Matrix Games Forums

 Forums  Register  Login  Photo Gallery  Member List  Search  Calendars  FAQ 

My Profile  Inbox  Address Book  My Subscription  My Forums  Log Out

US Military Buildup?

 
View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> US Military Buildup? Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
US Military Buildup? - 1/27/2017 10:24:24 PM   
B52H

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline 		Today, US President Trump announced that the US would "build-up" its military. His plan includes to add 100 aircraft to the USAF, nearly 75 ships to the US Navy, 90,000 troops to the US Army, and 12 battalions to the USMC.

However, the President said that he would "make America stronger than ever" and that these might just be the beginning steps for doing so. Could this mean the addition of new types of combat aircraft (FB-22, F-16V, Textron Scorpion?), new classes of ships (maybe an actual modern FF/FFG for once?!), or possibly the reopening of closed military bases?

I've built quite a few scenarios based on a large-buildup of US military capabilities and equipment and would wonder if a large expansion of the US military back to its late 1980s/early 1990s strength would be feasible. Any thoughts on this?
Post #: 1
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/27/2017 10:38:51 PM   
SheperdN7


Posts: 296
Joined: 2/23/2016
From: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Status: offline 		I don't know if the US would be willing to make new airframes considering the new models (F-35, B-2 etc) are very new and won't need any replacements for many years. I also believe the first of the Zumwalt class DD's are now operational same as new Gerald Ford class CVN's so there goes a need for new surface ships.


I don't think an expansion to 1980's level is possible at all simply because the manpower base just isn't there. oyu can build as many steel hulks as possible but with no one to man them, they are worthless.

Now if USA leaves NATO as the administration threatened, then there may be a major recruiting movement that is started.

_____________________________

Current Games:

WitP:AE PBEM against Greg (Late '44)
AE PBEM against Mogami (Early'44)
WITE PBEM against Boomer Sooner

(in reply to B52H)
Post #: 2
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/27/2017 11:01:06 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline 		Feasible? Sure, as long as the money is there and there are enough people willing to sign up into the military (assuming the draft isn't reinstated)

Reasonable? As far as the land forces go...if you have the political will to use them and the logistics to get them to the conflict zone...maybe. What is the land army meant to protect? CONUS? I don't think the political will for a large oversease Army/Marine deployment is a slam dunk, especially if the drumbeat of U.S. Isolationism continues to pound. What good is a large land army if you are not willing to deploy some elements overseas in advance, or use it outside of the U.S. borders, or you can't get it where it needs to be quickly?

Airframes and Surface ships are a little different. Manpower requirements for ships is dropping with tech advances, and the political will to use aircraft has become de-sensitized. Drone-this and Drone-that are becoming commonplace.

Some of the political announcement is bluster, some of it will happen. Time will tell.

(in reply to B52H)
Post #: 3
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 2:53:15 AM   
AdmiralSteve


Posts: 270
Joined: 3/28/2011
From: Red Bluff, CA
Status: offline 		Not trying to start a political argument here but as platforms go, Trump just by saying "100 aircraft to the USAF, nearly 75 ships to the US Navy, 90,000 troops to the US Army, and 12 battalions to the USMC" is a rather broad statement and I feel was meant to draw a rise out of the Trump support base. I believe it was within the several years that conversation had begun to fit the future US military to future adversaries (I think I read this sometime around 2010). A 2000# JDAM, while it is a useful tool, is a bit too destructive for taking out soft targets within an urban combat zone with neutrals as we are seeing a lot of today. As I remember, platforms that could support smaller, less destructive and highly accurate stand-off weapons such as GBU-39 SDB and platforms such as the AH-64 Apache or A-10 Warthog with their 30mm chain guns would be the norm. Also Spec-Ops would be heavily recruited especially Navy SEAL's and training would be more fitted for small teams in a door-to-door urban environment. Drones, with their relatively inexpensive purchase and operating costs have been used extensively over the last decade and have seen procurement increase 40 times over 2002 numbers and are probably going to be a significant strike platform.

