Heavy fighting in South Ossetia.

[GregBurch]

The US also keeps the advantage of a Ginormous Navy(with ships of every type), and Huge wings of mid air refuelers, air transport, and long range bombers. (roughly translated, the US Navy is near every coast and the Air Force can enter any sky.)

Yeah ... but mentioning the 12 carrier strike groups and the fleet of strategic bombers is sort of piling on, isn't it?

 

[Urwumpe]

The current US armed forces are not at all of the same nature they were ten years ago or even five years ago. The improvement in morale, training and effectiveness over the last five years is something that is nearly unprecedented, so far as my study of history can see.

I don't know what you study for that, but the statistics of the the activities in Afghanistan or Iraq actually show that the US Army is far away from high effectivity. The reports are sounding more like the troops are often suffering from friction - Some people might even think, friendly fire is a US invention. Or that all efforts and good payment are not helping to keep the moral of the US soldiers high when deployed far away from home.

Of course, the US army is now more effective as in Vietnam... but that is no challenge.

I would, for the sake of the soldiers of your country, remember that you have not fought a regular army since 1991. The air strikes on Serbia not taken in account, which had been no show case of US superiority. You have no evidence, that the US army is fighting better in real combat situations as in training or against irregular troops.

I would say, that even Georgian troops would be a major challenge for US troops, unless you have a clear superiority. By effectivity alone, you won't win a battle and should not rely on it. You can't rely on special forces and veteran units alone - the bulk of your fighting units will be regular units.

Which brings us back to the "not being able to police inside the USA". Can you stop Russia on it's own soil? Likely not. Can you accept losing the lives of soldiers for a rebel country, which only appeared on your radar for a massive counterfeiting?

The USA have a huge club with their army. But I would say, they have neither the will to do use it nor the understanding where to use it. And it will not get better, as better equipment (as the last ten years show) is no replacement for deficits in training.

EDIT/PS: Carrier wings and strategic bombers are great when you want to attack immobile targets which can't defend themselves. But actually, the only weapon of real importance for the USA so far, was the Tomahawk - and other countries have similar equipment.

 

[Eagle]

Yeah ... but mentioning the 12 carrier strike groups and the fleet of strategic bombers is sort of piling on, isn't it?

True, but carrier planes are restricted to the local theater unless a mid-air refueler is present, which are flown from a ground base. (Unrefueled Hornets have about 330 mi combat radius, compared to the B-1B's 2990 mi radius)

Of course this isn't a problem if the carrier group is already close enough.

Its also worth stating that the UK and France also operate smaller carriers in smaller numbers.

 

[GregBurch]

I don't know what you study for that, but the statistics of the the activities in Afghanistan or Iraq actually show that the US Army is far away from high effectivity. The reports are sounding more like the troops are often suffering from friction - Some people might even think, friendly fire is a US invention. Or that all efforts and good payment are not helping to keep the moral of the US soldiers high when deployed far away from home.

Of course, the US army is now more effective as in Vietnam... but that is no challenge.

I would, for the sake of the soldiers of your country, remember that you have not fought a regular army since 1991. The air strikes on Serbia not taken in account, which had been no show case of US superiority. You have no evidence, that the US army is fighting better in real combat situations as in training or against irregular troops.

I would say, that even Georgian troops would be a major challenge for US troops, unless you have a clear superiority. By effectivity alone, you won't win a battle and should not rely on it. You can't rely on special forces and veteran units alone - the bulk of your fighting units will be regular units.

Which brings us back to the "not being able to police inside the USA". Can you stop Russia on it's own soil? Likely not. Can you accept losing the lives of soldiers for a rebel country, which only appeared on your radar for a massive counterfeiting?

The USA have a huge club with their army. But I would say, they have neither the will to do use it nor the understanding where to use it. And it will not get better, as better equipment (as the last ten years show) is no replacement for deficits in training.

