Current US Military

[Smitty-48]

I would also be contrarian to the Finnish Pogue assertion that it must somehow initiate via, and as a result stage up through an escalatory ladder of unconventional means; before reaching the threshold of the conventional, rather, there are many scenarios where the Russians and/or Chinese would, within this aforementioned national subversion warfare paradigm, feel so subverted, as to cut straight to conventional war in a kind of BTFO smash and grab mode, in either the Near Abroad and/or the China seas, without bothering with any further counter subversion whatsoever.

Because realpolitik, in the event of, there is a very good chance that NATO and RIMPAC would in fact just BTFO rather than stand and deliver, for example, in a Baltic States BTFO smash and grab; most likely scenario in the face of the 1st Guards Tank; NATO flees back to the Vistula and abandons the locals to their fates, then glares menacingly across the Polish frontier at the Russians, but otherwise doesn't do much about it.

[ssu]

So, if you want to talk about the last piece in the puzzle, conventional war, that's one thing. But it ain't what reality will likely look like.

In case you missed it, which you obviously did; were actually talking about the last piece of the puzzle, tactical to operational level theater conventional warfare in fact, until that is; you veered off topic, so; do try to keep up, Finnish Pogue.

So back at the familiar topic. I see.

[ssu]

Because realpolitik, in the event of, there is a very good chance that NATO and RIMPAC would in fact just BTFO rather than stand and deliver, for example, in a Baltic States BTFO smash and grab; most likely scenario in the face of the 1st Guards Tank; NATO flees back to the Vistula and abandons the locals to their fates, then glares menacingly across the Polish frontier at the Russians, but otherwise doesn't do much about it.

It's not about NATO fleeing from 1st Guards Tank Army. More likely would be that NATO countries decide not to interfere in the clashes "between ethnic Russian minority and the Lithuanian Government". Then the 1st Guards Tank Army rolls in only in part and as an "Peacekeeping force". Happened so in many places. Have NATO members saying themselves that it wasn't at all an attack on a member state, but just a member state that couldn't get it's domestic act together.

You go for the jugular by shredding politically NATO, not militarily. Get the US to forget NATO and just think it's fine just having a defence pact with the UK, Canada and perhaps France.

[Smitty-48]

It's not about NATO fleeing from 1st Guards Tank Army. More likely would be that NATO countries decide not to interfere in the clashes "between ethnic Russian minority and the Lithuanian Government". Then the 1st Guards Tank Army rolls in only in part and as an "Peacekeeping force". Happened so in many places. Have NATO members saying themselves that it wasn't at all an attack on a member state, but just a member state that couldn't get it's domestic act together.

You go for the jugular by shredding politically NATO, not militarily. Get the US to forget NATO and just think it's fine just having a defence pact with the UK, Canada and perhaps France.

No, it's not realistic for the Russians to do what they did in Crimea in the Baltic States, there's not enough Russian support there, you're over interpreting that scenario as an all purpose template, typical Finnish Pogery. The only way the Russians come across the Article V line, is in force, quick and dirty, before NATO could react, otherwise, they wouldn't come across at all, the whole "Baltic Crimea" scenario is media fueled blather, that's not a viable option for the Russians, there's no there there, Narva does not a Crimea make, NATO is not the Ukraine, if they go against NATO, they go big, and fast, or not at all.

The Little Green Men can be useful in some circumstances, but not head to head against NATO, if going head to head with NATO, the Russians could not risk screwing around with LGM's, you either go or you don't, but if you go, you go all the way to Kaliningrad in a week, you don't creep into a war with NATO, the stakes are too high, you have to keep it simple stupid, and make sure you win and win fast, which, the LGM's cannot do.

