2776

If only our Air Force was as FORMIDABLE as they rank Russia’s military. The one being fought back by a country using the military surplus that we’re donating.

2777

I like how the different branches are obviously being rated by some meathead based on machismo.

“The marines are badass… they seem pretty strong. Air force dudes? Those pencil necks are weak. Army? Pretty strong, I guess. Not as tough as marines though, everyone knows that.”

2778

Also funny because the Marines aren’t going to look too STRONG without support from some of those other weak branches.

2779

In truth, I work with the Marines, and they generally are really exceptional folks… but what’s funny is that some non trivial part of that stems from their overall focus on being able to adapt to any situation, and that also manifests itself in them adapting to being chronically underfunded compared to the other branches.

Maybe the Heritage Foundation thinks we should cut the funding to all the other branches so they can toughen up like the Marines.

2780

Oh god, they’re doing tier lists for branches of the armed forces now?

Who is S-tier according to them, the Russian navy? And I’m terrified to know what the best air force is, considering ours is trash tier.

2781

Dutch virtual air force

XD

2782

The ‘Space Force’ is stronger than the Air Force?

2783

I wasn’t intending to throw shade at the Marines or anything like that. Just a fact of the fact that they do try to cover a lot of flexible capability in a small force. But that means a lot of trade-off with lacking heavy equipment(aren’t they getting rid of all of their M1s?) and also in things like their F-35s having some deficiencies to allow for their STOVL capabilities.

2784

Russian cruisers double as submarines. We have nothing to match that!

2785

Oh, I didn’t interpret your statement as such. I was more clarifying that my own statement people to yours also wasn’t intending to throw shade on the Marines.

2786

I think we have two choices here, make more nuclear missiles and get Nuclear to VERY STRONG or just defund the Air Force completely, this way we can achieve MARGINAL overall.

2787

I approve your alternative plan B as a great way to save time and money. The Navy, Army and Space Force will be quite happy to absorb the necessary Air Force functions, after first deciding that most are not necessary. The Marines will beg for the leavings.

2788

I tracked down the WSJ article, and the measurement they use is the US military’s own objective which is the ability to “fight two regional conflicts simultaneously.” So in that context, I don’t think the ratings are as ridiculous as they look at first glance. So these aren’t comparisons to a single other competitor, they are a measure of each branch’s ability to simultaneously take on two opponents.

IIRC US actually changed it recently to fight one war and not lose a second regional war. The Heritage Foundation seems to be ignoring that change.

I think the Navy’s woes are pretty well documented. I was surprised at their evaluation of the Air Force. They say that the Air Force is doing very badly in trying to meet their target of 80% aircraft availability and they probably correctly believe that on-hand munitions inventories are insufficient for a long term war and would take a long time to build the capacity for reasonable replacement. We’re seeing that right now on Ukraine for sure on munitions.

They say the Army is 20,000 soldiers short of their allotted size and it can’t recruit enough people to fill its ranks.

The Marines get the best marks because in contrast to the other services, they are at least trying to adapt to changing needs with their Force Design 2030 (for which they’ve received a lot of flak) — in which they’re trying to dump their heavy armor and actually come up with a force that would be useful in a conflict with China. But they do point out that this new force design depends on support from the Navy which may or may not be forthcoming.

If anyone is on Apple News, here’s a link to the WSJ article:

2789

I mean, sure, if they want to use some special definition of the word ‘weak’, then maybe the US military is ‘weak’.

But it isn’t weak.

2790

And of course no one actually knows what it would take to successfully fight the Chinese, because we don’t really know what that fight would look like. If it involves defending Taiwan from air and sea attack, that’s one thing. If it involves significant ground combat, that’s another.

I’m always skeptical of the attempts to turn heavy ground forces into light forces supposedly more strategically mobile. They often end up losing tactical mobility (and protection), as well as the ability to conduct serious offensive operations due to the loss of armored capability. It’s all well and good if you only end up fighting the Taliban I suppose, but the Chinese (or North Koreans, or Iranians, or Russians, for instance) might be a very different story.

2791

Where do you see US ground troops being located in this theoretical war with China?

2792

I kind of wonder that myself. One assumes that the Marines have thought more completely over this than any of us. But my assumption is the ground forces in Taiwan are largely going to be whatever ground forces start in Taiwan when the war starts. Maybe the assumption is we get some Marine Expeditionary Units on the ground before things kick off?

I assume it’s going to be difficult to get anything in there once the war kicks off. This isn’t Ukraine with a massive border that’s hard to interdict.

On the plus side, apparently a huge amount of Taiwan is very well suited to guerrilla warfare. It seems to me that Taiwan should reintroduce military training for all their citizens and should make sure they have large amount of anti-tank and anti-air missiles on hand.

This is basically the hedgehog approach some military experts have been urging Taiwan to take. Make it so that taking and holding on to the island is extremely costly.

2793

Not meeting organizational goals is vastly different than weak. The measurements should be something on the lines of falls short of expectations, meets expectations, exceeds…

I agree we don’t have the munitions to sustain a long high tempo war. But I don’t see us pulling out Sherman tanks and Springfield rifles, and P-51 Mustangs out of storage after 6 months of fighting either.

But I’m quite confident any country on the earth, we happily trade its military for the US’s if it was going to war, and then quickly give back after the war was done cause of the price tag

2794

Various islands in the South China Sea?

2795

You mean like China’s artificial islands they’ve been building? I don’t see the point of trying to land troops on those. If we have enough access to for an amphibious landing then we also have enough access to just blow up whatever weapon systems from the air or sea. Those islands only have value when they have the ability to act as area denial platforms. If the weapons are wiped out then we can just isolate and ignore them.

If we magically got troops onto Taiwan than I don’t see weapons like tanks being useful. You’re either fighting in cities or in mountains.

I asked the question because outside of some unlikely situations it doesn’t seem like ground troops fit in a US vs China fight. I guess if they were to invade an ally such as Japan or Korea.