I guess I have conflicted views on this. On the one hand, as Secretary Gates says, it's more fair and equitable than the previous policies' ad-hoc basis (stop-loss and other policies that were decided unit by unit, and also by job classification).
But on the other, it's a sign of serious personnel strain brought on by the surge. We never should have gone to Iraq. I always had my doubts about the Pentagon's stated doctrine of our ability to fight 2 or 2 1/2 wars at once (as have many), and this highlights the problem.
It also highlights Bush's and Rumsfeld's idiotic clinging to "force-multiplier" jargon BS as a reason for not ramping up the military after 9/11. This was a predictable problem.
edit:I glommed "War Czar a bootless job" onto the title after Lyrhawn brought it up.
posted
The military is at the breaking point. We're spending literally a billion dollars just in INCENTIVES to try and keep people from leaving the service. We need to retool and increase manpower. With the exception of China, and I never see this happening, but other than them, there's no one left on earth to fight on an open field with tanks, so why is so much of the Army's budget still going into hardware?
Small APCs that are heavily armored on the underbelly to protect against IEDs, and on the sides and top to protect against RPGs are what the army needs. Urban combat is the future, by and large, and the American army was and still is NOT ready for it. They are also woefully underfunded compared to the other two branches.
Rumsfeld famously said "you go to war with the army you have, not the army you wish you had." Well that sounds right in theory, but if the army you actually have isn't tooled for the job, you're just asking for trouble.
There's a cover story this week in TIME on why the army is at the breaking point, and what we can do to fix it, I recommend you all read it if you get the chance.
The Air Force and Navy are doing just fine I think. The problem is their insanely high tech budgets are eating up too much of the defense budget. Manpower shortages are the problem. The army is more or less stealing naval personnel and airmen from other services to do "non-combat" jobs (as if that exists in Iraq) to free up armymen for combat duty.
Maybe we needed to fight this war as a wakeup call to the American Armed Forces. It's time to rethink and retool. We need to be ready to fight a major enemy like China or any other big power that might emerge, but at the same time, we can't keep getting bogged down like this, every time thinking that once this threat is over we can go back to business as usual. This is the new world order.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
That is too much like the New American Century rhetoric for me. It is the spending suggestions and technology funding focus that got us into the logistical mess in the first place. Rumsfeld was running the military almost completely out of the PNAC playbook, and it cost a fortune in funding while not actually equipping the feet on the ground with what they need. Soldiers were being sent overseas without the required two month training in the Mojave to make up for the lack of advantage our technologically advanced military was supposed to have but doesn't.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What's your point? Relative to the quote you posted. You sound like you're agreeing with me but I can't quite tell.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Bush has asked three separate retired FOUR STAR generals to be the overlord more or less of the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars, giving them more or less supreme power over the entire operation, enough to issue orders to both the State Department and Defense Department and Pentagon. All four said no.
quote: "The very fundamental issue is, they don't know where the hell they're going," said retired Marine Gen. John J. "Jack" Sheehan, a former top NATO commander who was among those rejecting the job. Sheehan said he believes that Vice President Cheney and his hawkish allies remain more powerful within the administration than pragmatists looking for a way out of Iraq. "So rather than go over there, develop an ulcer and eventually leave, I said, 'No, thanks,' " he said. .... In an interview yesterday, Sheehan said that Hadley contacted him and they discussed the job for two weeks but that he was dubious from the start. "I've never agreed on the basis of the war, and I'm still skeptical," Sheehan said. "Not only did we not plan properly for the war, we grossly underestimated the effect of sanctions and Saddam Hussein on the Iraqi people."
Looks like Bush isn't listening to his commanders in the field like he's always telling Democrats to do.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: What's your point? Relative to the quote you posted. You sound like you're agreeing with me but I can't quite tell.
I agree that there are changes to be made, and you definitely have some very good points. The wording in what I quoted was mostly used as a segue into my opinion of what I have concluded brought our military to its current strapped and unprepared state.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
fighting wars got too expensive the moment the first BMT and suprsonic jet rolled onto front line service. Paul Kennedy once said that if current trends continue (at 1987 at the time) the cost of a single plane will cost an entire nations military budget by 2020.
Think Russian, quantity with quality.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Small APCs that are heavily armored on the underbelly to protect against IEDs, and on the sides and top to protect against RPGs are what the army needs. Urban combat is the future, by and large, and the American army was and still is NOT ready for it. They are also woefully underfunded compared to the other two branches.
One of the horror stories my brother-in-law brought back from Iraq is a new type of device that blasts a stream of molten copper that cuts through vehicle armor. It doesn't deliver explosive force to the occupants, but it often kills or injures one or more.
