Small Scale Conflicts, The Future
- Thread starter lobbie111
- Start date
I think there is a dangerous trend in many countries, most of all western Democracies, where the development of military doctrine follows the development of military budgets. For a historical perspective look at the 5 years following WW-ll and the drastic cuts in budgets that left us scrambling to define missions. Eventually leading to the weakness that hurt us deeply in Korea. History has shown us past "peace dividends" aren't free at all. There has been a big price to pay for weakness each and every time it has been shown.
Another example would be Britain today. The cuts in their military budget is the catalyst for the Military planners to define the mission. Russia is another one. In other words tactics and doctrine are in large part controlled by "head up their ass" Politicians who dole out military $$ based on everything except the $$ the Military experts say they need. And the Generals are not choir boys in all this either. They say they need 10 in order to get 3, and not only that, but they stubbornly back systems we dont need that they have rode their careers on. Either way the cart is in front of the horse.
Battle royals are just as possible in the future as they have ever been. More historical perspective would be the 1920s and '30s Europe where many thought the terror of modern war would preclude ever having to fight a "royal" again. The truth is we have to be prepared to fight both the large conventional and the bush type wars. There is no peace dividend in this life, most of all for people living in the free Democracies.
Sorry to be so long winded but it drives me nuts to see military strategists planning doctrine after they see what the elected windbags give them. So there is the plan you need, and there is the plan you devise after seeing your only going to get 2% of your national GDP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Military_expenditure_percent_of_GDP.PNG
Just a point I wanted to make first.
The funny thing is that many (NATO) countries have developed 'light' forces focussing on mobility and infantry and started selling off or phasing out their armour. It happened in all NATO countries.
However, nowadays more and more doctrinal institutes (like the Dutch Doctrinal Command in the Dutch Military History Magazine 'Militaire Spectator') are pointing out that 'heavy' forces atill have a future.
For example.
The Dutch force composition for the missions to Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and Iraq consisted of an infantry battlegroup supported by some light wheeled armour and helicopters for QRF duties.
To Afghanistan went a reinforced infantry battlegroup supported by organic APCs/AFVs, attack helicopters and self-propelled artillery.
The only thing that still poses a challenge is to ahve the light/heavy mix of combat power fast into the brink. After all, you still have trouble airmailing a tank squadron to, say, Afghanistan...
However, nowadays more and more doctrinal institutes (like the Dutch Doctrinal Command in the Dutch Military History Magazine 'Militaire Spectator') are pointing out that 'heavy' forces atill have a future.
For example.
The Dutch force composition for the missions to Ethiopia, Yugoslavia and Iraq consisted of an infantry battlegroup supported by some light wheeled armour and helicopters for QRF duties.
To Afghanistan went a reinforced infantry battlegroup supported by organic APCs/AFVs, attack helicopters and self-propelled artillery.
The only thing that still poses a challenge is to ahve the light/heavy mix of combat power fast into the brink. After all, you still have trouble airmailing a tank squadron to, say, Afghanistan...
Funny how you mention NATO, or, whats left of NATO. The real NATO was arrayed against Iraqi forces in 1991 and it was an awesome machine. What happened was the Cold War ended so quickly we were left with a juggernaut for a few years and luckily were given a war for it to fight in the desert. Well we fought the war nobody thought we'd ever have to fight and then largely disbanded NATO because it was thought we'd never have to fight such a war again.
And to make it even more indigestible NATO, with the exception of the USA, has continued to cut both its military manpower and Defense spending per GDP since 9/11. Since 9/11, and excluding the USA, the other NATO nations have gone from spending 2.02 of their collective GDPs to 1.8% . This from an average of 2.5% at the end of the Cold War.
So mission planners dont get to work until after they see what they are going to get. Funny way to run the business eh? They arent phasing out anything due to evolving doctrine ; They are "phasing it out" cause they dont want to pay for it.
And to make it even more indigestible NATO, with the exception of the USA, has continued to cut both its military manpower and Defense spending per GDP since 9/11. Since 9/11, and excluding the USA, the other NATO nations have gone from spending 2.02 of their collective GDPs to 1.8% . This from an average of 2.5% at the end of the Cold War.