As for Trump saying that he wants to bring back battleships (and I'm assuming he's talking about the Iowa class) is rather novice of him. We are not at war with China, Russia or Germany. A 2000 pound shell that leaves a crater big enough for two big rigs to fit into that wasn't entirely accurate isn't what we need. I see more F/A-18's and F-16's but why an FFG? If China and her sub's was the immediate threat, yes a good ASW platform is what we would need but Trump hasn't put a ban on Chinese immigration.

I'll quit now before I get booted off the site.




_____________________________

“There are no extraordinary men...just extraordinary circumstances that ordinary men are forced to deal with.”
Admiral William Frederick Halsey Jr. 1882-1959


(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 4
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 8:32:04 AM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline 		Putting these numbers in a bit of perspective.

100 new AC, when the USAF is already operating some 5500 AC is not that big of a stretch, more in the 'pretty insignificant' category really. The comments see short on detail, are these 100 more F-35's - unlikely considering other comments, or C-12s?

75 new ships roughly equates to the uplift from a 274 ship navy to the much discussed 355 ship navy. Nothing new here, but considering the Navy brass is calling for maintenance of what they have as a priority over new acquisition, we'll need to wait and see.

A new FFG has been in the discussion for several years now, so not a real surprise

12 Bns for the USMC: an increase of ~10,000 pers perhaps in a force with 182,000 plus almost 40,000 reserves = ~3%

90K US Army: with a force of 475,000 regulars and another 540,000 reserve & national guard it equates to under 2%. Once we can see some specifics, is this an increase to deployable front line regulars, or more National Guard etc we might be able to make a clearer comment.

Just some perspective.

B

(in reply to AdmiralSteve)
Post #: 5
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 12:54:20 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Didn't vote for the guy and hate the stuff I'm hearing but waiting to see what actually happens. I think its important to give him a shot and then let the democratic process deal with it if its wrong.

1)New Sec Def will probably really be driving much of what's actually done. He is universally respected and will probably be very effective.
2)Sounds like most programs will go under review (F-35C, LCS etc.) This is good for taxpayers and a sign they'll be doing their due diligence as managers.
3)100 Aircraft could actually be replacements for what's been worn down during operations the last decade. For example the USMC has been digging into AMARC for old F-18C airframes and upgrading them to F-18C+ for this reason.
4)75 new ships is great as long as they're useful ships. The most critical programs are SSBN replacement. Concurrently new technologies should be developed to deal with new threats (lasers, railguns, cyber etc.) If there is a trade off tech should be preferred.
5)Increasing the size of the forces is interesting as it implies they'll be needed. My concern is actually being able to recruit that many into the service. There area lot of other things that attract young people with lots of potential these days and military service isn't that attractive to everybody in the pool.

Mike


< Message edited by mikmyk -- 1/28/2017 12:55:26 PM >

_____________________________


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 6
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 1:55:01 PM   
kevinkins


Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		Personally, readiness of what you already own and research into cutting edge technologies are both more important than pure numbers. Numbers, are easy for the public to digest as a signal for a more assertive stance on the world stage with a military having high moral fully ready to back up peaceful diplomacy. You would be surprised how the prospect of new equipment fosters moral. It even works here with fans of Command We love those new toys in the DB. In any event, proposed numbers rarely survive contact with Congress.

Kevin

< Message edited by kevinkin -- 1/28/2017 2:01:16 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 7
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 2:36:02 PM   
SSN754planker


Posts: 448
Joined: 10/2/2013
Status: offline 		He has mentioned we needed more submarines. So i expect another Block of the Virginia Class, and hopefully a new surface ship class.

