I read and hear of all the new hi-tech systems that seem to drive our Military on all fronts.
While I like the advanced tech that our military enjoys I also worry that this reliance puts us into a very vulnerable position to actually engage the enemy for any length of time.

I watch TV and always seem to anticipate some kind of tech malfunction that will interrupt my viewing and force me to re-boot or start over. I then think of our military having to count on extremely complex systems that have to work together to function on a battle field, on the oceans, and in the air, maybe for years. I don't see that happening.

How useful are our planes and Ships without the elaborate electronics?

Could we actually be able to service and keep our cutting edge military running for an extended time?

What do we do when the electronics are out of order?

On an even playing field are we actually able to protect ourselves against the primitive foes we might face?

I guess I would like to see a mothball fleet that is ready to roll of old non tech military hardware like WWII ships and aircraft and munitions that don't relay on modern tech.
B'52 bombers dropping dumb bombs and battleships that can take a hit are what I imagine.

My inner voice doubts that we can support our forces when the Shit hits the fan after the "good stuff" breaks down and can't be serviced in a timely manner or ever again.
At that point we will be back to what our primitive enemy's have to wage war with, men with rifles on foot.
Too bad our military has even depleted our ammo manufacturing capabilities.

Color me WORRIED!

Without modern technology, an aircraft would likely get shot down by an enemy en route to the first target. A B-52 can survive only with support from more technologically advanced aircraft.

At some point the Hi-tech enemy would suffer the same problems as we would face with electronics failure making the "old school" war munitions and delivery systems viable.

A failed gulf state is hitting ships with land based cruise missiles. Russia has lost two AWACS planes this year. Tech is the only thing keeping us above water. Without it you are fielding targets.

There are many things that could be discussed in relation to the original question/premise, but this article goes into some detail about one: the accuracy of “dumb” bombing in World War II.

https://www.airandspaceforces....rticle/1008daylight/

Even with the supposed advantage of the fabled Norden bombsight, bombing accuracy in the daytime was terrible; at night it was understandably worse. And that’s when the bombs were released more or less in the target area. There were countless incidents in which large numbers of bombers dropped their ordnance on friendly troops or civilian areas far away from the intended target areas. The devastation inflicted during WWII was due to the huge numbers of bombers and huger numbers of bombs involved in the raids. When was the last time the US had 1000 (or more) bombers and swarms of escort aircraft available to attack a single target, and not only once, but time and again?

Now, however, our aerial weapons are precise enough to kill individuals by slicing them apart with no explosives at all.

But what if we had large numbers of various vehicles, ships, and aircraft mothballed awaiting their need? Where would all the crew and support personnel necessary to make them work come from? More than one military force has lost more effectiveness due to the attrition of competent personnel than the unavailability of the complex weapons themselves. One thing that’s mentioned in the book Rising ’44 by Norman Davies about the battle(s) for Warsaw, Poland, was that the Royal Air Force required a ground crew ratio of 100:1, and the German Luftwaffe of 80:1. (The Poles who flew for the RAF were remarkable in that their ratio was only 30:1.)

None of that is to suggest that I don’t have deep fears about the state of our military forces. I could express myself at length about that subject, and not just about the weapons. Far more serious is the fact that vast numbers of Americans believe that it’s okay for a county to be attacked and invaded by a murderous neighbor and that we shouldn’t send them the weapons (much less the people) to defend themselves. And no, I’m not referring only to Israel.

But in any event returning to the weaponry of 90 or even 60 years ago isn’t the answer to any of that.

quote:

Far more serious is the fact that vast numbers of Americans believe that it’s okay for a county to be attacked and invaded by a murderous neighbor and that we shouldn’t send them the weapons (much less the people) to defend themselves

+1

One problem with a high tech army is it takes longer to train replacement soldiers on how to use and maintain.

quote:

Originally posted by Anush:

quote:

Far more serious is the fact that vast numbers of Americans believe that it’s okay for a county to be attacked and invaded by a murderous neighbor and that we shouldn’t send them the weapons (much less the people) to defend themselves

+1

It's as if you guys haven't read and comprehended a single word from the other point of view. And nice Leftist tactics with the accusation of complicity. Hop over to the other thread about Ukraine and tell us again how we should just give the head dude over there a blank check in money and men because... FREEEDDDDOM!!!

I'd say the problem with high tech gear is you can't crank it out quickly and cheaply like low tech gear.