So mission planners dont get to work until after they see what they are going to get. Funny way to run the business eh? They arent phasing out anything due to evolving doctrine ; They are "phasing it out" cause they dont want to pay for it.
Sorry I have to disagree.
NATO did not find in the desert, it was the US-led Coalition.
I agree that countries are decreasing their budgets over the years, but politics and the military are always together. Planners have to do with what the politica, and thus the people, give the military.
What they are doing, is trying to spend their budgets the best way, with the best bang for the buck and trying to get everything done.
NATO did not find in the desert, it was the US-led Coalition.
I agree that countries are decreasing their budgets over the years, but politics and the military are always together. Planners have to do with what the politica, and thus the people, give the military.
What they are doing, is trying to spend their budgets the best way, with the best bang for the buck and trying to get everything done.
The German air force was present tho. Werent they? Anyway I'm sure they were there is spirit, and hopefully sent a check. My point being that 1991 in the desert was pretty much the closest we ever came to seeing NATO fight. Most of all with the presence of the Yank armored corps from Germany.
I believe the German presence was only in a chemical defence company and did not actively participate.
The German armed forces are now starting to go into the same way as I described. With a large armoured force they are now selling off equipment and investing in more mobile forces with airmobile infantry and the Boxer AFV. However, as they co-operate with the Dutch armed forces in the joint Army Corps, they are also developing the heavy/light mix I previously mentioned.
The German armed forces are now starting to go into the same way as I described. With a large armoured force they are now selling off equipment and investing in more mobile forces with airmobile infantry and the Boxer AFV. However, as they co-operate with the Dutch armed forces in the joint Army Corps, they are also developing the heavy/light mix I previously mentioned.
Whilst NATO may not have provided a 'NATO' force as such, individual NATO members did support the US led coalition. The following troop contributions by NATO members (as in 1991) are listed in Wikipia:
United States: 575,000 troops
Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle)
United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby
France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet
Spain: 3,000 troops
Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION
Netherlands: 200 troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
I am uncertain whether the numbers include naval and airforce personnel, but I think that it is reasonable to say that forces that were part of the NATO order of battle were committed to the conflict.
Cheers
Hi tasman,
You are correct, for that matter other countries delivered troops too. But the Dutch and Spanish troops delivered for Desert Shield not for Desert Storm. The Dutch troops were people manning Patriot launchers in Turkey and Israel adn a naval ship in the Gulf for the embargo tasks in the strait of Hormuz, while German, Spanish and Quatarese troops manned field hospitals.
There should be a difference in participation for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, for that matter this Wiki is wrong, also because it does not take into account the thousands of Egyptian, Syrian and Saudi troops participating actively in the fighting for Kuwait...
You are correct, for that matter other countries delivered troops too. But the Dutch and Spanish troops delivered for Desert Shield not for Desert Storm. The Dutch troops were people manning Patriot launchers in Turkey and Israel adn a naval ship in the Gulf for the embargo tasks in the strait of Hormuz, while German, Spanish and Quatarese troops manned field hospitals.
There should be a difference in participation for Desert Shield and Desert Storm, for that matter this Wiki is wrong, also because it does not take into account the thousands of Egyptian, Syrian and Saudi troops participating actively in the fighting for Kuwait...
I agree with what you say. In fairness to Wikipedia the full list of participants in the article included Egypt, Syria and Saudi Arabia. I just listed the NATO countries in the list. The full list shown was:
Troop deployment
United States: 575,000 troops
Saudi Arabia: 52,000 troops (only 20-40,000 took part in the Liberation of Kuwait & Battle of Khafji)
Turkey: 50,000 troops (did not take part in any battle)
United Kingdom: 43,000 troops Operation Granby
Egypt: 35,000 troops
United Arab Emirates: 1,000 troops
Oman: 950 troops
France: 14,663 troops Opération Daguet
Spain: 3,000 troops
Syria: 16,000 troops
Kuwait: 7,000 troops
Bangladesh: 2,000 troops
Pakistan: 5,500 troops
Canada: 4,500 troops Operation FRICTION
Niger: 500 troops
Bahrain: 200 troops
Morocco: 2000 troops
Czechoslovakia: 200 troops
Netherlands: 200 troops
Honduras: 150 troops
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War
This is also not a complete list of coalition members. Australia, for example, had naval and medical forces committed as well as small numbers attached to other coalition forces.
