General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: FBKampfer on November 14, 2016, 12:19:44 PM
Title: US weapons procurement
Post by: FBKampfer on November 14, 2016, 12:19:44 PM
Not to be a debbie downer, but what the actual hell happened to our procurement system?
Just reading about the Zumwalt's $800K ammunition. The ship itself is so Golly-geen expensive that we can only afford to build three, now we can't afford their ammunition. It's a 155mm gun system, the exact same caliber as our standard M777 howitzer and Paladin artillery systems. If the exact rounds are different.... MAKE A VARIANT. IT'S CHEAPER.
Beyond that, the damn thing was only supposed to have a range of 70 miles. We've spent billions on a ship we can't afford with guns we can't afford to shoot, when there's not a single solitary nation that we would even theoretically want to use direct shore bombardment against in the event of a landing. An air strike is more cost effective per pound of ordnance put on target (and more effective if the target is even remotely hardened) and an F/A-18E can also provide air cover as well.
And the army is starting to throw a fit about its tank forces when the Abrams costs almost 9million a pop, and any reasonable estimates for a replacement are in the 10-12Million range and not slated for even conceptual development anytime before 2030. And an MBT is about as simple as it gets as far as mission requirements. We've already figured out what we want. Survivability, lethality, and mobility, in that order. Hell, just develop a new gun for it, and license the Israeli TAPS, keep the DU armor, and you've got about 9000 platforms for upgrade either in service or in storage. And give it a new engine. That turbine was a Golly-geen horrible decision, especially since we decided to slap an engine governor on it anyway, it tops out at 42mph regardless of what the engine can do. And it guzzles gas the way my bum of an uncle pours down PBR. All three requirements checked off, all without designing a whole new tank, which would doubtlessly be just about identical in capabilities to the old Abrams chassis and hull.
This and all the concerns are our military has are about its capabilities to fight a sustained high intensity war. Specifically its ability to replace combat and operational losses that inevitably will be incurred regardless of equipment quality, especially when fighting near-peer enemies.
And don't even start on the air force, our our carrier arm.
So much waste on these systems, that are always delivered late and over-budget, when there's legitimate question over whether they're needed. Rant over.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: pembquist on November 14, 2016, 12:31:57 PM
Happened?
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Zimme83 on November 14, 2016, 12:34:41 PM
Add the L/55 gun to the abrams plus some add on armour and it should do the job for a few decades more
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: oboe on November 14, 2016, 02:21:12 PM
I always think of this clip:
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Devil 505 on November 14, 2016, 02:51:21 PM
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Gman on November 14, 2016, 06:00:33 PM
The problem with DDG1000/Zumwalt's ammo is that the guns aren't just regular 155 - ie you can NOT put regular 155 army arty rounds in them. The current rounds are 88 inches long, and the auto loading and storage system is set up for just these rounds. These rounds do have different variants, some rocket assisted, some not, but they are all specialized rounds which have no compatibility with land based 155 tubes ammo.
Each of the 3 DDG1000s can hold 600 rounds ready to go (300 per turret), and an extra 150 rounds in storage. At current prices, to fill up each ship just ONCE with gun ammo, the cost is higher than buying 2 full squadrons of Super Hornets (24 aircraft) for the Navy.
Also, the Zumwalt has been super neutered. No SPY1/Aegis system, just a dinky mid ranged air defense radar and only ESSM SAM missiles. No Standard missiles, no SeaRam, and NO Ciws system of any kind. Dumb. Also, only 80 VLS tubes, less than a Burke destroyer. They've also compromised on the stealth with so many design issues that it's ridiculous. It does have some good new features, it's a tough ship, and using VLS tubes as "armor" as well was a smart idea the way they did it, but the ship is very under armed, and has too few long range sensors as well. Now, the only ace on the table, the guns, are neutered too, and even if they DO build some cheaper ammo, that'll mean that the big advantage, being able to bombard land or sea based targets from a distance so far that it's hard for them to hit back, is gone, as regular ammo = being as close as normal ships are when using guns vs land based targets. Thus, putting the DDG1000s right back into harms way as they are visible with optical tracking at those ranges, and stealth won't mean crap there.
What they should do now IMO is if they can't solve the ammo/price issue, is on the next 2 ships remove those guns, put a single advanced regular gun 5" class or whatever, and use all that extra space to stuff in 100 or more VLS tubes, giving the ship nearly 200 VLS weapon tubes. Also put a SeaRam in some sort of stealth mount or a retracting mount there too.
