Just how far in Advancement and Capability is the U.S. Military?

What comes to mind about that is that the target had been painted red at least in the pictures I've seen.

Do the marines paint their target with a red dot before firing the way the police do in the US.

 

Few weeks? Would a war with the bear even last a few weeks before truce or extermination (& I don't mean just the bear)?

 

Before mission capable they used combat deployable or combat readiness. The current administration changes definitons of words to hide the truth. It's referred to cultural-Marxism, to change the meaning of words to further a political agenda. It's like in today's Obama's PC Navy, a hospital ship is now classified as being a warship to make the combat fleet look larger than it really is. Congress caught Obama when he did that.

So a CSG has the same number of aircraft as a CBG but less than half the number of escorts than a CBG.

A Carrier Battle Group consisted of a carrier and it's air wing and a large number of escorts, usually two cruisers, eight destroyers and frigates and one or two attack submarines.

The Carrier Strike Group consist of one carrier and it's air wing, one cruiser and two or three destroyers, maybe an attack submarine.

 

Excuse me, can you talk reality please?

Paint the target with a red dot? I have never approached a target a single time with paint before shooting it.

 

Ha,Ha I think you knew what I meant, "Laser Target Pointer" as attached to a gun.
http://www.army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/ilee/

Have they become standard issue for the marines? Was thinking that some of them would automatically adjust the sites for distance as lasers can be used to measure distance.

 

Sorry, I can't think of anybody in the military that uses a LASER pointer, other then for a PowerPoint presentation. We use reflex sights, something completely different. ANd even those are sighted in for pre-set ranges. And the same with a LASER sight. The bullet does not magically pass through where the dot rests, they have to be sighted in on a range (or crudely boresighted) before they work properly, and only then at specified distances.

 

Had to look that up, there is also picture on the Wiki article showing what the view through the sight would be with the viewer moving.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reflector_sight

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aimpoint_CompM2

http://usmilitary.about.com/od/weapons/a/peq.htm

 

Musroom have you heard about these types of guns, what are your thoughts.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23571-selfaiming-rifle-turns-novices-into-expert-snipers.html#.VWjHgabhnz9

 

They didn't ? I think every American, RAF and Luftwaffe fighter aircraft had reflector sights during WW ll.

 

We can't be all that advanced if we can't locate people wearing black scarves in bright sunlight, can we? Maybe it's time to take a step back and hire some some Injuns.

 

Russia is not even close to being a Military Threat.

Putin would have to be completly INSANE to attempt to involve Russia against U.S. or NATO Forces.

AboveAlpha

 

OK, now a little lesson in military terminology.

"Painting" is an active action, when some form of radiation (LASER) actually strikes the target. It may be a LASER sight, as in what you see commonly on pistols, or a LASER designator like aircraft use, where the weapon aims on what the beam is striking. But in "painting", something is sent out and actually strikes the target itself.

In a reflex sight, nothing is emitted at all. No LASER, no radio wave, nothing. Basically it is like looking through a scope where instead of crosshairs you have a red dot inside of the scope that shows what you are aiming at. It is entirely passive, as opposed to LASER which is active. And there is no LASER in a reflex scope.

And like any other scope, it still has to be sighted in. If it is not sighted in properly or the range is set wrong you are still going to miss (or hit the wrong location). It is not "painting", it is not an active system where the bullet is aligned to follow the dot to the target. The dot only tells you what you would be hitting, if the range is properly set and it is properly sighted in.

And yes, having been trained in the use of the ACOG, I am very familiar with how these work.

To be honest? Did not read the article, and really could not care less.

For things like this, I really do not see a military application, believe it or not.

Having spent 10 years as a grunt, I know how finicky such equipment can be, and how likely it would fail in field conditions. The last thing anybody wants is for their weapon to fail when they really need it. The more high end technology like this you throw at the military, the less you actually have effective individuals. They tend to start to ignore the basics of their skills and let the technology like this take over for the basic markmanship skills that they instead should learn to use.

Good example, map reading. 25 years ago, everybody from the E-2 to the Colonel knew how to read a map, find North with a stick, and to use visibal locations (water tower, mountain, building, etc) and then use those to pinpoint exactly where they are. Today, far to many rely only on GPS, and if you give them a map and compass and tell them to tell you where they are ane hot to get to another 10 digit grid coordinate, they are completely lost and have no idea how to do it.

About 3 months ago we had a map reading class in my unit, and most of the Sergeants had no idea how to do even basic skills like give the 4 digit coordinate of a grid square (1 kilometer square), or how to identify an azimuth. Instead of using the tools to augment their own skills, they have let their skills deteriorate to uselessness and rely only on technology.

 

The Wiki articles said as much but the part I quoted was referring to rifles.

 

When I mentioned painting the target with a red dot the first time I was referring to a laser, hope you did not think I was referring to a paint ball. Thanks for all the information.

I did read the whole article down to some of the comments & if I did not care would not have bothered posting it here. I suspect if the new laser sites keep being developed & sold to the public sooner or later political donations will force the military to swallow it if there is more money to be made.

That map reading & navigation is also a sport called "Orienteering". The closest I have come to doing that is a nature walk though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orienteering

 

Alpha here's some of the roo harvesting regulations you showed an interest in earlier. These regulations came into force under a Labor government - roughly the same as your Democrats.

http://www.legislation.sa.gov.au/LZ/C/R/NATIONAL%20PARKS%20AND%20WILDLIFE%20%28KANGAROO%20HARVESTING%29%20REGULATIONS%202003/CURRENT/2003.54.UN.PDF

 

I'm glad you cleared that up, I couldn't figure out what you were talking about. I thought you were referring to painting a red dot on a target with paint.

