Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin

[daftandbarmy]

Pentagon Fears It’s Not Ready for a War With Putin

The U.S. military has run the numbers on a sustained fight with Moscow, and they do not look good for the American side.

A series of classified exercises over the summer has raised concerns inside the Defense Department that its forces are not prepared for a sustained military campaign against Russia, two defense officials told The Daily Beast.

Many within the military believe that 15 years of counter-terrorism warfare has left the ground troops ill prepared to maintain logistics or troop levels should Russia make an advance on NATO allies, the officials said.

Among the challenges the exercises revealed were that the number of precision-guided munitions available across the force were short of the war plans and it would be difficult to sustain a large troop presence.
“Could we probably beat the Russians today [in a sustained battle]? Sure, but it would take everything we had,” one defense official said. “What we are saying is that we are not as ready as we want to be.”

One classified “tabletop exercise” or “TTX”—a kind of in-office war game—“told us that the wars [in Iraq and Afghanistan] have depleted our sustainment capability,” a second defense official explained, using military jargon for the ability to maintain a fight. The exercise was led by the Department of Defense and involved several other federal agencies.

In recent months, the top officers of the military have begun to call Putin’s Russia an “existential threat” to the United States. The results of those exercises—and Russian-backed forces’ latest advance in Ukraine—didn’t exactly tamp down those fears.

But these concerns about readiness and sustainability are not universally held—not even inside the Pentagon. Nor is there a consensus about the kind of risk Putin's Russia really poses. Everyone in the U.S. security establishment acknowledges that Moscow has roughly 4,000 nuclear weapons, the world’s third-largest military budget, and an increasingly bellicose leader. There’s little agreement on how likely that threat could be.

“A war between Russian and NATO is an unlikely scenario given the severe repercussions Russia would face. In addition to the overwhelming reaction it would provoke, Russia’s aging military equipment and strained logistical capabilities make a successful offensive attack a very difficult proposition for them,” one U.S. intelligence official told The Daily Beast. “In short, direct conflict with Russia is a low-probability, high-risk situation. The challenge of Putin’s erratic leadership is that low-probability events are slightly more probable.”

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/14/pentagon-fears-it-s-not-ready-for-a-war-with-putin.html?via=mobile&source=facebook

 

[GR66]

In reading this I'm reminded of a quote from the old Gwynne Dyer documentary series "War".  In one of the episodes he says something like "the next war will be 'come as you are'".

The quote was from the 80's, but I've often wondered about how much more true it seems to be getting as our weapon system become more and more complex and expensive (and fewer in quantity as a result).  Each of the previous major conflicts has seen a technological revolution in weapons as the war has progressed.  WWI brought us mass artillery, aircraft, tanks, submarines, machine guns, and chemical weapons.  WWII brought tanks and trucks capable of rapid maneuver warfare, jet aircraft, radar, aircraft carriers, sonar, ballistic missiles and atomic weapons. 

In both cases these advances were done in the midst of general war and in the case of WWII both Britain, and especially Germany, they were able to develop highly advanced weapons and produce them (and even increase levels of production) in the face of massive strategic bombing.

Would we be able to do the same thing now, in the face of a conventional war between the great powers?  Have the weapons become so complex and the components and materials required to produce them so specialized that we would not be able to ramp up production of existing weapons and add in even more improved versions in the midst of a major confict?  Vehicles and aircraft now take month to produce in special facilities with highly trained and specialized workers.  Ships take years to design and build.  At the same time our manufacturing base has been hollowed out and outsourced and our pool if skilled technical workers replaced by office and service workers.

Was Gwynne Dyer right in the 80's and (for the West at least) will the next war be a "come as you are" affair?  If the conflict lasts longer than the stocks of precision munitions, the reactive armour, replacement parts for advanced sensors, etc, will we be forced to start fielding LESS advanced weapons and vehicles because either the specialized facilities to produce these items have been destroyed/damaged, or production can't keep up with expenditures? 

What does that mean for highly specialized systems like the F-35?  If the whole design of the aircraft is based on the idea of sensor superiority and domination of the enemy in beyond visual range engagements, what happens when we run out of BVR missiles and the techs can no longer keep the advanced sensor integration systems working and the aircraft are forced to rely on their own sensors and short-range missiles? (for the record I'm not an anti-F35 crusader...I do think that of the available aircraft it's likely the best choice for Canada...just wondering what the implications of trading quantity for quality to such a large degree as seems to be happening).