I hear the OP on the state of the air combat forces, posted before about this too, right now over 1/2 of the USMC fighters aren't able to fly much less fight. Situation is intolerable right now, hopefully things will improve starting Jan 2017.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: pembquist on November 14, 2016, 06:34:11 PM
I'm curious if there is a simplified breakdown of artillery vs missile vs bombs/missile from aircraft in terms of dollars per damage and how this ship would fit in that matrix.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Vulcan on November 14, 2016, 06:49:25 PM
^ agreed. I had to write up a security evaluation for a government agency once for a product... lets call it widgets.
So I wrote what turned out to be a fairly scathing evaluation (but truthful), govt agency 'A' accepted. Turns out agency 'B' had already brought the product, and the person that ran agency B also ran agency A. So I spent the next 2 weeks changing the wording and re-submitting (rinse repeat several times) so that the report for agency A didn't make the manager and team at agency B look like a bunch of fools.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: FBKampfer on November 14, 2016, 06:57:53 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: pembquist on November 14, 2016, 09:01:16 PM
Well, we can always by from China!
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: GScholz on November 14, 2016, 09:34:30 PM
No thanks. I'll take a Bradley over anything the Chinese cobble together. This is a systemic problem inherent to every bureaucracy. Egos, petty inter-bureau feuds and power mongering. Everyone wants to put their mark on a prestigious project so they stand out to their superiors. It's not their money that gets wasted, and typically not their sons and daughters who have to go to war. And bureaucrats don't answer to the public.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Vudu15 on November 14, 2016, 10:22:43 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: FLOOB on November 14, 2016, 10:39:09 PM
Hey if it keeps the North Koreans from landing on our shores..
If you think the story of the Bradley is funny you should look into the m247 anti aircraft vehicle fiasco.
The Army got caught using self destructing target drones at demonstrations because the thing failed to even hit stationary ground targets and it was so wildly inaccurate it almost killed spectators, firing 40mm bofors into the stands.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Squire on November 14, 2016, 11:09:38 PM
The defense companies just want contracts worth $$$ and they do not care that the systems are insanely expensive and complex. This high-end-ulta-high-tech-super everything procurement is going to end ugly.
There is no career path in the services either for a nay-sayer...you move the project along...or kiss your career goodbye.
...nuclear attack boats (submarines) make more sense than a above water stealth frigate for heaven's sakes.
The whole thing has gotten nuts.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Nilsen on November 15, 2016, 04:18:28 AM
Just get a regular civilian cargo vessel. Drop as many 100 of mk41 vls tubes in it as you need with tomahawks and give it an escort or add it to a taskforce. No need for a large crew bigger than 15-20. The vls system could prolly be remote targeted and fired from a burke escort or computer on the ship. Massive firepower. If you wanted to you could complicate it by adding ciws, armor and whatever but really no need.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Shuffler on November 15, 2016, 06:35:26 AM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: jollyFE on November 15, 2016, 08:38:46 AM
when they originally planned on the new DD, they were going to buy many more, so the original estimate for the rounds was much lower based on a higher quantity being ordered and produced. When the new DD numbers dropped significantly, they still went with the gun and the ordinance manuf saw a dramatic decrease in rounds production so they had to increase the price in order to keep from losing $$. I sit next to a guy who was one of the JOs (junior officers) on the program and we were discussing this the other night.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Shuffler on November 15, 2016, 12:26:06 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 15, 2016, 01:26:14 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Gman on November 15, 2016, 04:39:39 PM
They only have 150 rounds total of the new 155mm Zumwalt gun type too. Only 150 rounds even exist right now. That's not even enough to fill up 1/2 of one gun turret's loading system. In fact the reserve storage rack holds 150 rounds, so they could fill that up, and leave the 600 slots in the gun turrets empty I guess.
Jolly, I've read that several places before, that it's due to the scale of manufacturing and the other DDG1000s being cancelled, that's mostly responsible for driving the price up on the rounds. It's unfortunate, as all the tests, the videos, docs, etc out there show that the system works extremely well, giving the ship the ability to stand off from very long range, far offshore, yet still be extremely accurate, with good effects on target.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Squire on November 15, 2016, 09:55:46 PM
Quote
“If our fleet of small numbers is so fragile that it cannot afford the loss of a single ship due to budgeting, how will it survive the inevitable losses of combat?” Commander Phillip E. Pournelle wrote in Proceedings.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Rich46yo on November 16, 2016, 08:01:04 AM
Quote
So much waste on these systems, that are always delivered late and over-budget, when there's legitimate question over whether they're needed. Rant over.
