Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

World Police, we can take on the world, we could win a land war in Asia, god damn it!

24 (20.9%)

Matched Force, enough power to take on any other nation one on one and win

34 (29.6%)

Force Projection, enough to have influence around the world, but no real capability for a full on war in a foreign nation

10 (8.7%)

Fulfilling Treaty Obligations, no more

22 (19.1%)

Homeland Defense, no more

16 (13.9%)

Nuclear Deterrent is enough

4 (3.5%)

We need no military power at all

5 (4.3%)

Total Members Voted: 115

[Lord Shonus]

Besides the political risk, such a force would only be a tenth as effective as the proffesional force we have now.

[Dsarker]

Besides the political risk, such a force would only be a tenth as effective as the proffesional force we have now.

Less. Teaching people to be able to kill other people is not such an easy thing, let alone the lack of proper discipline and other products of large amounts of training. Not to mention the effect it could have on the economy.

[counting]

Sprry, it was the F-35 that I was thinking of, the one with three completely different variants that has cost the US 36 billion dollars (4 billion came from Europe) to design, and will cost 200 million dollars per aircraft (as opposed to 70 million for additional F-22s).

It's an ironic thing that F-22 and F-35 are suppose to form a high-low balance air dominate, like the F-15 F-16 pairs. But since the F-22 production has been cancelled, we may never know how expensive the long-term avg cost of F-22 really is. But the over-budget F-35 is definitely around the same price range of F-22. (unlike you can buy two F-16 for one F-15). And F-22 is very likely to become the lost generation fighters (or remain "secret weapons" for quite sometime, and latter some new fighter designs or long range unmanned drones will replace it's tactical position).

P.S the price avg of F-22 from 90's, can not directly compare with F-35's some 20 years later. There is inflation need to be factored in. (inflation 2-3% a year adds up a lot after decades)

[sneakey pete]

We have the Army Corps of Engineers, if that's what you're thinking of. They're the people who FUCK UP all the seemingly impossible things, like building gigantic dams, fixing ecological disasters, and digging canals between oceans WHILE DEMANDING MUCH MORE MONEY THAN THEY NEED.

Fixed for you.

Full Disclosure: I have an intense dislike of the Army Corps of Engineers.

Well, thank's to having nothing to compare it to you can't really say either way. I'd imagine if it was done via the normal free market approach it'd be even more expensive though, but of course we'll never be able to tell. However my experience with the consturction industry is that there's a lot of stuffing around in it though. No idea how much there is in your army engineers though.

Besides the political risk, such a force would only be a tenth as effective as the proffesional force we have now.

Less. Teaching people to be able to kill other people is not such an easy thing, let alone the lack of proper discipline and other products of large amounts of training. Not to mention the effect it could have on the economy.

So um... yeah its worked out so bad for every other country that has done it...

[Zangi]

Besides the political risk, such a force would only be a tenth as effective as the proffesional force we have now.

Less. Teaching people to be able to kill other people is not such an easy thing, let alone the lack of proper discipline and other products of large amounts of training. Not to mention the effect it could have on the economy.

Hmm... yea, hearken back to the days of the revolution with militias and what-not...  Probably not so useful in a war where you are the aggressor...  which is a good thing in my opinion.

[Lord Shonus]

Sprry, it was the F-35 that I was thinking of, the one with three completely different variants that has cost the US 36 billion dollars (4 billion came from Europe) to design, and will cost 200 million dollars per aircraft (as opposed to 70 million for additional F-22s).

It's an ironic thing that F-22 and F-35 are suppose to form a high-low balance air dominate, like the F-15 F-16 pairs. But since the F-22 production has been cancelled, we may never know how expensive the long-term avg cost of F-22 really is. But the over-budget F-35 is definitely around the same price range of F-22. (unlike you can buy two F-16 for one F-15). And F-22 is very likely to become the lost generation fighters (or remain "secret weapons" for quite sometime, and latter some new fighter designs or long range unmanned drones will replace it's tactical position).

P.S the price avg of F-22 from 90's, can not directly compare with F-35's some 20 years later. There is inflation need to be factored in. (inflation 2-3% a year adds up a lot after decades)

The $70 million is the cost that the Pentagon estimates if production is restarted.

[counting]

From a country where conscription in military service is forced to every young men above 18 for up to 2 years. We are not walking towards professional army as well. (reduce the conscript service time to 10 months). But everyman under 40 is still reserves. And we used to think we can fight against China in the 50's and 60's. When the total standing army at that time constantly above half million in a population of 10+ millions, it remains till the 90's. and reduce in recent decades to 270,000 recently and about 100,000 are professionals. But all the trained conscripts during their 2 year trainings adds up in reserve means we can muster about 3.5 million troops if necessary. (No kidding). You can see what a great threat live next to China. (Similar situation in South Korea)

[counting]

Sprry, it was the F-35 that I was thinking of, the one with three completely different variants that has cost the US 36 billion dollars (4 billion came from Europe) to design, and will cost 200 million dollars per aircraft (as opposed to 70 million for additional F-22s).

