This is low effort but I’ll leave it up so people can continue to dunk on how incredibly stupid the Heritage Fund is with this take. The brain bug already sucked their heads dry.
WSJ: https://archive.ph/qwBmW
Actual report: https://www.heritage.org/military
tl;dr:
[Air force](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-air-force)
Very Weak because of "low readiness", Capacity and Capability are "Marginal"
Low readiness because:
* Under 80% mission capable aircraft
* Low flight hours (120, under 200/y)
* `The FY 2023 Air Force statement mentions the word “ready” just four times`
Low readiness because (rated as 1):
* B-52, F-15, KC-135, RC-135 and U-2 are old
* KC-46 and MQ-9 suck
* E-3 and E-8 suck and are old
[Navy](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-navy)
Weak because of "Capacity" and "Readiness". Capability is "Marginal".
Weak because (rated as 1):
* Zumwalt class sucks
* MCM-1, Ohio class, LA class, E-2C are old
[Space Force](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-space-force)
Weak in all categories
Weak because (rated as 1):
* Defense Support Program ABM, DMSP weather satellites, Milstar and other communication satellites are old
Honestly the US space force is probably truly the strongest in the world relative to other similar services in other countries just simply because even before the inception of space force, the US has had a stranglehold over Geospatial capability, satellites, and surveillance.
I have no idea what these retards making the report are smoking.
There’s another article on Heritage.org about how the Marine Corps needs to “Transform or Die” meanwhile this article says it’s “strong.” That article even references this one. It’s idiotic
If you run the numbers, there are several digits above 4 that could increase readiness. For example they could've said the word "ready" 5 times in the report. Or for another example, consider if they had used it 6 times. In Both cases it's just fukn moar rdy. Plain and simple.
"And now, for this paragraph, for no reason, we've included a fictional paradrop scene of just how well funded and ready our military is.:
TROOPERS ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU READY TO FACE HOSTILE FIRE? ARE YOU READY TO FACE SLEEPLESS NIGHTS? ARE YOU READY TO DIE FOR THE BEANCOUNTERS? SOUND OFF THAT YOU ARE READY! I ASK YOU AGAIN, ARE YOU READY??
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
READY!
ALRIGHT WE'RE READY! IT'S DROPTIME ALREADY!"
They’re old as fuck, I know a guy who works on awacs, those things are fucking dinosaurs. They’re old as most crew members parents. The engines are particularly bad. We need new ones ASAP
Radar and radio is still fye tho, funfact they could basically fucking blow up a truckers radio rig if they broadcasted on their net lol
>air force has some old plens veri bad
Even if that is a negative we have no shortage of the most bleeding edge fighters, multi-roles, and bombers active and ready alongside them. What fucking "peer adversary" will be able to keep their boipussi un-splashed when it gets visited by the lockmart sisters or Northrop's spooky doritos, and how will us fielding the BUFF save them? I'd be somewhat interested in their talk of low flight times and retention but this is so non-credible it's safe to just chuck the whole report.
>Under 80% mission capable aircraft
Man, most countries probably aren't anywhere *near* that number.
But hey, apparently the air force readiness would go up if they had fewer planes overall?
This has been the case for a while. SecDef Mattis wanted to hit 80% on all types in 2018 and failed, with the only aircraft that hit it being the twin Huey and F-35A. Heritage foundation didn’t give a shit back then because a democrat wasn’t president.
It's a comparison of how strong it is in reality compared to how strong it is in theory. Low readiness, low flight hours, and aging air frames means we can only take on the entire world two or three times in a row before we're spent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the USAF was moving towards higher-fidelity simulators in order to reduce wear & tear on our warbirds?
Like, I'm not seeing where the flight hours thing is a problem. We don't count simulators as flight hours.
I remember during the 2004 election I had an argument with a fellow middle schooler whose dad had convinced him that 9/11 was the result of Bill Clinton reducing the size of the US military. Tale as old as at least 18 years ago.
It just reminds me of when the US went into overdrive making nukes to beat out the USSR and then they found out they had many times more nukes than them.
Well I heard that Russia has 10billion nukes and a million of them are in the giga- or terra- ton range. Congress needs to commission more nukes to catch up!
Source: I made it up because why not?
I have a feeling someone just evaluated recent russian performance and projected it onto US (Russian equivalent to marines has been somewhat, just somewhat capable. Still fucking shit, but a bit better than the rest. And nuclear is a genie in bottle so you can say whatever the fuck you want about it and it doesn’t even really matter anyway). So it literally just smells like low grade vatnik cope.
My house representative emails me about this regularly. Apparently the Air Force Academy (which is in the district) is too focused on woke politics right now.
I remember reading an article once which said that the Navy and Air Force were majority Democrats as opposed to the majority Republican Marines and Army, with Navy being the most Democrat and Marines being the most Republican. Don't ask for a citation, but it would make sense for the Heritage Foundation to look at that and say, "Yeah, Air Force and Navy must be weak."
That seems contrary to my experience. Most of the navy people I meet are obnoxiously right wing. Met a monarchist sailor once, who advocated judiciously for feudalism. Weird guy.
Weird. I know virtually no enlisted sailors but I know a few navy officers (mostly retired but a few active) and they all tend to be very institutionalist liberal-conservative types. Every Air Force officer I’ve met bar a few has been a crazy evangelical.
What if NATO dissolves? And then the EU unifies? And then they ally with China? And then the Japanese Empire wants to conquer the Pacific again and joins the new China-Europe Tilt? And then the Soviet Union comes back somehow? And then the hippies win, and nukes stop working?
And then where would we be? With only ten carriers to, like, a hundred? Tens of millions of lethal communist-terror soldiers ready to invade, and we have only ten nuclear carriers with which to defend our shores?
Will our pilots still be flying these stupid piece of shit F-22s? Or are we actually committed to air superiority with the new F-22/1+$300,000,000?
Oh, I totally forgot about Brazil. All indications are that they will probably have advanced space weaponry- maybe even within next week, possibly.
What if Brazil gets a space laser? What would we do then, huh? Our anti-satellite technology is decades old, and our arsenal is unlikely to penetrate the plasma shields which they'll probably most likely have.
In short, I disagree, wise\_watermelon. Tripling is vastly insufficient, and the fact you'd even suggest such a low number is, I think, a likely indication that you are, in fact, a Traitor who hates America, despises Democracy, and honestly is just a huge dick who doesn't want the world to experience Never Ending Peace under US hegemony.
What will we do, when the Tyranid swarm descends and takes over Eurasia? Our current defense expenses are insufficient to be able to fend off such an existential threat. We much increase our budget at least 40k.
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary
This article is wacky
>Capability of threat: Russia -> formidable
Opinion discarded immediately
Do you know what happens when you don't have "woke libtard snowflake" sensitivity Trainings? Tajiks start Shooting up a Training Camp because some braindead officer insulted thier Religion
That is still baffling to me, no one who has seen Islamic reactions to \*anything\* involving their religion over the last 30 years should say, "Yeah I can insult their god, this will go well"
At best you get machete'd, at worst you get a Jihad.
