubt we'd have moved on from the bronze-tipped spear.

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What ad hominem attack? Direct or indirect? I simply asked a question since you state your opinion on the effectiveness of military training.

My opinion is neither here nor there. There's been considerable study into the effectiveness of military training all the way back to Thucydides and the phalanx.

Here's an quite old (but in many ways still relevant) overview on the topic.

The conclusions from that paper may be worth considering in light of our current discussion.

Your opinion is relevant since you stated something and did not quote something while stating the source. I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.