- Reaction score
- 28,744
- Points
- 1,090
Not an either / or.
You really think the US has no gaps in capabilities? It may have all capabilities but there are many shortfalls.The next question being, what obvious gaps are there, and who has them? If our most likely partners have few to no gaps, what next?
You really think the US has no gaps in capabilities? It may have all capabilities but there are many shortfalls.
They also have gaps in traditional capabilities. They are short in stand off precision weapons, SEAD platforms, AAR and many more (just on the air side). Many of our allies are short in Strategic Transport (we lent the French our C-17s when they deployed to Mali). I really think that if we want to invited to the show, we need to bring more than what is already available in large numbers.The biggest gaps are in weapons that have never seen the light of day previously. Hypersonics. Long Range UAVs and Precision Fires. Space. Cyber. Electronics. Their own assymetric weapons systems. Not just using traditional weapons in a novel way but finding novel weapons to permit novel attacks.
You really think the US has no gaps in capabilities?
Why? (And I don’t agree they are hyper specialized niche but rather, extensions to existing capabilities)If everything is on the table, I'm sure it has gaps. Doesn't seem very sensible to give up trying to maintain balanced forces in order to fill any of the hyper-specialized niches.
Canada could help the US reinforce its GBA+ advisor corps.You really think the US has no gaps in capabilities? It may have all capabilities but there are many shortfalls.
They also have gaps in traditional capabilities. Like victory.
It has excellent uses. Just as an aside, the training facilities for the Idaho and Montana National Guard's 116th Cavalry BCT (basically a heavy combined arms ABCT) are about one quarter of the size of Suffield. - Just saying.Suffield has many characteristics that point to it as the training area of the future. It is eminently suitable for armoured warfare training, so polluted that we can’t really ever give it up, and is currently operated by a British Army that seems less enthusiastic about the facility than it used to be. Training area does not necessarily have to equal garrison location — but Medicine Hat seems to have reasonable housing costs. Is Suffield the place where we should double down as an army? Or does it too, have deep flaws?
It has excellent uses. Just as an aside, the training facilities for the Idaho and Montana National Guard's 116th Cavalry BCT (basically a heavy combined arms ABCT) are about one quarter of the size of Suffield. - Just saying.
Doesn't seem very sensible to give up trying to maintain balanced forces in order to fill any of the hyper-specialized niches.
Or maintain a more expensive multi-purpose force that equally doesn’t get used very often in deployed operations.Expensive toys that don't get taken out of the closet very often will be difficult to sell the politicians on.
Air DefenceThe main gaps/shortfalls in capabilities on the NATO end as I have understood over the years are
AAR-buy the 5/6 Airbus 330mrtt
RAS-procure another Protecteur class ship and call it Provider
MPA- buy the requisite number of P8's (15?)
ISR- globaleye?