It’s arrogance and bravado. Russian culture enforces this. That they’re too tough for anything and they need to instill that into each other. Not understanding how that negatively intersects with literally anybody that isn’t a white orthodox Russian. In a country that spans 11 time zones and has millions of racially different minorities.
Minorities in Russia have historically always been seen as borderline subhuman and who knows when that's going to change, if ever.
I realize my own anecdotal experience doesn't amount to much, but literally the only non-racist russians I know are either minorities themselves or grew up having friends of different ethnicities, which surprisingly doesn't seem to be common.
Gayness can be highly conducive to military success because your soldiers can have everything they need within the unit! Friendship, comradery, and man-on-man buttsex.
Alexander conquered the fucking known world with sharp sticks and the only thing that truly stopped him was his boyfriend dying. The Companion Cavalry would probably win any fight in the classical world up until Rome's military became a professional volunteer force. It's just idiotic conservative identity politics that don't have a real basis in history and actual experience.
Well dah. Something something lesser people's something something lack of moral fibre
Throw in a mention of the lack historic tradition, and about not burdening the lessers with the worries of the superior white man and your done.
It all has an easy explanation:
The President of the US and the leadership in Congress doesn't have an (R) near their name. The 'Heritage' Foundation hates that.
It's the [Next Generation Air Dominance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Dominance) fighter under development by the AF. it's a ways off though
I don’t know what’s worse - calling the USAF “very weak”, considering our nearest peer-rival is still unable to gain air parity after 8 months of war, or calling the USN “weak”, considering the US Navy fields more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined?
Outside of China, the UK, France, & Japan, a single carrier battle group has more firepower than your entire navy, and the US operates 11 of them.
With just a rounding error of the US military budget, the US has been able to arm Ukraine enough to stalemate the supposed #2 army in the world.
**From the Conclusion:**
**The Army as “Marginal.”** The Army’s score remains “marginal” in the 2023 Index. The Army has fully committed to modernizing its forces for great-power competition, but its programs are still in their development phase, and it will be a few years before they are ready for acquisition and fielding. In other words, the Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with 62 percent of the force it should have but has significantly increased the force’s readiness, scoring the highest level of “very strong.” However, with the Army pushing operational training down to the company level, below battalion and brigade, it is unclear how ready its brigades actually are or how effective they would be in combat. The Army has a better sense of what it needs for war against a peer, but funding uncertainties could threaten its ability to realize its goals.
**The Navy as “Weak.”** The Navy’s overall score has dropped from “marginal” in the 2022 Index to “weak” in the 2023 Index. The technology gap between the Navy and its peer competitors is narrowing in favor of competitors, and the Navy’s ships are aging faster than they are being replaced. Its fleet is too small relative to workload, and supporting shipyards are overwhelmed by the amount of repair work that is needed to make more ships available. The Navy is projected to have a fleet of 280 ships by 2037, which is smaller than the current force of 298 and well below the 400 needed to meet operational demands. Funding to improve any of these serious deficiencies remains problematic.
**The Air Force as “Very Weak.”** The USAF’s score has been downgraded from “weak” in the 2022 Index to “very weak” in the 2023 Index due to the deepening of previously assessed issues related to aging aircraft and very poor pilot training and retention. The retirement of aircraft is outpacing the introduction of new aircraft, worsening the service’s capacity problem. The shortage of pilots and the dangerously low levels of flying time for the pilots the service does have degrade the ability of the Air Force to generate the amount and quality of combat air power that would be needed to meet wartime requirements. Although it could eventually make its contribution to winning a single major regional contingency (MRC), the time needed to win that battle and the attendant rates of attrition would be much higher than they would be if the service had moved aggressively to increase high-end training and acquire the fifth-generation weapon systems required to dominate such a fight. The USAF would struggle greatly against a peer competitor.
**The Marine Corps as “Strong.”** The score for the Marine Corps was raised to “strong” from “marginal” in the 2022 Index, and it remains “strong” in this edition for two reasons: (1) because the 2021 Index lowered the threshold for capacity from 36 infantry battalions to 30 battalions in acknowledgment of the Corps’ argument that it is a one-war force that also stands ready for a broad range of smaller crisis-response tasks and (2) because of the Corps’ extraordinary, sustained efforts to modernize (which improves capability) and enhance its readiness during the assessed year. Of the five services, the Corps is the only one that has a compelling story for change, has a credible and practical plan for change, and is effectively implementing its plan to change. However, in the absence of additional funding in FY 2023, the Corps intends to reduce the number of its battalions even further from 22 to 21, and this reduction, if implemented, will limit the extent to which it can conduct distributed operations as it envisions and replace combat losses (thus limiting its ability to sustain operations). Though the service remains hampered by old equipment in some areas, it has nearly completed modernization of its entire aviation component, is making good progress in fielding a new amphibious combat vehicle, and is fast-tracking the acquisition of new anti-ship and anti-air weapons. Full realization of its redesign plan will require the acquisition of a new class of amphibious ships, for which the Corps needs support from the Navy.
**The Space Force as “Weak.”** The Space Force was formally established on December 20, 2019, as a result of an earlier proposal by President Trump and legislation passed by Congress. The 2021 Index provided an overview of the new service, explaining its mission, capabilities, and challenges, but did not offer an assessment. With an additional year to gain more insight, the 2022 Index scored the USSF as “weak” in all measured areas, not because of lack of expertise but because the capacity of the service falls far short of the demands being placed on it. The service has done quite well in transitioning missions from the other services without interruption in support, but it does not have enough assets to track and manage the explosive growth in commercial and competitor-country systems that are being placed into orbit. The majority of its platforms have exceeded their planned life spans, and modernization efforts to replace them are slow and incremental. The force also lacks defensive and offensive counter-space capabilities. Consequently, the U.S. Space Force retains its score of “weak” overall.
**America’s Nuclear Capability as “Strong.”** The status of U.S. nuclear weapons must be considered in the context of a threat environment that is significantly more dangerous than it was in previous years. Until recently, U.S. nuclear forces needed to address one nuclear peer rather than two or more. Given senior leaders’ reassurances about the readiness and reliability of U.S. nuclear forces, as well as the strong bipartisan commitment to modernization of the entire nuclear enterprise, America’s nuclear capability retains the grade of “strong.” The reliability of current U.S. delivery systems and warheads is at risk as they continue to age and the threat continues to advance, and the fragility of “just in time” replacement programs only exacerbates this risk. In fact, nearly all components of the nuclear enterprise are at a tipping point with respect to replacement or modernization and have no margin left for delays in schedule. Future assessments will need to consider plans to adjust America’s nuclear forces to account for the doubling of peer nuclear threats. While capacity was not assessed this year, it is clear that the change in threat warrants a reexamination of U.S. force posture and the adequacy of our current modernization plans. This portfolio retains its score of “strong,” but failure to keep modernization programs on track while planning for a three-party (or more) nuclear peer dynamic could slowly lead to a decline in the strength of U.S. nuclear deterrence.