Cheers
We send a squadron or two of Alpha Jets to Turkey in case Iraqi forces were moving against them as well. Obviously a mostly political move since overwise they would have sent Tornados and/or Phantom II. Some naval deployment was used for mine-clearing operations later on IIRC as well. All in all a politically correct deployment, but still a major one from german POV in these days. Mind you, we were (and are sort of) Europes cuddliest pacifists...
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Hehe. I remember Denmark sent 100 AIM-9's to the Turks a light frigate to the Gulf and called it a day.
PETER671BT
New Member
thAT'S JUST WEIRD.
Rich, I couldn't agree more about what you have said.
I've always believed that government need to determine what it is that it expects from its armed forces and that it then has an obligation to provide sufficient numbers, suitable equipment and adequate training for them to carry out that expectation. If a private company (certainly in Western countries like Australia) fails to adequately staff, train and equip its workforce it would be subject to legal action for compensation in the event of injury, illness or death of employees carrying out their duties.
To come up with a budget and then expect its armed forces to adjust their roles, rather than coming up with the roles and then providing the budget is indeed 'putting the cart in front of the horse.'
Cheers
I think its worth checking out today's Post 403 by aaaditya in Indian Army News and Discussion in Land Forces. In summary the Indian Army Chief acknowledges:
http://www.dailypioneer.com/indexn12.asp?main_variable=NATION&file_name=nt1.txt&counter_img=1
In the case of the Indian Army I don't see it backing away from preparation for large scale conventional warfare but it obviously sees a need to ensure its troops are equipped and trained to deal with the growing threat of unconventional warfare.
It seems to me that this is a balanced approach to the problem, unlike some countries who appear to use the unconventional threat as an excuse to save money by scaling back their spending on conventional defence assets.
Cheers
I predict the Indian army will suffer a severe manning crisis in the near future comparable with what we witnessed in the West during post-war years, whereby recruiting regular officers for a large standing army will become ever more difficult because of the more attractive salaries offered in the private sector.
Janes Defense Review (Vol 44, 3rd Jan 2007) reported that India’s Ministry of Defense is implementing several measures on a ‘war footing’ to contain the rising violence within the military that includes suicides and ‘fragging’ of officers. They also comment on the high number of officers leaving the army to take up positions in better paid private sector corporations. I can not see the Indian defense budget sustaining pay increases on par with private multinationals to enable them to retain the brightest and best career officers.
Janes Defense Review (Vol 44, 3rd Jan 2007) reported that India’s Ministry of Defense is implementing several measures on a ‘war footing’ to contain the rising violence within the military that includes suicides and ‘fragging’ of officers. They also comment on the high number of officers leaving the army to take up positions in better paid private sector corporations. I can not see the Indian defense budget sustaining pay increases on par with private multinationals to enable them to retain the brightest and best career officers.
The bottom line is that there is today more need for operational mobility than for tactical. This means lighter forces in the army.
Light forces, especially infantry can be supplied easier and (dug in) fight as well as the humongeous supply guzzler: The armoured division.
This development is due to two factors:
1. The reduction in the amount of troop in the world.
2. The lack of concentration on specific areas.
It will mean units with more manpower, and due to this: More expensive.
acute observation of topic starter.
On the naval side of it:
Primarely it means bigger ships that can stay away from home and awake longer. The patrollers are getting bigger with greater endurance. corvettes is a dying breed for coastal defence in a few areas in the world. (Always look to the Swedish Navy - then do the direct opposite).
The frigattes are getting bigger - even Denmark is building 6000 ton "patrollers" (their usual coy way of misnaming vessel types - help them avoid calling a destroyer a frigate or the other way round).
Patrollers are getting more specialised: The new class of "inspectionships" for Denmark are actually helicopter armed icebreakers - not much use in Bangla Desh.
The spine of it is going to be the Royal Navy and the US Navy - concentrating on the big ships and battle groups with invasion potential; but they can't be everywhere - especially not at once.
