photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53543318_10157042742547264_484303075

photos_and_videos/TimelinePhotos_SxeO6JU-xg/53543318_10157042742547264_4843030759629389824_n_10157042742542264.jpg ACCORDING TO RAND, WE ALWAYS LOSE

In simulated World War III scenarios, the U.S. continues to lose against Russia and China, two top war planners warned last week. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its a– handed to it” RAND analyst David Ochmanek said Thursday.

RAND’s wargames show how US Armed Forces – colored blue on wargame maps – experience the most substantial losses in one scenario after another and still can’t thwart Russia or China – which predictably is red – from accomplishing their objectives: annihilating Western forces.

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he warned.

In the next military conflict, which some believe may come as soon as the mid-2020s, all five battlefield domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, will be heavily contested, suggesting the U.S. could have a difficult time in achieving superiority as it has in prior conflicts.

The simulated war games showed, the “red” aggressor force often destroys U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters on the runway, sends several Naval fleets to the depths, destroys US military bases, and through electronic warfare, takes control of critical military communication systems. In short, a gruesome, if simulated, annihilation of some of the most modern of US forces.

“In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with years of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

So, as Russia and China develop fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic missiles, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructures like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”

“That’s why the 2020 budget coming out next week retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported. It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question,” said Breaking Defense.

Meanwhile, speaking purely hypothetically of course, “if we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein. And that’s it,” Work complained. The US has 58 Brigade Combat Teams across the continent but doesn’t have anti-air and missile-defense capabilities required to handle a barrage of missiles from Russia.

RAND also war-gamed cyber and electronic attacks in the simulations, Work said; Russia and China tend to cripple US communication networks.

“Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise,” Work said without a trace of humor. Beijing calls this “system destruction warfare,” Work said. They aim to “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time.”

The Air Force asked RAND to formulate a plan several years ago to improve the outcomes of the wargames in favor of the US, Ochmanek said. “We found it impossible to spend more than $8 billion a year” to fix the problems.

“That’s $8 billion for the Air Force. Triple that to cover for the Army and the Navy Department (which includes the US Marines),” Ochmanek said, “and you get $24 billion.”

Work was less concerned about the near-term risk of war, and he said, China and Russia aren’t ready to fight because their modernization efforts have not been completed. He said any major conflict is unlikely for another 10 to 20 years from now.

He said “$24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure” to prepare the military for World War III.

RAND offers a sobering assessment that America could lose a multi-front war in the future, which is quite shocking considering that the US spent nearly three times as much as the second biggest war power, China, did in 2017.Andrew GribbleWhy, it’s almost as if the post-Vietnam military reformers (COL John Boyd, Hackworth, etc) knew what they were talking about!Mar 11, 2019, 10:58 AMAndrew GribbleBob KneeMar 11, 2019, 10:58 AMPhilip ClarkWinter is coming

Between the 3 following scenarios happening, the future seems very bleak.

Global financial collapse from too much debt

A 2nd US (hot)civil war, we are already in a cultural Cold War

WW3 with China/Russia/IranMar 11, 2019, 11:03 AMStephen ThomasAnd this is why we can and will win if things go hot.Mar 11, 2019, 11:06 AMEric BestThey don’t even address the problem at home of a totally disintegrating social and political order.Mar 11, 2019, 11:13 AMAnjin BodhisattvaMIC marketing, to some extent.Mar 11, 2019, 11:33 AMAnjin BodhisattvaGuess who pays RAND?Mar 11, 2019, 11:34 AMJames Dmitro MakienkoAnjin Bodhisattva you literally took words out of myu mouth as i was writing an extended post! damn you! LolMar 11, 2019, 11:35 AMJames Dmitro MakienkoI view studies like that with a grain of salt. It looks like marketing for increased defense funding, as in “we must feed the military industrial complex”