But I think the reality is we can't crank out anything, high tech or low tech. America's strength was our power of industry. The Civil War, WW1, WW2, all won because of industrial might.

Industrial might that by and large, we gave away.

And not just to anyone, but to someone we'd recently fought two wars against.

Which is kind of hard to believe, that you'd give your biggest weapon away to your enemy.

So where does the money for these high tech weapons come from? Well.. it really doesn't, we just keep getting deeper in debt. And who owns most of that debt? That same enemy. Ohh... what's the worst that could happen?

Here's my take on it. It depends on your POV. You look at your available resources: Tech and People. Which do you have an abundance of and which do you value more?

If you don't have much tech and people are cheap, you throw what have more of and cheaper at any conflict to fix it. That's what the US is facing with third world countries and, to a certain extent, China. They have plenty of people to throw into an armed conflict.

The US have an aversion to seeing its young people die and we do have plenty of tech. So that's what we go with.

I think if we just look at something killing all of our tech then the answer is understanding the stuff that came before it. I know how to read maps and I'm very good day or night with a compass but I prefer a handheld or vehicle GPS. If it fails I can easily fall back on my other skills.

My concern is the higher levels of automation where there are literally no physical controls to override in an emergency. No thank you.

quote:

Originally posted by fischtown7:
One problem with a high tech army is it takes longer to train replacement soldiers on how to use and maintain.

Excellent point.

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I watch TV and always seem to anticipate some kind of tech malfunction that will interrupt my viewing and force me to re-boot or start over.

What? How do you build a TV viewing setup that is this unstable?

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I watch TV and always seem to anticipate some kind of tech malfunction that will interrupt my viewing and force me to re-boot or start over.

What? How do you build a TV viewing setup that is this unstable?

He might be using Army Surplus. That sounds like WIN-T during a VTC.

quote:

Originally posted by Georgeair:

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
I watch TV and always seem to anticipate some kind of tech malfunction that will interrupt my viewing and force me to re-boot or start over.

What? How do you build a TV viewing setup that is this unstable?

Well, many viewing options these days involve Internet connectivity. If your connectivity is spotty, some viewers will get wedged and one simple way to unwedge things it reboot them. This is not the only way, and often not the best way, but it is a simple way understood by many.

There's a reason we have back up iron sights. Technology can and will fail occasionally.

quote:

Originally posted by marksman41:
It's as if you guys haven't read and comprehended a single word from the other point of view. And nice Leftist tactics with the accusation of complicity. Hop over to the other thread about Ukraine and tell us again how we should just give the head dude over there a blank check in money and men because... FREEEDDDDOM!!!

Without going into the politics of it, there is a lot to be distressed about in the way we as Americans talk about the Ukrainian situation. On one side, if you don’t support emptying the treasury to fight the Ukrainian’s war for them, then you’re some right winger who can’t wait to lick Putin’s boots. On the other side, if you do support the idea of aiding the Ukrainians, then you are some left wingnut who is dead set of funding the horribly corrupt regime in the Ukraine and lining the pockets of a bunch of corrupt pieces of fecal matter in Washington who are getting kickbacks by the truckload out of every bit of aid we send.

It is possible that both sides have some point, but it seems to be lost under the hyperbole.

It would sure be nice if we could have rational discussions about the many problems we face in the US, the various resources we have to address those problems, and where our priorities are in allocating those resources. Maybe it would be great to aid the Ukrainians, but our limited resources are better spent securing our own border, providing opportunities that cause our youth to enter gainful employment and embark on entrepreneurial ventures rather than playing with drugs and thug gangs, and dealing with other internal issues. Maybe the best help we can give the Ukrainians is to help them negotiate a peace that doesn’t result in an entire generation of their people being killed off. I don’t know what the right answers are, but I am pretty confident that the way that we (on both sides) are screaming at each other across a canyon without listening and trying to understand what the other side is really saying makes it extremely unlikely that we’ll come to an optimal solution. Of course this applies to pretty much all of our political discourse at this time. I wish I knew how to fix that.

quote:

Originally posted by Lunasee:
There's a reason we have back up iron sights. Technology can and will fail occasionally.

There is redundancy built into 5th Gen fighter jets, but there is no manual/hydraulic backup for fly-by-wire flight controls.

quote:

Originally posted by armored:
How useful are our planes and Ships without the elaborate electronics?