I for one see the slow demise of submarines in minor nations inventory, partly due to cost, partly due to improved detection methods of the major players. Some have complained that the frigates loose firepower and will be in danger to the submarines. I think not, as the submarine is liable to have a heli-dropped torpedo after it.
The manning of the ships is going down, as automatisation: were are talking a half to a third of the crew compared to the cold war for the same type of ship - larger ship.
Even the USNavy is starting to make the hybrid Virginia-class a sort of sub of all trades; but mainly an artilleryship with lots of cruise missiles.
The airforces will have fewer combat aircraft with greater range and fewer weapons, as PGM weigh little pr. target destroyed. The new style is transports (helicopters and transport planes) that can move the light forces and keep them supplied.
Funnily enough I find the main unclosed issue is close air support!
On the one hand the constantly cheaper PGM allow them to be used on progressively lower value targets, on the other hand the new generation of fighters is going to have be supported with facilities and have longer to work (using a B-1 as CAS in Afghanistan is one example of this tendency). Helicopters are not the solution as they are supply heavy in contradiction to the supply characteristics of light forces, secondly helicopters have limited range and they don't like mountaineous areas very much.
Light forces, especially infantry can be supplied easier and (dug in) fight as well as the humongeous supply guzzler: The armoured division.
This development is due to two factors:
1. The reduction in the amount of troop in the world.
2. The lack of concentration on specific areas.
It will mean units with more manpower, and due to this: More expensive.
acute observation of topic starter.
On the naval side of it:
Primarely it means bigger ships that can stay away from home and awake longer. The patrollers are getting bigger with greater endurance. corvettes is a dying breed for coastal defence in a few areas in the world. (Always look to the Swedish Navy - then do the direct opposite).
The frigattes are getting bigger - even Denmark is building 6000 ton "patrollers" (their usual coy way of misnaming vessel types - help them avoid calling a destroyer a frigate or the other way round).
Patrollers are getting more specialised: The new class of "inspectionships" for Denmark are actually helicopter armed icebreakers - not much use in Bangla Desh.
The spine of it is going to be the Royal Navy and the US Navy - concentrating on the big ships and battle groups with invasion potential; but they can't be everywhere - especially not at once.
I for one see the slow demise of submarines in minor nations inventory, partly due to cost, partly due to improved detection methods of the major players. Some have complained that the frigates loose firepower and will be in danger to the submarines. I think not, as the submarine is liable to have a heli-dropped torpedo after it.
The manning of the ships is going down, as automatisation: were are talking a half to a third of the crew compared to the cold war for the same type of ship - larger ship.
Even the USNavy is starting to make the hybrid Virginia-class a sort of sub of all trades; but mainly an artilleryship with lots of cruise missiles.
The airforces will have fewer combat aircraft with greater range and fewer weapons, as PGM weigh little pr. target destroyed. The new style is transports (helicopters and transport planes) that can move the light forces and keep them supplied.
Funnily enough I find the main unclosed issue is close air support!
On the one hand the constantly cheaper PGM allow them to be used on progressively lower value targets, on the other hand the new generation of fighters is going to have be supported with facilities and have longer to work (using a B-1 as CAS in Afghanistan is one example of this tendency). Helicopters are not the solution as they are supply heavy in contradiction to the supply characteristics of light forces, secondly helicopters have limited range and they don't like mountaineous areas very much.
Interesting post Ths.
For many years third world airforces have used training aircraft in the dual role of trainer, light strike and COIN roles. Is it time for small, but reasonably sophisticated forces, such as those of the NATO countries and Australia, to start getting more out of their training units and the skilled instructors attached to them. In Australia, for example, the RAAF uses a small number of PC9s for FAC training and both of the Hawk lead in fighter training squadrons have an operational flight for fleet and army support (see link below). In these roles the emphasis is on simulating attacking aircraft or missiles but it would not take much for them to step up to an operational role. Working with two seat FA18s as FAC aircraft, and given the right weapons, both the Hawk and the PC9 would, IMO, make more than useful assets in the CAS role. Adding UCAVs to the mix could make quite an effective force. Most airforces in these and other developed countries would have similar assets that could be used in this way.
Are any of these countries doing this already?
http://www.raaf.gov.au/organisation/index.htm
Cheers