Where US forces fall behind comparing to Russia and China is not technology (yes they have some asymmetric countermeasures to NATO’s expensive tech toys – but so does NATO, and Russian modern stuff is subpar and not too numerous. Chinese, however, do have the numbers). The West is scared of ANY friendly casualties. ANd this affects the thinking of the top political and military leadership. This way of fighting a war means slow and costly way of achieving its tactical objectives (i.e calling air/artillery on ANYTHING heavier than a guy with an AK), and when casualties still occur it turns the war into a political shit-throwing contest. They don’t have stuff like that in Russia (look at how many mercs and current/ex military they lost in east Ukraine, and NOTHING happens there), and they wouldn’t even think about it in China. The first time Chinese military will actually achieve some large scale military objectives we’re going to see a hundredfold increase in studies like that asking for more gibs for MIC…Mar 11, 2019, 11:43 AMEli HarmanHow does the F-35 “rule the skies” even if it can get into them? It’s not fast. It’s not maneuverable. It can’t turn. It can’t climb. It doesn’t have great range. Are they just counting on stealth, sensors, and missiles? That sounds like the kind of bullshit that got tons of F-4 Phantoms shot down over Vietnam.Mar 11, 2019, 11:57 AMGeovani TomassiniWhy go to war with the US when you can just finance lefty movements, and when they are done, just pick up the scrapsMar 11, 2019, 12:11 PMGreg HamiltonThe strategic answer is ally with Russia against China …

But instead they will look for tactical solutionsMar 11, 2019, 12:11 PMJason MurphyI’m of the opinion that a flight of F-35s would get absolutely wrecked by a flight of Migs once they get into dogfight range.Mar 11, 2019, 12:11 PMGreg HamiltonShipping lanes.Mar 11, 2019, 12:12 PMJimmy KnowlesNeed to train high school students to be true light infantry, and riflemenMar 11, 2019, 12:14 PMJimmy KnowlesI wonder if they use 4gw in their similations?Mar 11, 2019, 12:15 PMDave DessNick Krekelbergh interessant om eens te lezen…Mar 11, 2019, 12:30 PMMike WilliamsWith the F-22, F-16, F-15 and F-18 the reds would never gain air superiority.Mar 11, 2019, 12:59 PMBenjamin WoodThree EMP’s and the Chinese can wipe out >80% of North America’s population in less than a year. If it ever comes to an existential conflict, the complexity of our society puts us at an impossible disadvantage. Very easily broken by an adversary who’s willing to reap the consequences.Mar 11, 2019, 1:04 PMCharles H BrennanA good part of this is marketing however there are fundamental structural reasons why they are correct about our vulnerability.

To get it out of the way yes the American forces in a conventional conflict are absolutely better than anyone else on the globe, Especially our pilots and the skill of our ground troops.

However the caveat at is that our ability to use that power depends on Uncontested access to the theater. And right now the technologies that will enable even small non-state actors to challenge or disrupt that significantly are becoming cheaper, more effective, and are easy to proliferate.Mar 11, 2019, 1:11 PMDoug HollandThis assumes that the chinese and Russian equipment actually works. It does NOT ..

The biggest threat to America in a war scenario, is America. China will not be defeated until 100 million chinese have been killed. The US does not hve the stomach to kill 100 million people.Mar 11, 2019, 1:26 PMFred McCartyForget China but would a Russian occupation be so bad? Thinking out loud here.Mar 11, 2019, 1:39 PMParker O’Neal WilsonIf I had a nickle for every fighting force that thought it could kick our ass up and down the world and then got chewed up and spit out I’d be able to fund the budget he’s asking for here. Adapt and overcome is how we win. These wargames are important and we should not discount what they say.Mar 11, 2019, 1:40 PMParker O’Neal WilsonHow can any American want a foreign tyrant to so much as sleep on our soil?Mar 11, 2019, 1:41 PMParker O’Neal WilsonLol. Good meme.

In Korea we killed 5,000 Chinese soldiers in one day. We lost one tank and a few hundred men. Our tech is lightyears beyond that now. We have missiles that can scorch everything for hundreds of square miles. Everything organic turned to ash.Mar 11, 2019, 1:42 PMParker O’Neal WilsonThe next time international agencies tell us how to win we should spit in their faces and say, “stop us if you can.”

If the international courts of today existed in the 1800s, we’d still live in fear of native tribes.Mar 11, 2019, 1:43 PMParker O’Neal WilsonThose missiles have to get by the Pacific fleets and our west coast defenses.

