Comments on: Army Shifts FCS Modernization Focus to Light Infantry

By: Clyde

Clyde — Sun, 08 Feb 2009 13:25:19 +0000

DANGGG!
Don’t DO it agian.!

Putting the focus on light infantry is the right thing to do-but don’t make it into another contractors pork pie with hihg tech they don’t need.
Robots???
Get your butt out from the game station and go play paint ball-you won’t get real battlefield ranges, but you will get the idea, that you probaly can’t lug some mini-tank around fast enough to do any good, and paint ball is cheap enough for everyone to do on their drill weekends, instead of watching the paint peel.
Read Lester Grau, Carlisle Barracks-high tech usually does more harm than good in coutner insurgent warfare–
yeah-the right technology, wisely chosen by experienced people who also have a few noodles in tehir brain housing group-fine.
However, successful counter insrugent warfare has been and still is heavy on manual labor-their really aren’t too many “force multipliers”, out side of damn good training, which you can’t buy COTS.
Robot??? Is this, like, Terminator 4?
When do we get the “heavy metal poly-alloy T-1000″ I mean hey, it looks like cop, right? Maybe it can just arrest Ossama bin Laden.

By: sgt ernie

sgt ernie — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 23:35:35 +0000

The army should stay heavy we need big tanks and bigs guns one day we can be with our pants down like in ww2 no big tank or guns we had to jump fast what we need again is too have 10 armor div heavy cuz we never know what china may do or some body else may do it been done before we can have also a light army for just the wars were doing now why is it so hard too to do

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 14:43:02 +0000

We have light infantry. Wats needed are UAV’s at the platoon or sqaud level. Fred is right. How about a carbine that uses a gas/piston system and a 6.8mm round?

By: fred d dodson

fred d dodson — Thu, 05 Feb 2009 04:42:02 +0000

Use unmanned aircraft, put more equipment that the troops need into thier hands. Stop the pork.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Mon, 02 Feb 2009 13:24:19 +0000

RICK, the vehicle you mentioned is the piece I was thinking of. Thanx for the correction. This self propelled gun is supposed to be pretty light compared to other systems.

By: yagaa FA

yagaa FA — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 21:12:04 +0000

To all the systems suggestors, all the new items are subject to EMP and although nukes haven’t been introduced yet…go electronic totally and you’ll have our forces dead in the air ‚on the ground and at sea. Also be sure to post the inovations so the opfor can save money researching how to defeat us and just start throwing tac nukes leaving us .….defeated

By: Rick

Rick — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:36:37 +0000

Ummmm… the M-777 is a towed artillery piece. It does not run on batteries or anything else.

If you meant the prototype XM-1203 NLOS-C — that *IS* the Crusader. Or at least the gun and autoloader from the Crusader. It’s just on a lighter chassis.

Putting the gun onto a lighter frame was the plan for the weapon all along. Something that was repeatedly mentioned by everyone but the Rummy-man during the hearings when he tried to justify cancelling the on-time, on budget program.

And Raighne is is dead on adout the advantages of artillery over airpower. To his list let me add; all weather, day-or-night, selectable among a wide variety of ammunition types and a fraction of the cost to operate.

By: Rhyno327

Rhyno327 — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:08:59 +0000

The “CRUSADER” was a waste of money. The new M-777 is light, runs on batteries as well as fossil fuels, and can be moved easily from one place to another. I think the need for more UAV’s, using them even at the platoon and sqaud level is invaluable. Air power is supreme. They should build more than 183 F-22’s, and the JSF should be built and exported to our allies. Why do we need a replacement for the Abrams? We don’t. If you seize an airfield, why not use the Stryker MGS? We have to focus on the wars we are in now. Most battles will be in urban environs, so plan for that.

By: Raighne

Raighne — Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:09:36 +0000

Tanks cannot climb mountains, go down caves or move through dense jungle.

Lighter and more effective equipment for the infantry is never a bad idea.

I would point out that artillary fire is the only fire support that can provide near immediate and continuous support, and can reach targets inaccessible to helicopters. Planes are always going to be limited by the time necessary to reload.

By: r brenzel sr

r brenzel sr — Mon, 19 Jan 2009 05:36:17 +0000

The reach for battlefield sensors and communications with all platforms in the Bat is a better deal, if, if, the Air Force is overhead with the network and long loiter, smart weapons platforms. Army loss with self generated manned, slow and low platforms incl’g SP ctr batr system,doesn’t “lighten” the logistic foot print and encounters high losses from primitives with cell phone cueing down range guys with line of sight shoulder fired stuff…Air Force long loiter requires air space dominance over the battlefield especially in low level counter insurgency/developing third world guys with sponsors with check book.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 17:33:19 +0000

You Army poges think you need thousand of tanks to defend you against a enemy battalion.
The Marines have their tanks in the air, they’re called FA18’s
Then the Infantry supported by chopper gunships hit the enemy hard and never let up until he’s finished off, You take care of business that day, not two or three days down the road.
There isn’t anytime for Tea breaks in combat.
The Marine fighter pilots “F4U Crusaders” flew many close air support missions for the Army in Vietnam, That is the main job for Marine fighter pilots.Dog fighting is last.
The Navy are dog fighters.
The problem is the US Airforce just doesn’t like close air support, And the Army suffers for it.
I bet most people don’t know that Marine pilots
where the first one to use dive bombing back in the day of BiPlanes.

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:06:33 +0000

Sensors like these aren’t expensive!

By: Paul

Paul — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 17:05:50 +0000

You need armor to protect the comms also!
Its an immaterial lateral on each side…

By: John J. Hasse, LTC,, USA (Ret)

John J. Hasse, LTC,, USA (Ret) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:22:57 +0000

Somewhere along the way the US Army was hijacked by our most recent Secretary of Defence. Did the Army leadership press him for more and expensive equipment, or were they doing what needed to be done, their job! Was he uncomfortable of their 'Drive On' attitude and audacity? I would hope our leadership will always do so. Sec Def 'R's. strongest, positive attribute, both in DOD and in the private sector, was his talent as an 'Ax Man'. That is a wonderful trait in the right place and time. In the future, do we want to parachute an Army force who stands on a countries' border with rifles as the primary weapon, again? I sincerely hope not. The present is still reeling from the enertia of 'light to fight'. Are we back to looking for 'parity', vice, a force great enough as to render resistance or opposition usless? I have always known our purpose was to complete the mission, consolidate, and develop a course of action for the objective, before the battle has been won.

By: John J. Hasse, LTC,, USA (Ret)

John J. Hasse, LTC,, USA (Ret) — Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:20:28 +0000

Somewhere along the way the US Army was hijacked by our last Secretary of Defence. Did the Army leadership press him for more and expensive equipment, or were they doing what needed to be done, their job! Was he uncomfortable of their 'Drive On' attitude and audacity? I would hope our leadership will always do so. Sec Def 'R's. strongest, positive attribute, both in DOD and in the private sector, was his talent as an 'Ax Man'. That is a wonderful trait in the right place and time. In the future, do we want to parachute an Army force who stands on a countries' border with rifles as the primary weapon, again? I sincerely hope not. The present is still reeling from the enertia of 'light to fight'. Are we back to looking for 'parity', vice, a force great enough as to render resistance or opposition usless? I have always known our purpose was to complete the mission, consolidate, and develop a course of action for the objective, before the battle has been won.