The only time I use a rifle scope is when hunting big game. Otherwise it's always iron open sights. And I'm into long range rifle marksmanship. Iron sights and the target at 500 yards or more. Finally found a 1,000 yard range that someone built out in the Mojave desert. My M-1 Garand and 8 mm Kar-98 Mauser and my brother in law's Springfield Armory M-1A are now getting some use.

 

Can you fit a scope to the barrel of your M-1 Garand when hunting big game or do you use another gun?

The eight round cartridge of the M-1 would be illegal in Australia, the idea was to slow down a lunatic by forcing him to reload more often & give potential victims a chance to run.

My home is on a farm that I part own with my parents & they do not want firearms kept on the farm, as such I would not able to get a license & just dream about having a rifle to control all the hopping vermin out here.

You might find this last bit from a wikipedia article of interest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

 

It can be done, the Marines and Army had M-1 Garands mounted with a scope during the Korean War.

But as a hunting rifle ? Who wants to lug around an almost 10 pound rifle while hunting ?

When I was in the Corps we were shown how to load a M-1 clip with just five rounds, it was necessary if you were lucky enough to have a M-1 Garand while requalifying on the rifle range.

 

I can imagine how many holes would be in your walls
[video=youtube_share;M_u7SJgLd9Q]http://youtu.be/M_u7SJgLd9Q[/video]

 

I actually like spiders, we have Huntsman spiders here that get not quite as big as the spider on the video & not regarded as being dangerous. If I am home at the time I will get them up with a jar & chuck them out in the garden, if mom catches them she will take them way out into the field before releasing them. Red backs(black widows) & some other spiders do have a very short life expectancy though.

One day I came home from work & saw a black snake crawling across the front porch, mom was nearby & I asked her if she wanted me to get a shovel but she said the snake minds it's own business & she had gotten used to it. Have not seen it for a long time since she got a new cat.

 

Not much bang for the big bucks if the US military and its $660Billion annual budget is produces marginal results.

Of course the solution is to throw even more money at it.

 

It's more than just money, morale is at an all time low, it has dropped 30 points while Obama has been CnC. Most of this is from social engineering of the military by the Obama administration and also the CnC has little respect for those who serve under his command.

Training, again it's social engineering. Instead of training for war our military is spending to much time attending mandatory PC classes like sensitivity classes or attending gay pride festivities watching drag queens performing on a stage.

But Obama's sequestration has caused a severe impact on equipment maintenance. Today 1/2 of the Navy's ships aren't "mission capable." (combat capable) All those ships you see sitting in Norfolk, San Diego, etc. are suppose to be able to put to sea and be able to fight, the Navy calls it "surge." But they can't surge. I've had pilots from three different FA-18 squadrons tell me they are only flying two out of five scheduled combat flight training missions. A few years ago one navy crew member of a P-3 squadron told me on any given day 1/2 of the aircraft in his squadron couldn't fly. Might have been changes, since then the squadron has transition over to the P-8.

Then there's the cost of the all volunteer military. When the liberals pushed for the all volunteer military right after the Vietnam war, the purpose was so liberals wouldn't have to never serve in the military be it peace time or war time. The military and the Republicans opposed the idea saying it would be to expensive and America should keep the 200 year tradition of the citizen soldier.

The "New Left" had just hijacked the Democrat party and they prevailed. Actually the all volunteer military worked out very well. But it was expensive and today the libs don't want to pay for it.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/us_defense_spending_30.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/united_states_total_spending_pie_chart

 

If the US has an arsenal that cannot be maintained with an annual budget of $660 Billion then something is most definitely wrong with the entire organization.

Funny how they can spend over a trillion on a new manned fighter jet (that still isn't combat worthy), and yet not keep a squadron of 5 older jets in the air, or a few ships battle ready.

The sequestration wasn't Obama's fault, its congress that owns that little piece of hatchet work, but I can see how partisan memories can become so distorted.

As to the morale issue, I guess 14 years of constant warfare which started with such ambiguous/controversial motivations, major battlefield victories and gigantic post action clustermucks has NOTHING to do with it. I guess the crapfest that is congress and its inability or unwillingness or cowardice to address the military issues of the day have nothing to do with it.

I suggest you launch a search party to help you recover that balanced perspective you seemed to have mislaid along the trail.

 

Well, to bad that msot of that $600 billion is spent on other things.

Oh, little things, like pay for those in the military. Housing and medical care. Training. And a ton of little things.



Less then half of that $600 billion goes to maintenance. As a single item pay is the largest single expenditure in the DoD budget.

 

It's the responsibility of the Commander in Chief to make sure that our military is properly funded, equipped and trained not Congress. Instead Obama has been using the military for social engineering under the direction of Valerie Jarrett. According to former SECDEF Gates and Panetta, it's been Valerie Jarrett who been in charge of America's national security policies. Obama refuses to listen to his military advisers and rarely meets with the JCOS. Obama doesn't even understand how the military chain of command works, ignores the chain of command and even Valerie thought she was part of the military chain of command. She really did. There's a good story behind it.

Obama is on his fourth SECDEF, he still trying to find a yes man to be his SECDEF.

When Chuck Hagel became Obama's third SECDEF, Hagel on his first inspection tour in Afghanistan noticed a telephone and asked a general what's that phone for ? He was told it was a direct line to the White House. SECDEF Hagel ordered the phone to be ripped out. It was a direct violation of the law, the Goldwater–Nichols Act in 1986. The President as CnC is required by law to follow the military chain of command. It's the freaking law. Again, Valerie Jarrett is not part of the military chain of command. Why Congress doesn't bring the hammer down on Obama ??? They probably don't want to be accused of being racist.