Good luck to them.Mar 11, 2019, 1:44 PMParker O’Neal WilsonWe’ve been doing the opposite, playing China against Russia. Think about that before you bitch about the stuff you buy being made in China. Those deals that made that possible stopped all of Asia from going Red.Mar 11, 2019, 1:45 PMParker O’Neal WilsonDog fights don’t exist anymore. We have missiles that can track and shoot down enemy planes within seconds. Who wins is who has the better anti-missile tech and who finds who first.Mar 11, 2019, 1:46 PMParker O’Neal WilsonThe tail doesn’t wag the dog.Mar 11, 2019, 1:47 PMParker O’Neal WilsonOnce war starts people will rally, and the first people we hang from trees will be Russophiles.Mar 11, 2019, 1:47 PMNick KrekelberghInderdaad, mensen verwachten dit niet omdat ze opgegroeid zijn met beelden hoe de VS met een spreekwoordelijke druk op de knop steden in Irak en Afghanistan digitaal aan flarden schiet. Maar ook in de jaren ’70/’80 had het Warschaupact een significant overwicht op de NATO, met onder meer een veel groter aantal kruisraketten en meer dan dubbel zoveel tanks. In de jaren ’50 was dit zeker nog niet het geval. Het is ondertussen bekend dat de enige tactiek waarin de Engelsen in West-Duitsland getraind waren die van de taktische terugtocht was, met andere woorden: in het geval van een invasie zo lang mogelijk de boel rekken (tot er eventueel nukes ingezet zouden worden, want dat was de enige optie om te winnen). Afghanistan word als een nederlaag voor de Sovjets beschouwd, maar de Amerikanen verloren in Vietnam (over een vergelijkbare tijdspanne) 3 x zoveel man. Het kan dus snel verkeren…Mar 11, 2019, 1:49 PMGreg HamiltonParker O’Neal Wilson ???

I think you might be hallucinatingMar 11, 2019, 1:51 PMParker O’Neal WilsonI think you like an unsurprising number of people don’t actually know anything about the last half century of history.Mar 11, 2019, 1:55 PMBenjamin WoodWhat is a carrier gonna do about an ICBM and a high-altitude detonation?Mar 11, 2019, 1:55 PMEric Best”People” – what people? There are too many different tribes on this land and they certainly will not all “rally.” Imagine there is a draft – and even worse, they try and draft our daughters since it has been ruled discriminatory not to. The segment of the populace that has traditionally given its sons to the military are those most targeted for destruction by the state – white, rural, southern. Why rally to save a state that has expressed its desire to destroy and replace you?Mar 11, 2019, 2:27 PMMike JaurGreg Hamilton this seems logical, especially since the balance between Russia and China is tipping I’m Chinese favor.Mar 11, 2019, 2:59 PMKevin SteenMOAR WAR! Obvious propaganda is obvious. The Pentagon gets more than enough cash, thank you.Mar 11, 2019, 3:00 PMFred McCartyDomestic tyrants are preferred.Mar 11, 2019, 3:00 PMKevin SteenParker O’Neal Wilson Well, we do sorta owe them for saving us from a tyrant in the Oval Office.Mar 11, 2019, 3:00 PMFred McCartyYou already live under a government that works 24/7 to displace you. You’re behind enemy lines right now.Mar 11, 2019, 3:07 PMMike JaurA lot depends on Chinese actions in the south China sea and towards Taiwan, Japan, India and Russia. Potential wars that seem more logical than taking on the US. They can’t fight the entire world, that’s been tried before.