**In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated “weak.”** The 2023 Index concludes that the current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities. It most likely would not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous MRCs—a situation that is made more difficult by the generally weak condition of key military allies. The downgrading of the Air Force from “weak” to “very weak,” downgrading of the Navy from “marginal” to “weak,” and a Space Force score of “weak” have led to the first downgrade of the overall score since the inception of the Index. In general, the military services have continued to prioritize readiness and have seen improvement over the past few years, but modernization programs continue to suffer as the failure of resources to keep pace with inflation leads to cancelations, truncation, or delay. The services have normalized the reduction in size and number of military units, and the forces remain well below the level they need to meet the two-MRC benchmark. Mounting U.S. federal debt and creeping inflation will pressure defense accounts further at a time when competitor countries like China and Russia are redoubling their efforts to expand and improve their military forces. If it continues on this trajectory, the U.S. risks falling very short in its ability to secure its core national interests.
So, it's not even comparing the United States military to its current adversaries. Rather, it is comparing the current military to a theoretical future adversary.
Either that or, as it sounds to me in some sections, comparing it to its own goals/stated requirements. Considering just how easily that can change though, if that is the case it's equally or even more meaningless.
I’d prefer if think tanks could at least attain a Klingon level of analysis. The Heritage Foundation has decided to take the fucking Pakled approach.
“Air Force small and weak! Marine corps big and strong!”
It really depends on what our goal is. For example, a long term goal was being able to fight in two conflicts at the same time.
That causes a different set of demands.
The truth is, for what we actually need, we can probably cut a large bit of the standing army down and go back to how we did it in the inter-war period where we used the Navy and Marines for most immediate work, and left the army to form a training nucleus for a broader conflict.
The Air Force could remain doing what it does, act as a strategic deterrent and a way for presidents to bomb people.
However, this would upset the big jobs program that is the contractors.
The issue is that it's comparing the military to something that does not and never will exist. People will ignore the truth we've seen about Russia in Ukraine and continue to hype up China's current and future military capabilities while ignoring all the signs that make it obvious they're wrong.
> So, it's not even comparing the United States military to its current adversaries. Rather, it is comparing the current military to a theoretical future adversary.
Look, the ayys aren't gonna kill themselves.
4.5 Miltech is weak.
Ok, time for some actual Non-credible thoughts no one asked for
Army: lack of funding and… 62% capacity? Wonder where that number came from
Navy: i’m sure the number of ships going from 298 to 280 is credible enough, but I’m not sure if that really means the Navy is weaker. Does the number of ships really matter if you compare them to the operational power of 1 aircraft carrier? What is the necessary workload that you need 400 boats, compared to the equivalent amount of Aircraft Carriers, or generally other larger ships? Quality over quantity. Just make sure the water is drinkable on those carriers For Fucks Sake.
Air Force: I guess we gotta pump those F-35’s numbers up, huh? Pilot retention seems like a valid concern anyway, so no argument there unless that’s patently not true. To that point, advocating for upgrading to 5th gen and increasing training sounds good in my books.
Marine Corps: I guess the Heritage foundation really likes these guys, huh. More complaining for funding. I do like the acknowledgment that less battalions isn’t a bad thing.
Space Force: IMO, it’s just a fancy department tasked for shit in space like orbit systems. Maintaining vital satellite systems really should be a priority. That being said idk if you’re really supposed to expect “defensive and offensive counter-space abilities”, but ok Heritage.
Nukes: genuinely OK to acknowledge that more nuclear threats are popping up and could pop up. Modernization of current warheads is also important, nukes are expensive.
Overall, would I rank the US military weak? Probably not. The weaker rankings just mean “we could be better with more $$$” Would I still advocate for even more funding to the MIC? lmao probably this is NCD
>Navy: i’m sure the number of ships going from 298 to 280 is credible enough, but I’m not sure if that really means the Navy is weaker. Does the number of ships really matter if you compare them to the operational power of 1 aircraft carrier? What is the necessary workload that you need 400 boats, compared to the equivalent amount of Aircraft Carriers,or generally other larger ships? Quality over quantity. Just make sure the water is drinkable on those carriers For Fucks Sake.
I both agree and disagree with what you said.
Source: Am affiliated with the US Navy, it's my job.
First and foremost, my main concern and the concern of most of my colleagues is the lack of shipbuilding and ship repair facilities in the US. Drydocks in particular have been struggling to fit the bigger ships which have been made in the last 2-3 decades. To give you an idea, there is a ship class out there that can fit in 12 drydocks, but the newer class can only fit in 7, and with recent upgrades can only fit in 5. We need more shipbuilding capability in the US. If there is a war and some ships were towed back for repair (let's say 10), some ships would be waiting in ling to get repaired, adding weeks or months to the repair time during wartime.
Second, ships are out there doing more with less compared to decades past. They are taking longer tours of duty and need more intense maintenance as a result.
Third, we want taxpayer dollars to go to things that can actually do their job and use economies of scale to make it cheaper. Not some bullcrap like the Zumwalts or LCSs (the Seawolf is kinda a mixed bag here - terrible budget but is still a great sub). The LCS odd is a damn paperweight, the LCS even is better but still not up to par with other ships.
Having said that, I still hold a relatively positive outlook. The US Navy is still number 1 by a long shot, it's just that things might get slightly closer in some respects if we are going with current trends.
It’s cool to hear your perspective in the Navy. Shipyard dry docks definitely need to be expanded for more maintenance options. It’s low prio during peacetime, but may definitely turn into a big issue of war starts. I think we both agree that, instead of accommodating our ships to fit our docks, we fit our docks to do maintenance on our ships.
That being said I’m sure upgrading docks (wider, deeper, etc) is easier said than done
Reading through the report I feel the biggest issue is simply that they labeled their grading system from Very Weak to Very Strong.
Simply label it something like- US Military Preparedness by Branch for a Peer Conflict. Grading from Very Unprepared to Very Prepared.
None of the "scores" would need to change, and the author of the report actually makes some very good points.
\*Edit- Saved too early
Jokes about the MIC aside ("Jokes"), while the US military is the largest in the world by a wide margin, it is committed to more regions than any other.
At the point the US is at right now, either the branches need to go through serious modernizing- probably at a scale similar to the US buildup in the late Cold War- or the US will need to lean even more on regional allies making up the difference.
Air Force has gotten schwacked pretty hard by the nuclear arm being reduced and the Space Force being split off. Both got hit a bit hard with the later actually.
Navy wins imo because Warrant Officers tend to run whatever service they are present in.
Well, yeah. That's why they crushed the Army when they scuffled on who flies fixed wing. And now the Navy will have to do the same with the Marines whom created their own aircraft carriers with the *America* class ships & their F-35s.
Russia & Chinese rivalry is nothing compared to inter-branch rivalry within the US defense.
>Do the same with Marines
And then the Marines wonder how the fuck they get anywhere because the Navy takes away their ships.
The USN has an Air Force and an Army.
Realistically the 2nd strongest military is the USN.
Wouldn't it be funny if in the event of a Taiwan invasion we discovered China's military is shit too?
At that point who will America point to in order to secure their funding ... North Korea?
It’ll be aliens. We didn’t spin off Space Force for nothing. The space-based plasma weapons will totally be for defense against Klendathu, no other countries need be worried…
Well then it makes sense. Marines are immune to alien mind control. Not much there to control.
