NS Military Realism Consultancy Thread Mk X Purps Safe Space

[New Oyashima]

The S-69 is v. Kyuuto, so now I use it as a rapid AirCav transport.

ur v. kyuuto id rapid S-69 u~ owo

also stop stealing my memes ):<

I AM your meme <3

[Gallia-]

You can't foist anything if the Air Force and Marines don't exist, amirite?

But then again the Marines are alright because they don't get enough money to sabotage anything. I suppose they're just superfluous.

They're beheld to the DoN for their budget. Which means remanufacturing existing equipment instead of making new things altogether. Which means working with known technologies rather than trying to reinvent themselves for mythical concepts of warfighting like "air-mechanization" and "strategic maneuver".

If M. Flynn is representative of DoA, I weep for America.

Isn't there someone in the DoD that tells them to knock their shit off and stop fucking about?

Yes, the OSD.

What do you think Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Gates did? Play golf?

It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.

A dumb solution for a dumb world.

Now you have zero innovation and zero redundant hedges against failure. Good job. Might as well drive a car with a single screw holding the engine on. Or use a gun with a single locking lug. Or a helicopter with one wing.

Wait ignore the last one, that's actually super sensible.

DoA's problems are because it doesn't have a job in a post war world. Unlike the USAF and USN, there's no obvious reason for armies (or Marine Corpse) to exist besides parades showmanship. There's nothing that really screams "army" like a boat says "navy" or a plane says "air force". Armies are too complex for that, and the US Army tried to reinvent everything about itself between 1990 and 1999 because it was terrified that it was losing relevance. Of course, they weren't wrong, but they went about it in the most absurdly dumb way in hindsight.

If FCS had worked all fine and hunky dory the US Army would be fantastic.

ur v. kyuuto id rapid S-69 u~ owo

also stop stealing my memes ):<

I AM your meme <3

#uwu# bbe ill be ur memes~ :3 <333

[-Celibrae-]

Department of the Army within Department of the Navy, kill Air Force and Marines. Solid plan.

[Gallia-]

Department of the Army within Department of the Navy, kill Air Force and Marines. Solid plan.

So you propose reducing the US defense budget to acquiring nothing but Linux servers and overpriced speedboats?

Good plan.

DoA stays but it needs a real job. Fantasizing about mega!Iran reconquering the Arabian Desert isn't a job when wars of the future will be fought on Twitter and in boardrooms more than on battlefields. It turns out that having a staid and measured modernization plan with a fairly austere equipment buy, which is what the US Army was planning from 1990 to about 1997, would have been perfect for the wars of the future. III US Corps and XVIII Airborne Corps equipped with Crusaders, M8s, Strykers, Block III tanks, and Grizzly CMVs, possibly Comanche for the aviation without the weird FCS requirements like European self-deployment, the National Guard getting M1A1s and M2A2s, and replacing M113 with Bradley-based utility carriers would have more than adequate.

Which is what DoA is doing now but it has twenty years of lag time to chew through and ruminate on.

[-Celibrae-]

Department of the Army within Department of the Navy, kill Air Force and Marines. Solid plan.

So you propose reducing the US defense budget to acquiring nothing but Linux servers and overpriced speedboats?

Good plan.

DoA stays but it needs a real job.

Don't tell anyone, but I work for the Russian government. You can ask my pal Flynn if you aren't convinced.

I wonder what circumstances it would take for the Air Force to be killed. If it's anything like the RAF it has a lot of political power.

[The Akasha Colony]

It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.

It's funny that you think that.

Do you think factionalism arises simply because of what the teams are called? That getting rid of the labels "Army," "Navy," and "Air Force" will magically eliminate factionalism and the scramble to exploit a limited resource (money)?

Inter-service rivalries are easy to spot but intra-service ones are just as bad. All you've done is change the team names and move the external rivalries in-house. Now, rather than having the "Air Force" battling the "Army" for money, you just have a bunch of air officers fighting a bunch of ground officers for money. Do you think fighter jocks will suddenly stop wanting more fighters just because they happen to wear the same uniform as the tankers? Or that they won't shift the blame to another faction when things go wrong? "Cover your ass" is a universal dictum in both the public and private sector and even schoolchildren instinctively know what it means and how to do it.

[New Oyashima]

If the late 40s early 50s gave me any information dank memes, its that the Navy is dead long live the USAF :^)

[New Oyashima]

It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.

It's funny that you think that.

Do you think factionalism arises simply because of what the teams are called? That getting rid of the labels "Army," "Navy," and "Air Force" will magically eliminate factionalism and the scramble to exploit a limited resource (money)?

