Thread: RAND Corp wargames: U.S. loses to combined Russia/China forces

RAND Corp wargames: U.S. loses to combined Russia/China forces

Our sixteen-year "holidays from history" came at a huge price.

March 10, 2019
By Chriss Street

The RAND Corporation’s annual ‘Red on Blue’ wargame simulation found that the United States would be a loser in a conventional confrontation with Russia and China.
The RAND Corporation think tank in Santa Monica, California has hosted annual “Red on Blue” wargame simulations since 1952. The exercise purpose is to understand how the United States represented by ‘Blue’ can counter ‘Red’ adversaries. By modeling how adversaries could use of asymmetric strategies or weapons, Pentagon planners are forced to deal with unfamiliar threats. The goal is educating the military on how to formulate strategies for training and response for emerging threats and capabilities.
But RAND analyst David Ochmanek told the Breaking Defense that with Blue representing the current U.S. military capabilities and Red representing the combined capabilities of Russia and China in a conventional war, “Blue gets its ass handed to it.”
RAND’s ‘America’s Security Deficit’ released on March 7 found that despite spending $700 billion a year on an array of superweapons including stealth aircraft and 1,100-foot carriers, the U.S. forces “suffer heavy losses in one scenario after another and still can’t stop Russia or China" from overrunning U.S. allies in the Baltics or Taiwan.
To counter President Reagan’s increase in U.S. defense spending to 5 percent of GDP in the 1980s to fund the launch of his Strategic Defense Initiative, the Soviet Union spiked defense spending to 20% of GDP. With the USSR suffering a financial collapse in 1991, the U.S. military was rated as omnipotent.

President Clinton declared a “peace dividend” to cut spending back to 4 percent of GDP, but the 9/11 terrorist bombing of the World Trade Center and subsequent Middle East wars through the 2000s pushed defense spending back up. President Obama approved plans to build 10 of the 1,106-foot long Ford-class aircraft carriers, with carrier designated CVN-81 to begin construction in 2024 as the USS Barack Obama.
RAND highlights that the post-Cold War expansion of NATO to include former Warsaw Pact members in Eastern Europe and Baltic States created undefined U.S. security obligations. Coupled with China’s economic success funding a rapid offensive military modernization, America now faces “vulnerabilities in U.S. power-projection capabilities.”
Many of the U.S. high-tech weapons systems acquired over the last two decades have value. But weapons deployed to big land bases and giant aircraft carriers are now vulnerable to Russian and Chinese advances in long-range precision-guided missiles.
Former Deputy Secretary of Defense Robert Work, who has decades of RAND wargaming experience, recently warned: “In every case I know of, the F-35 rules the sky when it’s in the sky, but it gets killed on the ground in large numbers.”
Work cautioned: “Whenever we have an exercise and the Red Force really destroys our command and control, we stop the exercise” because it is exceedingly difficult to lead from a command post with blank screens and radio static.
RAND’s Ochmanek identifies the growing “Red” arsenals of “smart” weapons as an existential threat to “things that rely on sophisticated base infrastructure like runways and fuel tanks are going to have a hard time.” Regarding the wisdom of building $13 billion carriers, “Things that sail on the surface of the sea are going to have a hard time.”
The RAND study also found that huge Army supply bases and the 58 NATO Brigade Combat Teams across Europe are virtually undefended from cruise missiles, drones, and helicopters, “because the Army largely got rid of its mobile anti-aircraft troops.”
The RAND study specifically focus on the need to invest about $24 billion in missiles. to shoot down ‘Red’ offensive missiles, aircraft, and drones. A short-term fix would include buying lots of the Army’s new Maneuver Short-Range Air Defense (MSHORAD) batteries -- Stinger missiles mounted on Stryker armored vehicles. The long-term response requires investment in lasers, railguns, and high-powered microwaves to shoot down incoming missiles.
RAND complimented the Trump administration’s 2020 defense budget proposal that plans a decades-early retirement of the USS Harry Truman carrier and cuts two amphibious landing ships. Money is being reinvested in ground-based air and missile defenses, plus the rollout of Marine Corps F-35 jump-jets that can take off from tiny ad hoc airstrips.

Follow us: @AmericanThinker on Twitter | AmericanThinker on Facebook

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...na_forces.html

I was just about to post this!

U.S. "Gets Its Ass Handed To It" In World War III Simulation: RAND

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...imulation-rand

Originally Posted by ALIPAC

I was just about to post this!

U.S. "Gets Its Ass Handed To It" In World War III Simulation: RAND


https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-...imulation-rand

Facebook blocked this; they said it violated community standards

• Tank Terror: Why the U.S. Army's 'New' M1 Abrams Tank Is A Monster on the Battlefield

Russia and China won't like this one bit.
by Kris Osborn


(Washington, D.C.) Should a mechanized column of heavily armored Russian vehicles launch an aggressive, forward-leaning assault into Eastern Europe 10 years from now, complete with air and artillery support - - just what kinds of specific armored vehicles would best position a US/NATO response?