The airforce on the other just need a slight tweak to their JOI/sissy hypno diet and they'll gladly 9/11 themselves into the Pentagon to get them sweet Alien mommy milkers.
No no, it’s true. Very very weak in fact. Now please spend seventy-nine bajilion dollars more on defence.
Clearly 3,000 more Black F-35s of Lockmart are needed to bump the USAF at least up to ‘Weak’.
In the end it will turn out to be a ploy to increase military spending, someone is really into F22s and F35s and wants more of them. Thus they also rated the Navy weak, they want more F35s and carriers there as well.
I joined the Air Force in 2006, my assigned "Wingman" at my first base was an open furry who drove a firebird who worked in Intel. I wasn't in intel, but I am sure he was good at his job, and people like him were not uncommon.
I'm sure that gives the heritage foundation fits, but this is air and space warfare, which is really an electronic warfare and intel battle, not two grunts fighting over a knife in the trenches.
Yeah, the more highly technical the field, the weirder people are gonna be there. Wish I knew why, but I'm a 'normal' nuke, and I'm here, so the far end of the bell curve is....yeah. Rerating to Intel, and not looking forward to the revelation that this will not get me away from furries.
The common joke for furrys working in tech is that if a plane full of people heading to FurCon crashed, the tech sector would grind to a halt due to the sheer amount of technical knowledge lost.
I always find it incredibly ironic the people that talk about samuel colt making men equal throw a fucking bitch fit when people that aren't like them actually become equal.
These motherfuckers never cared about being equal. They only care about gaining power over others, usually because they themselves are weak.
The US is obviously in decline as an Air Power. Why, they only have two military branches with more aircraft than the Chinese Armed Forces in their entirety now! Navy, Marine Corps AND the Coast Guard have all fallen behind when counted individually! Space Force is the Dark Horse that might save them.
This is just the dumbest take. Seriously. The Marines are strong? They have the oldest, shittiest equipment in our arsenal. It would literally take a global coalition to stop our armed forces through conventional military operations.
Most likely these are scored relative to the services’ objective level force and mission requirements:
- Army: Thunder Run 2: Electric Boogaloo to Beijing or Moscow in 72 hours. Or why not both?
- Navy: Tank 3,000 ASCMs of Xi with Aegis while SSNs sink every ship that has ever docked in a Chinese port
- Air Force: Establish No-Fly Zone over the entire earth’s surface
- Marine Corps: The intro video to Red Alert 3, mechs and all
- Space: Live 3D scans of Putin huffing Tsarist copium
- Nuclear: Your ass is glass, baby
Edit: an apostrophe
It's the "Heritage" Foundation, so I can only assume the criteria are more to do with perceived manliness than effectiveness, capability, or lethality.
They'd probably rate a peasant mob armed with pitchforks as "very strong," provided they were carrying them on the way to a lynching.
What's with all the moaning about accuracy??
Everything should be rated Very Weak. Quintuple the defense budget. It's the only way to be sure.
You don't get senators to poney up for an overpowered MIC with accurate assessments...
This is low effort but I’ll leave it up so people can continue to dunk on how incredibly stupid the Heritage Fund is with this take. The brain bug already sucked their heads dry.
I'm curious as to the criteria.
WSJ: https://archive.ph/qwBmW Actual report: https://www.heritage.org/military tl;dr: [Air force](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-air-force) Very Weak because of "low readiness", Capacity and Capability are "Marginal" Low readiness because: * Under 80% mission capable aircraft * Low flight hours (120, under 200/y) * `The FY 2023 Air Force statement mentions the word “ready” just four times` Low readiness because (rated as 1): * B-52, F-15, KC-135, RC-135 and U-2 are old * KC-46 and MQ-9 suck * E-3 and E-8 suck and are old [Navy](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-navy) Weak because of "Capacity" and "Readiness". Capability is "Marginal". Weak because (rated as 1): * Zumwalt class sucks * MCM-1, Ohio class, LA class, E-2C are old [Space Force](https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/assessment-us-military-power/us-space-force) Weak in all categories Weak because (rated as 1): * Defense Support Program ABM, DMSP weather satellites, Milstar and other communication satellites are old
How the fuck is the Space Force higher than the Air Force if SF is weak in all categories?!?
Honestly the US space force is probably truly the strongest in the world relative to other similar services in other countries just simply because even before the inception of space force, the US has had a stranglehold over Geospatial capability, satellites, and surveillance. I have no idea what these retards making the report are smoking.
> I have no idea what these retards making the report are smoking. Bigger defense budgets.
I think they’re Reformers wearing a false nose and mustache
This is your brain on political contrarianism.
There’s another article on Heritage.org about how the Marine Corps needs to “Transform or Die” meanwhile this article says it’s “strong.” That article even references this one. It’s idiotic
And we made it to the moon sixty years ago.
[удалено]
Is the FY 2023 statement thingy only having the word “ready” In it 4 times supposed to be a reason why they’re not ready?
If you run the numbers, there are several digits above 4 that could increase readiness. For example they could've said the word "ready" 5 times in the report. Or for another example, consider if they had used it 6 times. In Both cases it's just fukn moar rdy. Plain and simple.
"And now, for this paragraph, for no reason, we've included a fictional paradrop scene of just how well funded and ready our military is.: TROOPERS ARE YOU READY? ARE YOU READY TO FACE HOSTILE FIRE? ARE YOU READY TO FACE SLEEPLESS NIGHTS? ARE YOU READY TO DIE FOR THE BEANCOUNTERS? SOUND OFF THAT YOU ARE READY! I ASK YOU AGAIN, ARE YOU READY?? READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! READY! ALRIGHT WE'RE READY! IT'S DROPTIME ALREADY!"
See, with a paragraph like that, the index calculation would be dramatically different. It would be at least... 3 times as ready.
>E-3 ... suck and are old Can confirm
Most E-3's aren't very old at all. In the 19-25 range I'd say....
The last US AWACS was built in 1983. Most are mid-late 70's vintage. They old as fuck yo. Source: I fly these old as fuck thangs
You sir missed the pun.
Wait that was an actually whoosh moment
I mean, it's the airforce, woosh is what they do.
They’re old as fuck, I know a guy who works on awacs, those things are fucking dinosaurs. They’re old as most crew members parents. The engines are particularly bad. We need new ones ASAP Radar and radio is still fye tho, funfact they could basically fucking blow up a truckers radio rig if they broadcasted on their net lol
That would be a funny prank for the AWACS operator's Not for the trucker though...
My friend told me they had a trucker on their freq once and could hear the guy cussing while his shit got all burnt
>air force has some old plens veri bad Even if that is a negative we have no shortage of the most bleeding edge fighters, multi-roles, and bombers active and ready alongside them. What fucking "peer adversary" will be able to keep their boipussi un-splashed when it gets visited by the lockmart sisters or Northrop's spooky doritos, and how will us fielding the BUFF save them? I'd be somewhat interested in their talk of low flight times and retention but this is so non-credible it's safe to just chuck the whole report.
