backtop


Print 66 comment(s) - last by RivuxGamma.. on Sep 16 at 10:02 PM


The RAH-66 Comanche program was canceled in 2004

Lt. Gen. Daniel Bolger  (Source: Wikimedia Commons)
Majority of Army FCS projects have been cancelled

The U.S. military depends on technology to give the edge on the battlefield. The U.S. government spends billions of dollars each year researching and developing new tech that will allow the military to better fight enemy forces wherever and whenever the need strikes.

Of all the branches of the U.S. military, the branch that might be considered the least modern would be the Army by some. The Air Force has its high-tech Joint Strike Fighter program and F-22 Raptor aircraft and the Navy has numerous high-tech ships and weapon systems. At the same time, many of the large programs that the Army has launched have ended before the weapons systems were complete as a casualty of cutbacks in Washington.

Defense News reports that U.S. 3-star general Daniel Bolger has stated that the Army does in fact have a strong modernization program in place and he defended that strategy over the weekend at breakfast meeting.

Gen. Bolger said, "Now most folks in this room would probably say that in wake of the cancellation of the Future Combat Systems [FCS], the Army really does not have much of a modernization strategy, but I would disagree." He continued, "Our Army has modernized dramatically in the last decade, if you think about it. We're organized differently and we fight differently. We did it all at war and in fact, I would tell you, we did it because we're at war."

Among the notable Army projects that were axed by Washington where the XM2001 Crusader program that was to be a more modern version of the self-propelled Howitzer canon. Another casualty of the ending of that program was the non-line-of-sight canon that was intended to replace the M-109 self-propelled 155mm Howitzer.

Another high profile cancelled project for the Army was the RAH-66 Comanche attack helicopter. The program to find a replacement for the aging Bradley fighting vehicle saw its RFP cancelled in late August with the promise that a new request for proposal would be released within 60 days. BAE has been working on a proposal to replace the Bradley that uses hybrid technology.

Despite the notable Army project cancellations, Bolger points to the upgraded CH-47F Chinook helicopter [PDF] as one of the modernized vehicles in the Army's strategy. Bolger said, "[The CH-47F] looks the same, but it's a much different and better aircraft than the D model it replaced."

The biggest chunk of the modernization strategy according to Bolger is the network capabilities being tested at Fort Bliss, Texas. Bolger sees the network upgrades as the centerpiece of the Army modernization strategy. He also points to the Army's purchase of the Grey Eagle drone, a version of the Predator drone used by the Air Force previously known as Sky Warrior, as one of the modern weapon systems the Army has acquired.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By Amiga500 on 9/13/2010 11:40:12 AM , Rating: 4
Yet nothing in the way of "upgrades" for the common grunt.

They are the ones getting killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet they are the ones sucking hind tit when it comes to getting new technology.

Where are the helmets with built in HUDs and datalinks showing thermal images, images/icons of what is ahead generated from aerial assets? A couple of examples:

1. If a UAV has algorithms to recognise a human from IR signature, then it can plot it on a digital map - which then shows up as an icon - no more hiding inside buildings sniping. BTW - the "if" is purely rhetorical - they can recognise humans.

2. If a UAV has ground penetrating radar, then those IEDs aren't so hidden anymore. The guy on the ground sees them as quick as the UAV - no more fatal time delay in getting info from UAV back to recon command, from recon command to the grunt's command, and from there to the grunt himself. BTW - the "if" is once again purely rhetorical - they can recognise bombs.

Where is the improved body armour? Or exoskeletons?

It is useless inept apologist b*stards like Bolger who insist they are spending on the right programs that get good men killed. Much like the inept sh*theads at the top that insisted on the M4 Sherman tank in WW2.

A darker possibility would be that big bucks get spend on programs like the RAH-66... whereas real improvements to the safety and effectiveness of the army solider could be made for much more modest amounts. Can you spell corrupt?




By theArchMichael on 9/13/2010 12:09:31 PM , Rating: 5
How about giving some of these "grunts" some network security classes and a laptop so they can defend our nations information infrastructure...
With all the money they save paying contractors they can build all the killing machines they want.


By MrBlastman on 9/13/2010 12:45:17 PM , Rating: 3
It is called "airgap." That's all they need to know (okay, really not); it solves the problem. Well, airgap with a room that has complete RF shielding (because one day, someone will figure out a way to pull data from ambient computer RF being emitted from them and not via wireless emitters but from the operation of the electronic circuits themselves).

