USA

>Is that a result of the decline of the USA as manufactur and engineering nation?
Probably in some ways. Without competition you don't get as many innovations and they happen slower. Things sped up during the industrial revolution but no where near as quickly as it did during the world wars. When there is a NEED for these things they tend to get prioritized a bit more highly.
More competition tends to mean more people with expertise, a lot of innovations are people that have an expertise in that stuff and just try something a bit different. I really feel like the U.S.A. moving to a service economy is rather terrible move for trying to maintain it's military edge for developing or improving things.

Lack of competition always nearly leads to complacency, it seems that only very recently have the US have woken up to the fact that they might need to contend with more than sand people in the future. The US have historically blown a large amount of their budget on ridiculously advanced black projects that rarely see the light of day, because they're either too impractical or expensive for mass deployment; for example, the US are the world's leading nation when it comes to hypersonics and have possession of the most advanced scramjet technology known to mankind, however they have yet to field a hypersonic missile. Why is this? Because it didn't fit the doctrine at the time, after the Soviet Union collapsed the US pivoted their entire combat doctrine to combating terrorists and militants, which meant that loads of advanced projects were cancelled as there was no longer a need for them, others that survived like the F-22 found themselves without a purpose. The US military at the moment is in a massive state of transition, from a military designed to kill sandniggers to one designed to combat other rival nations such as China and Russia; this can be clearly seen by the current military budget's large investment in key sectors such as hypersonic weapons and air defence systems.

They have no good ground air defense assets

Your post has me wondering... is the US allowing China to grow its militaries to foster competition? Will we see an XCOM unit in the near future as a result of tensions between the two powers?

They don't need it because nobody else is flying, and if anyone else was they have fighters to intercept them.

I don't see why its so important for the US to have them when the doctrine of the US Armed Forces is always establish air superiority, then you don't need AD systems or artillery.

>Artillery
Fucking wut? No other nation has guided artillery shells and the MLRS is a fucking grid square rapist.

>Artillery

No really that much needed, what the US has in artillery covers the requirements.

>Air defence

Doctrinal, why invest in fuckhuge long range and short range land based AA when you expect to hold air supremacy/superiority and have an air force prepared to do it with fuckhuge budgets and tech?

>Fucking wut? No other nation has guided artillery shells
False. At least Sweden, France, Russia and China has
>and the MLRS is a fucking grid square rapist.
And so is every other nations MLRS

That is exactly what I meant.

> nation has guided artillery shells
Russia does
> MLRS is a fucking grid square rapist.

Thats the BM-21 for you, the MLRS is still less focussed in sector bombing when you compare it with other rocket-based artillery.

Fired out of ancient Vietnam era manually loaded artillery system

Manual loading has the upsides of being very difficult to jam, and very easy to swap different shells in. It's also faster than a lot of autoloaders. It's the same reasons they don't bother with autoloading tanks.

but you post no sources for you claim

Bull-fucking-shit

Even for tanks. This isnt the 80's no more.

>This isnt the 80's no more.
Yeah, and autoloaders haven't gotten much better since then. They still have a nasty tendency to jam, still aren't as fast as someone who has drilled to load, and still can't selectively choose a variety of ammo to load without adding even more moving parts that can break.

Yes they can. Russian/Chinese cant, but they are shit. Western nations autoloaders are faster and can switch ammunition types faster.

Then he's a fucking retard if he does.

Its more about their circular turret design barring them then not having the tech though

>behind in many key areas
Care to objectively quantify that, dingus?

I'm glad you seem to understand that nuclear powers will never actually go to war (beyond proxy war) but instead, cooperate in reciprocally scaring the others public into allowing their govnerment to steal even more of their money to be funneled into big, expensive, impressive MIC projects that benefit the defense contractors and the congress members they bribe.
If you honestly believe that 2 ICBM nations will ever go to war, you are the most useful kind of idiot and an outstanding goy.

Attached: 1525170962124.jpg (1366x768, 347K)

The US can't be expected to be more advanced in every area. Coming from a bong.

