One of these guys is either delusional or a liar

[Lee]

"We lost that many kille din ONE DAY - 9/11 - remember?"

Yep... bad Saudis.

"How much Guard Artillery has been lost?  How many Guard tanks?  How many Guard airplanes?'

How effective are tanks and airplanes against the Iraqi insurgents?  Any idea what the cost would be to re-supply the guard if this thing were to end today?  I don't, but I'm guessing it starts with a B.  

"To the extent that it is dire, it is a result of politicians, many Democrat "spending" a non-existant "peace dividend", and NOT the war on terror, which is, after all , a WAR - and NOT one of our own instigation."

No. In a war you have a defined enemy...not some nebulous term that can be applied as you see fit.  I'd say when you are down to sending 40 year old businessmen/guardsmen into combat...sometimes twice, calling back reserves, and sending active duty troops back for their 3rd or 4th tour...things are getting pretty dire, and particularly when the situation is deteriorating rather than improving, and will require MORE troops, who will do more fequent and longer tours.

Bush said he would continue with this "war" even if he, Laura, and the dog are the only one's who agree.  I think he was serious.  I hope the dog doesn't end up getting flown to some Bulgarian prison some night for being a non-believer.

[roo_ster]

The Army fleet of M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradleys, and M113s is in serious-*expletive deleted*ss need of refurb/rebuild.  About 75% of the vehicles.

That is why they are going through the "Reset" program: tear a vehicle down to the last bolt & replace anything worn out.  This Reset is being used by some defense contractors to stuff new functionality/doo-dads on the vehicles for only a little extra $$$ for a significant increase in functionality.  Think of it as rebuilding your PC: heck, some of the older systems may no longer even be built.

The Army estimated it needed an additional $18B & $20B in the next two years to just tread water, vehicle-preparedness-wise.  Rummy & GWB said bullhockey, you're over-estimating.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said there was no fluff in thier estimates.  Give us the $$$ or I will quit loudly & in public, 'cause I don't need this job.  Rummy & GWB sicced an outside auditing group on the CJC.  The auditors found that the Army had underestimated its needs and that the Army needed $22B extra each year to tread water.

Needless to say, CJC is not too popular with Rummy & GWB these days.  Best be careful when hiring.  If you hire a no-BS tell-it-like-it-is kinda guy, he might just tell it like it is.

[richyoung]

The Army fleet of M1 Abrams, M2/3 Bradleys, and M113s is in serious-*expletive deleted*ss need of refurb/rebuild.  About 75% of the vehicles.

True - but this is more a function of failure to buy replacements/delays & cancellations in replacement programs - the "peace dividend" that wasn't...

That is why they are going through the "Reset" program: tear a vehicle down to the last bolt & replace anything worn out.  This Reset is being used by some defense contractors to stuff new functionality/doo-dads on the vehicles for only a little extra $$$ for a significant increase in functionality.  Think of it as rebuilding your PC: heck, some of the older systems may no longer even be built.

No other choice when no new ones are being built - and not necessarily a bad thing - look at the C-130/KC-135/B-52 programs...

The Army estimated it needed an additional $18B & $20B in the next two years to just tread water, vehicle-preparedness-wise.  Rummy & GWB said bullhockey, you're over-estimating.  Chairman of the Joint Chiefs said there was no fluff in thier estimates.  Give us the $$$ or I will quit loudly & in public, 'cause I don't need this job.  Rummy & GWB sicced an outside auditing group on the CJC.  The auditors found that the Army had underestimated its needs and that the Army needed $22B extra each year to tread water.

Simple things like trucks haven't been fully funded since the vietnam war.  Plus we've never had a true armored car/scout vehicle, hence the use of uparmored HUMVEEs as ersatz Strykers.

Needless to say, CJC is not too popular with Rummy & GWB these days.  Best be careful when hiring.  If you hire a no-BS tell-it-like-it-is kinda guy, he might just tell it like it is.

I'm not a Rumsfield fan, but we DO have civillian control of the military - and thats a GOOD thing.

[roo_ster]

richyoung;

We can't blame it all on GHWB & Slick Willie & spend-like-a-drunken-sailor COTUS.  We have used our equipment much more & much harder than if we had taken a powder on Iraq.  Heck, we have used our equipment more than we thought we would even after the decision was made to upend Iraq.

Using up equipment is part of the cost of doing business.  Until the machines are reset, we are not ready to do business elsewhere.  Really, ought we be sending heavy units to perform counter-insurgency?  Well, considering we are so light infantry-poor, I guess we have no choice to use a sledgehammer to swat house flies...

I agree that resetting the machines is a good, viable option.  No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.  I don't think the KC-135 could be considered by anybody as "still some of the best on earth," though  Freakin' 707s, as sung about by the Steve Miller Band.  The B-52 has its place as a a machine that can toss more ordnance down at the enemy than any other.  But, for the love of Pete, they came out a generation before I was born!  They might end up having service lives as long as 18th century ships of the line.  Lord help our B-52 pilots if we fight an enemy who does not easily cede control of their air space.