These systems like the Zummie are so cutting edge and complicated, and take so long to design and build, that by the time they are launched the Military/world scenario they were first designed for has changed. Like the B1 bomber that went thru several variations as the defense/technology alignment changed as did the people making the decisions. Again all this made worse by going into previously unknown techno waters to keep an edge technologically , the very same edge that has won wars in the past.
So yeah we'll have three very expensive technology demonstrators and wont know what the heck to do with them. I can understand the decision about Aegis cause the Zum was never meant to operate independently and was always meant to be a shore attack platform. Besides it will have access to the network of escorting Aegis ships so putting Aegis on it would have been somewhat redundant for its actual mission. What eventually went down the quays was the latest iteration of what was envisioned in the late '80s when the Cold War was still going. Back then their was about 1/2 dozen possibilities and the program was constantly revised. One design was for a missile-centric arsenal type ship and if I remember right all of them were for a bigger ship then what eventually made it to sea. I consider it the above water Seawolf class, relics of a bygone era where there was a bigger threat and lotsa money to throw around.
Strange but like Seawolf I think the technology itself will one day prove the worth of building these things but I dont think we will get much use out of them as individual platforms. LO or stealth is kinda old tech but what is revolutionary of the "Z" class is how it is able to generate and distribute electrical power. Rail gun tech is maturing but is still probably 10 years away and the Navy is going the slow route of finding rail gun solutions for several classes of ships and not just one.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 16, 2016, 01:36:44 PM
I can understand the decision about Aegis cause the Zum was never meant to operate independently and was always meant to be a shore attack platform. Besides it will have access to the network of escorting Aegis ships so putting Aegis on it would have been somewhat redundant for its actual mission.
This seems counter-intuitive, Rich. I'm wondering what your source is for this statement. An important point behind stealth is to achieve both operational as well as tactical surprise (first shot, first kill), in addition to improving survive-ability once detected. It is pointless to take a stealthy platform and insist that it be placed at the center of a non-stealthy task force. The lack of AEGIS is more likely the result of it's impact to the Zum's radar cross-section, in the context of its ability to operate alone (i.e. without the need for a huge fleet to surround and protect it). The huge antenna arrays required by AEGIS are blazing bright bulls-eyes to an enemy sea-search radar, not to mention that, when powered up, they paint a giant arrow back to the ship (I'm right here! Shoot me!). It's like having a bright flashlight in a dark warehouse, where you're searching for an armed opponent; sure, you can see 20 or 30 feet around you, but that opponent can see you a quarter mile away. So, since the Zum class is a much harder ship to target from long range, and the ship's purpose is not to act as an air defense platform for a fleet, there was no compelling reason to include it, and every reason to leave it off.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 16, 2016, 01:40:09 PM
Oh, and my apologies, Skuzzy. I seriously did not intend, or believe, my comments to be political in any way. Just trying to share my personal experiences. I shall try to be more circumspect in the future. :salute
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Shuffler on November 16, 2016, 03:22:22 PM
Oh, and my apologies, Skuzzy. I seriously did not intend, or believe, my comments to be political in any way. Just trying to share my personal experiences. I shall try to be more circumspect in the future. :salute
Don't feel bad, I was doing the same and got edited twice. Seems if you have first hand experience regarding the thread headline, there is no way to say the facts without breaking a rule. I just gave up on this thread. LOL
Skuzzy has enough on his plate without me adding to his workload. :salute
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: FBKampfer on November 16, 2016, 04:23:16 PM
See, what I'm wondering is what exactly the ship's purpose is. Apart from recon and raids, it really doesn't seem to have much use.
The carrier is and will remain the primary nexus of naval power for the foreseeable future. Any major operation requiring destruction of shore targets will invariably be accompanied by at least one carrier.