A fear I'm beginning to feel with regard to Iraq that I don't often see sited: the longer we stay there, the more we teach those we fight against, and may fight against in the future, about how to overcome our tactics and our hardware. Especially since I've been hearing soldiers are describing some missions as "drive around and wait to get shot at."
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: One of the horror stories my brother-in-law brought back from Iraq is a new type of device that blasts a stream of molten copper that cuts through vehicle armor. It doesn't deliver explosive force to the occupants, but it often kills or injures one or more.
A fear I'm beginning to feel with regard to Iraq that I don't often see sited: the longer we stay there, the more we teach those we fight against, and may fight against in the future, about how to overcome our tactics and our hardware. Especially since I've been hearing soldiers are describing some missions as "drive around and wait to get shot at." [/QB]
Bolds mine.
Yes, that shaped-charge IED is horrible. I totally agree with what I put in bold. Open-source, distributed warfare is sadly the wave of the future, and our continued occupation of Iraq is allowing our enemies a chance to adapt and adopt new tactics over a very long time period.
posted
Senators don't get campaign funding from the families of soldiers, they get funding from the military manufacturers in their state. Hence, military spending is all about high-priced tech, unnecessary but expensive vehicles, and so forth.
Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sterling, I read about that, that's something they learned from us. We use the same technique in some of our cluster bombs.
Newer APC vehicles I've seen test platforms of are much better than even humveez and Bradleys. A determined enemy is going to destroy a vehicle if they really want to, but they point should be survivability for the soldiers inside. New vehicles are agile like a Humvee, but they have remote controlled turrets so the gunner isn't exposed, they have v-shaped armored underbellies to deflect the blast away so it won't punch through. And they have much better window and side armor for the people inside, with portholes to fire out of when they need to.
This is the replacement for the Hummer and other APCS, replacements we should have had years ago but we're just now rushing through R&D and production because we realize only now how vulnerable our forces are to this kind of daily grind.
Blayne us right, to a degree, about Russian design. Russian's often build very good aircraft, and they make THOUSANDS of them. They aren't as good technically as Western counterparts. The electronics aren't as high tech, and other things, but they are more rugged. Doesn't much matter with fighters, when you're hit, you're hit (with some notable exceptions). Russia also creates export variants, that are just as high tech as the western counterparts, and sells them for much, much more to other countries. They use the cheap versions themselves.
Russians also love durability. Look at their helicopters. The Hind is a basically a flying tank. It's huge, it's bristling with weapons, and it's a fantastic support craft. It's not agile like an Apache Longbow, and it doesn't have all the fancy doodads, but it can take a hit and punch back, hard. I can't remember which Russian plane it was, but they have one with a titanium skin all around it. Now the US uses titanium in some of it's airframes to reduce weight, but this thing is all titanium, which makes it light and very tough, and it's basically their version of the Warthog. It can take multiple hits and fire back with precision lethality.
Americans like their gadgets, and frankly, I think it has paid off. The playing field, until recently, has been leveled largely. The last two generations of fighter craft have really been close to even between Russia and the US. But the F-22 and F-35 jump ahead for one reason: stealth. The weapons, the avionics (some of them), the maneuvering, the supercruise, the Russians can do almost all of that. But none of that matters at all if you can't see them coming.
The F-15E Strike Eagle, our previous air superiority fighter, was easily the match for its Russian counterpart (probably the Flanker). In war games a few months ago, 4 F-22 Raptors went up against a squadron of F-15 Eagles.
Every Eagle was destroyed before they even knew the Raptors were out there.
Do I think we rely too much on our technology and not enough on boots on the ground (and support thereof)? Yes I do.
But do I think that technology is useless? Not by a long shot.
Our problem is that we are prone to buying weapons systems we often don't need or don't even work. I think we should always be exploring all our options, and DARPA should always be fully funded. And while I think buying something just to support a company, like allowing Northrop to build some Destroyers in order to convince them not to mothball their shipyard CAN have benefits, it's often a waste of money. The military industrial base in America isn't going to evaporate because we don't buy a weapons system here and there. We still invest millions in their companies for R&D all the time, they aren't going anywhere.
We need to rethink what we need to use the armed forces for, decide what should have been dumped back when the USSR collapsed, and retool for what we think our new enemies might look like. Top to bottom.
Edit to add:
MC nailed one of the bigger problems. Congress is telling the military what they need to buy and use instead of the other way around. We need a top to bottom change in military procurements as well. The Navy by and large asks for and gets what it wants (well that's not totally true, they get a lot less than they want, but at least they aren't forced to use things they don't want).