Also, interesting reading: https://chinadailymail.com/2013/10/15/six-wars-china-is-sure-to-fight-in-the-next-50-years/Mar 11, 2019, 3:23 PMBen SilverburgPhysical flight controls is not a significant factor in the f35 mission. Its essentially an electronic warfare mobile command center to be tactically agile.Mar 11, 2019, 3:25 PMBen SilverburgIts true strength will shine when it doesnt have to adhere to nato regulations and can mount laser weapons as its designed to doMar 11, 2019, 3:26 PMTom RamboDef making the case for increased corporate welfare that doesnt improve our lethality at allMar 11, 2019, 4:21 PMGreg Woodburyayn rand “don’t be aggressive” lolMar 11, 2019, 7:01 PMAndrea RoyallRAND Corp is not named for Ayn RandMar 12, 2019, 1:21 AMMichael ScottThe Collapse is coming. Question is are you (empirical) preparing for itMar 12, 2019, 4:55 PMPaul BardAnjin Bodhisattva MIC?Mar 12, 2019, 8:28 PMAnjin BodhisattvaMilitary Industrial ComplexMar 12, 2019, 8:32 PMAaron NeelyEric Best I have the same opinion. I’m a veteran of 20 years, and I can’t see any scenario in which the USA is the “good guy” in a conflict with Russia and China. I’m far from alone in that assessment. I don’t see how people like me, which is to say people with a proven willingness to fight, will have any enthusiasm to fight for a state that hates us.Mar 13, 2019, 5:42 PMArby HydeSanctions and Blockades would alone cripple both Russia and China. No need for warfareMar 14, 2019, 12:55 PMACCORDING TO RAND, WE ALWAYS LOSE

In simulated World War III scenarios, the U.S. continues to lose against Russia and China, two top war planners warned last week. “In our games, when we fight Russia and China, blue gets its a– handed to it” RAND analyst David Ochmanek said Thursday.

RAND’s wargames show how US Armed Forces – colored blue on wargame maps – experience the most substantial losses in one scenario after another and still can’t thwart Russia or China – which predictably is red – from accomplishing their objectives: annihilating Western forces.

“We lose a lot of people. We lose a lot of equipment. We usually fail to achieve our objective of preventing aggression by the adversary,” he warned.

In the next military conflict, which some believe may come as soon as the mid-2020s, all five battlefield domains: land, sea, air, space, and cyberspace, will be heavily contested, suggesting the U.S. could have a difficult time in achieving superiority as it has in prior conflicts.

The simulated war games showed, the “red” aggressor force often destroys U.S. F-35 Lightning II stealth fighters on the runway, sends several Naval fleets to the depths, destroys US military bases, and through electronic warfare, takes control of critical military communication systems. In short, a gruesome, if simulated, annihilation of some of the most modern of US forces.

“In every case I know of,” said Robert Work, a former deputy secretary of defense with years of wargaming experience, “the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”

So, as Russia and China develop fifth-generation fighters and hypersonic missiles, “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructures like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time,” Ochmanek said. “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”

“That’s why the 2020 budget coming out next week retires the carrier USS Truman decades early and cuts two amphibious landing ships, as we’ve reported. It’s also why the Marine Corps is buying the jump-jet version of the F-35, which can take off and land from tiny, ad hoc airstrips, but how well they can maintain a high-tech aircraft in low-tech surroundings is an open question,” said Breaking Defense.

Meanwhile, speaking purely hypothetically of course, “if we went to war in Europe, there would be one Patriot battery moving, and it would go to Ramstein. And that’s it,” Work complained. The US has 58 Brigade Combat Teams across the continent but doesn’t have anti-air and missile-defense capabilities required to handle a barrage of missiles from Russia.

RAND also war-gamed cyber and electronic attacks in the simulations, Work said; Russia and China tend to cripple US communication networks.

“Whenever we have an exercise and the red force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise,” Work said without a trace of humor. Beijing calls this “system destruction warfare,” Work said. They aim to “attack the American battle network at all levels, relentlessly, and they practice it all the time.”

The Air Force asked RAND to formulate a plan several years ago to improve the outcomes of the wargames in favor of the US, Ochmanek said. “We found it impossible to spend more than $8 billion a year” to fix the problems.

“That’s $8 billion for the Air Force. Triple that to cover for the Army and the Navy Department (which includes the US Marines),” Ochmanek said, “and you get $24 billion.”

Work was less concerned about the near-term risk of war, and he said, China and Russia aren’t ready to fight because their modernization efforts have not been completed. He said any major conflict is unlikely for another 10 to 20 years from now.

He said “$24 billion a year for the next five years would be a good expenditure” to prepare the military for World War III.

RAND offers a sobering assessment that America could lose a multi-front war in the future, which is quite shocking considering that the US spent nearly three times as much as the second biggest war power, China, did in 2017.