Strategies for warfighting between military branches

Re: US Navy Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines

This thread is about the varying strategies and emphasis placed on warfighting between different military branches. The Air Force, Army, Navy and Marines.

It is meant to include their individual strategies, as well as their combined arms tactics and strategies and how this impacts funding, equipment, policies, and manpower.

The following is the post that kicked off the conversation over on the "Virginia Class Attack Submarine Thread."

Jeff Head said:

The role and mission of the SSBN is completely different than the SSN.

The SSBN is a strategic deterrent.

The SSN is a hunter/killer and strike platform, used tactically in war.

The Triad of nuclear deterrent remains absolutely necessary.

Fourteen of those boats, so that we can have 3-4 deployed at all times, is a very critical insurance policy in a nuclear armed world. one that has proven itself capable of the deterrence that it brings. It represents the hardest part to find and eliminate.

Click to expand...

Jeff Head said:

Triad of nuclear deterrent remains absolutely necessary.

Fourteen of those boats, so that we can have 3-4 deployed at all times, is a very critical insurance policy in a nuclear armed world. one that has proven itself capable of the deterrence that it brings. It represents the hardest part to find and eliminate.

Click to expand...

Actually, US could save lot of money by introducing mobile TELs for ICBMs, like Russians do . But the problem is those mobile ICBMs would naturally come under jurisdiction of US Army . And Army is a stepchild of US Armed Forces, not having its own fixed-wing air force (even tiny Marines have that ) and not having strategic nuclear capability (actually not having any nuclear capability these days) . US Army receives least funding per person, and gets worst assignments. That is the way of the world

Re: US Navy Virginia Class Nuclear Attack Submarines

thunderchief said:

Actually, US could save lot of money by introducing mobile TELs for ICBMs, like Russians do . But the problem is those mobile ICBMs would naturally come under jurisdiction of US Army . And Army is a stepchild of US Armed Forces, not having its own fixed-wing air force (even tiny Marines have that ) and not having strategic nuclear capability (actually not having any nuclear capability these days) . US Army receives least funding per person, and gets worst assignments. That is the way of the world

Click to expand...

Well, this is completely off topic.

The Pershing and LANCE nuclear missiles that the US Army deployed were all deactivated by 1992, all as a result of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty of 1987. The Lance was a shorter ranged SRBM missile that had nuclear and conventional capabilities. It's conventional mission was replaced with the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

The ATACMS initially had a range of about 100 miles and it could be fired from the MLRS system, as could the Lance. Newer variants of the ATACMS, the MGM-168 ATacMS Block IVA, has a range of 190 miles, and that version carries a 230 kilograms (500 lb) unitary HE warhead instead of the anti-personnel and anti-armor bomblets.

This is interesting because it means in theory that the nuclear warheads could probably be fitted to this weapon if necessary...though there are no known plans to do so.

Anyhow, the US Army does retain significant missile barrage capability, and it does have rotary winged aircraft in large numbers. The US Army was to have had a V-22 Osprey aircraft, but it elected itself to withdraw from the program.

As to the US Army being some kind of "step child," it is simply not so.

By its nature the US Army missions are different than that of the Navy and US Air Force...and being dedicated to the ground role means getting those missions, But the US Marines also take on the ground missions, as do the US Navy SEALS.

But being an all volunteer force means that people volunteer for the duty they want to serve, as long as they can meet muster.

Now...BACK TO THE VIRGINIA CLASS SUBS. Take any talk about US Army issues, or various nuclear weapon strategies to another thread.

Jeff Head said:

Well, this is completely off topic.

The Pershing and LANCE nuclear missiles that the US Army deployed were all deactivated by 1992, all as a result of the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) treaty of 1987. The Lance was a shorter ranged SRBM missile that had nuclear and conventional capabilities. It's conventional mission was replaced with the MGM-140 Army Tactical Missile System (ATACMS).

The ATACMS initially had a range of about 100 miles and it could be fired from the MLRS system, as could the Lance. Newer variants of the ATACMS, the MGM-168 ATacMS Block IVA, has a range of 190 miles, and that version carries a 230 kilograms (500 lb) unitary HE warhead instead of the anti-personnel and anti-armor bomblets.

This is interesting because it means in theory that the nuclear warheads could probably be fitted to this weapon if necessary...though there are no known plans to do so.

Anyhow, the US Army does retain significant missile barrage capability, and it does have rotary winged aircraft in large numbers. The US Army was to have had a V-22 Osprey aircraft, but it elected itself to withdraw from the program.

As to the US Army being some kind of "step child," it is simply not so.

By its nature the US Army missions are different than that of the Navy and US Air Force...and being dedicated to the ground role means getting those missions, But the US Marines also take on the ground missions, as do the US Navy SEALS.

But being an all volunteer force means that people volunteer for the duty they want to serve, as long as they can meet muster.

Now...BACK TO THE VIRGINIA CLASS SUBS. Take any talk about US Army issues, or various nuclear weapon strategies to another thread.

Click to expand...

Since we don't have dedicated thread about US nuclear forces, I will respond here . Pershings were IRBMs , and I'm talking about ICBMs like Topol-M . You could have 24 or even 30 TELs with missiles for significantly less money compared with the cost of Ohio-class submarine .

As for US Army being stepchild - vast majority of casualties in recent wars were from US Army , and yet Army is not even allowed to operate simple aircraft like A-10 (compared to Marines with F-18 , Harriers and now F-35B) . Army don't have much influence in selection process for next generation of US aircraft , and yet they would bear consequences of wrong decisions .

Re: US military news thread

thunderchief said:

Since we don't have dedicated thread about US nuclear forces, I will respond here . Pershings were IRBMs , and I'm talking about ICBMs like Topol-M . You could have 24 or even 30 TELs with missiles for significantly less money compared with the cost of Ohio-class submarine .

Click to expand...

The decision was taken and made decades ago.

the US Air Froce operateds the land based strategic nucler arsenal.

The three legs of the deterrence was also made. The sub-launched missile will remaiin.

Yes, the US could develop mobile ICBMs on land...but it has determined oit does not need to. I do not expect Russia, any time soon, will give up its three legs. And particularly not the SSBNs. Neither will the US.

In the US they would be the last to go.

thunderchief said:

As for US Army being stepchild - vast majority of casualties in recent wars were from US Army , and yet Army is not even allowed to operate simple aircraft like A-10 (compared to Marines with F-18 , Harriers and now F-35B) . Army don't have much influence in selection process for next generation of US aircraft , and yet they would bear consequences of wrong decisions .

Click to expand...

As I said. It is an all volunteer force, and the force structure is established. probably not going to change in the near future...or at least in my life time.

All of the services are well funded. All of them have very good equipment for what they do. Of course land forces have suffered the greatest causalties. It's almost always been that way in major wars for the last 150+ years. Particularly since World War II when there has not been a major opponent in the wars the US has been involved in capable of really challenging the US in the air or on the sea.

But even if there were, in any major war the largest casualities will most probably remain in the land battles for the forseeable future. Now, a major at sea confrontation between major powers, where no land battles are fought, could change all of that. But that would be the nature of such a war and in that case, the Navy would take the brunt of the casualites. But certainly not (as it is also with the Armny) because the navy is a step child. It owuld just be the nature of the conflict.

Still, in the US, people volunteer for what they want to be involved with...land, sea, or air. None of them are "step children."

But this is really not "News," it is just a discussion of how things are. If such a discussion continues, we probably should make a thread specifically for discussing the differing strategies between the branches for war fighting, their finding, and their operations. Perhaps call it, "Strategies for war fighting between military branches"

Removed redundant post