I'd say this further adds clout the need for quantum computing. Decoherence is your enemy. ;)


By borismkv on 9/13/2010 1:51:52 PM , Rating: 3
Part of the DIACAP process is compliance with TEMPEST standards. TEMPEST deals with compromising emanations from network devices. The majority of military installations are compliant with TEMPEST regulations already, which essentially meets (and possibly exceeds) your "airgap" requirement. Classified data is kept on a private network that, normally, doesn't touch the public Internet. The problem is that there are often stupid, self-serving, or outright treasonous (in the case of a certain Private in the Army) people at the helm.

I don't care what you do. It is impossible to create a system that is 100% secure *and* usable.


By borismkv on 9/13/2010 1:41:52 PM , Rating: 2
Part of the problem there is that any time you give a grunt an education they jump ship and get a better paying job that doesn't involve getting shot at. A lot of Military IT personnel end up working for government contractors after they leave the service because it pays a *lot*. Unfortunately, government contractors tend to not care about the quality of personnel they hire as much as they want to just have bodies in the contracted positions.


By borismkv on 9/13/2010 3:32:41 PM , Rating: 2
I've done government contracting for the Military in IT. As soon as those grunts get the certifications they are required to get for their jobs and their 4 years are up, they're gone. And I seriously think your list of reasons for joining the military is horribly limited.


By YashBudini on 9/13/2010 9:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
Have you seen the US job market as of late?


By knutjb on 9/13/2010 6:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
You're simply an ignorant fool who no clue about the military. Don't feel lonely I knew people in the military who were as clueless as you.


By Chillin1248 on 9/13/2010 1:09:00 PM , Rating: 5
Hear hear.

As another "grunt" myself now in the reserves. I completely agree with you.

I can't stand it when the Battalion says that we are not getting new rifles because there is not enough money, and then the Air Force goes ahead and spends billions on its air-superiority fighters.

While I do agree that there is a need for them, let's get our priorities in line. The last time the Air Force has gone up against another foreign air-power was in 1991; 2003 not withstanding due to the lack of significant opposition.

Don't get me started on the Navy.

/rant

-------
Chillin


By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 1:50:10 PM , Rating: 5
Battleships are cheaper than battles
-Theodore Roosevelt

I'm not disagreeing particularly on any one point you have. I thank you for your service to my country and my freedoms that you have done.

But it seems you're rather dismissive of the benefit force multipliers like air-superiority fighters and Navy ships that directly and indirectly help our troops.

quote:
The last time the Air Force has gone up against another foreign air-power was in 1991


Yes, and everyone saw what happened. How many future conflicts were prevented all together simply because nobody wanted to commit troops and equipment in a hopeless effort against such an overwhealming force?

I believe this is why we should always strive for next-gen equipment and continue to have the most feared and complete combined fighting force on the planet. Not just for the present conflicts, but for preventing them from starting in the first place.

However, let it be said, that as a taxpayer if you and your men weren't provided needed equipment and weapons because of money; then I would have no problem paying my part in getting you them. And I doubt I stand alone on that.


By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 3:14:29 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Name one particular situation where the availability of these massive non-nuclear forces prevented escalation.


No data on that exists. It's not like some high ranking official or leader is going to say "Well we were thinking of invading ____ but didn't because they are allied with the U.S."

If you don't think a strong military is a deterrent, then we can end this convo right now. Because you aren't being realistic at all.

quote:
How many fighter pilots have been killed in Afghanistan? Or Iraq? The same for Naval personnel...?


Missing the point. Just because they are there today, does not mean we can tear down our armed forces and spend 30+ years retooling it to fit Iraq/Afghanistan scenarios.

Amiga you are, typically, operating from foresight. 15-20 years ago NOBODY could have predicted that we would be in something like this in the middle of the Middle East. We were still in the Cold War footing, armed for slugging it out with a similar high tech, well funded, opponent.

quote:
In the last 30 years, pretty much every conflict zone (bar the bombing of yugoslavia) has been on the army's shoulders. Yet they are the ones getting f**k all.


Where in my post did you see me saying to give the army "f** all" ? I specifically said I WOULD personally pay more taxes if it got them more equipment. Having said that, I believe you are overstating the situation just a bit.


By Amiga500 on 9/13/2010 5:17:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
No data on that exists.


So there has been no political situation you can think of that the opposition has backed down for fear of the US's conventional forces?