EDIT/PS: Carrier wings and strategic bombers are great when you want to attack immobile targets which can't defend themselves. But actually, the only weapon of real importance for the USA so far, was the Tomahawk - and other countries have similar equipment.

OK, well, we're going to have to agree to disagree. I think you're breathing your own fumes about what you WANT to believe about US force effectiveness in Afghanistan and Iraq.


-----Posted Added-----

True, but carrier planes are restricted to the local theater unless a mid-air refueler is present, which are flown from a ground base. (Unrefueled Hornets have about 330 mi combat radius, compared to the B-1B's 2990 mi radius)

Of course this isn't a problem if the carrier group is already close enough.

Its also worth stating that the UK and France also operate smaller carriers in smaller numbers.

Carrier-based aircraft are refueled by carrier-based planes all the time.

 

[Eagle]

EDIT/PS: Carrier wings and strategic bombers are great when you want to attack immobile targets which can't defend themselves. But actually, the only weapon of real importance for the USA so far, was the Tomahawk - and other countries have similar equipment.

Tomahawk, huh? I had expected you to say infantry was the only unit of real importance. I'm gonna disagree with you there too.

Tomahawks are real nice b/c you can fly them to an area before you have a target and let them loiter, then when you do have a target, send the coordinates and BLAMMO!! The Predator and Reaper have capabilities that exceed the Tomohawk. They can loiter for 24 hours, attack multiple targets, provide recon, give immediate battle damage assessment, and Reaper's payload is slightly heavier than the Tomohawks's warhead, not to mention they don't cost $900,000 per mission.

If you were wondering, the MQ-9 Reaper is the same size as an A-10 Warthog. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MQ-9_Reaper

 

[Urwumpe]

I know the specs on the Reaper, the German Army is considering buying some of them, but it is unlikely they will become deployed...they hardly fit into the system. But the reapers are no replacement for the tomahawk - they can only carry small anti-vehicle missiles (Hellfire or Maverick). Also the Reaper is much slower, making it a relative easy target in hostile territory compared to the tomahawk.

Also, in your calculations, you have to remember that the primary weapon of the A-10 is the gun. I would still prefer the German army buying some of these, then a Reaper.

 

[astrosammy]

I would still prefer the German army buying some of these, then a Reaper.

YAY I wan't some A-10s flying by here, they have cool engine sounds.

 

[Deke]

Honest question...

If we just nuked Ossetia... would any of you even miss it?

 

[Jarvitä]

Honest question...

If we just nuked Ossetia... would any of you even miss it?

Honestly? This has never been about Ossetia. Nuking it wouldn't solve a thing, but would cause most of the third world to rage even harder at the mention of the USA.

 

[eveningsky339]

Honest question...

If we just nuked Ossetia... would any of you even miss it?

I wouldn't, but it's unethical to just nuke entire populations out of existence. Actually that's an understatement... it's evil on the scale of Hitler. So, while nuking the place does sound appealing, the easy way out is generally the worst.

Back on topic, it's unlikely that the U.S. will get involved in this conflict on any large scale. Bush threw us into a costly and meaningless war with a backwater country a few years back and the government spends loads of money to maintain a large military which we don't even need.

In summary, the U.S. can't get involved because our foreign policy and military spending currently suck.

 

[Eagle]

About the only way the US would get involved is diplomatically and through the UN. I wouldn't expect much action from the UN because of Russia's veto power.

The US may choose to 'secretly' assist the Georgian government by providing satellite and UAV information through the CIA and other channels. But I do not foresee the US involved in any direct combat.

I guess its just a mess of global politics with people in South Ossetia trapped in the middle.

EDIT:
To Greg Burch: I always forget those carrier based refuelers. Don't they use the same airframe as the E-3?

 

[simonpro]

Yeah ... but mentioning the 12 carrier strike groups and the fleet of strategic bombers is sort of piling on, isn't it?

There's only 11 carrier strike groups.