They're fine. Plenty of redundancy built-in.
GPS Jamming Of U.K. Defense Secretary’s Jet Highlights Russia’s Regional EW Activities

quote:

Could we actually be able to service and keep our cutting edge military running for an extended time?

Depends...the 'near-peer fight' and 'Pivot to the Pacific' has been the top defense subject mater for nearly 20-years, however this year's defense budget is flat compared to last year and if you take into account inflation, its $1b under. There are very little Congressional members who could compare to defense allies like T.Roosevelt, Nunn, Goldwater, Stennis, Vinson, Lehman, even Warner and McCain.

quote:

What do we do when the electronics are out of order?

Compasses, sextants and print maps.

quote:

On an even playing field are we actually able to protect ourselves against the primitive foes we might face?

Primitive, as in the constant guerrilla action we dealt with in Afghanistan and Iraq?

quote:

I guess I would like to see a mothball fleet that is ready to roll of old non tech military hardware like WWII ships and aircraft and munitions that don't relay on modern tech.
B'52 bombers dropping dumb bombs and battleships that can take a hit are what I imagine.

Mothballing a fleet is a nice idea when you have a surplus of ships with life still left in their hulls and something like Korean War kicks off. What's anchored around Pearl Harbor, James River, Philadelphia, Beaumont, and Suisun has shrunken dramatically due to corrosion and general decay. Today, other than the LCS', ships are used hard and either scrapped or, used for weapons exercises, their engineering is worn out, their hulls are battered and the cost AND time to modernize or, bring up-to-date would take up more resources than to build a new one.

The bigger issue facing our military is what is behind the front-line battle force? Our steel industry is far from what it was, which also dovetails with our ship building industry. Every ship project the Navy has currently funded, is behind schedule by at least a year, much of it due to the problems of the shipyards inability to attract and retain workers. We're unable to build fast even if we wanted to, which is going to be a problem when the submarine selling-portion of the AUKUS treaty comes up. This also affects repair work, the USS Boise SSN-764 hasn't been deployed for SEVEN years because of shipyard shortages and other ship priorities...imagine being assigned to a ship that never deployed for the entire length of your contract? If you're the Captain, are you one of the lucky few who gets command of a nuclear attack-boat or, is there a message being sent that you got assigned to a boat that is welded to their pier?

quote:

Originally posted by Rey HRH:
Here's my take on it. It depends on your POV. You look at your available resources: Tech and People. Which do you have an abundance of and which do you value more?

If you don't have much tech and people are cheap, you throw what have more of and cheaper at any conflict to fix it. That's what the US is facing with third world countries and, to a certain extent, China. They have plenty of people to throw into an armed conflict.

The US have an aversion to seeing its young people die and we do have plenty of tech. So that's what we go with.

Yes but it won't work. I've said it before many times in this forum. The enemy will send untold volumes of cheap munitions our way, and we will use one 2 million dollar missile to shoot down each and every one of their cheap ass rockets. Then we'll run out of 2 million dollar missiles and 20 million dollar drones, and eventually we will run completely out of high tech munitions shooting down all their cheap shit. Then the enemy will open their next box of cheap munitions, and bomb the hell out of us, and then we will lose key battles because all our best stuff has run out and blown up and sunk. And because we don't have large stocks of conventional munitions and weapons systems to fight our enemies shooting down all their cheap ass munitions and destroying all their punk ass weapons systems, we will run out of bullets, so to speak, right as the enemy is opening up their second box of cheap shit. And then we will start compromising our war plans and losing key battles because we're running out of million dollar bullets. I heard a couple weeks ago the British were shooting down gasoline driven drones and rockets with 2 million dollar guided missiles. I don't think we're any smarter than they are. General Jack Keane understands this, I heard him allude to this aspect of war after Russia began the invasion of Ukraine. You can see it coming. We don't have enough high tech materiel to fight against all our enemies in the Middle East, China, and the Russians. And the complete and total stupidity of relying solely on extremely expensive high tech munitions and weapons systems is fucking asinine in my mind. It's a ticking time bomb. Our enemies know this, but unfortunately we don't. To me it's common sense, but this line of common sense isn't common at all in the US, Capital Hill, or the Pentagon. Isn't it ironic that by putting ALL our fucking eggs in high tech bullets, we are writing our own epitaph since the only thing we will have left is millions of boxes of 9mm harball, and Intercontinental Nuclear Ballistic Missles. Yea that's the ticket, we always have those as a last resort. Unfortunately we could easily avoid the last resort with a little more fucking ass common sense.