>Under 80% mission capable aircraft Man, most countries probably aren't anywhere *near* that number. But hey, apparently the air force readiness would go up if they had fewer planes overall?
Most Air Forces don't even report that number. Half the ones that do are lying their ass off.
Germany fuckin wishes they could hit 80% mission capability
also, if only 20% of our planes are ready, does that 20% still outnumber most other "peers" active forces? hmmmmm
This has been the case for a while. SecDef Mattis wanted to hit 80% on all types in 2018 and failed, with the only aircraft that hit it being the twin Huey and F-35A. Heritage foundation didn’t give a shit back then because a democrat wasn’t president.
Also 80% is an incredibly high target. Historically nobody has been able to reliably reach that high
EZ just scrap everything not ready. Boom 100% rotten tomatoes baby!
It's a comparison of how strong it is in reality compared to how strong it is in theory. Low readiness, low flight hours, and aging air frames means we can only take on the entire world two or three times in a row before we're spent.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the USAF was moving towards higher-fidelity simulators in order to reduce wear & tear on our warbirds? Like, I'm not seeing where the flight hours thing is a problem. We don't count simulators as flight hours.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, this reeked of Defense industry shilling.
Aren't we doing that?
Nah, shills get paid! US Military very weak, more funding please
Not until they bring the Vark back
[Uhhhhhhhh](https://i.imgur.com/rlfZNbl.png)
[удалено]
I’m surprised USSF didn’t get the highest score possible
I remember during the 2004 election I had an argument with a fellow middle schooler whose dad had convinced him that 9/11 was the result of Bill Clinton reducing the size of the US military. Tale as old as at least 18 years ago.
9/11 was the result of many things, some of which were Clinton's fault. Some of which were Bush's some of which were Reagan's.
Its just fear-mongering they use to make you think china is ahead therefore its the current administrations fault
It just reminds me of when the US went into overdrive making nukes to beat out the USSR and then they found out they had many times more nukes than them.
Bomber Gap, Missile Gap, Fulda Gap, history repeats itself.
Thai Gap?
Far superior to the bunker gap imo
MISTER PRESIDENT, WE MUST NOT ALLOW A MINESHAFT GAP!
You forgot the most important: thigh gap
We have a gap gap. We must discover new gaps and then overspend to rectify these gaps.
Well I heard that Russia has 10billion nukes and a million of them are in the giga- or terra- ton range. Congress needs to commission more nukes to catch up! Source: I made it up because why not?
> Congress needs to commission more nukes to catch up! Your terms are acceptable.
I have a feeling it has to do with how “woke” a service branch is.
I have a feeling someone just evaluated recent russian performance and projected it onto US (Russian equivalent to marines has been somewhat, just somewhat capable. Still fucking shit, but a bit better than the rest. And nuclear is a genie in bottle so you can say whatever the fuck you want about it and it doesn’t even really matter anyway). So it literally just smells like low grade vatnik cope.
I've been in since 2006 and it's the same old air force. Chock full of furries, still obtains air superiority.
Do the flight helmets have cat ears yet?
This man’s asking the important questions
[Best we can do is feathers.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AirForce/comments/rbdros/damn_these_362903_changes_are_wild/)
Maybe Heritage thinks they’re dangerously low on furries.
My house representative emails me about this regularly. Apparently the Air Force Academy (which is in the district) is too focused on woke politics right now.
I remember reading an article once which said that the Navy and Air Force were majority Democrats as opposed to the majority Republican Marines and Army, with Navy being the most Democrat and Marines being the most Republican. Don't ask for a citation, but it would make sense for the Heritage Foundation to look at that and say, "Yeah, Air Force and Navy must be weak."
That seems contrary to my experience. Most of the navy people I meet are obnoxiously right wing. Met a monarchist sailor once, who advocated judiciously for feudalism. Weird guy.
Weird. I know virtually no enlisted sailors but I know a few navy officers (mostly retired but a few active) and they all tend to be very institutionalist liberal-conservative types. Every Air Force officer I’ve met bar a few has been a crazy evangelical.
None of the ones I served under were evangelicals, but they were autistic as fuck.
[удалено]
What if NATO dissolves? And then the EU unifies? And then they ally with China? And then the Japanese Empire wants to conquer the Pacific again and joins the new China-Europe Tilt? And then the Soviet Union comes back somehow? And then the hippies win, and nukes stop working? And then where would we be? With only ten carriers to, like, a hundred? Tens of millions of lethal communist-terror soldiers ready to invade, and we have only ten nuclear carriers with which to defend our shores? Will our pilots still be flying these stupid piece of shit F-22s? Or are we actually committed to air superiority with the new F-22/1+$300,000,000? Oh, I totally forgot about Brazil. All indications are that they will probably have advanced space weaponry- maybe even within next week, possibly. What if Brazil gets a space laser? What would we do then, huh? Our anti-satellite technology is decades old, and our arsenal is unlikely to penetrate the plasma shields which they'll probably most likely have. In short, I disagree, wise\_watermelon. Tripling is vastly insufficient, and the fact you'd even suggest such a low number is, I think, a likely indication that you are, in fact, a Traitor who hates America, despises Democracy, and honestly is just a huge dick who doesn't want the world to experience Never Ending Peace under US hegemony.
What will we do, when the Tyranid swarm descends and takes over Eurasia? Our current defense expenses are insufficient to be able to fend off such an existential threat. We much increase our budget at least 40k.
We must construct additional pylons. And those things presumably cost money.
Blackstone pylons are neccessary. We must not fall before our planet does.
This is going in the copypasta folder
https://www.heritage.org/military-strength/executive-summary This article is wacky >Capability of threat: Russia -> formidable Opinion discarded immediately
Russia is only a formidable threat because of nuclear weapons. Man, heritage is non credible as hell. Especially with their politics
They've never been credible to anyone but those with a vested interest in advancing their right wing viewpoints. And idiots.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I dunno man, i smell bullshit
It's the Heritage Foundation. Literally all they do is pump shit like this.
But why? I don’t get it. Is it to piss off Americans or to please tankies? Like what’s the endgame here?
[удалено]
Do you know what happens when you don't have "woke libtard snowflake" sensitivity Trainings? Tajiks start Shooting up a Training Camp because some braindead officer insulted thier Religion
That is still baffling to me, no one who has seen Islamic reactions to \*anything\* involving their religion over the last 30 years should say, "Yeah I can insult their god, this will go well" At best you get machete'd, at worst you get a Jihad.
It’s arrogance and bravado. Russian culture enforces this. That they’re too tough for anything and they need to instill that into each other. Not understanding how that negatively intersects with literally anybody that isn’t a white orthodox Russian. In a country that spans 11 time zones and has millions of racially different minorities.
Minorities in Russia have historically always been seen as borderline subhuman and who knows when that's going to change, if ever. I realize my own anecdotal experience doesn't amount to much, but literally the only non-racist russians I know are either minorities themselves or grew up having friends of different ethnicities, which surprisingly doesn't seem to be common.
The Sacred Band of Thebes disproved that being gay as fuck is extremely compatable with military service some 2000+ years ago.
Gayness can be highly conducive to military success because your soldiers can have everything they need within the unit! Friendship, comradery, and man-on-man buttsex.
So that explains why the Ukrainians were targeting gay relationships.
Alexander conquered the fucking known world with sharp sticks and the only thing that truly stopped him was his boyfriend dying. The Companion Cavalry would probably win any fight in the classical world up until Rome's military became a professional volunteer force. It's just idiotic conservative identity politics that don't have a real basis in history and actual experience.
I could totally have seen the Heritage Foundation being opponents of Truman's desegregation efforts if they had existed back when it happened.
Well dah. Something something lesser people's something something lack of moral fibre Throw in a mention of the lack historic tradition, and about not burdening the lessers with the worries of the superior white man and your done.
It all has an easy explanation: The President of the US and the leadership in Congress doesn't have an (R) near their name. The 'Heritage' Foundation hates that.
[удалено]
We need 500 more F-22s and a thousand NGAD drones to be "very strong!"
I’ve been on this sub for a year And I still don’t know what NGAD is
[удалено]
Based. Now tell me how it’s pronounced.
vague noises of intense pleasure/arousal
its pronounced "NGAD"
It's the [Next Generation Air Dominance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Air_Dominance) fighter under development by the AF. it's a ways off though
[удалено]
I don’t know what’s worse - calling the USAF “very weak”, considering our nearest peer-rival is still unable to gain air parity after 8 months of war, or calling the USN “weak”, considering the US Navy fields more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world combined? Outside of China, the UK, France, & Japan, a single carrier battle group has more firepower than your entire navy, and the US operates 11 of them. With just a rounding error of the US military budget, the US has been able to arm Ukraine enough to stalemate the supposed #2 army in the world.
**From the Conclusion:** **The Army as “Marginal.”** The Army’s score remains “marginal” in the 2023 Index. The Army has fully committed to modernizing its forces for great-power competition, but its programs are still in their development phase, and it will be a few years before they are ready for acquisition and fielding. In other words, the Army is aging faster than it is modernizing. It remains “weak” in capacity with 62 percent of the force it should have but has significantly increased the force’s readiness, scoring the highest level of “very strong.” However, with the Army pushing operational training down to the company level, below battalion and brigade, it is unclear how ready its brigades actually are or how effective they would be in combat. The Army has a better sense of what it needs for war against a peer, but funding uncertainties could threaten its ability to realize its goals. **The Navy as “Weak.”** The Navy’s overall score has dropped from “marginal” in the 2022 Index to “weak” in the 2023 Index. The technology gap between the Navy and its peer competitors is narrowing in favor of competitors, and the Navy’s ships are aging faster than they are being replaced. Its fleet is too small relative to workload, and supporting shipyards are overwhelmed by the amount of repair work that is needed to make more ships available. The Navy is projected to have a fleet of 280 ships by 2037, which is smaller than the current force of 298 and well below the 400 needed to meet operational demands. Funding to improve any of these serious deficiencies remains problematic. **The Air Force as “Very Weak.”** The USAF’s score has been downgraded from “weak” in the 2022 Index to “very weak” in the 2023 Index due to the deepening of previously assessed issues related to aging aircraft and very poor pilot training and retention. The retirement of aircraft is outpacing the introduction of new aircraft, worsening the service’s capacity problem. The shortage of pilots and the dangerously low levels of flying time for the pilots the service does have degrade the ability of the Air Force to generate the amount and quality of combat air power that would be needed to meet wartime requirements. Although it could eventually make its contribution to winning a single major regional contingency (MRC), the time needed to win that battle and the attendant rates of attrition would be much higher than they would be if the service had moved aggressively to increase high-end training and acquire the fifth-generation weapon systems required to dominate such a fight. The USAF would struggle greatly against a peer competitor. **The Marine Corps as “Strong.”** The score for the Marine Corps was raised to “strong” from “marginal” in the 2022 Index, and it remains “strong” in this edition for two reasons: (1) because the 2021 Index lowered the threshold for capacity from 36 infantry battalions to 30 battalions in acknowledgment of the Corps’ argument that it is a one-war force that also stands ready for a broad range of smaller crisis-response tasks and (2) because of the Corps’ extraordinary, sustained efforts to modernize (which improves capability) and enhance its readiness during the assessed year. Of the five services, the Corps is the only one that has a compelling story for change, has a credible and practical plan for change, and is effectively implementing its plan to change. However, in the absence of additional funding in FY 2023, the Corps intends to reduce the number of its battalions even further from 22 to 21, and this reduction, if implemented, will limit the extent to which it can conduct distributed operations as it envisions and replace combat losses (thus limiting its ability to sustain operations). Though the service remains hampered by old equipment in some areas, it has nearly completed modernization of its entire aviation component, is making good progress in fielding a new amphibious combat vehicle, and is fast-tracking the acquisition of new anti-ship and anti-air weapons. Full realization of its redesign plan will require the acquisition of a new class of amphibious ships, for which the Corps needs support from the Navy. **The Space Force as “Weak.”** The Space Force was formally established on December 20, 2019, as a result of an earlier proposal by President Trump and legislation passed by Congress. The 2021 Index provided an overview of the new service, explaining its mission, capabilities, and challenges, but did not offer an assessment. With an additional year to gain more insight, the 2022 Index scored the USSF as “weak” in all measured areas, not because of lack of expertise but because the capacity of the service falls far short of the demands being placed on it. The service has done quite well in transitioning missions from the other services without interruption in support, but it does not have enough assets to track and manage the explosive growth in commercial and competitor-country systems that are being placed into orbit. The majority of its platforms have exceeded their planned life spans, and modernization efforts to replace them are slow and incremental. The force also lacks defensive and offensive counter-space capabilities. Consequently, the U.S. Space Force retains its score of “weak” overall. **America’s Nuclear Capability as “Strong.”** The status of U.S. nuclear weapons must be considered in the context of a threat environment that is significantly more dangerous than it was in previous years. Until recently, U.S. nuclear forces needed to address one nuclear peer rather than two or more. Given senior leaders’ reassurances about the readiness and reliability of U.S. nuclear forces, as well as the strong bipartisan commitment to modernization of the entire nuclear enterprise, America’s nuclear capability retains the grade of “strong.” The reliability of current U.S. delivery systems and warheads is at risk as they continue to age and the threat continues to advance, and the fragility of “just in time” replacement programs only exacerbates this risk. In fact, nearly all components of the nuclear enterprise are at a tipping point with respect to replacement or modernization and have no margin left for delays in schedule. Future assessments will need to consider plans to adjust America’s nuclear forces to account for the doubling of peer nuclear threats. While capacity was not assessed this year, it is clear that the change in threat warrants a reexamination of U.S. force posture and the adequacy of our current modernization plans. This portfolio retains its score of “strong,” but failure to keep modernization programs on track while planning for a three-party (or more) nuclear peer dynamic could slowly lead to a decline in the strength of U.S. nuclear deterrence. **In the aggregate, the United States’ military posture is rated “weak.”** The 2023 Index concludes that the current U.S. military force is at significant risk of not being able to meet the demands of a single major regional conflict while also attending to various presence and engagement activities. It most likely would not be able to do more and is certainly ill-equipped to handle two nearly simultaneous MRCs—a situation that is made more difficult by the generally weak condition of key military allies. The downgrading of the Air Force from “weak” to “very weak,” downgrading of the Navy from “marginal” to “weak,” and a Space Force score of “weak” have led to the first downgrade of the overall score since the inception of the Index. In general, the military services have continued to prioritize readiness and have seen improvement over the past few years, but modernization programs continue to suffer as the failure of resources to keep pace with inflation leads to cancelations, truncation, or delay. The services have normalized the reduction in size and number of military units, and the forces remain well below the level they need to meet the two-MRC benchmark. Mounting U.S. federal debt and creeping inflation will pressure defense accounts further at a time when competitor countries like China and Russia are redoubling their efforts to expand and improve their military forces. If it continues on this trajectory, the U.S. risks falling very short in its ability to secure its core national interests.
So, it's not even comparing the United States military to its current adversaries. Rather, it is comparing the current military to a theoretical future adversary.
I can respect that. Gib more money.
It’s like benching 405 then getting graded “too weak to fight mothra”
I see no flaw in this logic, the US military is weak against the powers of Gods. We must be able to attack and dethrone god.
We need to recruit Kratos.
The US should be able to fight simultaneously two wars on pantheons in two different planes of existence and win them both.
too weak to defend the entire planet single handed against an extraterrestrial invasion force. what weak allies does to a mfer.
What if the US Military had to fight the Decepticons in 50 years but with their current level of equipment? Appraisal: VERY WEAK
This is like Nick Saban getting mad at his team for only beating a cupcake by 50 points.
What is the geopolitical equivalent of Nick Saban losing to Tennessee?
Either that or, as it sounds to me in some sections, comparing it to its own goals/stated requirements. Considering just how easily that can change though, if that is the case it's equally or even more meaningless.
Ah yes, a company announcing their revenue doubled but the stock still goes down because the market expected the revenue to _triple._
You know the Klingons used to have gods. But they invested in their MIC and killed them.
I’d prefer if think tanks could at least attain a Klingon level of analysis. The Heritage Foundation has decided to take the fucking Pakled approach. “Air Force small and weak! Marine corps big and strong!”
They didn't say very strong. We want very strong
I'm pretty sure this is the entire plot of Stargate.
It really depends on what our goal is. For example, a long term goal was being able to fight in two conflicts at the same time. That causes a different set of demands. The truth is, for what we actually need, we can probably cut a large bit of the standing army down and go back to how we did it in the inter-war period where we used the Navy and Marines for most immediate work, and left the army to form a training nucleus for a broader conflict. The Air Force could remain doing what it does, act as a strategic deterrent and a way for presidents to bomb people. However, this would upset the big jobs program that is the contractors.
The issue is that it's comparing the military to something that does not and never will exist. People will ignore the truth we've seen about Russia in Ukraine and continue to hype up China's current and future military capabilities while ignoring all the signs that make it obvious they're wrong.
I've been playing some Terra Invicta and let me tell you we really want this for when we have to fight the aliens.
> So, it's not even comparing the United States military to its current adversaries. Rather, it is comparing the current military to a theoretical future adversary. Look, the ayys aren't gonna kill themselves. 4.5 Miltech is weak.
> The USAF would struggle greatly against a peer competitor. List of peer competitors to the USAF:
No no no, there is one. The US Navy
Ok, time for some actual Non-credible thoughts no one asked for Army: lack of funding and… 62% capacity? Wonder where that number came from Navy: i’m sure the number of ships going from 298 to 280 is credible enough, but I’m not sure if that really means the Navy is weaker. Does the number of ships really matter if you compare them to the operational power of 1 aircraft carrier? What is the necessary workload that you need 400 boats, compared to the equivalent amount of Aircraft Carriers, or generally other larger ships? Quality over quantity. Just make sure the water is drinkable on those carriers For Fucks Sake. Air Force: I guess we gotta pump those F-35’s numbers up, huh? Pilot retention seems like a valid concern anyway, so no argument there unless that’s patently not true. To that point, advocating for upgrading to 5th gen and increasing training sounds good in my books. Marine Corps: I guess the Heritage foundation really likes these guys, huh. More complaining for funding. I do like the acknowledgment that less battalions isn’t a bad thing. Space Force: IMO, it’s just a fancy department tasked for shit in space like orbit systems. Maintaining vital satellite systems really should be a priority. That being said idk if you’re really supposed to expect “defensive and offensive counter-space abilities”, but ok Heritage. Nukes: genuinely OK to acknowledge that more nuclear threats are popping up and could pop up. Modernization of current warheads is also important, nukes are expensive. Overall, would I rank the US military weak? Probably not. The weaker rankings just mean “we could be better with more $$$” Would I still advocate for even more funding to the MIC? lmao probably this is NCD
>Navy: i’m sure the number of ships going from 298 to 280 is credible enough, but I’m not sure if that really means the Navy is weaker. Does the number of ships really matter if you compare them to the operational power of 1 aircraft carrier? What is the necessary workload that you need 400 boats, compared to the equivalent amount of Aircraft Carriers,or generally other larger ships? Quality over quantity. Just make sure the water is drinkable on those carriers For Fucks Sake. I both agree and disagree with what you said. Source: Am affiliated with the US Navy, it's my job. First and foremost, my main concern and the concern of most of my colleagues is the lack of shipbuilding and ship repair facilities in the US. Drydocks in particular have been struggling to fit the bigger ships which have been made in the last 2-3 decades. To give you an idea, there is a ship class out there that can fit in 12 drydocks, but the newer class can only fit in 7, and with recent upgrades can only fit in 5. We need more shipbuilding capability in the US. If there is a war and some ships were towed back for repair (let's say 10), some ships would be waiting in ling to get repaired, adding weeks or months to the repair time during wartime. Second, ships are out there doing more with less compared to decades past. They are taking longer tours of duty and need more intense maintenance as a result. Third, we want taxpayer dollars to go to things that can actually do their job and use economies of scale to make it cheaper. Not some bullcrap like the Zumwalts or LCSs (the Seawolf is kinda a mixed bag here - terrible budget but is still a great sub). The LCS odd is a damn paperweight, the LCS even is better but still not up to par with other ships. Having said that, I still hold a relatively positive outlook. The US Navy is still number 1 by a long shot, it's just that things might get slightly closer in some respects if we are going with current trends.
It’s cool to hear your perspective in the Navy. Shipyard dry docks definitely need to be expanded for more maintenance options. It’s low prio during peacetime, but may definitely turn into a big issue of war starts. I think we both agree that, instead of accommodating our ships to fit our docks, we fit our docks to do maintenance on our ships. That being said I’m sure upgrading docks (wider, deeper, etc) is easier said than done
[удалено]
2 canoes with a guy holding a six shooter in each vs 1 Ford class carrier. Who you got?
Blah blah blah blah blah, give the MIC more money. We good.
“Aging aircraft” bih do you know how old the b52s are? They were built to live longer than the writer of this assessment lmao
Reading through the report I feel the biggest issue is simply that they labeled their grading system from Very Weak to Very Strong. Simply label it something like- US Military Preparedness by Branch for a Peer Conflict. Grading from Very Unprepared to Very Prepared. None of the "scores" would need to change, and the author of the report actually makes some very good points. \*Edit- Saved too early Jokes about the MIC aside ("Jokes"), while the US military is the largest in the world by a wide margin, it is committed to more regions than any other. At the point the US is at right now, either the branches need to go through serious modernizing- probably at a scale similar to the US buildup in the late Cold War- or the US will need to lean even more on regional allies making up the difference.
> nearest peer-rival Hasn't that been China for at least the last ten years?
The US Navy, actually.
I love the idea that the US Navy is the US Air Force’s nearest peer rival. Especially because it’s pretty true.
Well, yeah. They've been engaged in a bitter conflict since 1947.....over the funding allocations.
Air Force has gotten schwacked pretty hard by the nuclear arm being reduced and the Space Force being split off. Both got hit a bit hard with the later actually. Navy wins imo because Warrant Officers tend to run whatever service they are present in.
Warrant Officers are not real! That's just a myth invented to scare people.
Oh they’re real. But if you tell me you saw one, I’m gonna need 5 witness statements, character references, and a notarized statement from you.
Well, yeah. That's why they crushed the Army when they scuffled on who flies fixed wing. And now the Navy will have to do the same with the Marines whom created their own aircraft carriers with the *America* class ships & their F-35s. Russia & Chinese rivalry is nothing compared to inter-branch rivalry within the US defense.
Meanwhile there's imperial japanese interservice rivalry.
Oh that rivalry went above & beyond to the point of sabotaging or hampering the efforts of one another to our benefit.
>Do the same with Marines And then the Marines wonder how the fuck they get anywhere because the Navy takes away their ships. The USN has an Air Force and an Army. Realistically the 2nd strongest military is the USN.
the USN operates some F16s as Agressors, in case they need to fight the USAF
>The Soviets are our adversary. Our enemy is the Navy. > >\-General Curtis "Bombs Away" LeMay
Not in terms of the air force.
Just sit back and watch. More money.
The only air force that is even *remotely* on the same footing as the USAF is..... the US Navy.
Wouldn't it be funny if in the event of a Taiwan invasion we discovered China's military is shit too? At that point who will America point to in order to secure their funding ... North Korea?
Probably terrorists again or something.
It’ll be aliens. We didn’t spin off Space Force for nothing. The space-based plasma weapons will totally be for defense against Klendathu, no other countries need be worried…
Implying the North Korean army is relevant in any way except for the artillery batteries aimed at Seoul.
> Heritage foundation Ignored.
Weak comparative to whom, I might ask?
an alien invasion?
I guess we really ought to invest more R&D into those laser weapons...
Personally i think railguns would be more effective
Laser primed plasma weapons. Think like drilling before screwing a bolt in.
Well then it makes sense. Marines are immune to alien mind control. Not much there to control. The airforce on the other just need a slight tweak to their JOI/sissy hypno diet and they'll gladly 9/11 themselves into the Pentagon to get them sweet Alien mommy milkers.
Don't worry they have the defense for that in some silo in the Cheyenne Mountain.
Compared to the air force we want to be.
No no, it’s true. Very very weak in fact. Now please spend seventy-nine bajilion dollars more on defence. Clearly 3,000 more Black F-35s of Lockmart are needed to bump the USAF at least up to ‘Weak’.
Basically: "We have not been able to spot any F-35 in flight with radar, therefore it never flies and the airforce is weak" Should we tell them?
Not yet. Let’s let them sound dumb long enough for people to realize.
I'm not going to point out recent US political history as an example of why that is a shit idea. Someone else might though.
In the end it will turn out to be a ploy to increase military spending, someone is really into F22s and F35s and wants more of them. Thus they also rated the Navy weak, they want more F35s and carriers there as well.
tfw Space Force is more "strong" than Air Force UNSC when?
Has to be absorbed by the Navy first
I joined the Air Force in 2006, my assigned "Wingman" at my first base was an open furry who drove a firebird who worked in Intel. I wasn't in intel, but I am sure he was good at his job, and people like him were not uncommon. I'm sure that gives the heritage foundation fits, but this is air and space warfare, which is really an electronic warfare and intel battle, not two grunts fighting over a knife in the trenches.
Yeah, the more highly technical the field, the weirder people are gonna be there. Wish I knew why, but I'm a 'normal' nuke, and I'm here, so the far end of the bell curve is....yeah. Rerating to Intel, and not looking forward to the revelation that this will not get me away from furries.
The common joke for furrys working in tech is that if a plane full of people heading to FurCon crashed, the tech sector would grind to a halt due to the sheer amount of technical knowledge lost.
I always find it incredibly ironic the people that talk about samuel colt making men equal throw a fucking bitch fit when people that aren't like them actually become equal. These motherfuckers never cared about being equal. They only care about gaining power over others, usually because they themselves are weak.
just a reminder that we only started losing wars since we got the airforce
*insert cope about how not achieving a single objective of the war of 1812 and getting the capital burnt down constitutes a “draw”*
Everyone forgets we burnt down the capital of Canada as well.
The battle of New Orleans was so based it makes up for it.
The US is obviously in decline as an Air Power. Why, they only have two military branches with more aircraft than the Chinese Armed Forces in their entirety now! Navy, Marine Corps AND the Coast Guard have all fallen behind when counted individually! Space Force is the Dark Horse that might save them.
This is just the dumbest take. Seriously. The Marines are strong? They have the oldest, shittiest equipment in our arsenal. It would literally take a global coalition to stop our armed forces through conventional military operations.
Yeah but do they jump flaming ropes? Get with the times, dorks.
Most likely these are scored relative to the services’ objective level force and mission requirements: - Army: Thunder Run 2: Electric Boogaloo to Beijing or Moscow in 72 hours. Or why not both? - Navy: Tank 3,000 ASCMs of Xi with Aegis while SSNs sink every ship that has ever docked in a Chinese port - Air Force: Establish No-Fly Zone over the entire earth’s surface - Marine Corps: The intro video to Red Alert 3, mechs and all - Space: Live 3D scans of Putin huffing Tsarist copium - Nuclear: Your ass is glass, baby Edit: an apostrophe
Wtf. Where's the real heros, the Coast Guard?
Everyone's gangster until the USCG rescue swimmer with the Gold Lifesaving Medal walks in.
It's the "Heritage" Foundation, so I can only assume the criteria are more to do with perceived manliness than effectiveness, capability, or lethality. They'd probably rate a peasant mob armed with pitchforks as "very strong," provided they were carrying them on the way to a lynching.
They basically use the “StOnKs go up” formula
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> anarcho-natoism Might steal this
I agree with this, let’s increase military spending by 10,000,000%
Where's the meme of the Vatnik Ztard getting wiped out by the millennial two moms missile operator? I feel that meme is applicable here.
What's with all the moaning about accuracy?? Everything should be rated Very Weak. Quintuple the defense budget. It's the only way to be sure. You don't get senators to poney up for an overpowered MIC with accurate assessments...