Such a scenario, however likely, incorporates some of the complexities now informing current Army thinking. How much can current platforms, such as the 1980s-era Abrams tank, be upgraded and maintained such that they can provide the requisite force, protection and firepower to meet such a contingency? -- Both now and 15 years from now? To what extent would the Army’s emerging fleet of Next-Generation Combat Vehicles be better equipped to respond?

The Army’s most pressing priority, senior leaders explain, is to be ready for war “now” -- “today” -- and in the immediate future.

“One of our biggest challenges is to continue to upgrade our current platforms for anything we may go to war with today at the same time making sure we put the proper investments into our future abilities - so we are ready for the fight after next,” Maj. Gen. Brian Cummings, Program Executive Officer, Ground Combat Systems, told Warrior Maven in an interview a few months ago.

The thinking is characterized by two intertwined, yet distinct trajectories; future planning is dominated by a need for lighter-weight, expeditionary armored vehicles protected by long-range sensors, advanced fires and Active Protection Systems; the Army has already integrated an APS system called Trophy onto its Abrams vehicles. In this mix of technologies, survivability rests upon the prospect of lightweight armor composites, APS, long range fires, sensors and air defenses.

While promising, relevant and fundamental to modernization, these priorities do not seem to displace a corresponding need for heavy armor. In short, both are essential to the future, which means the Abrams tank -- is most-likely going nowhere soon.

The Army’s behavior seems to reflect this dual-pronged approach, as the service is deeply invested in both future vehicles and substantial upgrades to the Abrams.

When it comes to potential future warfare scenarios, it’s clear that lighter-weight, expeditionary firepower such as the Army’ Mobile Protected Firepower vehicle are entirely necessary to support advancing infantry. However, there may be state-on-state combat contingencies far too dangerous for maneuvering infantry to lead an assault. In this case, heavily protected armored vehicles, equipped with precision long-range fires and advanced sensors, might prove indispensable to the fight.

To put it succinctly, today’s Abrams is nothing like it was decades ago. In fact, one could safely say its sensors, firepower and current protection make it almost an entirely new vehicle is some respects. Along these lines, the Army is working on a new SEP v4 variant, slated to begin testing in 2021, specifically engineered as a “lethality” upgrade.

The new tank will include new laser rangefinder technology, color cameras, integrated on-board networks, new slip-rings, advanced meteorological sensors, ammunition data links, laser warning receivers and a far more lethal, multi-purpose 120mm tank round, senior Army weapons developers have explained.
The US Army’s Multi-Purpose 120mm tank round, to arm the v4, is now being engineered to integrate several different kinds of ammunition into a single, tailorable round -- to include High Explosive Anti -Tank rounds, Multi-Purpose Anti-Tank rounds and anti-personnel canister rounds, among others.

The SEPv4 upgrade is, among other things, centered around the integration of a higher-tech 3rd generation FLIR – Forward Looking Infrared imaging sensor.

The advanced FLIR uses higher resolution and digital imaging along with an increased ability to detect enemy signatures at farther ranges through various obscurants such as rain, dust or fog, Army developers explain. Improved FLIR technologies help tank crews better recognize light and heat signatures emerging from targets such as enemy sensors, electronic signals or enemy vehicles.

Thermal targeting sights, as demonstrated during the now famous Gulf War tank battles including Abrams tanks against Russian-built T-72, can create range mismatches enabling tanks to destroy enemy tanks without themselves being seen.

Regarding a need for heavy armor, there is of course also the importance of countering the Russian T-14 Armata -- a new platform armed with now-in-development 3UBK21 Sprinter Missiles and long range 9M119 Reflecks armor-piercing rounds, according to details provided in a 2018 report from Popular Mechanics’ Kyle Mizokami.

Furthermore, not only will the Abrams v4 improve range and lethality of the tanks main gun, but it will also bring long-range laser detection and rear-view sensors. Newly configured meteorological sensors will better enable Abrams tanks to anticipate and adapt to changing weather or combat conditions more quickly, Army officials explain.

The emerging M1A2 SEP v4 will also be configured with a new slip-ring leading to the turret and on-board ethernet switch to reduce the number of needed “boxes” by networking sensors to one another in a single vehicle.

The Army is also engineering new AI-enabled Hostile Fire Detection sensors for its fleet Abrams tanks to identify, track and target incoming enemy small arms fire. This might enable forward maneuvering infantry and Armored Brigade Combat Teams to benefit from both heavy armored protection and ISR-like enemy- locating sensors. Such sensors, now being prototyped and experimented with, can include thermal sensors able to locate the "heat signature" coming from enemy small arms fire, acoustic sensors tracking the sound or even some kind of focal plane array, service engineers explain.

Potential integration between HFD and Active Protection Systems is also part of the calculus, according to senior weapons developers. APS technology, now on Army Abrams tanks, uses sensors, fire control technology and interceptors to ID and knock out incoming RPGs and ATGMs, among other things. While APS, in concept and application, involves threats larger or more substantial than things like small arms fire, there is great combat utility in synching APS to HFD.

