Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
Drones and Stealth Technology are 'escaping' from the US.  The People's Republic of China are actively working on both and have, in fact, started to offer Drones on the international arms market.  As these proliferate the current structure, tactics, strategy, and material of a nation-state's armed forces is obsolete.  

As an example:

Near the top of the line, the Predator B, or MQ9-Reaper, manufactured by General Atomics Aeronautical Systems, costs about $10.5 million. By comparison, a single F-22 fighter jet costs about $150 million.

Further it costs around $2.6 million to train a fighter pilot versus $135 thousand to train a UAV pilot.  Thus, for the cost of one plane a nation-state can acquire a squadron of UAVs carrying the same combat payload.

Fact:  high value ground forces: armor, artillery, aircraft carriers, etc., are highly vulnerable to air attack.  

The World War II Battle of Midway effectively ended Japan's capability to win the Pacific War when they lost three aircraft carriers in six minutes.  It's not only the loss of "force projection" the financial costs are staggering.  The approximate cost of a carrier fleet is around $14.5 billion and another $9 billion - or so - for the aircraft the carrier carts around.    The approximate cost of turning that fleet into fish habitat is $750 million.

Roughly the same 'cost of force' to 'cost of destruction' for armor, artillery, etc.

Thus, high-tech warfare is ruinously expensive to nation-states operating medium-tech forces.  Which means current US military forces are, to all intents and purposes, so much scrap.  

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 28th, 2011 at 02:15:50 PM EST
Yes, but they'll keep churning out 20th century toys for a few decades yet. soldiers still carried swords into battle long after the bullet replaced the musket ball

keep to the Fen Causeway
by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Mon Nov 28th, 2011 at 02:44:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]
They still have bayonets. Probably it had to do with the fact that guns were not that easy to load in the middle of battlefight. I'm under the impression that until handguns could be reloaded with preloaded cartridges soldiers kept sabers.

res humą m'és alič
by Antoni Jaume on Mon Nov 28th, 2011 at 02:59:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Time more than difficulty.  Takes an expert - which most soldiers weren't - a minimum of 15 seconds to reload a unrifled musket, call it 3 rounds a minute for the experienced, average soldier.  (A rifled musket takes longer so call it 1.5 rounds/minute on average.)

Infantry were rigorously trained to hold their fire until there was a high chance of inflicting damage - with a smooth bore if a soldier actually hit what he was actually aiming at it was Pure Luck - with volley fire (throw enough lead downrange and you are sure to hit ... something?) and by that time they were too close to try and reload ... so it was on-in with the bayonet¹.  The Brits got so good at this they kept trying it up through World War One.  (Against machine guns and barbed wire.  (It didn't work so good.))

The usual canard bayonets were used to repel cavalry is nonsense.  To repel a frontal cavalry charge all infantry has to do is stand there.  Horses don't like running into a solid mass and will shy away.  Flank attacks can work which is why they were put on the flanks during a battle.  And which is why the British developed the British Square as a battle formation, if you don't have flanks they can't be attacked.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

¹  Despite what you see in movies most of the time the infantry on the defense heroically ran away when faced with a determined bayonet charge from close range.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Mon Nov 28th, 2011 at 05:14:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I have read somewhere that bayonet training is an important tool in breaking down the very common impulse not to harm a common human that you can see and identify with. Might be why they still have them.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se
by A swedish kind of death on Tue Nov 29th, 2011 at 07:32:29 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Bayonets are used both because of tradition and because soldiers need to lug around utility knives in any case. You might then just as well make it possible to mount them as bayonets.

::
::

For a completely different and unrelated idea, maybe you could use bayonets when boar hunting? In Sweden we have just recently started using boar spears as a complement to knives/hunting machetes (while spears have been the modus operandi in France and Germany for like forever). But why lug around a spear when you can just mount bayonets? Many Swedish hunters use surplus military Mauser rifles anyway which readily accept bayonets.

The entire idea of using cold steel when hunting boar is that as boars are very tough, a badly aimed shot might just wound the boar instead of killing it more or less instantly. This makes the boar very angry and aggressive, and with barking dogs circling it at a short distance you don't dare fire again as the round might well hit a bone and ricochet, killing a dog. The thing to do then is to slit the boars throat with your knife while at the same time avoiding being disemboweled by the razor-sharp tusks. Our continental neighbors (who unlike us have hunted boars for more than the two decades they've existed in our fauna) long ago figured out that was very stupid, and as I said, use spears instead. But as most people around here don't have boar spears lying around, bayonets might well have a role to play.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Wed Nov 30th, 2011 at 11:04:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It's more than boys need their toys.  It comes down to those who achieved their high rank and position in any system are highly resistant to drastically changing the system that gave them their position.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre
by ATinNM on Mon Nov 28th, 2011 at 04:45:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, of course.

But this era cannot last, what happens when the oil runs out, or at least China is able to outbid them for it ? And that day is foreseeable to those willing to look.


keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Nov 29th, 2011 at 02:54:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]
We're never going to "run out of oil." We're going to get to a condition where oil is scarce and expensive.  Oil can be diverted from civilian to military use with alternative fuels and fuel additives stretching the supply.  How much and at what cost ain't my gig, hopefully someone who knows will jump in.  :-)

The US government has never been shy about grabbing natural resources and given the fact China has to import oil using the sea lanes I think it's reasonable to assume the US Navy would interdict and confiscate, i.e., steal, oil shipments in a shooting war.  In "peace" (ha-ha-ha) China depends on US and, increasingly, European consumers to buy their Junk and, increasingly, US and European consumers cannot afford to.  

I wholeheartedly agree "this era cannot last."  Reality will, in the long run, Win.  I'll guess there are discussions happening in the Pentagon and other country's military planning departments but I'm not privy to those discussions, so ... what do I know? How TPTB and their armed thugs will respond remains to be seen.

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Nov 29th, 2011 at 01:56:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Yes, I agree with the "never gonna run out of oil" statement, I was using that as a shorthand for becoming economically unattractive which is a looser concept.

I believe that the Chinese are building their railway link to Pakistan and on to Iran specifically to deal with the "sea lane"  problem, especially as it's quicker and more productive. However, I think the idea of the US playing pirate in the Indian Ocean with such a flammable product is somewhat unlikely.

keep to the Fen Causeway

by Helen (lareinagal at yahoo dot co dot uk) on Tue Nov 29th, 2011 at 02:36:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The fact the tankers are flammable cuts both ways.  If a crew has a choice between halting or burning to death (or drowning) I'd bet they'd halt.

Maybe I'm more cynical than you?  I have no problem thinking the US Navy "playing pirate in the Indian Ocean."

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Tue Nov 29th, 2011 at 02:54:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series