In the event of, it would have to happen fast, the 1st GTA moves into Belarus, falls in on the ZAPAD prepositioned stores, gives NATO a pause in order to allow the tripwire to flee back to Poland, if they don't take the chance, then you roll right through Lithuania and encircle the NATO tripwire in Estonia and Latvia, at which point you just take them prisoner with the rest of the Balts, probably negotiate a prisoner release after for the non Baltic troops as part of the ceasefire agreement.

[ssu]

No, it's not realistic for the Russians to do what they did in Crimea in the Baltic States, there's not enough Russian support there, you're over interpreting that scenario as an all purpose template, typical Finnish Pogery. The only way the Russians come across the Article V line, is in force, quick and dirty, before NATO could react, otherwise, they wouldn't come across at all, the whole "Baltic Crimea" scenario is media fueled blather, that's not a viable option for the Russians, there's no there there, Narva does not a Crimea make, NATO is not the Ukraine, if they go against NATO, they go big, and fast, or not at all.

Crimea was a special case. Likely in no NATO country top ranking naval officers are ready to join the Russian Navy.

But they won't go big and fast (if they go at all). They'll far more likely will go the route of hybrid warfare. If you think there's not enough support among the Russian ethnic minority, how about some attacks on them? Russian bar or school blown up and have the perpetrators be "neonazis" which then are "protected By the Government". Then those ethnic minorities would likely listen more to Russia, that has vowed to protect Russians where ever they live.

Just look at the Estonian Bronze Night in 2007.

[Smitty-48]

They'll far more likely will go the route of hybrid warfare.

No, they wouldn't, again, you're wrong about that, they won't go hybrid against NATO, because, again, the stakes are too high, you're simply over interpreting the Little Green Men model for all purposes Russian war related, but hybrid warfare takes a back seat once you resolve to cross the Article V line, the Article V line is the breach, you can call it "hybrid", but it wouldn't actually be, the only realistic scenario is a quick and dirty smash and grab before NATO could react, and "hybrid" is just too slow and ponderous to get the job done quick and dirty enough.

It would be 1st Guards Tank Army via Belarus, it wouldn't be the Little Green Men, because it would have to be done and over so quickly, fait accompli for all intents and purposes, that only conventional forces could do it, the Russians wouldn't have the time to be fancy pancy about it, which would be too clever by half in any case.

It's not all about SOF, sometimes the right tool for the job is just a Grand Battery, with a whole lotta IADS providing it cover.

[Smitty-48]

Just look at the Estonian Bronze Night in 2007.

No actual threat of invasion by "Estonian Bronze Night", Russian trolling perhaps, but not a viable option to effect NATO, the Russians wouldn't get anywhere with that sort of the thing, the Balts backed by NATO would crack down with force, and nobody would feel sorry for the Russians, thus, there's no there there, if they're not invading with an army, they're not getting very far into NATO territory, simple as that, and if they're not taking and holding ground, there's not going to be any collapse of NATO unity, thus, it would be a pointless exercise. The Russians do vastly overrate the "cracks" in the NATO alliance, but even they aren't so naive to think that the Baltic States are ripe for the taking by asymmetry alone.

If NATO had to put tanks in the streets in Narva, it would, at which point, the Russians bluff would be called, amounting to fuck all in the end, and in an actual "brink of war" scenario, NATO would be more than prepared to shoot the Russian hooligans, as many as it took, make no mistake.

[ssu]

No, they wouldn't, again, you're wrong about that, they won't go hybrid against NATO, because, again, the stakes are too high.

Are they?

Well, kidnapping an NATO country intel officer from inside that NATO country on the eve of a NATO summit (and just after the US President has visited the country and vowed that the US will defend it) showed the hybrid thing works very well. Every goddam country around the Baltic Sea understood it was a provocation. The US didn't say anything about it.

Hence it does work. You just have to scale it down, but have the ability really have shit hitting the fan if you want.

What didn't work was the coup attempt in Montenegro, just at the time when the tiny country was joining NATO.

