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

Discussion in 'Warfare / Military' started by AboveAlpha, May 23, 2015.

  1. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    As any member or former member of the U.S. Military in whatever service branch they might have served in....there is always a mix of New Highly Advanced Weapon Systems along with Older Weapon Systems being suppied for use in Battle Conditions.

    Now some of the Older Systems might be proven systems that Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen LOVE because of their simplicity of use and proven track record as well as effectiveness.

    Then there are some Older Weapons Systems that are still in our inventory strictly because of POLITICAL CONCERNS and some of these are HATED by the Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen who they are suplied to but fortunately in most cases although not all our Military Leaders find ways to have such weapons systems stored for emergency use and thus even though some Influential Senator uses leverage to keep production of such hated systems continuing to provide JOBS in their State....our GOOD Military Leadership finds ways to prevent these older systems from being used in battefield conditions.

    Then there is the issue of New Highly Advanced Weapon Systems where sometimes such systems are EXACTLY what our Soldiers, Sailors and Airmen have been waiting for.

    Then there are Newer Systems that are REDUNDANT and are just more complex versions of older systems but then there are Highly Advanced New Systems that are so far and away more capable and advanced than any of our adversaries that it allows our Men and Women in Uniform a sense of KNOWING they are headed into Battle with the very best weapons systems available.

    I would estimate the U.S. Military at 50 to 100 years in advancement of any other Nation.

    AboveAlpha
     
  2. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    28,370
    Likes Received:
    9,297
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We simply cannot know how far ahead our military is...10 yrs. from now we will get to see what was developed 10 yrs. ago.
     
  3. Strasser

    Strasser Banned

    Joined:
    May 6, 2012
    Messages:
    4,219
    Likes Received:
    526
    Trophy Points:
    113
    'Advancements' that aren't deployed usefully or in any significant numbers are by definition useless, though. Nazi Germany was big on developing 'superweapons'; didn't help them at all, except to divert labor, machinery, and engineering talent away from proven systems that might have stood them better against being overrun. Of course, this is all moot given Hitler was nuts and incompetent. See the Me-262 jet fighters for one example. 1,400 produced, only 2 or 3 hundred ever actually being able to deploy; they had a great 'WOW!' factor but little to no effect against an average single bomber raid of 1,200 'backward tech' bombers with escorts. I see the U.S. using the same sort of shotgun approach to tech as Hitler did, not in all cases but quite a few, and of course this is because of the politics of pork and egoes.

    I'm reminded of the old Kennedy electioneering slogan here: "You can have anything you want, but you can't have everything you want." Reality kind of gets in the way of imagination and unlimited possibilities. Advanced tech isn't really needed against most countries, and the U.S. foreign diplomatic and economic policies have it way over military bullying in most places.
     
  4. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The capability of Obama's PC military ? :roflol:

    Over all, MARGINAL

     
  5. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I agree to an extent.

    Hitler was big on FIXED MASSIVE FORTIFICATIONS!!

    The United States Military is the first Military is Human History to develop an INTEGRATED SERVICE BATTLEFIELD COMMUNICATION AND TARGET AND FIRING PLAN.

    As well the U.S. Military adheres that ant Massive Fixed Fortifications are just IDIOCY OF EGO as the U.S. Military is dedicated to being a SUPER MOBILE FAST ATTACK FORCE.

    AboveAlpha
     
  6. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    I didn't Vote for Obama but I try to keep these things outside of Politics.

    There are a large number of U.S. Military BLACK PROGRAMS that are well over 100 years in advancement to anything else any Nation is working on.

    I have to add Canada in with the United States as Canada and the U.S. are a SINGLE INTEGRATED MILITARY FORCE and many Canadian Companies work as U.S. Military Black Program Contractors.

    This is what some people from around the world don't understand...but the Soviet's and now Russian's did and do...and the Chinese certainly do.....although the U.S. and Canada are two Nations.....Militarily they are ONE NATION.

    Every Nation on the Planet KNOWS that if they mess with Canada they are messing DIRECTLY WITH THE UNITED STATES as the U.S. and Canada are not only held close by the LONGEST UNGARDED BOARDER ON PLANET EARTH...but as well by Culture, Sports, Leagues, Commerce and Economies....but as well just about every American Family north of the 40th Parrallel HAS CANADIAN BLOOD RELATIVES!!!

    I know I do....and just about every single Canadian Family has AMERICAN RELATIVES!!