How does any of this factor into how we in Canada view the structure of our military and our reserves?  If it appears that we're more likely to run out of weapons and equipment before we run out of people then might that change how we choose to organize ourselves?  If simply keeping a Brigade Group equipped to fight in combat will be an industrial and logistical effort then should we even be dreaming about the idea of Divisional organizations, or do we organize in a way geared toward deploying a smaller force but being able to keep it in action? 

Do we worry if our Armoured Recce reserves don't have access to the same advanced vehicles as the Regs or that the Artillery reserves don't have access to Guns if by the time they get deployed to the field we're only likely to have access to light vehicles and mortars because the advanced equipment has already been destroyed?

Sorry...a bit of a ramble but something I've always wondered about when running hypotheticals through my head.  Canada in particular in my mind could fall victim to this due to our very limited military spending which appears to be spread so thinly across our various capabilities that none of them appear to have much depth or great sustainability.

 

[tomahawk6]

Every war we have fought has been come as you are.I agree with the article that a war with Russia is remote at best.Our big problem in the US is modernization of equipment.We need a follow on to Abrams for example.We need to need to replace so called legacy equipment and aircraft which will be slow going on reduced defense budgets.The Army will be third in line for funds,call us the red headed step child of national defense. :camo:

 

[GR66]

You're right that every war is a "come as you are" war.  But in every modern, industrial war the army at the end of the conflict (the winning army at least) seems to be equipped with more advanced weapons than at the start of the conflict.

My question is, have weapons become so complex and so expensive that we will not be able to repeat that in the next general conflict. 

If the US starts the next conflict with F-35 fighters, M1A2 tanks and Ticonderoga Class cruisers (and Canada with F-35s, Leopard 2A4s and CSC's) do we still have the industrial capability to end the conflict with a 6th Generation Fighter, a radical new tank design and laser/rail gun equipped warships? 

Are the facilities/companies that are capable of producing these things so few that it's much easier to target and neutralize them than in the past (I recall reading that German aircraft production actually increased toward the end of the war despite massive strategic bombing efforts by the Allies due to their ability to disperse production) and does the time required to produce these complex weapons mean that we simply can't produce them fast enough to replace loses during a conflict?

If this is true, then what implications does that have on how we plan for the next conflict?  Do our possible opponents (Russia or China) face a similar challenge, or are they actually better situated to fight a long conflict due to their less advanced weapon types?

I'm curious about what more thoughtful and experienced people than I have to say on the topic.

 

[jollyjacktar]

You're right that every war is a "come as you are" war.  But in every modern, industrial war the army at the end of the conflict (the winning army at least) seems to be equipped with more advanced weapons than at the start of the conflict.

My question is, have weapons become so complex and so expensive that we will not be able to repeat that in the next general conflict. 

If the US starts the next conflict with F-35 fighters, M1A2 tanks and Ticonderoga Class cruisers (and Canada with F-35s, Leopard 2A4s and CSC's) do we still have the industrial capability to end the conflict with a 6th Generation Fighter, a radical new tank design and laser/rail gun equipped warships? 

Are the facilities/companies that are capable of producing these things so few that it's much easier to target and neutralize them than in the past (I recall reading that German aircraft production actually increased toward the end of the war despite massive strategic bombing efforts by the Allies due to their ability to disperse production) and does the time required to produce these complex weapons mean that we simply can't produce them fast enough to replace loses during a conflict?

If this is true, then what implications does that have on how we plan for the next conflict?  Do our possible opponents (Russia or China) face a similar challenge, or are they actually better situated to fight a long conflict due to their less advanced weapon types?

I'm curious about what more thoughtful and experienced people than I have to say on the topic.

You can also throw in the personnel who'll be manning, flying or maintaining these advanced weapons systems.  They don't grow on trees or come out of factories either and are a finite source.

 

[YZT580]

Stalin resolved this same issue by sending in the lesser trained and lesser equipped people first to absorb the initial assault and reveal the enemy's positions.  Only then were the fellows with the actual weapons turned loose.  Russian tactics haven't really changed much.

