There is no doubt that the U.S. military has a lot on its plate including Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, transformation and looming budget cuts. With all of this to deal with you have to wonder why the services have no been able to get their act together when it comes to camouflage.
The particular digital patterns used by the Army, Marines, Navy and Air Force seems like a minor issue at best. Maybe so, but why then is everyone still on a different page? The Army decided on a digital greenish-tan pattern, the Marines went with a more brown variation, but both continue to perform studies and are considering making changes. The Navy rolled out an eye-catching, but inexplicable sci-fi, bluish-green pattern that seems designed to blend in with the ocean. The Air Force also went digital, but in a salute to nostalgia, opted for a tiger stripe pattern.
The military services have preached jointness and inter-service cooperation for the last two decades and they made some progress, but cooperating on a workable and economical camouflage uniform is a bridge too far. If they cannot solve this then how are the really tough decisions regarding future weapon systems, force structure and strategic planning going to get done?
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Friday, July 1, 2011
U.S. Army Marine Corps?
The last time the Marine Corps conducted an opposed amphibious landing was at Inchon, South Korea in September of 1950. A lot has changed in sixty-one years, but the Marine Corps remains. What is to come of the Corps as the 21st century unfolds? Lt. General Dennis Hejlik wants to retain COIN skills as the Corps is steered back to its traditional role and away from its post 9/11 role as a conventional infantry outfit. The problem is that the Marines' traditional role is amphibious assaults of defended beaches and its apogee came on Iwo Jima in 1945.
Today's missile technology makes an Inchon or an Iwo Jima type lading almost inconceivable today. This means hover crafts amphibious troop carriers are obsolete and amphibious assault ships are inefficient as currently configured. They need to be redesigned as helicopter/osprey assault ships or perhaps their function could be transfered to some existing and future aircraft carriers.
The Marine Corps must embrace a COIN role and its well positioned to do so as it is a lighter, more nimble force than the Army. More accurately, the Corps resembles the lighter Army units such as the 101st Air Assault and 82nd Airborne so it might make sense to blend the Corps into the Army. (Before Marines start sending me threats they might consider why it would be worse to be part of the Army than to be part of the Navy.) While the glory days of the past cannot be recaptured, with some reorganization, the Corps can remain a vital part of America's military in the 21st century.
Today's missile technology makes an Inchon or an Iwo Jima type lading almost inconceivable today. This means hover crafts amphibious troop carriers are obsolete and amphibious assault ships are inefficient as currently configured. They need to be redesigned as helicopter/osprey assault ships or perhaps their function could be transfered to some existing and future aircraft carriers.
The Marine Corps must embrace a COIN role and its well positioned to do so as it is a lighter, more nimble force than the Army. More accurately, the Corps resembles the lighter Army units such as the 101st Air Assault and 82nd Airborne so it might make sense to blend the Corps into the Army. (Before Marines start sending me threats they might consider why it would be worse to be part of the Army than to be part of the Navy.) While the glory days of the past cannot be recaptured, with some reorganization, the Corps can remain a vital part of America's military in the 21st century.
Monday, June 27, 2011
What Time is it in Afghanistan? Part V
President Obama recently announced the first 10,000 of the 30,000 surge troops he sent to Afghanistan in 2010 will be pulled out this summer. The remaining 20,000 will be pulled out in the summer of 2012. This decision is both tactically and strategically dangerous. Summer is the height of the fighting season in Afghanistan so to reduce the number of troops during the fighting after hard fought gains have been made risks reversing that success.
Obama's follow through on his previously announced pull out reinforces our enemies' and some of our allies' view that we would give up short of victory. Ending a war is not the same as winning a war as much as Obama and his aids would wish it so. Deliberately hamstringing ourselves could have serious strategic consequences for years to come as Obama's desire to "lead from behind" takes root.
Giving up on he and other liberals used to call the good and necessary war can not be papered over with a surge in drone strikes because they can only have limited results and they tend to reinforce the view that the U.S. is reluctant to put boots on the ground where they are most needed, but where the fighting would be tough. In the fall of 2012 Obama will try to argue the war in Afghanistan is over, but eventually we will all be reminded that the enemy is looking at a different watch.
Obama's follow through on his previously announced pull out reinforces our enemies' and some of our allies' view that we would give up short of victory. Ending a war is not the same as winning a war as much as Obama and his aids would wish it so. Deliberately hamstringing ourselves could have serious strategic consequences for years to come as Obama's desire to "lead from behind" takes root.
Giving up on he and other liberals used to call the good and necessary war can not be papered over with a surge in drone strikes because they can only have limited results and they tend to reinforce the view that the U.S. is reluctant to put boots on the ground where they are most needed, but where the fighting would be tough. In the fall of 2012 Obama will try to argue the war in Afghanistan is over, but eventually we will all be reminded that the enemy is looking at a different watch.
Saturday, June 25, 2011
Fade to Black
The Secretary of the Army decided to drop the black berets from active duty except for some ceremonial occasions. This is a small, but important correction after ten years of a misguided policy and complaints from soldiers. The only thing it accomplished was to force the Rangers to drop their black berets and adopt a sand colored replacement (SF will still wear green and airborne has maroon.)
The Rangers should be allowed to reclaim the traditional black berets and the Army should refocus its attention on something more important - like what camouflage pattern is the best for the Middle East theaters!
The Rangers should be allowed to reclaim the traditional black berets and the Army should refocus its attention on something more important - like what camouflage pattern is the best for the Middle East theaters!