    With the exception of a few real PAINS IN THE A$$E$ in Quebec.....the rest of Canada is indistiguishable from the U.S.....except it is a bit colder in the winter and they say....Ehhh?.....a LOT! LOL!!!

    But I have Canadian Relatives and I am a Super Patriot of the U.S. and I can't tell the difference between them and myself.....except it really PI$$ED THEM OFF....when the Bruins won the Stanley Cup a few years ago!! LOL!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  7. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I had to go back and reread the OP.

    I have a perfect example of a weapons platform that worked but was found to be better at something that it was never intended to do. But someone decided that the weapon was obsolete while it was still on the battlefield right after it was credited for winning a battle, the Battle for Hue during Tet of 68. The ONTOS. And all were destroyed and not kept in the U.S. military inventory. http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-armour/allied/ontos.htm

    The ONTOS, I called it the best counter sniper weapon ever to be fielded in war. Some called it the world's largest shotgun. Well those who fought the last large urban battle fought by the American military ( Hue of 1968 ) call it the best urban warfare vehicle ever to see combat.

    Fast track to present time. I have a 8 mm film of the ONTOS in action in Vietnam. I've shown the film to about a dozen Marine company grade and field commanders who served tours of duties in both Iraq and Afghanistan. Here were the three most comments I heard.

    "I wish we had them in Afghanistan."

    "Sure could have used them in Fallujah."

    But the best of them all, "Every time we get something that actually works, they call it obsolete and get rid of it."
     
  8. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    THE THING!!!!!

    These things were AWESOME!!!

    I will tell you what I wished we DIDN'D HAVE IN AFGHANISTAN!!!

    A BUNCH OF DC A$$#@!ES DECIDING TO GO NATION BUILDING!!!

    At one point 196 of us directed U.S. Airstrrikes that killed TEN'S OF THOUSANDS OF THE ENEMY!!!

    THEY NEVER KNEW WHAT WAS HITTING THEM!!!

    AboveAlpha
     
  9. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In principal I wouldn't disagree, but nobody but the Joint Chiefs, SECDEF, and POTUS knows for sure, regardless of any individuals opinion of POTUS.
     
  10. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A Standing U.S. President need's PLAUSIBLE DENIABILITY.

    Because of this there have been only a few U.S. Presidents that knew EVERYTHING that was going on in Black Programs and other issues such as what was flown to Wright Field back in the late 1940's.

    The U.S. Presidents have been.....TRUMAN.....IKE.....BUSH SR......and that's it.

    No other U.S. President had total clearence....NOR DID THEY WANT IT.....except these 3.

    AboveAlpha
     
  11. DentalFloss

    DentalFloss Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2013
    Messages:
    11,445
    Likes Received:
    3,263
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Perhaps. I won't pretend to know.
     
  12. AboveAlpha

    AboveAlpha Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2013
    Messages:
    30,284
    Likes Received:
    612
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Credible Deniability is a useful tool if your President.

    But Truman and Ike didn't have that Luxury and Bush Sr....former CIA Director....HELL....he knew way more than Reagan ever did.

    AboveAlpha
     
  13. Aleksander Ulyanov

    Aleksander Ulyanov Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2013
    Messages:
    41,184
    Likes Received:
    16,180
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    How many years ahead is very subjective.

    I remember reading an article by John W. Campbell where he speculated what would happen if one of our most advanced drones somehow traveled back in time to 1930.

    They would find the metal, (titanium) would catch on fire from a standard welding torch. They would quickly identify this, however, though they'd wonder how we got so much

    They would not be able to even figure out the communications radio, as not even FM, let alone digital , had been invented. They would have no idea what the radar was, they would have no idea that the printed circuitry was even circuitry. Assuming anything still operated they might think it was by magic, as there would be no wires

    They would recognize the Jet engine, (assuming it was a jet), as things like that were speculated on.

    All in all they'd place the propulsion and the metallurgy some 60-70 years ahead, about right, but they might place the communications tools, (assuming they even figured out what they were) some many hundreds or even thousands of years advanced over theirs.

    Progress is not monolithic, nor is it really even predictable. We don't have any way to determine how far ahead of others we are because we don't know what it is that we don't know.

    We might have the most advanced cannon there is on our tanks, but some Lower Slobbovian country might have made a breakthrough we know nothing of and now be mounting rail guns, there is no way to tell.
     
