The NI asked about the loss of the US Army leading positions in the world

November 29, 2020 7

The US Armed Forces are not fully capable of protecting the vital interests of their country. It is even worse with the protection of the allies, especially if you have to fight on several fronts at the same time. This is stated in the US Military Force Index 2021 recently published by the Heritage Foundation (a strategic research institute), writes the American magazine The National Interest.

The analysis reports what forces and means the United States possesses, as well as what threats Washington faces due to the activities of opponents, which are understood as Russia, China, Iran and North Korea. In addition, it says what measures the Americans need to take to improve their situation.

It is noted that the US Navy cannot fully fulfill all its tasks, since they have about 300 "aging ships", they need at least 400 new or modernized ones. At the same time, the shipyards are unable to meet such requirements.

The US Marine Corps is also not in top shape. And the analysts themselves admit this, because in order for everything not to look like an outright failure compared to the previous year, when the Marines were rated weak ("weak"), they had to reduce their own requirements and criteria. Therefore, the Marines received a marginal rating ("mediocre").

The US Army turned out to be a jumble of weak and marginal ratings. Of the 50 brigade tactical groups that are needed to protect American interests around the world, they can only form 35.

The US Air Force deservedly received a solid marginal rating. It turned out that there was a serious shortage of pilots. Moreover, military experts believe that even those pilots that exist now fly little. They must take to the skies three times a week and have at least 200 flight hours per year. Otherwise, they simply will not survive in modern combat conditions in the event of a war.

Over the past 20 years, US adversaries have made significant investments in technological development of their armed forces. After that, the United States faced a choice between reducing its readiness for a possible war or increasing investments in the military-industrial complex in order to improve its armed forces. If modernization is not carried out, the United States may lose its leading position in the world in the military field, the newspaper concluded.

Information

Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.

steelmaker

0

29 November 2020 20: 01

then the United States may lose its leading position in the world in the military field

Therefore, the United States needs war like air. And Iran fits perfectly as a whipping boy.
1. passing by
  
  -1
  
  29 November 2020 20: 12
  
  A Probably Nuclear-Weapon Country Ideal?
boriz

+3

29 November 2020 20: 30

Every army has its own Achilles heel.
There are tens of thousands of tanks in the USSR. But they were on the territory of the USSR and have not lost their value until now.
In the United States, there are military bases and facilities abroad. Now (playing with statistics) they are considered from 600 to 800. For 2008. there were more than a thousand of them. The impression is that some minor official in the Pentagon knows their exact number, and the rest give approximate figures, depending on the conjuncture.
For 2018. it was estimated that 300 troops were serving overseas in 000 countries. For 177 in the US $ 2021 billion is planned to support military operations abroad. Our entire MO budget is more than 69 times less. Hence, a lag in the quality of weapons gradually accumulated. And there is not enough money to maintain the AUG cash in a combat-ready state.
Well, they steal there so that ours never dreamed of. Only this is legalized and called lobbying.
Tamara Smirnova

-1

29 November 2020 20: 58
may lose

- Yes, the truth goes hard into mattress heads. The acceptance of the truth is still far away, now only the first stage is denial.
1. Natan bruk
  
  -1
  
  29 November 2020 22: 47
  
  Yes, the Pushkovsky resource is still that messenger of "truth" :))) But for "patriotic" heads it is just right - it goes there perfectly. In reality, this, however, has a distant relationship, but is it really important :)))
  1. Tamara Smirnova
    
    0
    
    30 November 2020 08: 29
    
    Natan Bruk (Natan Bruk) is an excellent example of his own words, but the words "truth" and "patriot" are clearly superfluous here.
Sergey Latyshev

+1

29 November 2020 22: 21

And, the usual substitution of concepts in the anonymous article.
In the title - one thing, in the text - another.