For something this big, it would be refreshing to see adherence to the Army Writing standards/style. There are so many unnecessarily large words and compound sentences that it actually inhibits understanding. The point of diminising returns was passed. That said, the second thing I noticed was that there were a lot of words, but not a lot was actually said.

It could be an current affairs update for Soldiers exiting some sort of stasis where there is no news or internet. It is good reference to various bits and pieces of doctrine as well. Over all, I did not feel my knowledge or understanding was significantly enhanced.

Here’s an idea.…have enough self respect to realize you’re part of the problem AND RETIRE. Next time we write about this the title should be:

“ARMY NOT FOCUSED ON THE FIGHT”.

Or “ARMY APPARENTLY DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH CURRENT PROBLEMS TO FOCUS ON SO THEIR BEST AND BRIGHTEST ARE FOCUSED ON IMAGINARY ENEMIES.”

Or perhaps “ARMY SEEKS JUSTIFICATION (i.e. capabilities)TO ALLOW FOR CONTINUED PISSING AWAY OF US TAX DOLLARS ON STUFF THAT SOUNDS COOL WHILE JOE FIGHTS WITH RIFLE FROM THE SIXTIES”

damn embarassing.…..

I do agree with jESTER to a certain degree. The heavy, bulky fighting force of today is never going to be completely effective against a non-traditional, irregular force. It just isn’t. You can see that in videos all over youtube with Abrams tanks being called in to destroy a building that’s housing ONE insurgent. Or a 500-pounder being dropped on one or two guys in a foxhole.

Civil Affairs and Special Operations are the only true no-sheet, boots-on-the-ground forces that are ever going to work. Screw the “winning the hearts and minds”. Make working for the bad guy an unprofitable solution, the problem with eventually solve itself.

What I mean by that is instead of having an occupational force, have thousands of operatives both overt and covert, making nice with the populations, gathering intelligence, and following up reliable leads with a knife in the dark. If those bastards think they can be sneaky, wait until the SF come knocking in the middle of the night.

Support those on the ground with virtually permanent airborne (UAV) security, with manned aircraft available for the deep doo-doo situations.

There have been very few occupations that have ever worked…whether the intentions were good or not. The best bet is to put the population at ease by staying out of sight and striking quietly and effectively.

AIR, LAND, SEA

There is a requirement to know “YOUR” & “THEIR” Combat Power. (Remember Depew Models?)

How are you “Fighting” the one you have?

Fill out a Five (5) Paragraph Field Order, and expand on it as it goes to Higher Echelons.

You have your Answers whether you like them or not.

The US has more Light Infantry units than it does Heavy (Abrams/Bradley) units.

The biggest problem is that the Army wants 10 pounds to fit into a 5 pound bag. Vehicles that can be airlifted, carried by chopper, have massive firepower, carry lots of troops, be on time and on budget and have more network/computing power than a community college?

Ain’t never gonna happen.

A new weapons system, computer, radio or doctrine does not call for a new vehicle. Unlike aircraft, tanks, IFV’s etc. can be upgraded.

The M1’s and Bradley’s too heavy? Fine, give them to the National Guard and Army Reserve. Bring back light infantry and something like the M-8 AGS. It was canceled for Bill’n Hillary’s big Bosnia Adventure. It’s better than the Stryke and MRAP.

Those two will be easy pickings for Chinese and Russian vehicles on the open market, AND the new round of RPG’s, thermobaric rounds and anti-material rifles.

The FCS spin outs need to get down range. Stop thinking about “EMD” or program goals. Put them in the hands of soldiers and point them at the enemy. The testing will take care of it’s self.

Don’t let the civilians come up with all the ideas. All too often they have solutions looking for a problem, COTS equipment that breaks in the field, charge more for the same stuff we can get a wal-mart for a quarter of the price or all of the above. Many of the contractors have *never* been depolued or even been in the military.

Soldiers and civilians should dialogue often. Surveys, field testing (in Iraq and Afghanistan) should be TACOM and PEO Soldier’s #1 goal. If you have to test stateside, have as many green suiters as possible.