You know why? Because they never arose. You know why that is? No one was or is ever going to directly invade US soil - simply because of the nuclear weapons pointed in the other direction.

The US military is ALWAYS going to be fighting in limited wars or conflict zones due to the big intercontinental nuclear bullets they have at home.

Examples:

- Korea
- Vietnam
- Panama
- Iraq
- Somalia
- Yugoslavia (admittedly, they solved this through airstrikes - but that was a forced hand as they were afraid of the bodybag effect if troops went onto the ground)
- Afghanistan

quote:
If you don't think a strong military is a deterrent, then we can end this convo right now. Because you aren't being realistic at all.


No, I think you are barking up the completely wrong tree. You are completely out of touch with what the real military needs are.

quote:
Missing the point. Just because they are there today, does not mean we can tear down our armed forces and spend 30+ years retooling it to fit Iraq/Afghanistan scenarios.


Your armed forces are not fit for purpose. What good is an F-22 in Afghanistan? Or a B-2? Or a Ticonderoga missile cruiser?

Yet all the money is continually pumped into these silver bullets and the folks that actually need the technology are suffering.

quote:
Amiga you are, typically, operating from foresight.


Vietnam was over 40 years ago. The infantry were woefully ill-equipped for the task at hand. Nothing has changed since.

Operating from hindsight I am not.

I can confidently predict that nothing will change over the next 40 years. The US will still only be deploying forces in limited wars or conflict zones.

quote:
We were still in the Cold War footing, armed for slugging it out with a similar high tech, well funded, opponent.


Who also had nukes - which rendered big expensive silver bullets a waste of time. Pity neither of the two sides realised it.

quote:
Where in my post did you see me saying to give the army "f** all" ?


Your arguing that the money is better spent on these big programs aren't you?

Do you think Bob Gates has an unlimited money pit to draw from?


By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 5:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Vietnam was over 40 years ago. The infantry were woefully ill-equipped for the task at hand. Nothing has changed since. Operating from hindsight I am not.


Here you go again. In Vietnam American forces never lost a single major engagement. Overall American forces had an almost unheard of kill/death ratio. I don't see how you can pull that off being "woefully ill-equipped".

quote:
You are completely out of touch with what the real military needs are.


Oh I'm sorry General Amiga, please fill me in with all of your expertise on the subject.

quote:
What good is an F-22 in Afghanistan? Or a B-2? Or a Ticonderoga missile cruiser? Yet all the money is continually pumped into these silver bullets


All the money? The last B-2 built was under Bush Sr.! Last I heard the F-22 is dead in the water and maybe a handful more will be purchased. I can't find anything on the Ticonderoga, but I have a feeling those aren't exactly being pumped out either. What are you talking about man?

quote:
Your arguing that the money is better spent on these big programs aren't you?


Nope. I never said it was "better" spent, but big programs will always be important. You seriously need to chill out.


By borismkv on 9/13/2010 5:43:06 PM , Rating: 6
quote:
Operating from hindsight I am not.


But talking like Yoda, you are.


By rcc on 9/13/2010 5:54:31 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Vietnam was over 40 years ago. The infantry were woefully ill-equipped for the task at hand. Nothing has changed since.


Perhaps you should check the standard kit of a soldier if you don't think anything has changed.

Granted, we haven't handed out video game shiny toys, but that doesn't necessarily make a better soldier. To paraphrase an author, while the guy on the ground is looking at all the gee whiz stuff, some bozo with a knife is going to sneak up and gut him.

I can see it being released in the future, after the interfaces are simplified to the point that it doesn't take the soldiers attention away from what is trying to kill him.


By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:27:16 AM , Rating: 3
Not if the guy who is using the 'gee whiz' toys can see if someone is sneaking up on him because he has a 360 degree view because of those toys!


By flatrock on 9/14/2010 4:17:23 PM , Rating: 2
In video games you don't generally have to deal with the reality that all that crap weighs a hell of a lot. What kind of battery do you think you would need to power all these high tech radios and displays, along with the processing power to turn all that data into into useful information.

If you listed to the Army what they say they have been concentrating on are communications. That's not just being able to talk to each other over radios, but there are practical limitations for a soldier in the field that isn't bringing along a big portable generator and fuel to recharge all their equipment every so often.