No actual threat of invasion by "Estonian Bronze Night", Russian trolling perhaps, but not a viable option to effect NATO, the Russians wouldn't get anywhere with that sort of the thing, the Balts backed by NATO would crack down with force, and nobody would feel sorry for the Russians, thus, there's no there there, if they're not invading with an army, they're not getting very far into NATO territory, simple as that.

If NATO had to put tanks in the streets in Narva, it would, at which point, the Russians bluff would be called, amounting to fuck all in the end.

NATO wouldn't put tanks in the streets in Narva if the people in the US would believe it's a domestic affair. Trouble like in Spain now or whatever. Of course protesting the changing of the place of a statue is one thing. Having terrorist attacks where people are killed is on a totally different level.

You see, likely the objective (or the nearterm objective) isn't to unite the Baltic States to Russia. It's not territorial gain. It's about influence over other nation. The goal is to "finlandize" them. Have them have a very, very favourable foreign policy towards you. Have them say what you want in the EU and NATO. Make NATO politically dysfunctional. When it's that, you have won the war without a single shot been fired.

[Smitty-48]

Are they?

Well, kidnapping an NATO country intel officer from inside that NATO country on the eve of a NATO summit (and just after the US President has visited the country and vowed that the US will defend it) showed the hybrid thing works very well. Every goddam country around the Baltic Sea understood it was a provocation. The US didn't say anything about it.

Hence it does work.

What didn't work was the coup attempt in Montenegro, just at the time when the tiny country was joining NATO.

Nope, didn't work, because Russia didn't actually win anything, nothing "works" unless it results in a win, we're not counting coup here, Finnwit, where's the beef? Answer; there is none.

You see, likely the objective (or the nearterm objective) isn't to unite the Baltic States to Russia. The goal is to Finlandize them. Have them have a very, very favourable foreign policy towards you. Have them say what you want in the EU and NATO. Make NATO politically dysfunctional. When it's that, you have won the war without a single shot been fired.

Yeah, well, that wouldn't work neither, so they're not going to do that neither.

Again, you're overplaying the "ZOMG Hybrid Warfare!" card, when in fact, "Hybrid Warfare" is just a Russian euphemism, which actually translates as "hand waving".

It all just amounts to media stunts, even the taking of Crimea was just a media stunt, "Hybrid War" is no war at all, certainly nothing requiring of the Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II

And in the end, if it is not requiring of a Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, then who really cares? Certainly not Americans, with Americans, it's Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II, or just piss off, as; tactics, tactics, tactics, and blowing shit up; is all they're really interested in.

"Hybrid Warfare" ain't gonna save the Warthog from the boneyard, if you want to justify a Warthog, you need something more than that.

[C-Mag]

Lawmakers Back $400 Million for Possible A-10 Successor
That's right folks the US is looking at a new prop driven Tactical Attack aircraft to replace the A-10 Warthog. Why, I don't know, maybe just spending money. Prop driven aircraft tend to have one big advantage over jets, loitering time near the battlefield. In Vietnam is was the Skyraider that could hang around the battlefield for hours in support of ground troops. I don't see any of these aircraft matching the firepower and ability to soak up damage of the A-10.

Gotta keep that spending up,

"IF WE DON'T FIND A WAY TO SPEND IT WE'LL LOSE IT NEXT YEAR!"

That kind of looks like the case.

A prop driven plane may have it's place. Could aircraft from the Golden Age of Fighters fill a roll today, probably. But it likely wouldn't be a cost savings because most all those airframes are gone. The AF looked at bringing the P51 back in Vietnam. There has been talk of using the A1 Skyraider today. Some have suggested the P38. Whatever they choose, I think they need some range, good loitering time, heavy payload for weapons, good armor for pilots and I think 2 engines.
Maybe like the A 26 Invader


A 26A Counter Invader used in Vietnam https://www.militaryfactory.com/aircraf ... aft_id=406

Whatever they do, if they go to prop driven aircraft, their pilot recruiting will go through the roof.