Honest question...

If we just nuked Ossetia... would any of you even miss it?

Please, think before you type.

Carrier-based aircraft are refueled by carrier-based planes all the time.

The USAF refuels carrier based aircraft the majority of the time, and exclusively for a number of years. Currently only the F/A18 has the capability to perform refuelling while still retaining a carrier launch status.

(edit)

Its also worth stating that the UK and France also operate smaller carriers in smaller numbers.

As do China, Italy, Spain, Brazil, India, Russia (more or less) and Thailand.

 

[Notebook]

BBC radio reporter in Gori? has been describing a Russian air-strike on the town. Sounds like they were aiming for a military base, and some munitions have struck nearby residential buildings.

Looks like it will be some time before a cease-fire is in force.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7550965.stm

N.

 

[Xantcha]

I see it's SO OBVIOUS for most of posters who is agressor and who is victim Ahh.. whatever. Just reminds me that we live world of highly polarized media Also reminds me why I hate politics. Ok, enough rant.

What really bothers me, is that osetians are so few.. A real solution to any tribal war (genocide) can be easily applied to them. But it looks like Georgia more interested into scaring and driving those people away..
So may be good half of osetians can survive this if things will get really nasty.

Oh, and who cares bout osetia anyway? It's Olympics now, yay!

 

[Urwumpe]

Well, there had been more Osetians before Russia started giving them Russian passports for free. Practically speaking, South Osetia was already either a colony of Russia or you had many many people who don't belong into South Osetia anymore, as they are Russian citizens.

Pretty much a good example of how to escalate things until the world notices...

 

[GregBurch]

There's only 11 carrier strike groups.

I count 12 here:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/navy/csg.htm

Please, think before you type.

No kidding ... Even a Texan flinched when he read that ...

The USAF refuels carrier based aircraft the majority of the time, and exclusively for a number of years. Currently only the F/A18 has the capability to perform refuelling while still retaining a carrier launch status.

Well, for years, this was the scene:

But you're right, the Superhornets with a refueling pack are now the standard for carrier-based tanking. I don't doubt that USAF tankers are more commonly used in practice, since they're so much bigger.

As do China, Italy, Spain, Brazil, India, Russia (more or less) and Thailand.

Does China actually have an operational carrier yet?

 

[Urwumpe]

Does China actually have an operational carrier yet?

No. But many blueprints and the intent to do so... unlikely they will build one soon.

 

[SiberianTiger]

According to Ukrainian sources, the bulk of the Russian Navy that had been stationed in Sevastopol naval base has left today, including the Moskva guided missile cruiser. I'm afraid that an action involving Abkhazia becomes imminent.

P.S. Yob tvoyu mat'...

 

[Urwumpe]

According to Ukrainian sources, the bulk of the Russian Navy that had been stationed in Sevastopol naval base has left today, including the Moskva guided missile cruiser. I'm afraid that an action involving Abkhazia becomes imminent.

P.S. Yob tvoyu mat'...

Fits to BBC reports, who already reported air strikes on Georgian troops in Abkhazia. Which raises the question what Georgian troops have to do in Abkhazia.

Also, Georgian websites are under heavy hacking attacks, with many parallels to the cyberterrorism in Estonia (which was likely caused mostly by Russian nationalist groups outside the Russian government).

Shouldn't there be no wars during an Olympiade?

 

[Linguofreak]

Fits to BBC reports, who already reported air strikes on Georgian troops in Abkhazia. Which raises the question what Georgian troops have to do in Abkhazia.

Also, Georgian websites are under heavy hacking attacks, with many parallels to the cyberterrorism in Estonia (which was likely caused mostly by Russian nationalist groups outside the Russian government).

Shouldn't there be no wars during an Olympiade?

In theory, yes. In practice, the Olympics are a joke.

P.S. Yob tvoyu mat'...

Umm... My Russian isn't too good, but does that mean what I think it does?