By borismkv on 9/13/2010 5:37:33 PM , Rating: 2
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf Page 13 (Page 16 of the PDF file) through page 19 (page 22 of the PDF) outlines casualties based on Totals and branch of service. Air force and Navy (excluding the Marine Corps) haven't breached triple digit hostile action deaths.


By aegisofrime on 9/13/2010 9:15:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Name one particular situation where the availability of these massive non-nuclear forces prevented escalation.

Hmmm. 1996 Taiwan Straits Crisis?


By ajdavis on 9/14/2010 9:53:44 AM , Rating: 2
By Amiga500 on 9/13/2010 2:16:40 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Battleships are cheaper than battles
-Theodore Roosevelt


We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.

- Dwight D. Eisenhower

I'm sure you'll note that it is much easier to sink massive profit margins into grotesquely expensive ships and planes than infantry body armour.


By YashBudini on 9/13/2010 3:12:40 PM , Rating: 3
Even better when the military industrial complex gets a CEO in to be the head of defense, then the money will really flow.

And it did.


By Etsp on 9/14/2010 12:54:48 AM , Rating: 2
Always close your tags. XHTML 101.


By Lord 666 on 9/14/2010 12:02:17 AM , Rating: 4
Unless you live in Israel, Chillin didn't serve "your" country.

The Israeli military has it right with mandatory service. It would benefit many American's waist lines and productivity. Even Bar would have benefited ;)


By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:37:03 AM , Rating: 1
No, they don't. The fact is that NO ONE should be forced to fight for a country when they do not agree with the reasoning for the country going to war, which is the reason why we went to an all-volunteer Army in the United States.


By bldckstark on 9/15/2010 5:33:39 PM , Rating: 1
I agree that nobody should be drafted, but I also believe that EVERYONE should volunteer to serve their country.

The whole "I don't believe in the war we are fighting" is no excuse for not serving your country. If your problem with serving is associated with the basis of the war itself, then join the Coast Guard. You can serve and not be a part of the war itself.

Here's the deal. We have to have an army, and somebody has to serve in it. Without an army we would not be the United States of America. I personally disliked everything about President Clinton, but I served under him with respect for the office of the POTUS. I didn't believe in the military engagement in Serbia and Bosnia/Hezegovina, but I served honorably because that is what pays the debt that you owe the country you live in.

If you are unwilling to serve the country you live in, you don't deserve to live there. You don't have to serve your country, but you should be willing to do so.

Most people don't understand that they owe their country a debt until they get older. Usually by then it is too late for them to serve in the military, and they don't have another option to help them pay that debt.

I paid my debt. I deserve my freedom. Can you say that?


By psenechal on 9/13/2010 1:10:28 PM , Rating: 3
From what I've heard, it's the Marines that get the biggest shaft. They seem to be the most deprived when it comes to equipment and anything they do get is usually hand-me-down from another branch that just got a new replacement for it.

But being Marines, "they adapt, they overcome", they do with what they have, don't complain about it, and still kick some serious ass!


By bug77 on 9/13/2010 3:23:21 PM , Rating: 3
#1. You're assuming IR radiation goes through walls. It doesn't.


By Amiga500 on 9/13/2010 5:22:05 PM , Rating: 1
No. Course it doesn't.

Which isn't why firefighters use IR sensors to locate people in burning buildings.

Oh... wait a minute...

[/sarcasm]


By nuarbnellaffej on 9/13/2010 7:37:23 PM , Rating: 2
They use them to find people in low visibility situations, not through buildings. You are wrong, again.


By ScorcherDarkly on 9/14/2010 4:40:26 AM , Rating: 2
Explain to me how an infrared sensor, which sees HEAT, would be able to distinguish a person in a burning building from the flames themselves.


By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:28:49 AM , Rating: 2
Simple: difference of heat given off.


By inperfectdarkness on 9/13/2010 3:36:47 PM , Rating: 2
i'll take this one.

the m4 tank was based around national priorities and our national security agenda. at the time, war in south america was expected/predicted. the 75mm cannon on the m4 was well suited to the task of warfare in and around unfortified facilities and towns; again, which was based on the geography of the percieved threat.

when WWII erupted, the USA was not immediately brought into the war. frankly, if japan hadn't attacked, we might never have gotten involved. when it DID happen, the existing inventory was called upon for a job which exceeded original design specification. this, however, was not the fault of the army; it was the fault of a national policy.

now to answer your questions:

1. this would not allow for hostile/non-hostile assessment.

