backtop


Print 52 comment(s) - last by Donovan.. on Mar 18 at 11:42 AM


  (Source: U.S. Air Force/Senior Airman Ricky J. Best)
USMC looks to utilize UAVs to help resupply soldiers in remote areas

The use of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) overseas has normally involved smart bomb launches or reconnaissance, but the U.S. Marine Corps is developing a new UAV that will be able to help re-supply combat forces overseas.

The Marines are working with developers to create a new UAV that is able to carry up to 1,200 pounds of supplies on each flight, Assistant Commandant of the Marine Corps, Gen. John Amos, recently said to the House appropriations Committee's subcommittee focused on defense.

"I'm looking for something now," Gen. Amos said to the subcommittee.  "We want to get a solution into Afghanistan by this summer."

Both the Marine Corps and Army have noticed an increase of injuries related to the heavy amount of weight soldiers deployed overseas must carry, an Army official recently said.  The combat gear weighs up to 130 pounds, and a higher number of soldiers are being hurt by stress fractures, pulled muscles and other issues.  This issue is especially problematic as soldiers prepare to be deployed to Afghanistan, where they'll have to deal with rough terrain, mountains, and bad road conditions.

The UAVs, which the USMC hopes to have by summer, will help transport ammunition, food and water, and batteries to ground troops on patrol in remote areas.

The U.S. military has been thinking about possible ways to help soldiers, and UAV development has prospered since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom.  The smaller craft are silent and fast, which makes them good for reconnaissance, but larger ones can be used to drop supplies or weapons.  The BBC published a brief list of commonly used UAVs by British and American troops in the Middle East.

Precision air drops used by the Army have been able to deliver as much as 26,000 pounds of supplies per day to troops deployed.



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: defense spending plan
By ccmfreak2 on 3/13/2009 9:08:45 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
if we dont attack anyone they wont attack us.

Right.... So, who were we attacking in 2000 and 2001 that led to the death of almost 3,000 inoccent lives in 9/11? And who were we attacking in 1940 and 1941 that led to the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941?


RE: defense spending plan
By Tsuwamono on 3/13/2009 9:22:51 AM , Rating: 2
I dunno about 2000 but i know in 1940-41 aswell as 1939 USA was selling arms to Germany AND the Allies..

I would think that kind of pissed people off wouldn't you?


RE: defense spending plan
By clovell on 3/13/2009 11:30:36 AM , Rating: 2
It was my understanding that Japan attacked when we stopped selling them supplies.


RE: defense spending plan
By raghavny80 on 3/13/09, Rating: 0
RE: defense spending plan
By rcc on 3/13/2009 1:40:47 PM , Rating: 3
Another history revisionist I see.

Yes, it's all our fault for having ships in the same ocean. Not even particularly close.

FWIW, the only thing that isolationism has ever done for anyone is to let the opposition get a running start on you.


RE: defense spending plan
By msomeoneelsez on 3/13/2009 1:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
I would have to disagree with you, the move of the US pacific fleet was not an aggressive move, but rather a defensive strategy.

As stated by clovell
quote:
Japan attacked when we stopped selling them supplies.

The US placed an embargo on Japan, and I believe that was because Japan attacked our allies in Asia, such as China, and the US felt that our trading with them was helping them in their attacks... although it has been a while since I studied that particular part of it, so I may be inaccurate on that part.

Either way, both Germany and Japan had plans to attack the US as a part of their world domination scheme... Hitler just wanted to wait longer than the Japanese did, because he knew the US had such a large manufacturing capacity.

Also, in response to Tsuwamono, it was not the US government, but the free market capitalists who wanted to benefit from the war, and there were attempts by the government to control this action without provoking attack.


RE: defense spending plan
By Zoomer on 3/13/2009 11:44:03 PM , Rating: 2
Particularly fuel oil.


RE: defense spending plan
By themengsk176 on 3/14/2009 5:09:35 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
So, who were we attacking in 2000 and 2001 that led to the death of almost 3,000 inoccent lives in 9/11?


Well that was partly due to our unconditional support of Israel, a nation that an entire group of now displaced people regard as an illegal nation. Not to mention our stationing of troops on Islamic holy land.

I can almost guarantee you, that if we hadn't had our bloated military's thumb in every pie from Florida to Pakistan, that we wouldn't have been attacked at all.


"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes











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