IMO, we are operating our armed forces on capital acquired decades ago.  All we need is one regional conflict against a competitive enemy to deplete our capital.  Even if we then devoted unlimited funds, we would be years away from fielding MBT/IFV replacements.  I guess we could buy the latest French hardware, provided we brought cash, as they'll armaments to anybody.  Perhaps Japan would loan us thier new MBTs.  All 30 of them. 

[richyoung]

Hey, 135/707's good enough to build AWACS, JSTARS, "Constant Pheonix", etc, etc, etc out of....

[Perd Hapley]

No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.

  The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that.  But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive.  What makes you say it is one of the best?

[richyoung]

No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.

  The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that.  But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive.  What makes you say it is one of the best?

Only real competition is the BMP-2 - the BMP-3 is the next thing to vapor-ware.  Without thermals, and with only 4 - 5 AT-5 missles, the BMP-2 is not very survivable, much like the BMP-1 from which it came...

[Perd Hapley]

vaporware?  meaning weak armor? 

[richyoung]

vaporware?  meaning weak armor? 

Meaning very few actually built and fielded - the BMP-2 soldiers on for most of the world that bought it.

[roo_ster]

No real need for a new MBT or IFV, since ours are still some of hte best on earth.

  The Abrams is hard as nails, no doubt about that.  But as a former Bradley passenger and driver, I've heard a lot of negatives about the platform and very little positive.  What makes you say it is one of the best?

What I wrote is in no way an endorsement of the Bradley, IFVs, or APCs in general.  They have their utility, but they all give me the willies.  Matter of fact, it was my considered opinion (on which I acted) that I would rather jump out of cargo planes & fastrope outta helos than ride around in a thin-shelled metal box on the battlefield. <shudder>

But, I'll give credit where it is due: the Bradley has what a contemporary IFV needs:

• Cannon good vs everything up to med armor in the 25mm
• Heavy ATGM capability provided by the TOWtally Stupendous TOW*
• World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*
• Armor that is, uh, OK
• Decent trafficability

It does lack in capacity & armor.  Some folks carp about the 25mm cannon's inferiority vis a vis larger (medium) cannon.  I am not convinced.  About the only advantage the bigger 40mm cannons have is stowed kills. Even a 40mm Supershot is still not going to knock out a tank this side of a T55, inclusive.

OK, rank promotion aside, I think that its EO/IR sensors are what set it apart.  The reports our boys in uniform sent back about their utility and how much they liked them caused no little boost in morale up in McKinney, Texas.  (Same with LRAS & ITAS by their users.)

If one treats it like what it really is (decently armed battle taxi) it can do its job.

FWIW, if I had to go to battle in a metal box, I would want that box to be an Abrams.  I would accept no substitutes.  Anything else I consider field-expedient, above-ground, mobile sepulcher.

richyoung has it: the BMP2 is the other widely-fielded, tracked, med cannon & ATGM-equipped IFV. 

Most other armored troop carriers are light, wheeled vehicles (like the LAV, Stryker, BTR) or old-school APCs (M113, MTLB).  The light wheeled vehicles have even less armor, cross-country mobility, and firepower.  The APCs have less armor & firepower & are slower.

So, yeah, the Bradley has its shortcomings, but relative to the others it is arguably the best. 

I would like to hear any input from Europeans or east Asians about new or up & coming home-grown IFVs that might be in the works or technically on par with the Bradley.


* Yes, there is some rank promotion going on, here.  So sue me.

[Desertdog]

How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?

Which one has the up to date reports from the front line and the rest of Iraq, or which one was just looking at what they saw in Bagdad?

I think I would trust the one with the up to date reports to be more accurate.

[Perd Hapley]

How could things go "remarkably well" yet be a "helluva mess" at the same time?

One was referring to the performance of the govt.  One was referring to the overall situation.  In fact, if you read just the one line by Cheney, he implies within that sentence that the situation is, at the very least, problematic.

World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*

This much I don't understand.

[richyoung]

World-beating FLIRs with the IBAS & CITV*

This much I don't understand.

FLIR = forward-looking infra-red
IBAS =  Improved Bradley Aquisition Subystem (for TOW missle)
CITV = Commander's Independant (from the gunners sight) Thermal Viewer

[richyoung]

Care to wager some real money that I am right and you are wrong on all of the above, Rich Young?

What do you consider "real money"?  Who would you consider to be a fair arbiter as to who is right, and what time frame?

[richyoung]

richyoung;

We can't blame it all on GHWB & Slick Willie & spend-like-a-drunken-sailor COTUS.  We have used our equipment much more & much harder than if we had taken a powder on Iraq.  Heck, we have used our equipment more than we thought we would even after the decision was made to upend Iraq.

This, of course, is partly aggrevated by equipment designed for, and logistics support for, a short intense nuclear war in Europe.  But you go to war with what you have, which was always designed for some other contingency, it seems...

]