2. as an individual intimitely familiar with what is, arguably, the most capable ground radar system in the entire US military arsenal, i can assure you that such capabilities--although theoretically possible--are not in use, not fielded, etc. additionally, the size of an airborne asset required to do sufficient wide-area surveillance is rather large. and that is assuming that it could be done with the same footprint of current ground surveillance radars. undoubtedly, it would take a LOT more processing and radiation to accurately assess IED placement; were such a thing fielded.

There are also a host of other problems that ground radar systems encounter which air radar systems do not. turbulence, weather systems and a variety of other anomalies can make it all but impossible to correctly discern target data that is ABOVE ground. shallow burial IED's would be much harder to detect. and this is assuming, of course, that you have a 100% jam-free environment.

finally, i'd like to point out that it is much easier to build a limited number of capable weapon systems--rather than the costly process of outfitting every GI with the latest in tech gear. sure, it would be cool to have every soldier suited up & jacked in--but if the job can be done with hand signals and walkie-talkies, what real benefit is there?


By Amiga500 on 9/13/2010 5:35:42 PM , Rating: 2
HA HA HA HA.

Who you think your trying to kid?

Explain the delaying of the M26 by the military... Prototype out the same time the M4 went into production. Yet the head honchos (much like this clown Bolger) knew better, and got thousands killed needlessly as a result.

1. Knowing where they are means you can plan on them being hostile and seek a vantage point for identification. You go to any solider and ask them which they'd prefer - knowing someone is there, or knowing nothing. You'll pretty quickly be told the answer.

2. Ever hear of the Saab CARABAS radar? Read:

http://www.saabgroup.com/Global/Documents%20and%20...

I guess your just not quite so intimately familiar with the field of radars as you thought huh?

quote:
but if the job can be done with hand signals and walkie-talkies, what real benefit is there?


That attitude is pretty much an insult to every solider on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan. Go say that to some of their families.


By nuarbnellaffej on 9/13/2010 8:01:49 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
HA HA HA HA. Who you think your trying to kid? Explain the delaying of the M26 by the military... Prototype out the same time the M4 went into production. Yet the head honchos (much like this clown Bolger) knew better, and got thousands killed needlessly as a result.


Once again you prove how little you know... Yes a PROTOTYPE existed which does not mean that it could go into production, there is so much more that goes into producing a tank than designing it then putting it straight into production. Setting up and tooling the factories is a very long and costly process that represents a very large portion of the production costs of the production models.

If you had more than a high school level understanding of the war you would realize the British and Russians were starved for military equipment, not too mention the Americans themselves. Had the Americans put the M26 into production too soon they would have been in the same boat as the Germans were with their costly heavy tanks.

The Shermans may not have been the most battle capable vehicles, but they were renowned for ease of use, and reliability, those qualities were a good match for the US doctrine of using artillery and air power to do most of the heavy lifting when it came to German Armour. High quality German tanks may have been able to halt Allied columns every now and then during the march through France, but the vast majority of the German tanks were destroyed by allied artillery and ground attack aircraft.

It would have been great if the US could have put the M26 into production earlier than they did, but they simply couldn't make nearly as many as they needed, and they would have been far and few between like the tiger tanks, and the Panther was initially.


By Chillin1248 on 9/13/2010 7:28:22 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
finally, i'd like to point out that it is much easier to build a limited number of capable weapon systems--rather than the costly process of outfitting every GI with the latest in tech gear. sure, it would be cool to have every soldier suited up & jacked in--but if the job can be done with hand signals and walkie-talkies, what real benefit is there?


You are assuming we even have walkie-talkies.

Usually only squad leaders and up get radios, only in Special Operations do the units have the top gear since they get the funding equivalent to a Battalion for a Platoon sized force.

To be honest, you can completely reshape the entire Infantry Soldiers gear for roughly the cost of one or two F-35s by using off-the-shelf gear available today. And I personally would think of it as a better deal considering 70% of todays asymmetric-war battles are fought mainly with small-arms.

And please, do not take this as putting down the Air Force or the Navy, those guys do a hell of a job at what they do and should be proud of it. However, funding must be sent to places where it is most needed.

Like I have said before, I am against wasteful spending. When you are buying $3 to 6 billion destroyers, $7 billion submarines, and $11 billion carriers and aircraft for those carriers at $200+ million dollars each there is a problem.

