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

I see you can't be remain on point.

I couldn't care less if you are political or not.

Apparently you can't see the forest for the trees.

For instance, many of those antiquated weapons systems won't be replaced because they have been bypassed by the technology and demands of modern warfighting (as practiced by the US as the standard of course). IOW, they have already been replaced.


I was offering up examples of irresponsible and wasteful spending, but of course you would choose a specific one and harp about it as tho it was my whole point.

do you always ignore the larger point and focus on a detail when attempting to support your perspective?

As to playing word games, is that your default accusation when you can't actually rebut the point in question?

 

There is a difference between when an aircraft was built and when it was designed.. The CH-47 is an old design but Block 2 & 3, F variants of the design will keep the manufacturing line running through 2025 producing brand new helicopters. At least that's the plan.

The actual oldest built aircraft in our military is the B-52 ( B-52Hs are 1960/61) The current intention is to keep the B-52, flying until 2045. This equates to an 85 year life cycle for some of the airframes. The oldest plane still flying is a KC-135R , though not for much longer, built in 1957.

Impressive to say the least...

Thank the men and women that maintain them.

The best in the World at keeping these antiques airworthy and safe for those who fly them.

 

Yeah I know about them....this Sabot Round is used ONLY for the .50 Cal M82 Barrett Sniper Rifle which I believe a Canadian Soldier took out a person at 2 miles.

The Sabot Round used in the M82 and it is NEW as even I don't have much info on it is said to have an effective range further than that but again we are talking about targeting a TANK not a person.

The material the round is made out of must be something special indeed.

AboveAlpha

 

Well, regarding weapons systems, I've heard rumors of an orbital weapons platform, and some sort of launching platform over on the west coast pointed over the pacific.

But, I can't really think of any personal battlefield equipment that would be so advanced, 50-100 years in advancement of anyone else. Perhaps more by a lot...

I always thought that the robots would eventually replace the humans on the battlefield. And they would be the ones receiving the major upgrades.

Ooh! Maybe there could be airborne nanobots that affect the mind of the enemy, or stitch wounds and heal damage on the go.

 

The Orbital System is not in orbit but is waiting to be launched if necessary and this is known as RODS OF GOD.

The U.S. Military has directives to have anywhere from 40% to 60% of all weapon systems fully Robotic by 2022 depending on which service.

AboveAlpha

 

Going robotic? That's got to be tough.

There's little I dread more that trying to teach computers to think. It's a dredged up nightmare of a process.

 

Most of it is going into Robotic Aircraft....but U.S. Army and Marine Trucks that hall supplies will become Robotic as well as Defensive Systems.

AboveAlpha

 

Sounds like "Terminator", hope the central computer does not determine mankind to be a threat to the planet,

Some Toyota LandCruisers used as spray rigs have a GPS based guidance system & can opperate unmanned, Have heard stories of the owner of one such vehicle letting it drive him home after getting drunk at the pub but it is not legal to do that on public roads here.

 

Then kindly give us an example of one. Please, what antiquated weapon systems have been bypassed by technology and "modern warfighting"?

Once again, you give me talking points and absolutely no actual information. Please come back when you are able to give information (as I did), and not just talking points.

Sorry, multiple treaties outlaw weapons in space. And they have been in place for almost 50 years now.

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

Sorry, this is a mental lab research program only, there are no plans to actually create it. Doing so would void multiple arms treaties and start a new arms race that nobody wants. This research is only done in the lab in the event that somebody else decides to launch something similar. But there are no "Rods of God" platform, either in planning, under construction, or built and just waiting to be placed in orbit.

Remember what I said before about the difference between theory and research, and science fiction.

RoG is "Science Fiction", and will remain such unless somebody is stupid enough to try and actually make one. And as far as I am aware nobody is that stupid.

 

Yes. It's based on the ridiculous belief that 'rationalism' works, so more complex 'rationalism' must be 'better', especially if it isn't 'hampered' by human sensibilities and reasoning.