Either we chose the above route or:Israel had to slow down in both the Yom Kippur and Six Day wars to allow logistics to catch up.  Open the panel on a C130 and identify the parts not made in North America.  Those systems will be the ones that we will either husband carefully or have to do without. I suspect the F35 features even more foreign participation.  IMHO The next war will start with sophisticated weapons and end up with whatever is made locally.  In WW2 18 U.S. shipyards cranked out over 2500 liberty ships.  In Canada local shipyards built 278 ships of varying descriptions.  They were simple to build and relatively cheap which made them expendable resources.  Because they were simple, training people to operate them was also simple and didn't require a lot of time.  They too were expendable provided enough got through to keep the war machine running.   

 

[CombatDoc]

Every war we have fought has been come as you are.I agree with the article that a war with Russia is remote at best.Our big problem in the US is modernization of equipment.We need a follow on to Abrams for example.We need to need to replace so called legacy equipment and aircraft which will be slow going on reduced defense budgets.The Army will be third in line for funds,call us the red headed step child of national defense. :camo:

At least the USA will be third in line, unlike the USMC who will be fourth in line!

 

[Underway]

You're right that every war is a "come as you are" war.  But in every modern, industrial war the army at the end of the conflict (the winning army at least) seems to be equipped with more advanced weapons than at the start of the conflict.

My question is, have weapons become so complex and so expensive that we will not be able to repeat that in the next general conflict. 

If the US starts the next conflict with F-35 fighters, M1A2 tanks and Ticonderoga Class cruisers (and Canada with F-35s, Leopard 2A4s and CSC's) do we still have the industrial capability to end the conflict with a 6th Generation Fighter, a radical new tank design and laser/rail gun equipped warships? 

Are the facilities/companies that are capable of producing these things so few that it's much easier to target and neutralize them than in the past (I recall reading that German aircraft production actually increased toward the end of the war despite massive strategic bombing efforts by the Allies due to their ability to disperse production) and does the time required to produce these complex weapons mean that we simply can't produce them fast enough to replace loses during a conflict?

If this is true, then what implications does that have on how we plan for the next conflict?  Do our possible opponents (Russia or China) face a similar challenge, or are they actually better situated to fight a long conflict due to their less advanced weapon types?

I'm curious about what more thoughtful and experienced people than I have to say on the topic.

People forget what total war does.  If the industrial capacity isn't there to start it will be by the end.  For example there is no reason that we can't build electronics here in Canada like they do in Taiwan, except for cost.  As a matter of fact we actually have all the resources here to do it (including the rare earth metals) but its just to expensive to mine/fabricate in Canada.

Currently peacetime production is nowhere near what a wartime production line would look like and the resources thrown into building and making wartime equipment.  Sure some stuff might go back to old school tech but there will be a lot of newer stuff that could be made more simply or just as easily.

You never know....

 

[tomahawk6]

People forget what total war does.  If the industrial capacity isn't there to start it will be by the end.  For example there is no reason that we can't build electronics here in Canada like they do in Taiwan, except for cost.  As a matter of fact we actually have all the resources here to do it (including the rare earth metals) but its just to expensive to mine/fabricate in Canada.

Currently peacetime production is nowhere near what a wartime production line would look like and the resources thrown into building and making wartime equipment.  Sure some stuff might go back to old school tech but there will be a lot of newer stuff that could be made more simply or just as easily.

You never know....

Quite right about wartime production.If you notice though most high intensity conflicts are of short duration so there wont be time to produce much more than whats in the pipeline.The only caveat are the low intensity asymetrical operations where we are fighting a low tech enemy that is fighting without armor and air support.

 

[George Wallace]

.......... but its just to expensive to mine/fabricate in Canada.

In peacetime, businesses are profit orientated, so they will set up where they have the cheapest labour force, using the cheapest minerals/materials on the markets.

In wartime, businesses will shift into survival mode like the rest of the nation, and cheap labour slides in importance.  This is not saying the manufacture of arms is not profitable, but to say that facilities that lay outside of their nation are susceptible to being captured and lost to the business.  For the business to survive, it will have to return to its home nation and restructure.  We saw Canadian industry gear up in both World Wars, relying solely on Canadian resources.  The expense of mining our mineral resources was/will be greatly reduced.