-------
Chillin


By SunTzu on 9/13/2010 8:13:42 PM , Rating: 2
You have some very good points. The brits (and us Swedes, when in Afghanistan or other high threat enviroments) use individual radios, with commanders simply having 2 different push-to-talk buttons for if they want to talk to their group, or command. The cost is laughably low, a personal radio and bowman headset (Which seems to be pretty much an international standard nowadays) is cheap. Ive got both, i should know :P


By Reclaimer77 on 9/14/2010 1:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
I'm curious Chillin, and I mean no offense by this question, but are you at all factoring in the cost of training a soldier from boot camp on up?

Depending on what source you use, the cost of training a U.S soldier in the most basic capacity is $400,000+. Of course the longer one serves the higher than number goes up. That's per soldier. I can't get a solid answer on officers, but naturally that's a whole different level of expense.

I firmly believe we have the best trained, best equipped, fighting force on the planet.

quote:
And I personally would think of it as a better deal considering 70% of todays asymmetric-war battles are fought mainly with small-arms.


True, AFTER those "overpriced" fighters and Navy guys utterly destroyed the enemies ability to use tanks, air, and other logistics against our troops. Provide close air support, area denial, etc etc. Even in Afghanistan and Iraq II there were extended bombing and cruise missile campaigns before we sent the bulk of the troops in.

quote:
Usually only squad leaders and up get radios


Is that because of funding or simply how the command structure of the military works? What benefit would it be to have 20 or more guys able to jam up communications channels when, in reality, squad leaders need them to delegate authority and communicate with the "higher up's".

Sorry but I'm just having a really hard time believing that somewhere someone decided to screw the troops because they rather "waste" money on bigger projects.


By Chillin1248 on 9/14/2010 2:23:52 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Depending on what source you use, the cost of training a U.S soldier in the most basic capacity is $400,000+. Of course the longer one serves the higher than number goes up. That's per soldier. I can't get a solid answer on officers, but naturally that's a whole different level of expense.


I am assuming you got your number from here:
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_cost_of_trai...

In which case you can say the same for nearly everyone in the military, support personnel included.

quote:
I firmly believe we have the best trained, best equipped, fighting force on the planet.


Without a doubt one of the best trained, and probably the best equipped. However it could still be better for certain groups.

quote:
True, AFTER those "overpriced" fighters and Navy guys utterly destroyed the enemies ability to use tanks, air, and other logistics against our troops. Provide close air support, area denial, etc etc. Even in Afghanistan and Iraq II there were extended bombing and cruise missile campaigns before we sent the bulk of the troops in.


You remind me once of an exercise I was in. First we have the artillery and Air-Force shell the hill, then we have the tanks and engineers blast the hill, and then finally we the grunts rush the hill with our rifles going pop-pop.

I will tell you that the hill was already barren rock after all those forces got through blasting it. So you would think there is no need for us. Then comes the real deal and suddenly the artillery and Air-Force can't shoot since the target is in a village densely populated and the tanks can't approach since there is a heavy AT threat. Guess who did all the dirty work then?

quote:
Is that because of funding or simply how the command structure of the military works? What benefit would it be to have 20 or more guys able to jam up communications channels when, in reality, squad leaders need them to delegate authority and communicate with the "higher up's".


Like Sun-Tzu mentioned previously, there are set frequencies for each level of command. Obviously a squad leader is not expected to be on the same frequency as the Brigade commander.

One of the hardest things to do in a firefight is to guide others unto a mutual target that they didn't initially see. Having the new land-warrior gear would, in theory, greatly ease that task by being able to mark it on the map for all to see; including artillery and AF.

quote:
Sorry but I'm just having a really hard time believing that somewhere someone decided to screw the troops because they rather "waste" money on bigger projects.


Absolutely not.

The problem is that Generals like to see the big picture, and the big toys usually influence that greatly. However, too often they lose sight of the small 'grunts' on the ground. delegating them a smaller piece of the pie. Just ask the Marines who have to fight for their budget from the Navy.

-------
Chillin


By SunTzu on 9/14/2010 4:32:45 PM , Rating: 2
You also have to remember the political side: Its far easier to get support of a new weapons initiative in congress, if you can find a few senators that will gain a bunch of voters that will get nice new jobs by making a bunch of planes/tanks. Body armor, and communications, are tiny tiny costs compared to what training a soldier costs, housing and feeding him and equipping him. They will be able to fight more effictivly, with more confidence and speed, and with less casualties, for a tiny cost. We're not talking thousands of dollars, maybe a thousand, if even that, to get decent short-range comms. And they work, and very well too.