Congressmen shouldn't be determining what soldiers in the field need, the soldiers and generals should be. Whatever works best for the needed job is what should be bought. Things we don't need, and things that don't work as well should be scrapped.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, you seem to be fairly well versed in military technology, but I am skeptical as to some of the things you are saying based on some direct discussions with those in both the military supply industry and various members of the different armed forces. Like the following:
quote:I can't remember which Russian plane it was, but they have one with a titanium skin all around it. Now the US uses titanium in some of it's airframes to reduce weight, but this thing is all titanium, which makes it light and very tough, and it's basically their version of the Warthog.
Titanium is not tough in the way you describe. It is durable in that it does not slough off particles and lasts a very long time in extreme environments. Used as armor it would have the same stopping power as steel. The advantage to using titanium is that it has similar rigidity to steel while being half as heavy. US vehicles don't employ titanium in the same way the USSR did because doing so would be wasteful of a commodity metal. In more recent years, composite armors have rendered the point moot, as the layered armoring is both stronger and lighter than either steel or titanium, and can withstand more types of ammunition.
The other stuff you mention about the USSR (Russian) craft is mostly right, except that the development focus wasn't durability in combat so much as it was durability in how long it lasts when on mothballs. They focused less on electronics because when electronics fail you are screwed, while mechanical failures often have workarounds. Their MiG fighter was an example where they actually put extra technology into the vehicle, but for all intents and purposes it was still a flying brick compared to its US counterparts.
quote:Do I think we rely too much on our technology and not enough on boots on the ground (and support thereof)? Yes I do.
But do I think that technology is useless? Not by a long shot.
It is not an either / or scenario. We rely far too much on technology on the battlefield, not enough of that technology is in a condition to be disseminated to the grunts who are on the field, not enough training takes place in all areas of battle, and the worst part is that not enough of even the trained units have a firm background of training in conventional warfware sans the technology, which puts troops in more danger when the technology fails or is overreached.
The focus should be that technology is a tool, not a tactical strategy. Many long standing generals pointed this flaw out about Rumsfeld's time in office, and seems to be a school of thought Gates is moving away from to place focus back on the feet on the ground.
quote:Our problem is that we are prone to buying weapons systems we often don't need or don't even work. I think we should always be exploring all our options, and DARPA should always be fully funded. And while I think buying something just to support a company, like allowing Northrop to build some Destroyers in order to convince them not to mothball their shipyard CAN have benefits, it's often a waste of money. The military industrial base in America isn't going to evaporate because we don't buy a weapons system here and there. We still invest millions in their companies for R&D all the time, they aren't going anywhere.
Ain't that the damned truth.
quote:Congress is telling the military what they need to buy and use instead of the other way around. We need a top to bottom change in military procurements as well.
That is false. Congress is allocating funds. The DoD chooses where the money is spent, and are the ones who make the requests for funds to Congress. The misplaced spending over the last six years falls squarely on Rumsfeld's shoulders. Congress can be blamed for funding cuts in the 1990's, but with the huge ramp up in funding that occurred after 9/11 that wasn't the case. More money was focused on huge, expensive projects and not enough was put into the troops and equipment.
quote:Congressmen shouldn't be determining what soldiers in the field need, the soldiers and generals should be. Whatever works best for the needed job is what should be bought. Things we don't need, and things that don't work as well should be scrapped.
This is far too simplified a statement. Leaving the allocation to the generals is not going to answer anything. The whole department under the Secretary of Defense is established as a civilian oversight to the military because the military, just like all branches of government, requires proper checks and balances. The failure was in the operations under the previous Secretary of Defense, whose goal it was to have smaller units of troops with superior technology to be able to do the job of a larger number of troops with less technically advanced equipment. The flaw in that tactic may not have been so apparent if dealing face to face with another established army that isn't embedded in the populace, but obviously Rumsfled's strategy has proven to not work. Our actual invasion of Iraq went splendidy and with all of the expected superiority that our forces should have had, but the number of troops was dropped too soon and too much ground was lost to a guerilla enemy where those head-on tactics are less useful. I have no doubt we still possess the military capability to enter an enemy nation and devastate our target, but there is no formal infrastructure set up to hold or maintain such an advance, and none existed when we entered Iraq.
No technological tool out there is going to mitigate that. If those expensive projects really believe that there are advantages to be had, then let them make up the difference in private funding and let's put the money now into arming and armouring the people who are there right now, not the theoretical ones who might be there in five years.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
As far as the WWII comment - let's remember that our country was attacked and Hitler was quite literally threatening to take over the world. Or the fact that during World War II, every family was a military family.
Let's also remember that as much as this 15-month deployment extension is a reflection of Bush's war policy, it is just as much three more months of heartbreak for parents, husbands and wives, and children. This announcement should bring sadness over every other emotion.
