The Glory Might of the XM29.

[Nyles]

That's the same logic they're finally applying across the board. Most US technology now in service or about to be was designed for large scale armored engagements when the Soviets finally crossed the Fulda gap.

You want to talk about wastes of money, what about the F-22 (which they're finally getting rid of)? Yeah, it's the most capable fighter aircraft ever made. It's also the most expensive. The F-15 and new F/A-18s are already superior to or at least competetive with anything they're likely to come up against, and the F-35 is more than good enough for a next step and alot cheaper.

Or the gas turbine engine on the Abrams. Makes it pretty much the worst gas guzzler ever made, and hard as hell for infantry to operate with for fear of getting cooked by the exhaust. Add to that the fact that the thing is basically useless inside narrow city streets, and whats the point? Sure, it's probably the most effective tank around for armor-on-armor engagement, and the most effective enemy tank its ever engaged were Iraqi T-72 knock-offs. That's why the vehicle of the future is the Striker (which has its own issues, but that's another story).

[Ace Oliveira]

I agree with the F-22 thing. The F-35 is much better. The US Govt. and the Russian Goverment should team up and make tanks together. The Russians make effective and cheap tanks.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Nyles

You want to talk about wastes of money, what about the F-22 (which they're finally getting rid of)? Yeah, it's the most capable fighter aircraft ever made. It's also the most expensive. The F-15 and new F/A-18s are already superior to or at least competetive with anything they're likely to come up against, and the F-35 is more than good enough for a next step and alot cheaper.

Yeah, I personally didn't shed a tear when Obama's administration announced they weren't going to fund any more F-22s. Obama may be a liberal who thinks the DoD's budget is better used in his bullshit stimulus and healthcare plans, but he's basically right about the F-22 - even if it's for the wrong reasons.

Originally Posted by Nyles

Or the gas turbine engine on the Abrams. Makes it pretty much the worst gas guzzler ever made, and hard as hell for infantry to operate with for fear of getting cooked by the exhaust. Add to that the fact that the thing is basically useless inside narrow city streets, and whats the point? Sure, it's probably the most effective tank around for armor-on-armor engagement, and the most effective enemy tank its ever engaged were Iraqi T-72 knock-offs. That's why the vehicle of the future is the Striker (which has its own issues, but that's another story).

The Abrams is an excellent tank. But driving it into urban areas (where it moves much slower due to the inherent obstacles) is the dumbest thing you can do. The Russians learned the hard way in Chechnya that bringing tanks into cities makes them vulnerable to RPG gunners hiding on rooftops, and that's why our Abrams tanks became RPG magnets early in the war.

Anyway, U.S. military thinking has improved a LOT in the past five years, since Rumsfeld's tenure (which I thought was disastrous). But unfortunately for those of us who are big into hardware, it's not quite the same as the Cold War. The kind of wars we fight nowadays are wars where it doesn't matter if an M1-A2 is better than a T-90, or if the SCAR is a better choice than an M4. Today's wars are more about ground-level intelligence than weaponry.

[Ace Oliveira]

Talk more about the Future Soldier project. Please.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Ace Oliveira

Talk more about the Future Soldier project. Please.

Not sure what I can tell you about it that you don't already know. But it is important to remember that the Land Warrior program, like the OICW program, dates back to the late-80s, early-90s, so it's a product of Cold War era thinking. That by itself should be a red flag.

It's designed to improve soldier's abilities in urban warfare, which by itself isn't a bad idea (in Iraq, we've done lots of fighting in cities). But it's also based mostly on the assumption that our soldiers will be encountering enemies who are well-equipped, well-trained, and who will actually attempt to engage them in CQB. The jihadists just aren't like that - they're poorly armed and even more poorly trained, so their style is to avoid fighting as much as possible (which is why IEDs are so popular).

As I've said, street-level intelligence and winning hearts and minds are the main ingredients in successful counter-insurgency warfare. Technology just doesn't matter, because you can expect that your opponents will have nothing but the same rusty old AKs and RPGs that your dad (or even his dad) encountered in combat decades ago. In that kind of warfare, using high-tech equipment is like using an axe to do triple-bypass surgery.

[Gunmaster45]

Very informative Matt. You definately know more about this stuff than I do. I focus too much on guns alone, maybe I should expand my political and warfare knowledge.

Know any good sites (or wikipedia pages) that can help me out?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Gunmaster45

Very informative Matt. You definately know more about this stuff than I do. I focus too much on guns alone, maybe I should expand my political and warfare knowledge.

Know any good sites (or wikipedia pages) that can help me out?

Not anything too specific. And frankly, there are people doing much more specific and more advanced degrees in this stuff than myself. I learned a lot from the exchange program I did at King's College London (they have a wonderful War Studies department), lots more at my last internship. My undergraduate thesis dealt with the CI lessons of the Troubles in Northern Ireland.

I guess I would recommend reading the External Links on the Wikipedia page on 4th Generation/Asymmetrical warfare, for starter's:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_Generation_Warfare

[Gunmaster45]

Thanks, I'll look over it.

[Spartan198]

Originally Posted by Nyles

You want to talk about wastes of money, what about the F-22 (which they're finally getting rid of)? Yeah, it's the most capable fighter aircraft ever made. It's also the most expensive. The F-15 and new F/A-18s are already superior to or at least competetive with anything they're likely to come up against, and the F-35 is more than good enough for a next step and alot cheaper.

Not that I'm either agreeing or disagreeing with you, but considering the F35 was designed from the outset as a strike fighter (much like the F16 and F/A-18), asking it to do the job of an F15 or F22 is only going to result in the US losing a lot of planes (and possibly pilots) when Su-37s start showing up.

[Ace Oliveira]

Su-37s. Really? Did you forget what Matt said? We aren't going to fight fighter jets in a long time.