The advantages of this kind of interoperability are multi-faceted. Given that RPGs and ATGMs are often fired from the same location as enemy small arms fire, an ability to track one, the other, or both in real time greatly improves targeting possibilities. This kind of initiative is entirely consistent with ongoing Army efforts to work toward more capable, multi-function sensors. The idea is to have a merged or integrated smaller hardware footprint, coupled with advanced sensing technology, able to perform a wide range of tasks historically performed by multiple separate on-board systems.

The overall current picture could well be summarized in one sentence - spoken by a senior Army combat vehicles developer last Fall:

"I have no requirements for a replacement tank."
Kris Osborn is a Senior Fellow at The Lexington Institute .
Osborn previously served at the Pentagon as a Highly Qualified Expert with the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the Army - Acquisition, Logistics& Technology. Osborn has also worked as an anchor and on-air military specialist at national TV networks. He has a Masters Degree in Comparative Literature from Columbia University. https://nationalinterest.org/blog/bu...tlefield-46702

December 4, 2018
Meet the Navy's 5 Super Weapons of the Future (Think Stealth, Hypersonic Weapons and More)

Here are five key systems that will give the U.S. Navy an edge well into the 21st Century.

by Michael Peck

The U.S. Navy has been the most powerful naval force in the world since 1943. But that supremacy is being challenged as Russia, and especially China, field ever-more sophisticated systems, including aircraft carriers, quiet submarines and hypersonic missiles.

Navies that don’t evolve are doomed to defeat, and America is no exception. But the U.S. Navy has a plethora of new equipment on the drawing boards, the shipyards and the factories.

Here are five key systems that will give the U.S. Navy an edge well into the 21 st Century.

1. Ford-class aircraft carriers:
Technically, Ford-class carriers are not a future weapon: the first ship in the series, the eponymous USS Gerald R. Ford, was launched in 2013 and commissioned in 2017. But it won't sail on its first operational deployment until at least 2020, and it will be followed by two more ships.

These are the largest aircraft carriers in the world, 100,000-ton behemoths bigger even the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered carriers that are the current backbone of U.S. naval power. With a price tag of more than $13 billion each, these vessels are not cheap, but they are powerful. They have an air wing of 90 aircraft, some of which will likely be unmanned aircraft someday.

Compared to the Nimitz carriers, the Fords have better sensors, a more sophisticated catapult launch system, and more powerful nuclear reactors that can supply triple the voltage of older carriers.

2. Columbia-class ballistic missile submarine:
The Columbia-class subs will replace the Cold War Ohio-class vessels, with the first sub slated to begin construction in 2021. Like the Ohios, the Columbias will carry Trident II nuclear missiles, though 16 rather than 20 missiles (note that even with 16 tubes, a single Columbia could pretty much destroy Russia and China as advanced societies). The nuclear-powered Columbias will be stealthier than their predecessors, with a quiet electric-drive propulsion system.

3. Hypersonic missiles :

Exactly what these missiles will look like, and what they'll do, remains to be determined. But just like Russia and China -- or prompted by Russian and Chinese hypersonic -- the U.S. Navy will be getting hypersonic missiles (defined as rockets that travel at Mach 5 or faster).

The Navy recently awarded a $13 million contract to develop guidance systems for hypersonic weapons fired from Columbia-class submarines. Most likely, the Navy's hypersonics will be some sort of boost-glide vehicle, where a missile -- Russia uses ICBMs as boosters -- lofts a glider high into the atmosphere but short of outer space, where it glides down on to its target at a terrifying speed (as fast as Mach 20) that makes them hard to intercept. These may be strategic weapons that can destroy key enemy installations, or tactical ship-killers, but they will transform naval warfare.

4. Large Surface Combatant:
The U.S. Navy's Cold War ships, such as the Aegis cruisers and Burke-class destroyers, are aging and will need to be replaced. Those replacements will fall under the Navy's Large Surface Combatant program, a family of vessels that includes a large ship that resembles a cruiser and a destroyer, a smaller frigate-like design, and unmanned vessels. Exactly what these ships will look like remains to be determined, but instead of the familiar missiles and guns, expect to see exotic 21st-Century weapons such as electromagnetic naval artillery and laser anti-missile defense.

5. Sixth-generation fighters:
Even as the Navy struggles to digest its new fifth-generation F-35 fighters. it's thinking about the sixth generation (as it should, because modern jets take decades to develop).

The most controversial question will be whether the Navy will opt for an unmanned aircraft instead of one with a human in the cockpit. Either way, expect stealth to be a significant part of the design, as well as sensor fusion in which large numbers of sensors combine to present a pilot with comprehensive situational awareness. Also expect a future aircraft to be armed not just with long-range missiles, but also attack drones and swarms of mini-drones with which it will operate in tandem.

https://nationalinterest.org/blog/buzz/meet-navys-5-super-weapons-future-think-stealth-hypersonic-weapons-and-more-37797

War on Conservatives: Facebook Bans Zero Hedge For ‘Violating Community Standards’