Posts: 1784 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Titanium works exactly as I described when you layer it, which you can't do with steel, the damn thing would be too heavy to get off the ground. I'll try to find the name of the plane later, I think it was a Sukhoi.
True, it isn't an either/or. I probably worded that wrong. There needs to be a better mix of the Bond, Q type stuff we're buying and supporting boots on the ground. Troops, for the near future, will always be our main arm of the military, everything else just supplements it (when it comes to full on war that is, as opposed to tactical strikes). Part of the problem with the training, is that usually troops use equipment in the field and then leave it there, then they go home and the next guy to come in uses the equipment. The hitch is that troops are training with different weapons and systems than are in the field, and they arrive not really being qualified with what they are given to use. That's a procurement problem.
I commend the recent focus on body armor for troops. Body armor hasn't been used on troops in what, 400 years? And still around the world most every country still doesn't use it. And not only are we trying to produce enough for every soldier to have it, but we're already rushing the next generation of armor (called "dragon skin") past the R&D phase. Dragon Skin btw is incredible. Current "armor" is a kevlar vest, which is already amazing material, and inside the vest in the front and back are pouches for heavy ceramic plates (it's the plates that troops often don't have, according to what many soldiers have told me). Dragon Skin is kevlar, but woven with many small overlapping ceramic discs. It allows for great flexibility, and has the stopping power to stop a DIRECT contact frag grenade strike without punching through the vest. That's utterly amazing. I hope we get it out there as fast as possible. We're also working on better weapons for troops. The M-16 is outdated. It's a great gun, don't get me wrong, but the barrel is too long for urban combat, and there's better out there. The Israelis have a more accurate, smaller, better weapon. We should be taking cues from them.
Sorry, I go off on tangents when it comes to military tech. But I agree with you on tool vs. strategy. Technology is something that can be used to solve a problem, as something to supplement or achieve a bigger strategy or plan.
And Congress has outright cancelled projects and greelit projects. They don't just sign a check for the Army and then the Army decides what they will do with it. The army submits budget requests, and then Congress goes to work on it. If they hadn't you can be damned sure the Army would have come up with a way to save the latest Sikorsky stealth attack helicopter that Congress axed. Congress pushes through missile defense even though the military experts are dubious (with many exceptions) as to the feasability of an overarching missile shield. I should note that recent tests have been extremely promising, and a layered defense might be possible in the years to come, and theater defense for sure for combat zones. Congress decides on pay hikes, on what ships get built, on how many planes get ordered, etc. etc.
As for your last paragraph, I don't think it negates my own at all. My statement refers entirely to what technology is bought, is has nothing at all to do with how many troops are hired, which I believe I have already covered.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Dragon Skin is kevlar, but woven with many small overlapping ceramic discs. It allows for great flexibility, and has the stopping power to stop a DIRECT contact frag grenade strike without punching through the vest. That's utterly amazing.
Heh. I'm sure it works, but I find it a little amusing that a high-tech research project has reinvented scale armour.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I had much the same thought, and if you see it, that's exactly what it looks like. But even dragon skin is just a stopgap until we get to the NEXT level of body armor. The next planned phase is nanotech fibers and artificial spidersilk. They'll be stronger than the ceramic plates and be as light as a t-shirt, at least that's the goal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:True, it isn't an either/or. I probably worded that wrong. There needs to be a better mix of the Bond, Q type stuff we're buying and supporting boots on the ground.
Can you explain why? What is the tactical advantage of such a concept? How is the training going to be handled for troops who already get insufficient training for the environments and equipment they are given? Without a plan to properly disseminate the technology and make sure that the hands using it are properly trained to operate with and without it, then we would be setting the troops up for failure at worst and too heavy a reliance on technology at best.
quote:The hitch is that troops are training with different weapons and systems than are in the field, and they arrive not really being qualified with what they are given to use. That's a procurement problem.
I disagree. I think that is a procedural problem. It is both a procedural problem with the departments who deal with the manufacturers and a procedural problem with the bases that provide the training and their timetables for getting troops out the door qualified to handle the equipment. What you mentioned in an earlier post is true: the Air Force and Navy tend to get way better deals as far as the handling of their equipment. Air Force guys will spend 3 months of training for every 3 or 4 weeks of training Army guys get. For Navy guys it's a bit of a different story, because outside of the schooling they get more on-the-job training without being in a critical area or war zone.
