PDA

View Full Version : The Army is rebalancing its fighting force


MtnGoat
02-20-2006, 12:00
By Michelle Tan
Times staff writer

The Army is rebalancing its fighting force, dedicating more war-fighters to Iraq while modernizing its capabilities for the 21st Century, its top leaders said Tuesday.
“The soldier remains the centerpiece of America’s Army,” Army Secretary Francis Harvey told the Senate Armed Services Committee during a hearing on the Army’s fiscal 2007 budget request.
“On 9/11 the Army’s operational capabilities lacked the breadth and depth for ‘the long war.’ … This is the first time our nation has tested the concept of an all-volunteer force in a prolonged war.”
Harvey and Army Chief of Staff Gen. Peter Schoomaker testified in front of the committee for two hours Tuesday, answering questions on body army, Future Combat Systems, pay for wounded soldiers, Army National Guard and Reserve end strength, recruiting challenges and funding the replacement of equipment destroyed in combat.
To date, the Army has completed the conversion or activation of 19 brigade combat teams and is in the process of doing the same for 18 more, Harvey said. The active Army will have 42 BCTs; the 28.
Harvey emphasized the importance of fully funding the Future Combat Systems program.
“This is the key modernization program for the Army,” he said. “It’s really the first major modernization effort in four decades.”
The first “spin-out” of FCS technology is expected in 2008, with the introduction of unattended ground sensors, non-line-of-sight launch systems and the intelligent munitions system, Harvey said.
The first unit to be fully equipped with manned ground vehicles is projected to achieve initial capability by 2014, according to a statement provided by the Army.

Go to this Army Times link for the full story.

http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-1537289.php

7624U
06-30-2006, 07:17
Here is a Link to the FCS site: http://www.army.mil/fcs/morevideo.html
goto FCS home Page also they have some nice video's worth watching,
Shows what the army is going to turn into in the near Future.


Watch the Non-Line-of-Sight Cannon test footage.
I would hate to be the one to clear that Jam.:eek:

JGarcia
06-30-2006, 07:49
"All Soldiers in the Modular Force are part of the Soldier as a System (SaaS) overarching requirement encompassing everything the Soldier wears, carries, and consumes to include unit radios, crew served weapons, and unit specific equipment in the execution of tasks and duties.

All Soldiers systems will be treated as an integrated System of Systems (SoS).

The FCS Soldier, as defined by Soldier as a System (SaaS), meets the need to improve the current capability of all Soldiers, regardless of Military Occupational Specialty (MOS), to perform Army Common Tasks and functions more efficiently and effectively.

Soldier as a System (SaaS) establishes a baseline for core Soldier requirements, and establishes the foundation for specific or mission unique Warrior Programs (Land, Mounted, and Air).

It will present a fully integrated Soldier that provides a balance of tasks, and mission equipment in support of the Soldier Team, FCS, and the Future Force. "

IT IS USELESS TO RESIST US, YOU WILL BE ASSIMILATED.
So, we build the technology first, then apply it to the Soldier? Right now, I'd be happy if they would just write an FM for my kind of unit.

Slantwire
06-30-2006, 09:16
So, we build the technology first, then apply it to the Soldier?


Unfortunately, that's pretty much the case. We (the defense industry in general) consist of engineers at the low tiers, and business types at the top. That's people who do "fun with gadgets," tied to people who live with buzzwords and mission statements. The military types around here are retired folks brought in to try to try to win contracts because they know people and DoD office politics. There are very, very few shooters around here.

DARPA is a dreamer's shop. Think of the wildest, craziest screwball stuff and see if you can make it happen. I read somewhere that 90-95% of DARPA programs fail miserably. But that last 5-10% nets you things like the internet, GPS, etc. In my experience (most of my engineering career), that's pretty accurate.

So when DoD decides to let Boeing and DARPA drive the FCS program, this is exactly what you end up with.

JGarcia
06-30-2006, 09:59
Beginning of RANT:

The money is in the machines, not the man.

If I can speak freely to you for a moment, since I've been affiliated with the military (1987 till now) communication at the bottom rung of the ladder is always problematic.