_____________________________

MY BOOK LIST
ST1/SS SSN 754

(in reply to kevinkins)
Post #: 8
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 3:45:43 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		zumwalts? tbh i know very little about naval stuff in general, but wasn't zumwalt cut quite a bit? does USN even have a modern destroyer(?) honestly it seems like the role could be fulfilled by nuclear subs.. and a stealth ship seems like a gimmick if it's going to be travelling in groups with non-stealth ships.

still might be cool. can never go wrong with more ships. even though i'm not sure exactly where they'd be employed.

< Message edited by Cik -- 1/28/2017 3:47:53 PM >

(in reply to SSN754planker)
Post #: 9
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 3:54:52 PM   
mikmykWS

 

Posts: 11524
Joined: 3/22/2005
Status: offline 		Zumwalts are interesting.

just lost funding for the LRLAP rounds a they're ridiculously overpriced and guessing their may not be too many in stock. Excaliber or high velocity rounds are they likely replacements. Figuring this out is important as its largely the purpose of the platforms.

There has been talk of mounting a laser or two as well.

I've always thought of these ships like the USS Long Beach. Good tech demonstrators that will lead to other designs etc. Keep in mind that despite being sort of a one of kind tech demonstrator the Long Beach had a pretty good career.

Mike

_____________________________


(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 10
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 4:14:37 PM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		ah sure. i get the feeling the F-35 is the same way. expensive, yes, plagued by technical problems, yes. only really because it's doing a lot of stuff for the first time in history, though. new ground is always rocky. the F-16 was the same way now that i think of it.

< Message edited by Cik -- 1/28/2017 4:15:02 PM >

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 11
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 4:17:38 PM   
Gunner98

 

Posts: 5508
Joined: 4/29/2005
From: The Great White North!
Status: offline
quote:

does USN even have a modern destroyer(?)


DDH 51 flight IIA are pretty good and flight III's starting construction this year I think.

Not stealth but very modern

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 12
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 8:19:11 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline 		And so it begins...probably a good reason to start the buildup now. I'm sure China and/or Russia won't take advantage of this situation:

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-immigration-iran-idUSKBN15C0NR

In the sage words of Admiral Painter/Hunt for Red October..."This business will get out of control, it will get out of control and we'll be lucky to live thru it"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-JA1ffd5Ms


(in reply to Gunner98)
Post #: 13
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/28/2017 10:07:26 PM   
Kushan04


Posts: 683
Joined: 6/29/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Cik

zumwalts? tbh i know very little about naval stuff in general, but wasn't zumwalt cut quite a bit? does USN even have a modern destroyer(?) honestly it seems like the role could be fulfilled by nuclear subs.. and a stealth ship seems like a gimmick if it's going to be travelling in groups with non-stealth ships.

still might be cool. can never go wrong with more ships. even though i'm not sure exactly where they'd be employed.


Zumwalts are pretty much a dead class. There is going to be 3 of them, that's it. As mikmyk pointed out, they are basically tech demonstrators. Fact is you can't build 3 of any unit for cheap. The only way to have bring the cost of them down was to put them into serial production. You see it with the F-35, yes for various reasons development is way over what was projected but as more are produced that costs have been declining.

(in reply to Cik)
Post #: 14
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/30/2017 4:51:04 AM   
Anathema


Posts: 93
Joined: 10/4/2013
From: Australia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Reasonable? As far as the land forces go...if you have the political will to use them and the logistics to get them to the conflict zone...maybe. What is the land army meant to protect? CONUS? I don't think the political will for a large oversease Army/Marine deployment is a slam dunk, especially if the drumbeat of U.S. Isolationism continues to pound. What good is a large land army if you are not willing to deploy some elements overseas in advance, or use it outside of the U.S. borders, or you can't get it where it needs to be quickly?

Some of the political announcement is bluster, some of it will happen. Time will tell.

