Rumsfeld's "Light" Doctrine Worthwhile?

[Rubberanvil]

For its role as a battle taxi thats quite sufficent, and better then most of the worlds infantry carriers.

IMHO the government wasted money on the Stryker if all it is just a gloried APC. Especially when there's the M113, the Humvee and the various forreign-made APCs, IFVs and light tanks already on the market.

Granted Congress would rather nuked their own constituents long before they would buy any licenses to make foreign design hardware.

[Sea Skimmer]

IMHO the government wasted money on the Stryker if all it is just a gloried APC. Especially when there's the M113, the Humvee and the various forreign-made APCs, IFVs and light tanks already on the market.

Granted Congress would rather nuked their own constituents long before they would buy any licenses to make foreign design hardware.

Actually, the US Army evaluated eight different entries, many of which where not American for the IAV program. The vechical which became Stryker was chose because it could use a common chassie for all functions, which included a large gun for direct fire that could defeat a T-62. All other contenders could either only mount a 90mm weapon or needed different chassis, which would have cost too much. Stryker however could defeat a monkey T-72 while easily destroying a T-62

Now you show me a M68 105mm tank gun on an M113, Humvee, LAV-300, VAB or somthing on those lines and you might have a point.

[Sokar]

As it stands the Us military needs a moderate force adjustment, out prior planning and organization was very well suited to fighting a massive conventional land war in Europe. However thoes armed forces while excellent in their own right no lnger quite fit the bill. This should not be taken that I support a full gutting of the heavy Divisions, but I do support a move toward a mix of heavy, medium and light units capable of moving at the speed of modern warfare.

[Vympel]

Now you show me a M68 105mm tank gun on an M113, Humvee, LAV-300, VAB or somthing on those lines and you might have a point.

The M113 proposal was always that the M8 Buford AGS should form the 105mm component of the system. For all other roles in the system, the M113 chassis is fine.

HMMWV and VAB and LAV-300 are definitely not contenders thoug, being 4x4 and 6x6 respectively.

[Sea Skimmer]

The M113 proposal was always that the M8 Buford AGS should form the 105mm component of the system. For all other roles in the system, the M113 chassis is fine.

I know that and as I pointed out the Army's procurement budget was very tight, this making them strongly favor wheels and a common chassis. There where also logistical concerns.

HMMWV and VAB and LAV-300 are definitely not contenders thoug, being 4x4 and 6x6 respectively.

All three where entered however, though it was the XM1114 armored version of the HMMWV. I'll just repost the competitors

General Dynamics teamed with General Motors entered 8x8 LAV III family
United Defense, L.P entered tracked M8 Armored Gun System and M113 variants
Textron entered 6x6 LAV-300 Mk II and 4x4 XM1117
AM General entered 4x4 XM1114 and 4x4 Cobra
Steyr-Daimler-Puch entered 6x6 Pandur
GIAT Industries entered VAB
Henschell entered 6x6 TPz-1 Fuchs
FMC-Nurol entered M113 variants

Towards the end the Army did say it would consider buying several different vehicles, but ended up going with the LAV III

[The_Nice_Guy]

One thing I don't quite get. How is Shrub going to maintain his military expenditure if he's going for a tax cut?

Also, would you guys prefer a single B2 bomber, or a ground force for the price of a B2 bomber?

The Wobbly Guy

[Stuart Mackey]

Towards the end the Army did say it would consider buying several different vehicles, but ended up going with the LAV III

Interesting. NZ has gone with the LAV-3, with the 25mm cannon. some of the things you realise is very wide turning circle compared to track. Comparitivly light armour and centre of gravity issues. Not bad vehicles over all, so long as you remember what they are and are not.

[Vympel]

Interesting. NZ has gone with the LAV-3, with the 25mm cannon. some of the things you realise is very wide turning circle compared to track. Comparitivly light armour and centre of gravity issues. Not bad vehicles over all, so long as you remember what they are and are not.

One thing I'd be interested to know is how the wheels versus tracks thing stacks up if your equip your tracked vehicles with band tracks.

[Sea Skimmer]

Towards the end the Army did say it would consider buying several different vehicles, but ended up going with the LAV III

Interesting. NZ has gone with the LAV-3, with the 25mm cannon. some of the things you realise is very wide turning circle compared to track. Comparitivly light armour and centre of gravity issues. Not bad vehicles over all, so long as you remember what they are and are not.

Well there not really the same vehicle, LAV III and Stryker, the US Army didn't go with a full turret because of cost and the need to meet other requirements like more armor.

[Sea Skimmer]

Also, would you guys prefer a single B2 bomber, or a ground force for the price of a B2 bomber?

What are we counting as the price of a B-2, 220 million or 2.1 billion?

[Rubberanvil]

What are we counting as the price of a B-2, 220 million or 2.1 billion?