Also, I know what Dragon Skin is. Also, the wording you use mentioning Dragon Skin is slightly misleading. The Army actually went through a scandal recently for choosing the Interceptor armor over Dragon Skin, even though in every test Dragon Skin rated higher. The testing results were classified by the Pentagon and, unless something has changed, remain so today. The makers of Dragon Skin only just recently got their certification, either early this year or late last year. However, the scandal involves the Pentagon keeping the results secret but allowing individuals from the competitor (Interceptor?) to make false public claims on a non-official basis. Accusations were made about those running the testing facilities receiving kickbacks from certain companies to rush their products through certification, and the makers of Dragon Skin were not one of those companies. That they offered a competing product to a company with a long relationship with the DoD made matters worse. I am not aware of it being clear that Dragon Skin has been cleared to use for troops yet. Some families had bought it for troops and the Army stated that they wouldn't cover the insurance for those troops because of it (due to lack of certification). I agree that Dragon Skin is by far one of the best innovations for the troops on an individual level in recent years, but it has had a hard time coming.
quote:I commend the recent focus on body armor for troops. Body armor hasn't been used on troops in what, 400 years? And still around the world most every country still doesn't use it.
What? The US has used protective vests since WWII. Before that the method of battle wasn't as condusive to having body armour. In the current state of guerrilla and urban warfare, body armour can make the difference and, judging only from number of wounded so far in this war and the last extended occupation the US engaged in (Vietnam), I would say the increases in armour have helped to some degree.
For guns, I don't see why there hasn't been a larger adoption of the P90 for personal combat. It is rated to penetrate type IIA or II armour (I forget which at this time). Perhaps the size of the rounds are what make the military skeptical, since it is shorter even than some pistol rounds despite its greater power. The M16 is still a fine rifle when there is enough space, but in urban areas I've heard that men have had to resort to sidearms in some buildings. Having a few guys with P90s in a unit could offer an advantage in firepower in tight spaces. Or maybe I believe NATO's claims more than I should.
quote:And Congress has outright cancelled projects and greelit projects. They don't just sign a check for the Army and then the Army decides what they will do with it.
Careful, that isn't what I said. I said the office of the Secretary of defense submits the spending requests and decides what to spend money on. The SoD makes the request, Congress argues about it and either approves or denies it, then the DoD allocates the funds. The thing is that after Congress approves money for the military, the DoD can switch where the money goes as long as the new target of the funds claims ostensibly that the money is going toward the direction approved by Congress. This is the cause of much congressional debate regarding such spending. Congress doesn't choose who or what money is spent on, they approve or deny. The Secretary of Defense is the office where your ire should be directed regarding military spending in the wrong places, it should be directed to Congress if you feel not enough spending is taking place (like many claim happened in the 1990's). In the past six years, Congress has green-lit almost all of the military funding bills to come through, with few exceptions. The misappropriation of funds falls squarely on the SoD since 9/11.
quote:As for your last paragraph, I don't think it negates my own at all. My statement refers entirely to what technology is bought, is has nothing at all to do with how many troops are hired, which I believe I have already covered.
Well, I'm not trying to negate everything you say. You certainly have a lot of relevant knowledge on the subject. I am saying that you have a few cases where your focus or your dissatisfaction is somewhat misplaced, in my opinion. I don't think you've been technically wrong on much (really only the titanium thing, but I don't want to debate the differences in spaced and layered plating techniques over the years, since it's moot today anyway).
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just a point to anyone reading this thread regarding body armour:
Body armour isn't meant to deflect a bullet. It is meant to disperse the force of the object across a larger surface area in order the stop the bullet or fragment. The same concept applies in armour plating on vehicles, basically spreading the kinetic energy through various means in order to prevent the round from penetrating the vehicle. Up until the last few decades, emphasis for armour methods focused mostly on using layers to slowly spread the force, most recently by using ceramics to blunt and spread the actual round prior to entering the body.
Technology like this Dragon Skin take that methodology further by adding more surface area while also adding more range of motion and coverage. The basic concept is very much like chain mail, not relying only on the rigidity of the inner materials (often ceramics) to spread the force.
Scale armour in the past was a huge innovation, and switching to plate armour was an incredible step back in terms of practical application. The Dragon Skin armour is most comparable in concept to the Japanese medieval armour in design, though modernized with newer force distribution techniques integrated into it. Lyrhawn is correct that the next generation of armour looks more promising, but it is still a few years off and, as of right now, prohibitively expensive. Along with the silks and nanocomposites, there are some chemicals in liquid form that are looking promising for dissipating force when applied to materials like kevlar. Those really are the future for body armour.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you explain why? What is the tactical advantage of such a concept? How is the training going to be handled for troops who already get insufficient training for the environments and equipment they are given? Without a plan to properly disseminate the technology and make sure that the hands using it are properly trained to operate with and without it, then we would be setting the troops up for failure at worst and too heavy a reliance on technology at best.