The US plows money into many areas where it expects to rely on in a war - airspace penetration, fleet defence, networked ground warfare.

Because the US is clear about how it wants to fight a war, it'spotential oponents naturally try to come up with counters to the straategy.

This opposing strategy is referred to as A2/AD (Anti-Access Area Denial, because these shit acronyms are trendy amongst people who want to make themselves look clever)

This is why China is ploughing money into anti-ship ballistic missiles and Russia is doing the same with SAM's.

Their strategy is not to beat the US in all regards, it's to beat the US in one key area that makes a war very costly.

(those two examples do not form an exhaustive list, there are other areas where potential enemies look to exploit asymmetrical warfare)

As for OP's example of Meteor.

It's easier for Euorpe to spend lots of money on advanced weapons because they are not spending money on advanced platforms. this is really a benefit for both Europe and the US because technology sharing is a much bigger thing than people make it seem.

>Because the US is clear about how it wants to fight a war, it'spotential oponents naturally try to come up with counters to the straategy.
>This opposing strategy is referred to as A2/AD (Anti-Access Area Denial, because these shit acronyms are trendy amongst people who want to make themselves look clever)
>This is why China is ploughing money into anti-ship ballistic missiles and Russia is doing the same with SAM's.

Not enough people appreciate this.

Your enemy has a big army and you have a big border?

Invest in mines

Is your enemy an island with a powerful navy?

Invest in submarines.

BM-21 makes a poor comparison to the 270.
Much more than that as well. Lots of nations have guided MLRS.

USA has actually one of the worst engineering culture.
Running a R&D intensity lower than any other high tech countries like Japan or Germany.

>BM-21 makes a poor comparison to the 270.

Why? Because it doesn't have the same role and it's designed differently? Or because reasons?

Dude, you guys buy your guided artillery rounds from Sweden because you lack the know-how to develop them yourselves.

wew lad
The U.S. has been begging European countries to increase their military spending for decades because it's inadequate. They already seen what the Russians did in East Germany and they still don't listen.
Every projection of Russia is they'd steam roll practically every Euro nation in their way at first and lose after the initial outburst where they make gains.
US does R&D on stuff that was basically just sci-fi concepts. Sometimes it takes decades for it to pay off. Lasers and rail guns are just starting to be a thing. IF anything the US probably fucked up not weaponizing space with lasers that stuff would just be paying off now.

The problem is that America's bureaucracy is not as efficient as China's.

And what country do you live in?

>janes.com/article/80148/us-army-to-order-bonus-rounds

Cant make this shit up senpai

As someone who worked in that field for some time, I can say the Mark 48 torpedos aren't competive anymore.

Guidance system with basically half the range of other NATO torpedos and the pump jet suffers from massive range and speed losses at great depthes.

If america could get political/corporate interests out of their military they would be unquestionably the most advanced military on earth in every regard.

>give Israel access to all your latest stuff
>surprised your competition all catches up almost like they had all the blueprints to your stuff
>everyone of them has become buddies with Israel

random "the jews did it" post

ill just omit random and post, yours will serve.

us doesn't give accesses to it's best toys to anyone

despite that israel still outshines US in many fields

>The U.S. has been begging European countries to increase their military spending for decades because it's inadequate.

Inadequate for what? Russia isnt invading Europe on any time scale as it stands.

Don't think you appreciate how peaceful Europe. A proxy war in Ukraine and some close to borders flights by warplanes?

is that it?

Look at our history over the last 2000 years, we've never had it so good.

I personally believe it's because everything involving being smart in the United States has become taboo due to mass media.

Like chemistry?
>Must be a drug dealer

Like Engineering?
>Most likely a terrorist.

Like working professionally?
>Literally a slave or slave owner.

Like making controversial art pointing out all these issues?
>Not an artist.