Rationalism as a substitute for human reasoning can't work, it's impossible for it to; it's a Sci Fi fantasy, and a cult fad. It's why I laugh out loud at the ignorant trolls who run around mocking 'Xians' as if they're somehow dumber than the average 'new atheist' moron who thinks he's smarter just by virtue of being an obnoxious asshat.

 

From actual weapons systems, to C&C systems, to mundane yet massive clerical systems, to unwanted weapons politicians force upon the military, and on and on, the US military industrial machine, like most gigantic bureaucratic organizations is fraught with serious flaws, challenges, incompetencies and clustermucks.

Fortunately for America, the power differential between the American Military and everyone else's is overwhelming.


http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/.

http://www.wealthdaily.com/articles/21st-century-warfare-renders-the-tank-obsolete/5017

http://mashable.com/2013/12/01/outdated-technologies-u-s-military/

http://hamptonroads.com/2013/11/military-payroll-system-plagued-errors-obsolete-gear

 

Response to the first link you posted.
< USMC: Under-utilized Superfluous Military Capability >
By Douglas A. Macgregor
http://nation.time.com/2012/12/03/usmc-under-utilized-superfluous-military-capability/#comments

Before the response who is Douglas Macgregor ?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Douglas_Macgregor

When you use Wiki, always go to the Talk Page of the article.

>" Neutrality? Hah! Did Macgregor write this about himself? In any case, it's such a puff piece it's unreal! It is also much too long. &#8212;Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.251.110.131 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the unsigned user above - this must be the worst example of PR puffery that I've seen on Wikipedia, which reflects very badly on Col. MacGregor, making him look like an ultra-vain self-promoter rather than a distinguished military thinker. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)..."<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Douglas_Macgregor

My response to the Time article will be Col. Hackworths words. (RIP Colonel)

 

Oh dear. attack the source, not the content. Typical.

did anyone say that the marines were not an elite fighting force?

The article I posted was about its ability to deploy and the tactics used, not a comment on the marines ability to fight. Although using a VTOL prop plane to deploy anywhere near a combat zone is essentially a death sentence. That is unless you are fighting aborigines with spears, or mountain tribes men with home made muskets.

 

One of the draw backs with the V-22 Osprey is it's size being used an an attack helicopter, it requires a larger LZ.
(It's also so freaking loud )

In a air mobile assualt the helicopters fly in formation, they all land on the LZ in formation at the same exact time , the troops debark and all of the aircraft take off at the same time in formation then vector to either the left or right.

I wonder how successful the Osprey would have been during the Vietnam War or any other war in the future in a jungle evironment?

Helicopters are used during an amphibious operation to land a blocking force to stop the enemy from reinforcing the defending force on the beach head area. The main force will come ashore, first the amtaks, then the LCM's (Mike boats) and once the beach head is secured and their's no enemy threat, the LCU's and the LCAC will come in. LCAC are not assault craft, very easy to put out of commission with just a rifle bullet and are a maintenance headache.

 

From the link above:

21st Century Warfare Renders the Tank Obsolete

RIP: Army Tanks, 1915-2014



The article is nothing more than a lobbying piece to Congress and to investors who are looking for where to invest their money.

Joseph Cafariello the author of the article doesn't know jack (*)(*)(*)(*) about fighting and winning a battle. His job is selling the UAV. (drones)

 

I ask you for an example and references, and you provide some almost random op-ed pieces that have nothing to do with your claim.

Look, you are going to hae to actually prove your claims here, this is the Military section, not "political opinion" section. Like in the History or Science sections of the thread, we generally do not just accept the random rants of uninformed individuals without references.

Hey! I heard that the US has a bomb that will render all cats sterile! Well, no, I can't prove it, but I heard about it. And we know that the military can sterilize drinking water, so why not cats?

This is more or less the type of reasoning you are following here, and it is faulty in the extreme. And your references try to say that everything from the Marine Coprs and Tanks to our current pistol and rifle is obsolete.