The US military needs to stop fighting with eachother, and work together. Not the grunts or the pilots, but the admins and purchasers. If the marines and the army cant talk to eachother, something is very wrong, and cost has nothing to do with it.


By ScorcherDarkly on 9/14/2010 4:33:34 AM , Rating: 2
Instant recognition of humans and bombs beamed directly to the solider on a headset sounds great. What do you think they're doing all the network upgrades for? The current network isn't capable of doing this. The future network will be.

You're right that UAVs can recognize people, but can they recognize threats? Can they tell the difference between a bad guy with a gun and a civilian with a shovel at 10,000 ft? The answer is no.

UAVs don't carry "ground penetrating" radar. They carry foliage penetrating radar, so they can see through trees, or they can carry synthetic aperture radar that lets them see newly disturbed ground. They aren't friggin airport x-ray scanners that shows the operator a big white box with wires on the picture.

It would be best to have some clue of what you're talking about before ranting about corruption. More lives have been saved on the ground by changing tactics, techniques and procedures than will ever be saved with new technology. There isn't a magic high-tech bullet that makes IEDs and snipers a non-issue. Saying the government is corrupt for not producing said technology is ignorant at best.


By Lerianis on 9/14/2010 10:32:53 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, yes, they can. There is a little thing called ZOOM that is on any modern UAV... they can tell by shape and size whether something is likely to be a gun or likely to be a wallet or shovel.


Hahaha
By karndog on 9/13/2010 11:00:09 AM , Rating: 2
Hahahaha that guy looks wired! Maybe all the Army's money is going on amphetamines for soldiers.




RE: Hahaha
By quiksilvr on 9/13/2010 11:07:37 AM , Rating: 2
Hey! Amphetamines are not the term we use. They are called "Stem Packs". Get it right shoulder! AHHH! *shoots bird flying by*


RE: Hahaha
By Reclaimer77 on 9/13/2010 11:16:11 AM , Rating: 5
*pssst* AHHH! That's the stuff!!!


RE: Hahaha
By MrBlastman on 9/13/2010 11:18:53 AM , Rating: 5
Umm... "Stimpacks" is what they're called.

*pssshtt*

"Ohhh yeaaaaahhh... that's the stuff."

"Jacked up and good to go."


RE: Hahaha
By SunTzu on 9/13/2010 8:14:48 PM , Rating: 2
Its not. In US use, they're called "go pills". Thats not a joke, thats what amphetamines are called when they're given to pilots and others that need them.


RE: Hahaha
By monstergroup on 9/13/2010 10:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
sigh...


RIP Commanche
By MrBlastman on 9/13/2010 11:21:26 AM , Rating: 2
Such a nifty bird that helo would have been. I was sad to see it go. Sure, the Apache could outgun it with it's 30 mm cannon vs. the 20 mm, but, the Commanche was faster, sleeker, more nimble and agile (as far as Helocopers are concerned--and really, they aren't nearly as nimble as people think, they're like steering a car through mud when you're on the cyclic).

Is it just me or does it really seem like the Army has been given the shaft for the last number of years? Even the British version of the Apache is superior in quite a few ways to our own... and we invented the darned thing!




RE: RIP Commanche
By DEVGRU on 9/13/2010 11:40:14 AM , Rating: 3
I know man, I loved the Commanche. I was so disappointed when they canceled the program (what an F-ing waste, and what a lame excuse as well).

quote:
Even the British version of the Apache is superior in quite a few ways to our own... and we invented the darned thing!


Oh? How so? Details.


RE: RIP Commanche
By MrBlastman on 9/13/2010 12:02:27 PM , Rating: 2
Check out the book "Apache" by Ed Macy. Awesome book. In it there are lots of tidbits and details about what they've done.

In a nutshell, they took the airframe, pumped out the power output of the engines, anti-ice for the blades, HIDAS (which is pretty darned bad ass, think RWR on crack where you can target threats based on the RWR feed and not have to use TADS/IHADSS or the Longbow FCR), various encrypted comms changes and additiona British ordinance capabilities, among others.

The power output increase for the engines alone (along with reductions to heat signature) are worth it by themselves.


In related news
By lonechicken on 9/13/2010 12:21:57 PM , Rating: 2
U.S. Army 3-Star general defends how creepy his photo looks.