It's an ironic thing that F-22 and F-35 are suppose to form a high-low balance air dominate, like the F-15 F-16 pairs. But since the F-22 production has been cancelled, we may never know how expensive the long-term avg cost of F-22 really is. But the over-budget F-35 is definitely around the same price range of F-22. (unlike you can buy two F-16 for one F-15). And F-22 is very likely to become the lost generation fighters (or remain "secret weapons" for quite sometime, and latter some new fighter designs or long range unmanned drones will replace it's tactical position).

P.S the price avg of F-22 from 90's, can not directly compare with F-35's some 20 years later. There is inflation need to be factored in. (inflation 2-3% a year adds up a lot after decades)

The $70 million is the cost that the Pentagon estimates if production is restarted.

Long-term avg price includes the already invested hardware(manufacture line etc.) costs. The F-35 price are factored in those costs. End price is not equal to costs, since F-35 sells to other countries, so the price include the money invest into develop and hardware. Where F-22 can't be sold, hence there is no "price", but just add-up costs. If F-22 can be sold to other countries, the price is then can be compare to F-35 which will be around the same 150 millions range or so. (Flyaway cost). The end-selling price is of course be higher than that (up to 200+ millions including the missiles and spare parts and relative profits)

[Flying Dice]

Part of the problem (in my relatively uninformed opinion) is that we're still largely stuck on this Cold War era mentality of needing massive military force. What we need, barring an all out invasion of/by China, is relatively small units concentrated on counterterrorism (No, not that kind, because I know someone besides me will be thinking it...), threat assessment, covert ops, intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, etc., as opposed to massive occupation forces of hundreds of thousands of soldiers which are not particularly effective. We are not fighting a superpower with equivalent resources, we are not fighting enemies who present a public front, and as such, we do not need forces tailored to such an opponent.



Alternatively, I think we should go all Civilization on the rest of the world, annexing their territories with valuable resources, plastering their cities with nuclear missiles, decimating their armies with thousands of robotic, self-repairing, solar powered helicopter gunships(how else can they stay aloft for decades at a time?), and destroying their armored units with our $23B Pointy Stick MkVIs. Well, we've already made a start. One goal begun, 3 to go?

[Soulwynd]

Ps.

Every male in brazil is legally part of the reserve. Not presenting yourself when you're 18 for military service is illegal here. Even if you don't get picked, you get a document saying you're in the reserve, so technically, for all purposes, every male citizen above 18 here is part of the military.

[optimumtact]

Part of the problem (in my relatively uninformed opinion) is that we're still largely stuck on this Cold War era mentality of needing massive military force. What we need, barring an all out invasion of/by China, is relatively small units concentrated on counterterrorism (No, not that kind, because I know someone besides me will be thinking it...), threat assessment, covert ops, intelligence gathering, humanitarian aid, etc.,

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

 as opposed to massive occupation forces of hundreds of thousands of soldiers which are not particularly effective. We are not fighting a superpower with equivalent resources, we are not fighting enemies who present a public front, and as such, we do not need forces tailored to such an opponent.



Alternatively, I think we should go all Civilization on the rest of the world, annexing their territories with valuable resources, plastering their cities with nuclear missiles, decimating their armies with thousands of robotic, self-repairing, solar powered helicopter gunships(how else can they stay aloft for decades at a time?), and destroying their armored units with our $23B Pointy Stick MkVIs. Well, we've already made a start. One goal begun, 3 to go?

To be fair, the United States Military is already working towards a similar concept with the new Generation Stryker Battalions and the Future Soldier programs, they have recognised the need for units that aren't going to be deployed in full scale war situations and they have taken steps to shape the future structure of the US Military towards smaller self sufficient "Battle groups" that can operate in any situation and can be scaled with extra assets as required.

[counting]

Ps.

Every male in brazil is legally part of the reserve. Not presenting yourself when you're 18 for military service is illegal here. Even if you don't get picked, you get a document saying you're in the reserve, so technically, for all purposes, every male citizen above 18 here is part of the military.

Most countries use conscripts are the same as well. In Taiwan, you even needs certifications to go abroad, proving you have served you country already. (For kids who have not served the army in college, going abroad even finding jobs are very hard until recent years unless you have privileges, you are very likely end-up in court martial if you escape this responsibility, sentence to 5+ years)

[Soulwynd]

Yes, you cannot take a passport here unless you have a reserve document or you actively served.

[counting]

So the near future war becomes like this

Image: Joe Zeff Design; Mansour Ali Photography, Getty images (background)

[Taniec]

So the near future war becomes like this

Image: Joe Zeff Design; Mansour Ali Photography, Getty images (background)

So that's why Call of Duty keeps getting developed...damn American propaganda