That is like saying that propellers are obsolete because we now have jet engines. So that every propeller driven fixed wing aircraft in the inventory is obsolete because of more modern technology.

In short, you really do not know what you are talking about, and are failingly fishing for any kind of reference that even vaguely seems like it might back up your claims.

But let's examine one of them, shall we?

One of your very own references states that the M9 9mm pistol is obsolete. Not getting into the "which gun is better" debate, what about it is obsolete? What new technology has come around in the last 30 years to make the pistol obsolete?

 

Do you want to know how utterly stupid his references are? Look at the third one:

Now this here shows the complete and utter idiocy of the reference he uses.

Culling email because of the storage space requirements? Does this moron reference he is using actually think that the US Military is using Hotmail?

Microsoft Outlook in this instance is a program which the user uses to pull the mail from the US Military e-mail servers. Nothing more, nothing less. But it is not the Microsoft e-mail service. They could use any of the hundreds of other POP based e-mail programs to pull the mail from the servers, Outlook was picked for ease of use and the fact that they already have the world-wide site license for it.

And really, G-mail? WTF is this moron, a complete and utter computer moron?

Yes, he is a complete and utter moron.

Really? Similar and better weapons? Notice he does not give an example, just throws out a soudbite type line and leaves it at that.

And things like LASER and lights are easily added to an M9, they have been around for decades.



Here is an adaptor for the M9, takes a few moments to add and then you can add any slide mounted sighting accessory. I know more then one Officer or NCO that has gotten an item like this. The writer of this piece is a complete idiot.

And really, silencers? Oh yes, because everybody in the military who has the M9 would be issued a silencer, if only the darned thing would fit on the M9. But if the moron had done even a little basic research, he would know that no pistol is ready to handle a silencer out of the box, they have to be adapted. For the M9 you replace the barrel with a longer barrel that is externally threaded, then you can put on the silencer in minutes.

It was this really obscure thing that apparently the OP never heard of. It is called a Contract.

The last contract for mobile phones expired in 2014. At that time the BlackBerry was indeed the phone of choice for the DoD and all segments of the US Government. But in 2014 the DoD contract with RIM expired and they picked a new company. I spent most of the end of 2014 making sure that all of the privlidged ones who had CrackBerries had to bring them in with all accessories so I could inventory them and then issue them their new mobile phone.

And reading the user comments at the end of that article is hilarious. And this person actually used this as a reference?

 

I never said we were without issues our tech is good in some areas and bad in other areas and average in others. I will say our average service member and officer is brave, dedicated and very formidable as a force and we can avoid full scale invasion as long as we have the ability to blast enemies with lot of big nukes.

But to keep cyber warfare superiority we need to keep soldiers able to do that IN the service or have it as civilian support, my father complained about that a lot in his branch Army Intel and we have insufficient Intel feet on the ground and inter-branch and inter-civilian agency coordination including with allies. He is likely right about that and the whole if we can get video footage of gun totting terrorists they should be able to kill them doing that if one agent could get one GPS unit in the area.

I tend to point out I love our men and women in uniform, just not the civilians giving orders all the time.

 

7 Outdated Technologies the U.S. Military Still Uses

The only reason why I'm responding to the link above you used is because when you go to the link you are greeted with a picture of the Chance-Vought F-4U Corsair, the second best CAS aircraft that the U.S. military has used for CAS.

The Douglas A-1 Skyraider being the best CAS aircraft ever to fly and today's Republic A-10 Warthog coming in #3. The Douglas A-4 Skyhawk coming in at #4.

What made the A-1 Skyraider and F-4U obsolete was avgas, both had large radial engines that burned high octane aviation fuels and avgas burns, extremely flammable and it's fumes very explosive.

The Navy dumped the A-1 during the Vietnam War because they wanted the aviation gas off of their carriers. Most of the Japanese aircraft carriers and all of the American carriers that were lost during WW ll was from the fires and explosions of avgas on the carriers.