B-2 is 2.1 billion dollars each.

[Howedar]

I believe that the cost per B-2 of the entire program is $2.1 billion, but another B-2 at this point would cost $220 million.

[Sea Skimmer]

B-2 is 2.1 billion dollars each.

2.1 billion comes from adding the production and development costs together, then dividing by the number of planes the Air force ended up buying. The actual amount of money that is cost to build a B-2 once we knew how was 220 million, only about twice the cost of a high end wide body airliner.

[Howedar]

Beat ya to it

[Sea Skimmer]

Beat ya to it

Nope, because your wrong. Another B-2 at this point would cost more then 220 million because many of the parts are no longer in production. There would also be the cost of restarting the production line.

[Howedar]

That was what I meant. I didn't literally mean if we built one tomorrow it would cost $220 million.

[Axis Kast]

Considering the fact that Iraq looks set for extended occupation and the possibly of future war with Syria or Iran (excluding North Korea, which I consider most unlikely), American forces are if anything spread too thin. While mass demobilization after the first Gulf War was obviously for the better – the military had, if I recall correctly, somewhere between 2.1 and 2.2 million personnel all-told (including non-combatants and support elements) -, force reconstruction is at this time clearly necessary.

There are problems, for instance, in that the 82nd Division and 173rd Airborne Brigade (or did that expand to divisional format now?) are alone in being able to perform combat jumps. The 101st is – quite unfortunately – shackled to its helicopters, many of which are now facing maintenance problems or the dangers of a supremely hostile modern battlefield. Not to mention that the Stingray II or Stryker (that’s the small one, right?) should be accompanying those troops.

We should be building another Airborne Division, three or four airmobile brigades of exceptionally light forces, and another heavy division for combat support. Now obviously many of those troops can come from existing formations once redesigned.

Clearly, Clinton’s decision to run the twelve carriers was ultimately correct – even if only in hindsight. While two or three or now on “last legs,” our commitments range across three oceans. That’s stretching from the Sea of Japan to the Taiwanese Strait to the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea to the Atlantic seaboard. If you ask me, somebody’s got to clear – or build - space in Newport News to accommodate more such vessels under maintenance. Barring that, perhaps we could birth in England or Germany temporarily and seek overhaul there if all other space in the US is full? As for money, I agree that the Bush tax cut was a mistake during a time of rising expenditure.

The Stryker nor FCS impress me. The Stryker is useful – but as a light vehicle. The FCS is useful – but that’s assuming I’m looking thirty years or more into the future. Right now, we’re beginning to face the threat of older tanks being retrofitted with ERM and other devices to extend combat survivability. Within a short time, Iran or other potential enemies might seek to acquire newer Soviet tanks – at which point the M1A1 will receive a run for its money. Hence, the M1A3 should be on the drawing board in the very near future – if not immediately. Iraq proved that thin-skinned vehicles can’t always provide the protection mobile spearheads require.

The Crusader? I liked the idea, if only because we give the Army superior fire support – much lacking since we’re taking the A-10 out of service (another mistake).

In terms of aircraft, the F-21 (was that it?) Super Tomcat should be flying off our flattops – not merely the F/A-18 or the JSF. A long-range interceptor with stand-off capability is still rather useful given the increase global proliferation of missiles. Even if only one squadron was aboard each carrier, it would still improve CAP potential immensely.

Vessels? I like the arsenal ship. But barring that, carriers should enjoy more fixed defenses – additional CIWS or a new gun system with approximate coverage of Soviet shipping. I always thought our largest boats a bit ill-defended by comparison (at least from the water).

[Sea Skimmer]

We should be building another Airborne Division, three or four airmobile brigades of exceptionally light forces, and another heavy division for combat support. Now obviously many of those troops can come from existing formations once redesigned.

For what purpose? I see none for more extremely expensive troops with minimal combat power. The Eighty Second can take most any airfield, and after that we fly in the Stryker corps.

Clearly, Clinton’s decision to run the twelve carriers was ultimately correct – even if only in hindsight.

Klinton wanted 11; Congress forced him to keep twelve. However the extra air wing didn't make it, leaving the USN with eleven under strength groups. He also budgeted maintenance funds for only eight carriers, that is why all three conventional carriers are now near wrecks.

The Crusader? I liked the idea, if only because we give the Army superior fire support – much lacking since we’re taking the A-10 out of service (another mistake).

Crusader was expensive and already outclassed by other systems. The A-10s leave in 2028, after over 40 years of service its doubtful they could be kept flying anyway.

In terms of aircraft, the F-21 (was that it?) Super Tomcat should be flying off our flattops – not merely the F/A-18 or the JSF. A long-range interceptor with stand-off capability is still rather useful given the increase global proliferation of missiles. Even if only one squadron was aboard each carrier, it would still improve CAP potential immensely.