Inter-service rivalries are easy to spot but intra-service ones are just as bad. All you've done is change the team names and move the external rivalries in-house. Now, rather than having the "Air Force" battling the "Army" for money, you just have a bunch of air officers fighting a bunch of ground officers for money. Do you think fighter jocks will suddenly stop wanting more fighters just because they happen to wear the same uniform as the tankers? Or that they won't shift the blame to another faction when things go wrong? "Cover your ass" is a universal dictum in both the public and private sector and even schoolchildren instinctively know what it means and how to do it.

See the Imperial Japanese Navy, 1930-1945

[Gallia-]

So you propose reducing the US defense budget to acquiring nothing but Linux servers and overpriced speedboats?

Good plan.

DoA stays but it needs a real job.

Don't tell anyone, but I work for the Russian government. You can ask my pal Flynn if you aren't convinced.

I wonder what circumstances it would take for the Air Force to be killed. If it's anything like the RAF it has a lot of political power.

The entire government being afflicted with a sudden case of stupidity I guess.

FCS was just the Jeune Ecole of the US DoD.

A stupid idea thought of by stupid people who had no idea what they were talking about, shouting down their older and more experienced betters, and making everyone worse off as a result.

Now they realize their mistake just in time for the USA to run out of money.

If the late 40s early 50s gave me any information dank memes, its that the Navy is dead long live the USAF :^)

US Navy nukes entire Air Force with low angle SLBMs and atomic carriers.

Loses: Entire Air Force.

Wins: America.

[-Celibrae-]

If the late 40s early 50s gave me any information dank memes, its that the Navy is dead long live the USAF :^)

You forgot an A

[New Oyashima]

USN in the cold war was best branch, I wish that more of their dreams came true.

[Gallia-]

It did.

The US Navy is now the most important branch of the entire US military, whether the USA recognizes it or not.

The future of the world is in Asia. The USAF and US Army are left languishing in Europe.

[-Celibrae-]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

[Gallia-]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

It would require the Army to maintain an air force.

A Navy can do this because it has carriers and so it's kind of a given.

An Army would probably want to avoid it because it has enough on its plate between paratroopers and mechanized troops and everything else land combat requires. The USAAF was more or less wholly independent of the rest of the Army by the end of WW2. The creation of "USAF" was just formalizing an informal process that had already become SOP.

Air Forces are specialized enough that an sort of "Army Air Force Assistant Chief of Staff" would become as powerful and sought after as the Army Chief of Staff himself, because his knowledge of the matter of air combat would grossly exceed his peers. This is actually exactly what happened. Making it a separate branch made it less confusing.

[-Celibrae-]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

It would require the Army to maintain an air force.

A Navy can do this because it has carriers and so it's kind of a given.

An Army would probably want to avoid it because it has enough on its plate between paratroopers and mechanized troops and everything else land combat requires. The USAAF was more or less wholly independent of the rest of the Army by the end of WW2. The creation of "USAF" was just formalizing an informal process that had already become SOP.

How about the Navy handles territorial defence and bombers, and the army gets airlifters? Support assets like tankers wherever.

[Gallia-]

It would require the Army to maintain an air force.

A Navy can do this because it has carriers and so it's kind of a given.

An Army would probably want to avoid it because it has enough on its plate between paratroopers and mechanized troops and everything else land combat requires. The USAAF was more or less wholly independent of the rest of the Army by the end of WW2. The creation of "USAF" was just formalizing an informal process that had already become SOP.

How about the Navy handles territorial defence and bombers, and the army gets airlifters? Support assets like tankers wherever.

The Navy should handle tanks because they invented them. Also surface escorts above 5,000 tons.

The Army can handle bombers, amphibious assault ships, frigates, and foot infantry.

The Air Force gets fighter jets, submarines, and paratroopers.

The Medical Forces get transports (air and sea) and tankers.

A much more sensible distribution.

Anyway no the generic distribution is the best and most efficient one. A defense bureaucracy wouldn't survive otherwise.

[-Celibrae-]

I don't want an Air Force though

[New Oyashima]

It did.

The US Navy is now the most important branch of the entire US military, whether the USA recognizes it or not.

The future of the world is in Asia. The USAF and US Army are left languishing in Europe.

No it didnt. It didnt get Sea Control Ship or Global Objective Cruiser.

Or S K Y H O O K

[Gallia-]

It did.

The US Navy is now the most important branch of the entire US military, whether the USA recognizes it or not.

The future of the world is in Asia. The USAF and US Army are left languishing in Europe.

No it didnt. It didnt get Sea Control Ship or Global Objective Cruiser.