I think we're on different wavelengths a bit here. I agree with you entirely 1,000% on the problems with, and the fixes needed for training regimens. They need to make sure troops have adequate training, but they also need to make sure they are training with the tools they'll be using in combat. Often times they are training with the good stuff in the US and then when they get to the field they find the good stuff is all broken down and are saddled with a system they've never used before. That's both a training and procurement problem. They need to make sure they have the materiel to get to the troops (procurement) so what they train with is what they have in theater (training). They need to sync those two things up. Basic training is mostly done without technology. I don't know as much about army training, but I know for Marine training they have basic training, where they learn how the military works, marksmanship, blah blah, you know, the basics. Then they go to a series of battle schools to learn different aspects of combat. One of those is desert training in California. Along the way they learn how to use more and different advanced equipment, but they are still taught basic tactics and training, is that the sort of thing you mean? Too heavy a reliance on technology can be a problem, but if we have systems that increase our lethality, it's wise to use them. We just can't become reliant on them and think that one soldier bulked up on batteries and LED lights is worth 10 soldiers with just a gun and a target. That's where we get into trouble.
On Dragon Skin, frankly I'm not sure what happened there. I know about the issues you brought up, and frankly the whole damn thing looks fishy to me. In every single test outside of the one the Army did, DS has been far superior to the Interceptor system, but for some reason when the USArmy tests it, it's not up to snuff. They have their CertIII now, and should be getting CertIV soon I believe. The problem there is that a small company makes it, and there's no way they can ramp up production short of a few years lead time, but I still think we should push them hard on it. It has been speculated that the Army sabotaged the test on purpose because DS armor is so much more expensive than the Interceptor, but given the problems that even the Interceptor armor has had, I can't believe they think the cost isn't worth it.
quote:What? The US has used protective vests since WWII. Before that the method of battle wasn't as condusive to having body armour. In the current state of guerrilla and urban warfare, body armour can make the difference and, judging only from number of wounded so far in this war and the last extended occupation the US engaged in (Vietnam), I would say the increases in armour have helped to some degree.
The kind of body armor made for infantrymen in WWII was ridiculous. It was cumbersome and didn't work well with existing equipment, and it was not mass produced. There was no focus on body armor for infantry soldiers back then, it was set aside, and flak vests were focused on for airmen.
You should also consider that injury rates in general, as well as the death count were much, much higher in Vietnam for one very good reason: Conscripts. Drafted soldiers' training was far, far inferior to what modern volunteer soldiers get. That's part of why casualties were so high. Armor I think is the rest. Survivability rates are higher because of those two things and DRAMATIC improvements in battlefield hospital techniques and technology.
I agree on a P90 type gun, but I meant our standard rifle needs to be changed. Specialized machine guns and weapons are already disseminated to the armed forces on I think a squad by squad basis (I could be wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure it's squad). The gun I was referring to earlier from Israel, that the IDF is currently training with is the Tavor. The red dot sight is amazingly accurate. There's always battery issues, but if it dies, oh well, it's still a great gun. The site is locked onto the barrel, so there's no zeroing issues. Batteries are locked into the safety, so whenever the safety is on, the site is off. It could turn every soldier into a sniper, more so than they are today. It's a bit more expensive than an M-16, but scale will reduce the price. We didn't have to pay for the R&D on it, and if we mass order them, the price drops. It's just an amazing, very, very durable weapon. It still has a few years of testing and refinement before I would want to order it, but it's extremely promising.
I'll get to the rest of your post later, sorry.
Edit to add: Actually I'm mostly fine with the rest of it, but I contest that Congress doesn't have the kind of specific authority, at least nominally, that you say they do. I know Rumsfeld killed the Crusader (Crusader or Paladin? I think we use Paladin now and Crusader is what was cancelled), which was supposed to be the next generation of howitzer basically. Frankly I think he was right to, we have better stuff in the pipeline anyways, and it was ridiculously expensive for a relatively small improvement over current tech. Besides, cheaper advances in ammo is giving us better returns for our money.
But I'll agree to disagree, only because I don't have the time to research this at the moment, but I think you're at least partially wrong.
posted
edit to add: Thanks for your input on the thread Jutsa. You and Lyr know more about armor than I ever will. I'm a political junkie which is why I'm up on the arcana below. /edit
You're wrong, Jutsa, Congress often keeps projects alive, for various economic and political reasons (ie congressmen get gang-lobbied whenever a project is on the ropes), that the SoD and the Pentagon want cancelled. The V-22 Osprey is a classic example: Congress kept it alive when SoD Cheny wanted to ax it.
quote:The V-22's development processes have been long and controversial. When the development budget, first set at $2.5 billion in 1986, had reached $30 billion in 1988,[citation needed] then-Defense Secretary Dick Cheney zeroed out the budget, but was overruled by Congress.