Tuesday, April 26, 2011
Perfect is the Enemy of Good
Former Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld was criticized for commenting that you go to war with what you have instead of what you wish you had. He was not disparaging the military he was pointing out that there are always trade offs and imperfections in any system or institution. Protection versus mobility has been a trade off armies have always had to deal with and there is not perfect solution. We have seen this with armored Humvees that role over easier than the lighter version, body armor that restricts soldiers' movements and MRAPs that are too heavy to transport efficiently.
The latest issue is the debate over whether to add additional padding to the inside of combat helmets. Studies indicate it could reduce head traumas, but the extra weight would increase neck and shoulder injuries. The Army has decided to hold off for now on any modifications to the helmets. Although it is not a perfect situation, it is probably the right decision until new technology makes helmets stronger without making them heavier.
The latest issue is the debate over whether to add additional padding to the inside of combat helmets. Studies indicate it could reduce head traumas, but the extra weight would increase neck and shoulder injuries. The Army has decided to hold off for now on any modifications to the helmets. Although it is not a perfect situation, it is probably the right decision until new technology makes helmets stronger without making them heavier.
Friday, March 11, 2011
Teaching to the Test
The U.S. Army is in the process of revamping its physical fitness tests. Sit ups are to be replaced by "rowers" and the 2 mile run with 1.5 mile run. Also, the push up test is to be shortened from 2 minutes to 1 minute and an obstacle course with hurdles, an ammunition can carry and wounded soldier drag will be added. Army officials explained that the aim is to focus on "readiness" over simple fitness.
Regardless of the specific training program a more fit soldier, as defined by cardiovascular fitness, muscular endurance and strength, is more ready to deploy than a less fit soldier. However, the duties of soldiers are too broad and diverse to use the specificity principle to train all soldiers with the same program.
Perhaps all soldiers should be treated as infantry from the moment they begin boot camp: this job entails specific demands including long foot patrols with heavy packs and then being ready to sprint behind a boulder ready to return fire. This is where the value of the wounded soldier drag would prove its worth and is the best change made to the tests. Even so, do they need to be tested on this or simply be strong enough to do it when called upon?
It would not be easy, but I suppose I am arguing that it would be more effective to make boot camp and all subsequent training more like infantry school to help prepare soldiers physically for how they will be truly tested during deployments. Two questions to consider here: Is the Army saying infantry units are not fit enough? Is this more of an issue among the more sedentary combat units?
Another change is that the scoring scales will be the same for men and women. This raises an alarm because if a lot of young women can score well on the tests it means they are too easy for the young men and are not useful. I do not think our politically correct military would design a fitness test that would have women post poor scores. Would it design tests that demonstrate women are capable of performing in combat units?
Regardless of the specific training program a more fit soldier, as defined by cardiovascular fitness, muscular endurance and strength, is more ready to deploy than a less fit soldier. However, the duties of soldiers are too broad and diverse to use the specificity principle to train all soldiers with the same program.
Perhaps all soldiers should be treated as infantry from the moment they begin boot camp: this job entails specific demands including long foot patrols with heavy packs and then being ready to sprint behind a boulder ready to return fire. This is where the value of the wounded soldier drag would prove its worth and is the best change made to the tests. Even so, do they need to be tested on this or simply be strong enough to do it when called upon?
It would not be easy, but I suppose I am arguing that it would be more effective to make boot camp and all subsequent training more like infantry school to help prepare soldiers physically for how they will be truly tested during deployments. Two questions to consider here: Is the Army saying infantry units are not fit enough? Is this more of an issue among the more sedentary combat units?
Another change is that the scoring scales will be the same for men and women. This raises an alarm because if a lot of young women can score well on the tests it means they are too easy for the young men and are not useful. I do not think our politically correct military would design a fitness test that would have women post poor scores. Would it design tests that demonstrate women are capable of performing in combat units?
Saturday, March 5, 2011
Reports of the Osprey's Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated
The original tiltrotor vertical takeoff aircraft was canceled during President George H.W. Bush's presidency by then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney. It was a problem child that ran up against the technological limitations of the day. Now, almost twenty years later the MV-22, "has had the lowest class A mishap rate of any rotorcraft in the Marine Corps during the past decade", according to the Naval Safety Center.
The Osprey was written just a few years ago as too expensive, too dangerous and just unworkable, but now is the cutting edge in tactical airlift capabilities. After several years of deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq you would probably be hard pressed to find a military unit that would not want more of them. They will have to wait because as of April 2010 there were only about a dozen deployed with plans for fifty by 2016. This seems like a ridiculously small number given the Pentagon's own admission in the last Quadrennial Defense Review that the military was in serious need of more rotor craft.
More ground combat units supported by more helicopters and tiltrotors seems to be the way to go, but the trend toward smaller and smaller ground forces is moving forward. This means more and more reliance in missiles and air power which makes sense against a conventional power like China, but for at least the near future we will continue to fight tribal gangs with AK-47s and RPGs. The Osprey can add to ground units' tactical superiority against all enemies, current and future.
The Osprey was written just a few years ago as too expensive, too dangerous and just unworkable, but now is the cutting edge in tactical airlift capabilities. After several years of deployments in Afghanistan and Iraq you would probably be hard pressed to find a military unit that would not want more of them. They will have to wait because as of April 2010 there were only about a dozen deployed with plans for fifty by 2016. This seems like a ridiculously small number given the Pentagon's own admission in the last Quadrennial Defense Review that the military was in serious need of more rotor craft.
More ground combat units supported by more helicopters and tiltrotors seems to be the way to go, but the trend toward smaller and smaller ground forces is moving forward. This means more and more reliance in missiles and air power which makes sense against a conventional power like China, but for at least the near future we will continue to fight tribal gangs with AK-47s and RPGs. The Osprey can add to ground units' tactical superiority against all enemies, current and future.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