The US has its modus operandi, and the Zummwalt doesn't seem to fit. As rich said, they seem more like technology demonstrators. The one area where they could really be useful is that they generate sufficient surplus power to mount multiple laser or rail gun batteries, which would make them powerful air defense platforms, however nothing else about them is optimized for the role despite the fact that this has been on the horizon for at least a decade.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 16, 2016, 04:34:31 PM
Yes, it does seem to be a platform in search of a mission. It still has respectable land attach capabilities, and that uber-pricey main gun ammo was supposed to fill a niche target spec; too close to shore to waste a tomahawk or harpoon on, but too far for conventional gun munitions. Problem is, the rounds became so expensive that it was debatable whether they were cheaper or not (though certainly the Zum can carry more of those rounds than any other ship's cruise missile compliment)...it just can't afford to! I think maybe it was an attempt to provide a more discrete way to attach land targets, and free the carriers for more important missions.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Serenity on November 17, 2016, 07:02:56 AM
I think maybe it was an attempt to provide a more discrete way to attach land targets, and free the carriers for more important missions.
THAT sounds pretty accurate.
Yes, a JDAM is cheaper than a cruise missile, but remember, you're never going to sortie just a single Hornet. That strike package is likely four planes you're sending in, which is either 4 or 8 pilots. Likely to be a Growler in the package too, so two more pilots. Plus the cost/hour to operate these aircraft (Offhand, I would say $15,000/hour is fairly reasonable), assume at best a two-hour op, and you get $150,000 just to carry that bomb there, not including the cost of the bomb, the training sorties to get proficient, and the cost to move the whole CSG over there. That bullet cost gets more and more reasonable when compared with an air package...
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: icepac on November 17, 2016, 04:55:32 PM
See Rule #14
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Serenity on November 18, 2016, 05:39:50 AM
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: icepac on November 18, 2016, 06:32:47 PM
So I got rule 14'd because I wrote that my grandfather authored the original weapons procurement policy?
I think it's time to leave this place.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Gman on November 19, 2016, 06:55:40 AM
The Navy released a few statements regarding the DDG1000 guns/ammo in the last week, as others said here, the Navy is blaming the number of ships cut being responsible for the huge increase in cost/round, and is seeking alternative rounds to replace the long range boosted/guided ones, possibly using some sort of hypersonic technology.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Serenity on November 19, 2016, 11:30:03 AM
So I got rule 14'd because I wrote that my grandfather authored the original weapons procurement policy?
I think it's time to leave this place.
Yeah... I got deleted for commenting that it was cool you had that in your family history... not sure what the ^#$& happened there...
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Rich46yo on November 20, 2016, 01:34:48 PM
Quote
This seems counter-intuitive, Rich. I'm wondering what your source is for this statement. An important point behind stealth is to achieve both operational as well as tactical surprise (first shot, first kill), in addition to improving survive-ability once detected. It is pointless to take a stealthy platform and insist that it be placed at the center of a non-stealthy task force.
It wont be at the center. It was designed as a shore attack platform and is pretty one dimensional. (http://The lack of AEGIS is more likely the result of it's impact to the Zum's radar cross-section, in the context of its ability to operate alone (i.e. without the need for a huge fleet to surround and protect it).) Nothing that expensive "acts alone". Remember a USN CVBG controls every inch of space, from seas bottom to atmo top, for a 600 nm circle around the CV.
Quote
The huge antenna arrays required by AEGIS are blazing bright bulls-eyes to an enemy sea-search radar, not to mention that, when powered up, they paint a giant arrow back to the ship (I'm right here! Shoot me!).
Might could be and like I said the Zum will be able to "see" everything the AEGIS ships are seeing cause of being on the network. There is just no good reason or need to put AEGIS on it.
Quote
It's like having a bright flashlight in a dark warehouse, where you're searching for an armed opponent; sure, you can see 20 or 30 feet around you, but that opponent can see you a quarter mile away. So, since the Zum class is a much harder ship to target from long range, and the ship's purpose is not to act as an air defense platform for a fleet, there was no compelling reason to include it, and every reason to leave it off.
Actually I was agreeing with you.
BTW every ship launched will have some aspect of LO included in its design in the future. The Burkes do, even the new CVs do.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 21, 2016, 02:31:47 PM
Not impugning you integrity in any way, Rich. I just hadn't read anywhere that the Zumwalt was not intended or expected to operate independently. I was just hoping for a source so I could read it. However, that being said, nuclear subs come pretty close to being nearly as expensive as the DD-1000's, and they are indeed expected to operate independently for much of the time. Indeed, in this era of a much diminished US Navy (numbers wise, at least), our surface combatants often operate independently. And to come under the protective umbrella of other, air-defense and ASW capable ships like the Aegis cruisers and destroyers requires them to be very near to, or surrounded by, those assets. Add to that the still somewhat limited range of it's uber-gun still places them in littoral waters if attacking land-based targets with it, where no CVBG has any business being. The low-observable aspects being incorporated into other, more conventional vessels are not meant to hide their presence or general location, but rather to shrink the enemy's engagement envelope, giving our ships first-shot/first-kill. The DD-1000's stealth features are orders of magnitude more effective, and I can only assume are meant to help it avoid detection when beyond line-of-sight and operating independently.