Or S K Y H O O K

Yeah it didn't get a shitty weakcarrier, an atomic powered atomic missile atomic blasting Death Star, or a shitty badcarrier.

Sad.

The only sad thing is it doesn't have a nuclear escort for the CVNs now. So nuclear propulsion's major speed advantage is totally negated.

[New Oyashima]

No it didnt. It didnt get Sea Control Ship or Global Objective Cruiser.

Or S K Y H O O K

Yeah it didn't get a shitty weakcarrier, an atomic powered atomic missile atomic blasting Death Star, or a shitty badcarrier.

Sad.

The only sad thing is it doesn't have a nuclear escort for the CVNs now. So nuclear propulsion's major speed advantage is totally negated.

> an atomic powered atomic missile atomic blasting Death Star

Yes pls

[Austrasien]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

It orphans the air superiority mission.

If you don't win the air, you don't win the war.

[Rhodesialund]

It's this kind of crap that made me put my nation under a single branch. No one can shift the blame when something goes wrong.

It's funny that you think that.

Do you think factionalism arises simply because of what the teams are called? That getting rid of the labels "Army," "Navy," and "Air Force" will magically eliminate factionalism and the scramble to exploit a limited resource (money)?

Inter-service rivalries are easy to spot but intra-service ones are just as bad. All you've done is change the team names and move the external rivalries in-house. Now, rather than having the "Air Force" battling the "Army" for money, you just have a bunch of air officers fighting a bunch of ground officers for money. Do you think fighter jocks will suddenly stop wanting more fighters just because they happen to wear the same uniform as the tankers? Or that they won't shift the blame to another faction when things go wrong? "Cover your ass" is a universal dictum in both the public and private sector and even schoolchildren instinctively know what it means and how to do it.

So far under the Navy I have it structured as such.

*Department of the Navy
**Actual Navy
**Fleet Air Arm
**Marines (Basically the Army but has dedicated Amphibious units)

The Department of the Navy would be like the Joint Chiefs/DoD. I made it out of the nation's previous maritime history stretching back to its colonial days in the 1600s to 1800s when it just acted as a massive shipyard/port for its master.

To this day, the Navy uses it's title (only in name) as a massive swinging dick and bragging rights as a fallback solution when they lose to the Fleet Air Arm or the Marines in its rivalry. "Yeah but... It's still under the department of the Navy!"

That about correct it for use?

[The Akasha Colony]

So far under the Navy I have it structured as such.

*Department of the Navy
**Actual Navy
**Fleet Air Arm
**Marines (Basically the Army but has dedicated Amphibious units)

The Department of the Navy would be like the Joint Chiefs/DoD. I made it out of the nation's previous maritime history stretching back to its colonial days in the 1600s to 1800s when it just acted as a massive shipyard/port for its master.

To this day, the Navy uses it's title (only in name) as a massive swinging dick and bragging rights as a fallback solution when they lose to the Fleet Air Arm or the Marines in its rivalry. "Yeah but... It's still under the department of the Navy!"

That about correct it for use?

It doesn't really "correct" anything, because there isn't anything to "correct." It doesn't matter to me what you choose to call your service branches.

What matters is the notion that rivalries arising from different perspectives and factionalism can magically be dispelled by just renaming a few things here and there and then just pretending that everyone will just get along.

Service branches exist for practical reasons and will continue to exist no matter what window dressing you give them, because an admiral on an aircraft carrier doesn't give two shits about a general who wants new rifles for his infantrymen. He wants to make sure his ships are properly maintained and that there are enough of them to accomplish his mission. And because promoting that admiral into a position where he will be able to make decisions that affect army procurement is a bad idea, because it's outside the range of his expertise. The obvious answer is to ensure that army men make decisions about army affairs and navy men make decisions about navy affairs, and congratulations, you've created service branches!

[Rhodesialund]

It doesn't really "correct" anything, because there isn't anything to "correct." It doesn't matter to me what you choose to call your service branches.

What matters is the notion that rivalries arising from different perspectives and factionalism can magically be dispelled by just renaming a few things here and there and then just pretending that everyone will just get along.

When I said correctly, I meant to fix the issue, clarify the separation of branches and then understood that there's always gonna be a bunch of folks that look out for themselves out of nature. I need to grammar more. xP


And understood. Still, has the inter-service rivalry just with window dressing as you mentioned.

[-Celibrae-]

I may have asked this question before, but is there any serious detriment to splitting the air force assets between the army and navy?

It orphans the air superiority mission.

If you don't win the air, you don't win the war.

Isn't a carrier-heavy navy quite proficient at OCA? Why not just expand its capabilities to include land-based aircraft?