The Marine Corps also dumped the A-1 before the Navy did for the same reasons, they didn't want aviation gas storage tanks on or near their air bases.

The Douglas A-4 would replace the Navy and Marine Corps A-1 and the U.S. Air Force would take over flying the Navy's A-1's until replaced by the A-10.

The A-1 Skyraider was able to take more hits than today's A-10 because it had a large piston radial engine that can take numerous hits from 20 mm cannon fire and .50 cal MG rounds and keep running and spinning the propeller where a bullet can cause a jet engine to stop working.

 

Interesting that you choose to use historic combat capability/survivablity in an argument on their contemporary combat capability/survivability.

But no worries, you ain't manning any of them.

 

I don't even know if I want to even go to his fourth link ?

 

Well I did serve with Sub Unit One, ANGLICO and I've known and talked to many pilots who have flown these aircraft during numerous wars. Some of them who have flown four or five different aircraft in combat providing CAS.

Not uncommon having a Marine FAC on the ground during the Vietnam War who had combat stick time flying the F-4U, A-1 and A-4. And there are more than a few former Air Force pilots who have flown both the A-1 and the A-10.

 

No, I supplied you with the information you asked for with examples and references. do you have some problem with comprehension?

do you always indulge in fallacies when you got nuthin' else?

No, it didn't say the Marine Corps was obsolete, it said that its original mission of sea invasion, beach head establishment etc. is obsolete in the face of modern weapons deployment by the enemy. If the intended application of the force is no longer survivable against a modern enemy force, then most of that mission specific materiel is by definition also obsolete.

No, just most propeller driven fixed wing combat aircraft are obsolete. do you always think such fallacious generalizations?

[quoet]In short, you really do not know what you are talking about, and are failingly fishing for any kind of reference that even vaguely seems like it might back up your claims.[/quote]

Of course, my claims of massive waste in military spending, inefficiencies, cost of maintaining obsolete weapons and logistical assets, being forced to by equipment they don't need, maintaining dozens of military bases rendered unnecessary by technological advancement, etc. etc.

Perhaps I don't know what I am talking about, OTOH, apart from whinging and fallacy, you haven't made any point.

What new technology has come about in the past 8000 years to render the sword obsolete? It still will kill you quite dead. We can quibble about the definition of obsolete, but in this context I mean, its capabilities have been surpassed by more powerful, easier to use, deadlier, faster, more flexible replacements with increased survivability in a modern combat theatre.

The article points out exactly why that particular model is considered obsolete.

 

I will explain this problem in the best way I can.

We have capabilities beyond belief but they exist in a splintered fashion as everything is Compartmentalized and no one want's to share.

The reason for this is MONEY....BIG MONEY!!!

If you are the DIA and you want so much money to develop such systems and then your the CIA, NSA, CYBER COMMAND, SPACE COMMAND, FBI....etc...etc...etc....and then a group of people running a Division that is SO BLACK that just looking at them will blind you....is able to provide everything and anything...and I am talking about a Group capabale of say....Hacking into a Secret Iranian Underground Centrifuge Uranium Enrichment Site and not only reprogramming the Centrifuges to improperly spin at a velocity that would not develop Weapons Grade Uranium but as well reprogrammed to the extend EACH INDIVIDUAL CETRIFUGE OUT OF THOUSANDS ALONG WITH THE MAIN FRAME IS SHOWING OPERATION NORMAL!!!

That's what I am talking about.

Problem is NOT our Capabilities as we along with some Brits ARE THE BEST THERE IS IN CYBER WARFARE.

It is an issue of data and Intel. Sharing...EGO'S.....and BIG MONEY!!!

A U.S. Cyber Attack on even the most ADVANCED NATIONS would render them in the DARK AGES.

AboveAlpha

 

Once again attacking the source and not the content.

At least you are consistent.