To top it off, academia has taken the scientific process and made it flawed because nobody does peer review research since it cost too much. It's not that peer review research is bad, but usually the only people doing it have a bias or are funded to have a bias. People really can't even afford to live let alone form citizen groups to do their own peer reviewing. The government can't really step in because it's too easy for big money to influence government agencies.

>They already seen what the Russians did in East Germany and they still don't listen.

What? Leave because they can't compete economically?

Fell free to blow your money on weapons that don't get used.

Meanwhile, we have a higher standard of living.

> Inadequate for what? Russia isnt invading Europe on any time scale as it stands.

because america is protecting you solo, that's why they are asking you to stop being parasites, and you reply with "but we have it good". no shit eurohomo

America doesn't even a division in Europe

Oh, its another episode of "Please come and save us again daddy USA" when the war breaks out.

They have a division in Norway alone, what are you on about?

> what is deterrence by being part of NATO
> who is the real tough guy in NATO

drumpf will do the world a favor by throwing you under the bus

>because america is protecting you solo, that's why they are asking you to stop being parasites, and you reply with "but we have it good". no shit eurohomo

>Oh, its another episode of "Please come and save us again daddy USA" when the war breaks out.

Whats it like living in the 1980's?

Ground air defense is a fucking awful idea. It's like trying to win a fist fight laying face down on the ground.

Only having ground air defence is a bad idea. Having no brigade air defence is an equally bad idea.

It’s because we are a fucking huge military, with forts and bases in all sorts of countries. It’s a nightmare to get new gear to every single one of them, so it takes time.

Also
>having more carriers than any country
>outdated
Pick one and only one

>thinks russia has any interest in invading europe

Russia literally never wanted to invade Europe, the build up in the cold war was purely defensive from both sides. The Russians just had a plan of preemptive invasion.

read a fucking book.

>Whats it like living in the 1980's?

A lot fucking better then living in the imaginary world you do, where war is impossible and everyone is nice to each other

Most of them are logistics and shit.

Attached: Us-forces.png (620x750, 57K)

he's talking about being able to intercept missles. it's argueable if US even has the capability protect its mainland from norkshit that's embarrassing

> t. sergei anatoly, intern at propaganda today

kys

>Russia literally never wanted to invade Europe

The vatniks are going all out today

Attached: 17993910011.png (327x316, 193K)

>wah, you don't agree with my extreme political outlook therefore you must agree with the polar opposite of my views

It's like talking to a teenager.

Europe is literally the most peaceful inhabited continent on earth, nothing you can say changes that.

Brigade air defense being a realistic and clear expectation of total air superiority beats the shit out of ground based weapons for fighting aircraft.

>Most of them are logistics and shit.

No they are not. There are an entire USMC division there, complete with everything.

>dat pic
2014 was a long time ago user.

The presence of the 330-strong Marine Corps unit forms part of expanding cooperation between Norwegian and U.S. forces, particularly in the area of joint multibranch exercises in the Arctic region’s High North close to Norway’s border with Russia.

>330
>division

>no spike aftee 9/11
Wut

>Europe is literally the most peaceful inhabited continent on earth, nothing you can say changes that.

Correct. But that doesnt mean war is impossible like you seem to think. Any sane nation in Europe should invest at least 2% into their defence.

>What is the USMC prepositions system

>having an entire marines division in Norway just for fun

some people have ideas

USA is the new USSR

Attached: 1521484281347.jpg (719x538, 33K)

>But that doesnt mean war is impossible like you seem to think. Any sane nation in Europe should invest at least 2% into their defence.

Once again assuming that i'm saying war is impossible.

>Russia isnt invading Europe on any time scale as it stands.

Please remember that rebuilding an army takes at least 15 - 20 years.

>Is that a result of the decline of the USA as manufactur and engineering nation?
No, its the result of high American manufacturing costs for higher quality products. Anything made here costs more than anything made in Asia or Eurasia, which accounts for some of the increase in spending.

China is the new USSR.

> f35 program costs one trillion dollars
> this is somehow justified

who needs to rebuild? The UK and France together spend more than Russia on defence. add the other 45 or so countries in Europe and it dwarfs Russia.