Still, I could be completely off base. Also, it's intended operational environs today may be far different than what was envisioned when the program was first launched...happens all to often. :salute
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Rich46yo on November 21, 2016, 07:02:52 PM
Quote
Still, I could be completely off base. Also, it's intended operational environs today may be far different than what was envisioned when the program was first launched...happens all to often.
Indeed. The program was first launched, I believe, in 1989 and 27 years is a long, long time to design and launch a new surface combatant. And Im just guessing here but I cant imagine vs any enemy with decent tech one of these operating alone in the Littorals. They may be stealthy but they are not invisible and since they wont have the super accurate 155mm shells they were supposed to why would you risk a 3 b ships so close to shore when you can stand off and launch missiles?
And while they may operate independently now Sabre that doesnt mean they would in time of war. Most of all in the Pacific. If theres been a change in the CVBG doctrine then Im unaware of it. The only lone hunters should be submarines.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 22, 2016, 01:26:02 PM
Good points, all, Rich. And good discussion. It's refreshing to be able to one without it degenerating into a brawl :salute. Would be incredibly interesting to read the original spec and CONOPS documents, and compare them with what it is today. I will note, at least from what I've been able to find on the web, that DD-1000's AGS gun system never HAD a requirement to attach sea-going targets. This leaves only it's VSL tubes (far fewer than other, smaller, cheaper ships), with harpoons, to deal with sea-going threats. According to https://news.usni.org/2016/05/23/zumwalt_mix_challgnges (https://news.usni.org/2016/05/23/zumwalt_mix_challgnges), "The ship was conceived to support Marines ashore from the littorals with twin 155mm guns firing guided rocket-assisted Long Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP) more than 60 miles." A decently balanced article, if you get the chance to read it. Any way you slice it though, this acquisition is FUBAR.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: FBKampfer on November 22, 2016, 01:57:15 PM
I'm wondering if you couldn't just mount the AGS onto some other vessels, and make it something of a modular system, even if you wouldn't have the loading mechanism or ammunition reserves of a designated mount.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Sabre on November 22, 2016, 04:29:27 PM
I'm wondering if you couldn't just mount the AGS onto some other vessels, and make it something of a modular system, even if you wouldn't have the loading mechanism or ammunition reserves of a designated mount.
From what I've read, the ship designers had to design the ship around the ammo-handling and storage to a certain degree. So, while it is possible to mount it to a brand new class (designed from the beginning to incorporate it), retrofitting it to an existing class would be problematic and prohibitively expensive, I should think.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Gman on November 22, 2016, 05:29:45 PM
Good points, all, Rich. And good discussion. It's refreshing to be able to one without it degenerating into a brawl :salute. Would be incredibly interesting to read the original spec and CONOPS documents, and compare them with what it is today. I will note, at least from what I've been able to find on the web, that DD-1000's AGS gun system never HAD a requirement to attach sea-going targets. This leaves only it's VSL tubes (far fewer than other, smaller, cheaper ships), with harpoons, to deal with sea-going threats. According to https://news.usni.org/2016/05/23/zumwalt_mix_challgnges (https://news.usni.org/2016/05/23/zumwalt_mix_challgnges), "The ship was conceived to support Marines ashore from the littorals with twin 155mm guns firing guided rocket-assisted Long Range Land Attack Projectiles (LRLAP) more than 60 miles." A decently balanced article, if you get the chance to read it. Any way you slice it though, this acquisition is FUBAR.
Yeah you have made many valid points. I think the threat situation has changed so dramatically during the design of both Seawolf and Zumwalts that we ended up with platforms looking for a mission instead of missions requiring the platforms. That and while everyone talks about how saving pork jobs is so part of the deal and even bigger part is retaining the technological and Industrial expertise to build world class big ticket items. Most of all since we dont sell the actual platforms to others and only sell/co-produce individual systems. In other words we have to keep the workers who know how to build these things.