Also, the SoD submits budgets, but they don't just get an up-or-down vote. They're tinkered with in committees; projects and amounts get edited, added, and deleted. Like in the above example of the V-22.
Finally, while the SoD has some flexibility, I believe this
quote: the DoD can switch where the money goes as long as the new target of the funds claims ostensibly that the money is going toward the direction approved by Congress
posted
Morbo, that doesn't make me wrong. It is over simplified, yes, but not wrong. The DoD handles certification, the DoD handles the contracts, the Secretary plans the focus. Congress allocates the funds and, per lobbyists, request focus on some technologies' viability. Things like the Osprey incident are not common, especially since 9/11. Rumsfeld has practically had a blank check in funding since 9/11.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, I agree that technology can be useful. Indeed, I think we'd better hope so. Our military is incredibly well trained, but our all-volunteer force is never going to have the kind of numbers available that some of our enemies may.
What frightens me is that I hear the improvements you're talking about and *I* start of thinking of ways they could be surpassed, and I'm not even in the field. I'm not in a situation where my life or death could depend on thinking about these kinds of measures and countermeasures.
Battle is an awful place for a laboratory. Even as one side is learning what works in a particular set of conditions, the other side is learning to change those conditions. If we were fighting the kind of quick in-and-out battles that those on top seem to have envisioned, we could be producing things our enemies wouldn't have seen in each new conflict. Instead, we're performing magic tricks in very slow motion with five cameras on us.
Off the top of my head, I think if we're likely to keep fighting urban campaigns where the hostility of people around us can't be ascertained until someone pushes a button or fires a shot or throws a grenade, we'd better start pushing some of the non-lethal and crowd-control desgins we've been hearing murmurs about for years.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by brojack17: Still better than the old days (WWII) of you must stay in for the duration plus six months.
Yes but it is worth remembering how long that was. From the US declaration of War in Dec. 1941 to the unconditional surrender of Germany in May of 1945 was less than 3 1/2 years. Japan surrendered in Sept. of 1945, which means that the entire US envolvement in the was under 4 years. Actually ground combat in Europe was substantially shorter. The time from the D-Day invasion in Normandy (June 1944) to the German surrender was less than a year. During the entire war, very few US troops were in combat situations for more than a year.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:we'd better start pushing some of the non-lethal and crowd-control desgins we've been hearing murmurs about for years.
If you want, I can go into that too The stuff you've been hearing murmurs about is being field tested right now. I think it's going to be a little while until you see them mass deployed to the field, but depending on when Iraq ends, you might see them deployed in small numbers before the war is over. You're still going to hear complaints though. Non-lethal methods of attack are often attacked as being cruel. Well, if the alternative is death, I don't really get that argument. Personally I'd rather be in extreme pain for a few seconds than shot in the face, but hey, maybe that's just me.
Rabbit - You're talking JUST about US Army ground troops in France and Germany. Something like 50,000 US troops were involved in Operation Torch in North Africa, which took place in late 1942. Also consider the thousands of naval personnel serving from day one in the Pacific, and the merchant marine force by the thousands that served and died in the Atlantic from BEFORE the war even started. Consider also the thousands of airmen that served from day one and before day one of official US involvement as well in Britain and in Africa and in Sicily/Romania.
Considering how many men and women served in the war, the percentage is less than now, but easily as many men as have served in Iraq served in WWII for longer than Iraq has been going on.
It's also worth noting how much more deadly WWII was.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well probably the one that will hit the fields in the largest numbers the soonest (and is already being used in Iraq) is the Active Denial System from Raytheon. You might have seen it on TV. It looks like a big satelite dish mounted on a Humvee, and it produces a radio frequency that heats the very top layer of human skin. It can be directed on a crowd, and basically it heats the very top layer of skin to like 130 degrees F in a few seconds, and has the effect of feeling like an extremely hot over door being opened right in front of your body. It causes immense pain for a very short period of time, but it forces you to flinch away or back off. There are no long term effects or burns. Raytheon is working on a smaller version for the military and for domestic police agencies.
The LRAD (Long Range Acoustic Device) is the same sort of effect, but in this case it produces an extremely loud, high pitched tone that is dozens of times more powerful than the human threshold for pain. It CAN permanatly destroy or damage your hearing, but it is only meant to be used for short bursts that doesn't damage your hearing. It's being tested in Iraq now. I also read awhile back that one of those cruise ships being attacked by Somalian pirates had and used one to repel them, but it's unclear how much of a role they played.