It was Super Tomcat 21; the F-21 designation belongs to Kfir's bought by the US for aggressor training. I However see little need for ultra long range interceptors with Phonix, the weapon isn't effective against multi mach sea skimmers and that is the only real threat. The high flying bombers and missiles it was meant to bring down are gone, and in fact the threat laregly never existed in the first place.

Vessels? I like the arsenal ship. But barring that, carriers should enjoy more fixed defenses – additional CIWS or a new gun system with approximate coverage of Soviet shipping. I always thought our largest boats a bit ill-defended by comparison (at least from the water).

Arsenal ship would have needed a billion dollar escort at all times, and also required the development of a lot of expensive weapons to be worth while.

Our carrier defenses are more then sufficient. The Soviets crammed on lots of weapons, but that was because there systems had shit reliability. They also traded away all potential for upgrades and had no multi role launchers.

[Axis Kast]

For what purpose? I see none for more extremely expensive troops with minimal combat power. The Eighty Second can take most any airfield, and after that we fly in the Stryker corps.

Multi-theater capability.

Klinton wanted 11; Congress forced him to keep twelve. However the extra air wing didn't make it, leaving the USN with eleven under strength groups. He also budgeted maintenance funds for only eight carriers, that is why all three conventional carriers are now near wrecks.

Thanks for the clarification.

But I’m still of the mind we need more money to keep all twelve – or eleven? – carriers up and running into the near future.

Crusader was expensive and already outclassed by other systems. The A-10s leave in 2028, after over 40 years of service its doubtful they could be kept flying anyway.

Again, I appreciate the clarification. I assumed the A-10 was being phased out at the present time.

It was Super Tomcat 21; the F-21 designation belongs to Kfir's bought by the US for aggressor training. I However see little need for ultra long range interceptors with Phonix, the weapon isn't effective against multi mach sea skimmers and that is the only real threat. The high flying bombers and missiles it was meant to bring down are gone, and in fact the threat laregly never existed in the first place.

Couldn’t the Super Tomcat 21 have been upgraded with new tools of interception? If other aircraft could fill that roll anyway, why was the F-14 around so long?

Our carrier defenses are more then sufficient. The Soviets crammed on lots of weapons, but that was because there systems had shit reliability. They also traded away all potential for upgrades and had no multi role launchers.

More than sufficient? We have no long-range interceptors. A missile brace that passes the carrier’s battlegroup shield would almost certainly be fatal.

[Sea Skimmer]

Couldn’t the Super Tomcat 21 have been upgraded with new tools of interception? If other aircraft could fill that roll anyway, why was the F-14 around so long?

When the Cold War draw down began the USN was still phasing out A-7's, it needed every modern fighter it could get. There are new missiles in the works, but an F-35 or F/A-18 can easily carry them since they're working for a similar footprint as the AIM-120. The whole point of the F-14 was its big radar and Aim-54 missiles. Remove those and the plane is still a good fighter-bomber, but there's little reason to keep them when the alternative is an F-35.

More than sufficient? We have no long-range interceptors. A missile brace that passes the carrier’s battlegroup shield would almost certainly be fatal.

What the fuck do we need to intercept at long range? All these big bad supersonic sea skimmers have ranges of less then 100 miles, less then 50 in many cases. Any missile which escapes the storm of SM-2's sent after it, and you'd need a huge strike to manage that, would be plucked from the sky by a hail of RAMs on the carrier and escorts.

Show me an air threat that wouldn't be defeated. I don't see one and you've yet to offer specifics of this phantom threat we need F-14s to defeat.

[Howedar]

I think what he wants to say but can't is that F-14s are fucking cool shit and its a shame they won't be replaced.

[Sokar]

More than sufficient? We have no long-range interceptors. A missile brace that passes the carrier’s battlegroup shield would almost certainly be fatal.

Kast, there is NO ONE on the whole planet, the Russians included that can muster the kind of anti-shipping strike you would need to successfully assault a USN Carrier Battlegroup.

[Sokar]

I think what he wants to say but can't is that F-14s are fucking cool shit and its a shame they won't be replaced.

The F-14 is a sky PIG, it was designed as a pure interceptor and its time has passed. Im sure that in the future , if needed, we can create a new long range fleet interceptor, if threat analysis proves that we need one. For now the F-14 is a big, expensive, maintenence intensive waste of the Navy's time.

[Howedar]

Did I disagree? I agree that their time is past, I'm just saying that its too bad. Just like its too bad we don't see battleships anymore.

[Rubberanvil]

While mass demobilization after the first Gulf War was obviously for the better – the military had, if I recall correctly, somewhere between 2.1 and 2.2 million personnel all-told (including non-combatants and support elements) -, force reconstruction is at this time clearly necessary.

The Government already cut 1.5 - 1.6 million active personnal and you suggest cutting how many more out of the remaining 800,000 - 900,000 active personnal?