  14. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    We have discussed this before. And you consistantly fail to comprehend that as far as the US military is concerned, Black Programs do not exist.

    We do not plan on fighting wars with some mystical doo-dad that some pinhead in a lab is tinkering away with, we plan on fighting wars with what we have right at this moment in our inventory. Nobody sat back in 1994 and said "Wow, we should have combat drones, stealth fighters and bombers, and more advanced Tomahawks and laser designators along with other things in another 10 years, so let's plan for our second war against Iraq in... 2003!"

    For some reason you hear of some piece of technology the US is developing (real or imagined), and you act like it is being placed into production and service next week. When this is not the case at all, such programs are at least a decade from fruition, let alone deployment and integration into the units that would use them.

    As far as who is the "most advanced", that is a double sided coin.

    Oh hell no, more like 5-10.

    The only reason more nations do not put as much into their equipment is either because they do not need to, or they feel they have no reason to.

    If you are say the UK, why bother to develop your own Stealth Fighter, when the US is basically giving you one?

    If you are say China, why bother to develop your own Stealth Fighter if you are so big you do not need one? Remember, China is a nation with primarily a Korean War-Cold War era military - and who exports her newest technology rather then using them for herself. So think on this logically, why would China really want to make a Stealth Fighter, if it could possibly be used against her?

    And in reality, there are few if any "newer systems" in use in the US military. I would say that 95% of the equipment in use today was in use when I first put on the uniform in 1983. You keep throwing out all these buzzwords all the time, and I am sorry but I have to laugh because they basically mean nothing. Because all they are is buzzwords, nothing else.

    But please, give us an example of "Newer Systems that are REDUNDANT", and do not just go back on "oh that is classified". Give us a real-world example, and of a "Highly Advanced New System" that is actually in service and not some lab geeks wet dream.
     
  15. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    From what I have read, another good one was the M163 VADS.

    [​IMG]

    Essentially the cannon from an A-10 mounted into an APC chasis. Yet another great weapon system retired in the belief that missiles are the solution to all problems.
     
  16. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Now there's something that was plain, stupid and simple and it worked, the M-113 APC. After 60 years of outstanding service with the U.S. Army it's still in the Army's inventory.

    The M-113 was used as a weapons platform for numerous weapons. The one you posted above and along with TOW's, mortars, even a 106 mm recoilless rifle that I believe the Army picked up idea of from the Marines when we would put a 106 on top of an AMTRAC. I heard rumors that the Army had some M-113 APC that had a quad M-2 HMG on top, never seen one in Vietnam but when you hear stories, there's usually some truth to those stories and rumors.

    Doing a quick search. -> http://www.ichiban1.org/html/stories/story_47.htm
     
  17. Mushroom

    Mushroom Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2009
    Messages:
    12,497
    Likes Received:
    2,421
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    It is still in the inventory, but it is obsolete.

    The only ones left you see in service are like the few remaining M-60 tanks you see in service. Not doing it's primary mission, but being refitted for a secondary non-combat purpose. Like ambulance, or armored bulldozer, or in the case of the M-60, bridge layer.

    Last year when I was at Fort Hunger-Liggett I thought it was deja-vu when I saw M-113s and an M-60 going down the road. But the 113's were ambulances and combat bulldozers, the 60 had a bridge resting on it's head. None of them in any kind of combat configurations.
     
  18. axialturban

    axialturban Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2011
    Messages:
    2,884
    Likes Received:
    35
    Trophy Points:
    48
    LOL... not a good example, people in 1994 would certainly have been working on stealth drones and missile advancements. Ten years is too short for your point, given your replying to the assertion the planning is 100 years ahead. Industry and DARPA spend a lot of effort reading the future and investing in it. Sure the interplay of strategy and future tech is not particular accurate, but it does not need to be, its about the convergence of science and warfare - not divining future geopolitical imperatives.

    It would be more useful to consider how many years ahead is the world leading manufacturing technology available to a nation, as this underpin's where progress can be achieved in the systems approach to warfighting. Best places to look for indicators of this are the research universities.
     
  19. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    The ONTOS needed to be externally loaded, I don't see that as an advantage in a MOUT environment.
     
  20. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Just not that the loader had to get outside to reload, but there's the back blast to consider.

    But the ONTOS just like any tank in urban combat is protected by the grunts.