There's simpler stuff too. There are handheld superpowered flashlights that can produce a light of such high candlepower they not only blind you temporarily, but stun you as well. It won't disperse a crowd, but when fighting an armed enemy, it will make him incapable of firing back with any kind of accuracy.
Laser Induced Plasma Channel (LIPC) is something I'm somewhat skeptical of. It's basically a phaser, only it looks like a lightning storm. It has a stun and kill setting and is a directed energy weapon. It's actually supposed to be used in buildings, and literally creates a wall of energy to deny someone entry into a building or through a hallway. I guess it's more like a forcefield really then.
There's a couple other acoustic devices that are designed to incapacitate crowds at standoff distance, and I've seen some stuff with shockwave guns that produce walls of kinetic energy.
That's just what I remember that I could double check facts on off the top of my head. There might be more, but all of that stuff is either being field tested or is in production.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Bush Taps New 'War Czar' ABC News Learns Pentagon Official Selected to Oversee Iraq, Afghanistan Wars By MARTHA RADDATZ WASHINGTON, D.C., May 15, 2007 After a frustrating search for a new "war czar" to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, ABC News has learned that President Bush has chosen the Pentagon's director of operations, Lt. Gen. Douglas Lute, for the role. [snip] Lute is a widely respected officer, but is by no means a high-profile player in Washington. Before assuming his position at the Pentagon, he was the director of operations for Central Command while Gen. John Abizaid was the commander.
A West Point graduate who holds a masters degree from Harvard University, Lute also fought in Operation Desert Storm in the 1991 Gulf War.
posted
Why isn't the Pentagon's Director of Operations already the "War Czar?" What would the Pentagon's Director of Operations be if not a "War Czar?"
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
Quote from an April 2007 article "Training Iraqi troops no longer driving force in U.S. policy":
quote: Maj. Gen. Doug Lute, the director of operations at U.S. Central Command, which oversees military activities in the Middle East, said that during the troop increase, U.S. officers will be trying to determine how ready Iraqi forces are to assume control.
"We are looking for indicators where we can assess the extent to which we are fighting alongside Iraqi security forces, not as a replacement to them," he said. Those signs will include "things like the number of U.S.-only missions, the number of combined U.S.-Iraqi missions, the number where Iraqis are in the lead, the number of Joint Security Stations set up," he said.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why isn't the Pentagon's Director of Operations already the "War Czar?" What would the Pentagon's Director of Operations be if not a "War Czar?"
The guy who provides guidelines for operations military-wide and offers suggestions to Combatant Commanders and Service Chiefs?
I predict disaster. This administration seems to like taking established bureaucracies and sidelining them in favor of trapezoidal bureaucracies that "control" the sidelined ones.
Posts: 1156 | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A Charlie Rose (arrgh, why Charlie, he's the worst interviewer ever, I can't sit through this) interview of General Lute. It includes comments that show he was against a troop surge.
quote: DOUGLAS LUTE: Whatever the political arguments, Charlie, there are at least two good operational reasons that we would like to see a smaller, lighter, less prominent U.S. force structure in Iraq. One is this perception of occupation that a large American force brings with it. Today, there are about 140,000 American troops on the ground in Iraq. We would like to bring that down and undercut the enemy propaganda that in fact we have designs on Iraqi resources or Iraqi bases and so forth, and that in fact we`re really just masquerading as an occupation force. So we want to undercut that perception.
The other thing, though, Charlie, is that we’ve learned in post-conflict scenarios like Iraq but elsewhere, in the Balkans and so forth, that if you’re not careful to avoid what we call the dependency syndrome, that American soldiers will do it all, they’ll do all that they can and then some. This is the sort of person we recruit into the armed forces today. And as they do it, those who we really want to do it, the Iraqi security forces, will be content to stand by and watch.
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour: I predict disaster. This administration seems to like taking established bureaucracies and sidelining them in favor of trapezoidal bureaucracies that "control" the sidelined ones. [/QB]
While I don't predict disaster (yet), I'm not sure if adding another layer of bureaucracy will ultimately accomplish anything.
Posts: 6316 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
I see no good coming out of this, though probably not a lot of harm either. If he does anything too out of bounds, he'll get reeled right back in.
It's a media stunt, and considering how many people turned Bush down, I'd say it was a pretty crappy one.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: Why isn't the Pentagon's Director of Operations already the "War Czar?" What would the Pentagon's Director of Operations be if not a "War Czar?"
Why, an opportunity to confound and befuddle the chain of command some more, of course!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
You and Lyr know more about armor than I ever will. I'm a political junkie which is why I'm up on the arcana below. /edit