They do seem rather serious about tackling China's expansion based on what the new Secretary of State and others have said. According to this report the Trump administration are planning to increase forces based overseas in the SCS/East Asia region to counter the growing Chinese influence with new or expanded bases in Japan and Australia, including an additional forward based CSG. It was announced late last year prior to Trump taking office that F-22s were already heading to Darwin and there is already the USMC MEU rotation there. While Perth/Freemantle was suggested as a CSG home port a few years ago, so might be what they are planning, although Japan is probably a more practical option and generally speaking most of the Australian bases couldn't accommodate a large US presence without significant expansion.

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 15
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/30/2017 10:05:51 AM   
Cik

 

Posts: 671
Joined: 10/5/2016
Status: offline 		it's hard to see a way forward in all that without stepping on many toes, but it might be better to do something about those islands now rather than later. china seems keen on being cheeky about international law. anyway we'll see, but at least command scenarios will be easy to come by :^)

(in reply to Anathema)
Post #: 16
RE: US Military Buildup? - 1/31/2017 8:14:57 PM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

4)75 new ships is great as long as they're useful ships. The most critical programs are SSBN replacement. Concurrently new technologies should be developed to deal with new threats (lasers, railguns, cyber etc.) If there is a trade off tech should be preferred.

Mike



The SSBN replacement (it was called OHIO Replacement Program or ORP, and it's now officially called the COLUMBIA class), is already factored in though. The 75 would include ships on top of that. The list I saw included 18 more VIRGINIA class on top of what is already planned for block V and block VI (Block V and VI is 15 on top of the 10 Block IV and the several block III that are either in some stage of construction or still to be started.

That's a whole lotta submarines if you want to splice in 18 more at the same time you are already building the above listed ones, plus the COLUMBIA's, plus the FORD class carriers. All of those ships can only be built at EB and NNS.

Of course any list right now of types of ships to be built is pretty much speculation

< Message edited by ultradave -- 1/31/2017 8:17:47 PM >

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to mikmykWS)
Post #: 17
RE: US Military Buildup? - 2/2/2017 3:07:53 AM   
B52H

 

Posts: 113
Joined: 6/28/2015
Status: offline 		And with Trump's plan to add 90,000 more US Army troops, current facilities such as Fort Lewis and Fort Hood are filled to the brim with soldiers, so some facilities may need to be added/reopened. There are still massive portions of Fort Ord in California that have left to be redeveloped and can easily house more troops. Plus, the 9th Infantry Division is next in line to be reactivated, and it can be developed into a rapid deployment/light infantry division and be based at the new base like the 7th ID was back in the 80s if the Army chooses to do so. And, the 2nd Armored Division could be based at Fort Bliss as political scheme to "protect our borders" by basing troops on the border, as the base has many acres of desert available for development.

(in reply to ultradave)
Post #: 18
RE: US Military Buildup? - 2/2/2017 10:17:32 PM   
Kitchens Sink

 

Posts: 402
Joined: 5/4/2014
Status: offline 		Well, whatever we are doing I damn sure hope it's on some kind of fast-track schedule. Between this Iran stuff, China SCS, N. Korea, and the stunt with Australia today...the hair on the back of my neck is standing straight up.

(in reply to B52H)
Post #: 19
RE: US Military Buildup? - 2/2/2017 11:52:52 PM   
ultradave


Posts: 1355
Joined: 8/20/2013
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kitchens Sink

Well, whatever we are doing I damn sure hope it's on some kind of fast-track schedule. Between this Iran stuff, China SCS, N. Korea, and the stunt with Australia today...the hair on the back of my neck is standing straight up.


Well, the time to build a VIRGINIA class sub has come down significantly since SSN774 VIRGINIA. But saying that it still takes over 60 months to build one start to finish. The good news is that the cost is down significantly too since then, in part at least because of the reduced build time. But you just can't whip out a nuclear attack submarine tomorrow. It takes some time.

_____________________________

----------------
Dave A.
"When the Boogeyman goes to sleep he checks his closet for paratroopers"

(in reply to Kitchens Sink)
Post #: 20
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series >> US Military Buildup? Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts


Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI

0.797