Now they are talking about upgrading our Triad and our special weapons. Well so much of the talent we had in nuclear development is gone, either retired or dead, cause we havn't built new systems in decades. Its hard to believe but the Cold War, the one I thought would never end, ended almost three decades ago. There has been just so much change in the military situation during my life. As a troop I wore Vietnam era fatigues and watched F4 Phantoms take off. Now? Were into 4'th gen stealth and drones will be flying their own attack missions with no-one in the Loop. The tech is ready now.
I dont know how anyone can project the Military threat/balance in 20 to 30 years to start new programs now. I think it was impossible to completely stop Zumm procurement at least for retaining the skilled workers. I dont think theres much doubt the future for surface combatants IS stealth/LO , massive electric out put , reduced manpower requirements, multi-mission capability, extremely smart weapons and probably hypersonic/Laser.
Making a 610' DD with the radar return of a 40' Marlin trolling boat is itself pretty remarkable. This kinda tech IS the future even if the Zumwalt itself isnt.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: Mister Fork on November 25, 2016, 01:46:15 PM
Making a 610' DD with the radar return of a 40' Marlin trolling boat is itself pretty remarkable. This kinda tech IS the future even if the Zumwalt itself isnt.
I think part of the challenges the industry and governments have is that the advances in technology are drastically changing the type of military assets we need to complete their tasks.
The Zumwalt is a engineering marvel - but what war is it fighting? What military tasks can it successfully execute against? What type of new technologies will it face in 5 or 10 years from now that could make it, as a weapons platform, obsolete? What role will autonomous AI weapons systems play in wars of the future?
And we wonder why the F-35 cost billions more? Because the military developers keep on getting slammed with technology innovations and new requirements and run into integration limits. I suspect that someone is going to change the game when it comes to military aircraft and their roles and in 10-15 years, the combat soldier, pilot, or seamen, may not actually 'sit' in their vessel anymore. And it may not even be a human.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: FBKampfer on November 27, 2016, 05:24:48 PM
Frankly, I think a big part of the problem is that Americans have grown insanely casualty averse. So we try and pack a bunch of tech into our systems so that we're less likely to lose them and their operators/crew, which makes them crazy expensive, and so now the weapon system itself presents a significant loss, so we put even more on it so we're even less likely to lose it, which makes it more expensive still. And it keeps going.
In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, we need to have a more utilitarian inventory of systems. That's not to say inexpensive necessarily, but more utilitarian. Say the marines and landing parties need more fire support. Give them a light mortar carrier. Put rockets/missiles or a 105 on the LCAC. Or put a maverick or harpoon launcher on the soc-r, or whatever is carrying your strike team. Have the sub that transported provide tomahawk fire. There are plenty of answers, but a purpose built destroyer should never have been on that list.
Any solution to a problem or threat should be timely first and foremost, and effective as a very close second, and affordable third. Everything else doesn't matter.
If loss of equipment is a major concern, it's a good argument that the mission hasn't been planned very well. If everything possible has been done and loss of equipment is still a major concern, maybe it's time for a new approach all together.
Title: Re: US weapons procurement
Post by: DaveBB on December 03, 2016, 08:42:14 PM
Frankly, I think a big part of the problem is that Americans have grown insanely casualty averse. So we try and pack a bunch of tech into our systems so that we're less likely to lose them and their operators/crew, which makes them crazy expensive, and so now the weapon system itself presents a significant loss, so we put even more on it so we're even less likely to lose it, which makes it more expensive still. And it keeps going.
In my admittedly inexperienced opinion, we need to have a more utilitarian inventory of systems. That's not to say inexpensive necessarily, but more utilitarian. Say the marines and landing parties need more fire support. Give them a light mortar carrier. Put rockets/missiles or a 105 on the LCAC. Or put a maverick or harpoon launcher on the soc-r, or whatever is carrying your strike team. Have the sub that transported provide tomahawk fire. There are plenty of answers, but a purpose built destroyer should never have been on that list.
Any solution to a problem or threat should be timely first and foremost, and effective as a very close second, and affordable third. Everything else doesn't matter.
If loss of equipment is a major concern, it's a good argument that the mission hasn't been planned very well. If everything possible has been done and loss of equipment is still a major concern, maybe it's time for a new approach all together.
According to the book "Death Ground", written by a Marine Colonel who taught at the War College, there are only about 100,000 front line soldiers at any given time. The rest of the military are force multipliers. Because like you said, we are extremely casualty averse. But for good reason, what was it that Patton said about dying for your country?