    Have you ever seen what just one 106 mm recoilless rifle can do ? Just think of what six can do when all six tubes fire at the same time.
    Excerpts:

    In Hue the ONTOS worked along with the M-48 tank as a team.



    M40 106mm Recoilless Rifle
    http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ground/m40rclr.htm


    Ancient U.S. Weapon Makes a Surprise Reappearance in Syria
    http://www.wired.com/2013/05/ancient-us-weapon-in-syria/
     
  21. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There are currently light armored vehicles being used with either a 105mm or 30mm cannons mounted in the turret...that don't require externally loading.

    [​IMG]

    Imagine if you had one of these in Vietnam....plus an M1A2 Abrams.

    I can see a recoilless rifle mounted on a "technical," an improvised fighting vehicle along the lines of a Toyota pickup truck, but it's not like the U.S. doesn't have MOUT environment vehicles in their inventory...I don't see how the ONTOS would have been a vast improvement over a Stryker type vehicle.

    Street fighters..the Marines had the Abrams in Fallujah...if that isn't counter sniper I don't know what is. The biggest threat to armor in Iraq were IEDs, and I don't think the ONTOS would have performed any better in that regard.

    [​IMG]
     
  22. Steady Pie

    Steady Pie Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2012
    Messages:
    24,506
    Likes Received:
    7,247
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends what your intent is. If you want to wage war against the rest of the world and install a global government, then you could probably use a little work. If, on the other hand, you want to defend the homeland, you're wasting trillions of dollars.

    But of course this is all beside the point. The military is not a defensive organization, its purpose is economic.
     
  23. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    There is something to be said for deterrence.
     
  24. Herkdriver

    Herkdriver New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2007
    Messages:
    21,346
    Likes Received:
    297
    Trophy Points:
    0
    [​IMG]

    These improvised fighting vehicles, along the lines of anti-aircraft guns, heavy machine guns or recoilless rifles bolted to the beds of a civilian pick-up truck are effective in the context of small wars...they are being used in Syria and Iraq...what we would regard as obsolete technology used effectively.

    However they are no match for dedicated armored fighting vehicles. They mounted recoilless rifles on Willy's jeeps in the Korean police action and they did well as fast moving attack vehicles, but again, vulnerable to dedicated armor.

    Given the availability of GPS/laser guided artillery, and dedicated armored fighting vehicles, there is a valid reason why they retired the ONTOS.
     
  25. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The ONTOS weighs 9 tons, the Stryker is what almost twice as heavy at over 16 tons ?

    The ONTOS had a very wide track for it's weight where it could go where wheeled and tanks couldn't go and operate in very deep sand, mud during the monsoon season and rice paddies in Vietnam.

    The ONTOS was able to be slung underneath a CH-53 Sea Stallion and transported quickly where it was needed for example during the siege at Khe Sanh.

    But the NVA and VC feared the ONTOS and would avoid being in an area where the ONTOS was deployed.

    For example just before this one operation I saw two CH-53's with what looked like small Cat D-7 bulldozers slung underneath of the copters. I mentioned to a buddy of mine that they must be going to establish a new fire base on top of some hill for this operation. My buddy pointed out that they weren't D-7's but are ONTOS where they attached sheets of plywood to disguise the ONTOS so from the air they looked like D-7 bulldozers. They didn't want the NVA to know that there would be any ONTOS in the area. If Charley knew there were ONTOS in the area they would have didi back into Laos.

    What made the ONTOS special was the ammunition that was available for the 106 mm M-40 recoilless rifle, HEAT, High Explosive, Plastic-Tracer (HEP-T) canister and the High Explosive Anti Personnel (M581 flechettes), The original U.S. HEAT round penetrated more than 400 mm of armor. Near the end of the M40's service life, both Austria and Sweden produced HEAT rounds for the weapon capable of penetrating more than 700 mm of armor.

    The high explosive anti-personnel round is what scared Charley and especially snipers in the bush. You didn't need to know exactly where the sniper was, just the vicinity where the sniper was. The ONTOS and the 106 mm RR were referred to as the worlds largest shotgun.

    I thought the topic of the OP was weapons platforms that worked but were no longer deployed or in the U.S. military inventory ? So picked the the ONTOS.

    I could have gone with the 75 mm pack howitzer. An artillery piece that could be broken down and transported by a pack mule or by breaking a sweat by soldiers in mountain warfare. Sure would have been nice having a man portable pack howitzer in the mountains of Afghanistan.
     

Share This Page