Yeah, they spend more. That doesnt mean they have the same quantity.

Artillery and air defense are obsolete methods. Airpower does both jobs far better.

t. Armchair general

Its fine inna-Afghanistan, but outside of that you sure want faster assets.

>Inadequate for what? Russia isnt invading Europe on any time scale as it stands.
Are Georgia and the Ukraine in Europe? Are they considered Europeans? Neck yourself.

I don't think you understand how the Stasi there worked or that they wouldn't have been as effective without Russian assistance. If you look at those parts of Germany even after re-unification it's completely disadvantaged compared to the west part by any standard if you just compare those two.

>can't refute what I said
Not suprised. There is nothing as cuck as pissing away your (fiat) tax money because you bought your govnerment's bullshit about how shoveling your money to Raytheon, Boeing & Lockheed keeps you safe in spite of your vast nuclear ICBM stock (which costs a tiny fraction of military spending).
Stay goy.

How is artillery faster than air assets? Unless the artillery is parked where it needs to be a plane can be generally be on call within 20 minutes.

>not knowing who the Russian submariner Vasili Arkhipov is
>not knowing his decision prevented WW3

Attached: 1510323454039.png (525x777, 485K)

Yeah, 20 minutes.

Modern artillery has a deployment time of around 30 seconds, followed by a shell flight time of around 2 minutes. Another thing is that you can do so without knowing what air defence units your enemy has.

Thats the thing with brigade or battalion attached artillery, they constantly follow the brigade where its going, redy to set up and fire in a short time.

Im not saying CAS is useless, its just different, and you cant really replace one with the other.

That doesn't refute my point about ICBMs being all Americans need for threat defense. Well, that and espionage and a few special teams but this whole army, navy, airforce thing is a dog and pony show to make taxpayers feel good about being raped and to protect Foreign Country A.

You have artillery always parked where you need it. If you don't there is no point in having it.

>threat defense
thats why we got a fleet of carriers and force projection. the US armed forces is the only country that can make house calls. act right of freedom can be delivered is the implicit threat

Spoken like a true neocon fuck stick. Go choke on Zionist cum.

lol, cant blame the messenger for reality bro

>How is artillery faster than air assets

t. person with 0 combat experience.

Artillery is way fucking faster than air. Unless air is pre-planned, it's always 30 minutes late, plus any bureaucratic bullshit which can add another 1-2 half-hour intervals.

Artillery is

What is procurement in military jargon?

Buying crayons

It makes sense.

I didn't refute what you said because you're simply wrong and trying to annoy people. What you're doing is like jumping around and saying
>huuuurrrr duuurr I'm a retard, prove I'm a retard

I mean honestly I wouldn't mind telling you what you're doing wrong. The difference is no matter how much I point out and explain you're retarded, you're just going to act even more retarded about it. I'd honestly have to be retarded to myself to think I could fix someone that's so fundamentally fucked up that they're retarded. That's like a specialized job for people to get payed for to deal with people like that. There is some levels of stupid I can fix, but there is a bit of a curve there where reason doesn't work on the unreasonable. I mean if you're not smart enough to just kill yourself I really think everyone else that's smarter should consider mass suicide so that you don't have us to rely on anymore and die off anyway. It's just not worth it.

The US is behind in many key technology fields because they have a crap education system, a corrupt leadership and generally don't design products for the purpose of strategic aims, but commercial aims.

It a better business model to make a flawed product so you can be paid to upgrade it later. And products which aren't profitable are not high priority.

Also US doctrine and lack of experience in conventional warfare might also make them prioritize differently.

There is probably a lot that goes into it.

>Air defence
>Doctrinal, why invest in fuckhuge long range and short range land based AA when you expect to hold air supremacy/superiority and have an air force prepared to do it with fuckhuge budgets and tech?

Why would you scramble F-16's to take out a swarm of grenade / C4 block carrying quad copters when a SPAAG does it quicker, easier, and cheaper.