And lastly, give the gear Army wide. NG and AR units went to OIF with 80’s era flack vests, CUCV’s, M-60’s and rusty trucks. Don’t forget them, they are no longer “the reserve” but a vital part of the active duty mission.

As I indicated in an earlier post there are some holes in BG McMasters thinking and the glaring one is his uneasiness with civilian control of the military.

I wouldn’t put much faith into any generalized projections into the future that might come out of the Pentagon. The thinking is these documents is clouded by false political/economic estimates of another countries abilities, almost alway exaggerated, the hedonistic interests of the defense industry and the personal interest of officers in their own careers.

Who ten years ago could have foreseen 9/11, Afghanistan or for that matter a full scale invasion of Iraq. There is no doubt in my mind, at least, that there is not a country in the world or a terrorist or criminal organization that wouldn’t love to trounce the United States, but desire minus means and ability is the stuff of Tom Clancy books not good defense planning.

Nukes long ago ceased to be a military issue. I doubt if you could find a serious war planner in any country in the world that has factored in nuclear weapons in any offensive or defensive scenario. The nukes belong to the politicians, and defense contractors who see big profits in the myth, who can fantasize about global destruction with out bothering with hard facts.

For those who doubt the above statement look up a RAND Corp. paper from the 1950’s on how many nuclear weapons it would take to disable an industrialized country. Then consider the fact that the most nuclear bombed country in the world is the United States and the effect of at least 1200 nuclear explosions have had on the economy or the environment.

As for my friend Cole’s scenarios the only one I think that might be correct is California earthquakes. Where I live in Southern California we have 2–3 earthquakes a DAY in the 2.1 to 3.0 range, a couple of time a year one above 3.5 that can be felt by some, and a couple of time a decade where we have one that knocks stuff off the shelf.

ALLONS,
Byron Skinner

No nukes. What Roland said. And you might combine input from one type of UAS sensor with another to get a more complete picture using on board processing. Then the UAS would send out automated messages and photos to applicable parties.

But that adds space, weight, and power requirements to the UAS (and ground combat vehicle), not to mention cost. The messages/photos use up lots of bandwidth when combined with other sensors doing similar reporting. With TSAT now dead, will WIN-T and JTRS handle it to allow battle command on the move?

And move the Army must, while countering uncertain threats. This responds to the Effects Based Ops and Revolution in Military Affairs crowd who advocate targeting known targets from afar…thus allowing lighter armor and more mobility because you would always kill them with fires and air attack before they get close.

But small RPG and IED teams in Iraq, and Hunter-killer teams in Lebanon illustrate that moving target radar has limitations against dismounts that still can sneak up on you, and against targets that hug urban and complex terrain.

And with dispersed forces covering isolated areas to protect populations, provide aid, and rebuild, the concept says we need increased emphasis on area security. That security includes not only the town itself, but the areas around it from which attacks are launched. It also includes the routes leading to it that are essential for commerce and sustainment of your securing/rebuilding force.

The cavalry guys who wrote the concept appear to want to do the area security with reconnaissance, persistent surveillance using ground OPs, security forces, and human intelligence derived from patrols. The Intell guys want to do it with fewer standoff high altitude satellite, manned aircraft, and UAS sensors, and unattended sensors and unmanned ground vehicles. FCS wanted to exploit both capabilities and fuse information from a variety of systems using both organic intell analysts in the BCT and automated capabilities of on board processors and feed that information directly to CPs and warfighters in vehicles or dismounted.

Still not sure why you can’t do both. With a lot of area to secure, we lack sufficient manpower to provide continuous patrols and manned OPs to be everywhere all the time. You must rely to some extent on technology to cover a broader area beyond the limited ground field of view. But weather can be a problem, so you need manned and unmanned ground capabilities as well.

Use that UAS flying the route 24/7 to detect changes or personnel digging holes. Feed the video to distant CPs and cockpits of Block III Apaches. Send the nearest patrol, QRF, and/or EOD team and update them en route with video from the Apache and UAS while providing overhead surveillance to guard against ambush. Use manned-unmanned aircraft teams to engage bad guys as Task Force ODIN did killing 2400–3000 insurgents.