RE: In related news
By ThisSpaceForRent on 9/13/2010 1:02:16 PM , Rating: 2
Meanwhile the search continues for his missing third star...(old picture I'm guessing)


RE: In related news
By YashBudini on 9/13/10, Rating: 0
RE: In related news
By monkeyman1140 on 9/13/2010 5:37:31 PM , Rating: 2
That's the 1000 yard stare. You earn that from being in combat way too long...


Marines
By Ammohunt on 9/13/2010 2:23:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of all the branches of the U.S. military, the branch that might be considered the least modern would be the Army by some.


Um thats the Marines their kit is ghetto compared to any run of the mill 11B(Infantry soldier) in the ARMY. Thats the down side to being the Navys Army. However What they lack in equipment they make up in agressivness they have always been do more with less branch.




he's kinda right...
By inperfectdarkness on 9/13/2010 3:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
first off, that's a picture of him as a major general. you might want to edit the caption.

the army has a lot of modernization. truth is, most of what needs to be modernized about the army isn't the creation of new weapon systems--it's the technical abilities of existing weapon systems. both the marines and army helicopters have lacked even some basic communications interactivity for a long, long time.

unlike with the need for an f-22 in regards to air-combat, the capabilities to execute land-based combat have never been in question. especially when it comes to large force on force engagements--the army is well suited to the task. additional communications/datalink suites will allow them to better integrate into a joint fight.




By monkeyman1140 on 9/13/2010 5:35:33 PM , Rating: 2
I can't wait for all the un-necessary casualties coming from our Osprey crashes.
Military contracting is a disaster. So much money is flowing into the pentagon nobody is bothering to ask....is this worth the money?....does it even work?




Hire an editor
By SunTzu on 9/13/2010 8:21:24 PM , Rating: 2
"Of all the branches of the U.S. military, the branch that might be considered the least modern would be the Army by some." Should be "Some consider the Army the least modern.."

"Among the notable Army projects that were axed by Washington where the XM2001 Crusader program that was to be a more modern version of the self-propelled Howitzer canon."

So many errors... Firstly, the M109 isnt "the self-propelled Howitzer", its one of many different kinds of self-propelled howitzers. Also, where isnt the same as were, and "canon" isnt the same as "cannon."

Seriously, hire an editor.




The military point of view
By mycropht on 9/14/2010 3:37:50 AM , Rating: 2
From Kubrick's Dr. Stangelove (1964):

We ought to look at this from the military point of view.

I mean, supposing the Ruskies stashed away some big bombs,
see, and we didn't?

When they come out in 100 years, they could take over!

They might try a sneak attack so they could take over our mine shaft space.

It'd be extremely naive of us to imagine that these new developments are gonna cause any change in Soviet expansionist policy!

I mean, we must be increasingly on the alert to prevent them from taking over other mine shaft space in order to breed more
prodigiously than we do thus knocking us out through
superior numbers when we emerge!

Mr. President, we must not allow a mine-shaft gap!




Not surprising
By WinstonSmith on 9/14/2010 8:57:04 AM , Rating: 2
U.S. Army 3-Star General Defends Army Modernization Program?

No kidding?

A newsworthy headline would be:

U.S. Army 3-Star General Disputes Army Modernization Program

followed immediately by:

Used Car Salesman Tells the Truth




By flatrock on 9/14/2010 5:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
The B-2 is a great bomber, but we only built 21 of them instead of the originally planned 132. What is the plan if we are in a major conflict and need more than whatever of those 21 are in theater and operational at the time? The good old B-52 which was designed in 1946.

Air Superiority is essential. Our Air Force hasn't faced serious competition in the air for quite some time, and we absolutely, possitively must keep it that way. By maintaining air superiority we keep our opponents on the ground. We drasticly limit their mobility. We limit their ability to strike our forces from a distance. Without that we would lose far more soldiers on the ground. The F-22 is obscenely expensive. We're only going to build 187 of them. That sounds like a lot except that we need to cover the entire world with those, and those are the planes that keep all our other planes in the air.

It takes a long time and a lot of money to develop a new plane. We can't wait until the rest of the world has caught up with us before starting to develop the next generation. We really can't afford to be constantly working on the next generation simply because it requires a lot of very specialized people and if you put those people out of work you won't have the skills you need when you need them.




3-stars...
By RivuxGamma on 9/16/2010 10:02:06 PM , Rating: 2
Is anybody else only seeing 2 stars on his uniform?




“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki