A U.S. Air Force B-1B Lancer prepares to take off for a 10-hour mission from Andersen Air Force Base, Guam, into Japanese airspace and over the Korean Peninsula, July 30, 2017. (Tech. Sgt. Richard P. Ebensberger/Air Force)
WASHINGTON – Less than half of the bombers President Donald Trump would rely upon to be “locked and loaded” against North Korea could launch today if needed, according to the latest Air Force figures available.
That’s not a surprise to the bomb squadrons who have seen firsthand the combined effects of aircraft age, the demand of 15 years of air war operations and reduced budgets. But the numbers can be stark. Of the nation’s 75 conventional and nuclear B-52s, only about 33 are ready to fly at any given time, according to Air Force statistics. Of the 62 conventional B-1s, only about 25 are ready. With the 20 nuclear B-2 stealth bombers, the number drops further. Seven or eight bombers are available, according to the Air Force.
“On a nominal basis you don’t have more than single digits of B-2s available to do anything,” said retired Air Force Lt. Gen. Dave Deptula, currently the dean of the Mitchell Institute of Aerospace.
Read more ....
WNU Editor: I can remember the time when the U.S. military was structured to fight 2 major wars at the same time .... to day .... they are not even ready to fight one.
12 comments:
Prior to World War 2, some countries like Romania or Portugal had a larger military force than the US. The US military was ranked 19th (or 17th depending on who you ask) with around 170k men in the army.
Imagine the United States today if WW2 had not happened... WW2 shaped the United States just as much as it did the other countries.
So in that perspective, it's not really all that surprising.
"...they are not even ready to fight one." I knew this for a long time. As such, this comes as no surprise to me.
So much for the ridiculous idea of the US being a superpower, much less a hyper power. When people make such claims, I wonder if they have any idea how stupid they sound. I'm sure they don't as such people are somewhat like 7th grade boys in that they are to stupid to know they are stupid.
Sequestration didn't help.
Considering the video above this post maybe they only need half their bombers.
B Poster
is "somewhat like 7th grade boy in that they are to stupid to[sic] know they are stupid."
Russia has all forces available to fight 100% of the time?
You know this how?
Thanks President Obozo!
"Russia has all forces available to fight 100% of the time." I don't recall saying or implying they did any time recently. Actually I have no idea what their force readiness is.
If half the bombers are currently not combat ready, this may not be a problem if the bombers can be made ready in a short period of time. The point the editor was making is the US military isn't ready for a major war and he is correct. As such, the US cannot be a hyper power. It is prudent to question the wisdom of such people who make such outlandish claims.
"Actually I have no idea what their force readiness is. " - BSP
You have no idea other than they are stronger than the U.S.
Yes, I see how that result follows in a BS world.
I was convinced at one time that Russia would definitely be stronger than the US. I'm not as convinced of that now. As more informatiin is gained, prudence sometimes means we alter our positions. I've had to do this on occasion.
We cannot "know" the outcome in advance but given the tendencies of the US and how our government chooses to spend noney with regards to weapons and weapons systems as well as how it has chosen to allocate its forces leaves little cause for optimism. From observation, it is a reasonable conclusion that the Russian armed forces are very a very formidable fighting force. As to what percentage of their military forces or equipment is ready to go at any time, I truthfully have no idea.
Only 50% readiness is a low number. The editor correctly points out that the US is not ready for a najor war at the present time. While the US is a formidable power, it is not a super power and it is definitely not a hyper power.
Additionally from another post of the editor we now learn the US is having trouble retaining combat veterans. Of course I already knew this. This is what happens when a country runs its military into the ground doing fruitless missions around the world that don't advance US national interests or enhance US national security. This further corroborates the conclusion that America is not a hyper power.
In conclusion, those who make such claims reveal themselves to be ideological blind or complete and total idiots. I suspect the problem is ideological blindness which makes people complete and total idiots.
The issue of Russian military readiness as a percentage is a side issue. I hadn't intended to discuss that. Perhaps the editor will post sonething on this soon.
B.Poster,
Are you calling the WNU Editor an idiot or ideologically blind? That's not very nice is it... Cause the WNU Editor has stated numerous times before that the US is a superpower. Recent if I'm not mistaken. And you seem to hold his opinion in high regard, so ... there you go.
And it is a superpower. Just because your anti-american bias (which I tend to share as well, but hey, I'm a realist) tells you deep down that America isn't a superpower doesn't make it so.
Superpower
noun
1.
an extremely powerful nation, especially one capable of influencing international events and the acts and policies of less powerful nations. (Check)
2.
power greater in scope or magnitude than that which is considered natural or has previously existed. (Check)
If your whole entire argument for it to not being a superpower revolves around the basis that it can't fight a major war, then it falls apart.
First of all, don't underestimate the power of economy mobilization. In any major war that breaks out, the economy would gradually shift to accommodate that. A war economy can do a great deal in sustaining conflict.
In my view, America is a superpower in gradual decline, with an economy that can't sustain itself with the current debt. But it has done a pretty good job so far of keeping its head above waters. It is still a superpower.
Russia has its own problems. Too many to list here...
D.Plowman,
I don't recall the editor using this term to describe America. Actually the main thing I was referring to was the ridiculous term hyper power.
I'm well aware of the definition of superpower. America does not meet it. While very powerful it does not meet that definition. If the editor said this, he is wrong. No one is perfect and yes I do have a great deal of respect for his opinion.
While an economy can mobilize, America lacks much manufacturing capability. While this can be remedied, doing so while being bombed is going to be problematic.
Again, very powerful, probably, however, I think "Petomkin Village" may be a apt description. Superpower, no. If an American leader acts on the idea that America is a superpower, hyper power, or in some way "exceptional" among nations, this can't end well. I noticed during the campaign candidate Trump refrained from such crazy talk.
Unfortunately recently one of his team members a Dr. Sebastian Gorka went on a rant when talking about North Korea where he referred to America as a hyper power. Hopefully he was speaking on his own and these aren't the views of his boss.
I lean in the direction of these aren't the views of his boss. Somehow someone got China and Russia to publically sign onto sanctions and got China to pledge neutrality. Had someone taken the Sebastian Gorka approach none of that would have happened and we would not have been able to make the steps we've made towards defusing the crisis. I will reiterate what I've said before. Much can still go wrong.
I did not and do not wish to insult anyone. Actually someone not from America can probably be allowed leeway for a lack of proper understanding this issue. The main context of my posts was/is talking head pundits and "leaders." They are without excuse and should know better. For what it's worth, most Americans are still smart enough to see through it. This is partly why DJT got elected.
D Plowman
You wrote.
"Are you calling the WNU Editor an idiot or ideologically blind? That's not very nice is it... Cause the WNU Editor has stated numerous times before that the US is a superpower. Recent if I'm not mistaken. And you seem to hold his opinion in high regard, so ... there you go."
You did a better job than I.
And yet more lying dissembling & deflection (see below).
"I don't recall the editor using this term to describe America. Actually the main thing I was referring to was the ridiculous term hyper power. " - Bposter ~ impostor
And the beat goes on...
Post a Comment