There are PRC77's, and vinsons, and 119's, and VRC46's and on and on. But what we need, what we've always needed is a lightweight, secure radio system for each Soldier in an Infantry Squad. We can put a man on the moon but we can't do this. Well I suppose we could, but there's no money in it.

Some of the things that have been used are okay, like the AN/PRC126. You could communicate within the platoon, but you had to tape that handmic to your chin strap and if you had a good mic you might be able to hear a transmission, more often than not you missed many messages. If you bumped into something the matching unit dial would always get turned and then you'd have that loud non-stop beep in your ear, but you couldn't see the dial to turn it to the right spot, so there you are fiddlefcking around with your gear like a one legged man in an arse kicking contest, trying to get it to stop, or you have the PLGR on continuous, mounted on your web gear or ruck, and it puts out a signal that the AN/PRC126 picks up, so you hear intermittent squelch being broken on your handmic for the entire mission until you figure out that the PLGR causes that and give the PLGR to one of the team leaders. And how could we not love the floppy steel antenna? We can put a man on the moon, but we can't make a better antenna. A lot of guys complain about the size and weight of the 126 too, for that much size and weight you should get a lot more out of it.

Supposedly the MBITR is better. I aint played with it yet. But can you talk to hovering ACFT with it like you can with the 126?

Ideally we need a radio with variable transmission power, something that when its on low power can't be picked up over 500M away, and when its on high power we can get a good distance with it, we can communicate with a hovering close air support platform, it should be small, light, and waterproof, able to monitor a couple of different freq's at the same time, and transmit on whichever of the freq's the user wants to. I don't care if it can send me pictures, I just want to talk to my OP a few hundred meters away, or the fire team two floors above. We should be able to program civilian law enforcement frequencies right into the thing, so that when we have to operate with American Law Enforcement at home, we can talk directly to them. THIS WAS A HUGE PROBLEM DURING KATRINA.

They probably already have a system in mind, but I doubt if one single system does all this. Its probably a 15 lb, platoon radio system, meant for a rucksack. Today, everyone in the squad needs a radio, you can always find a few exceptions to this, but when you task a squad with more and more the responsibility of the individual Soldier goes up and up, the information excahnge between the individual and the squad is important.

Why do we have to come up with something like blue force tracker for individual Soldiers? Why can't we just get a useable, dependable, lightweight, radio? This modern battlefield is going to be like C2 cells playing chess matches over the internet, only the pieces will be individual Soldiers and machines moved by the C2 cell itself. Grrrr.

TFM
07-01-2006, 15:41
But what we need, what we've always needed is a lightweight, secure radio system for each Soldier in an Infantry Squad. We can put a man on the moon but we can't do this. Well I suppose we could, but there's no money in it. I hear ya. I really do. I worked in electronics engineering for 10 years before joining the Army. I worked on many military contracts. Most were very high tech, but the average soldier would never see the likes of it. What they would see, however, was the stuff on the low end. The last place I worked at was selling a radio to the military that was still using 70's technology at best. What was inside looked like a kid built it. It did worked, but very inefficietly considering that the advances in technology would greatly improve size and performance. The feeling I get is that the decision makers think that life is just supposed to suck for the grunts at every turn. Either that or the people who are representing our interests don't have a clue, or are living in another world. Spending the money to make our lives easier is just not a priority. Also the military's business practices make it hard or undesireable for many to compete.
That is all for my rant.

TFM
07-01-2006, 15:45
Oops. I meant to edit and got two.

7624U
07-02-2006, 06:47
Beginning of RANT:

The money is in the machines, not the man.

If I can speak freely to you for a moment, since I've been affiliated with the military (1987 till now) communication at the bottom rung of the ladder is always problematic.

Supposedly the MBITR is better. I aint played with it yet. But can you talk to hovering ACFT with it like you can with the 126?

Why do we have to come up with something like blue force tracker for individual Soldiers? Why can't we just get a useable, dependable, lightweight, radio? This modern battlefield is going to be like C2 cells playing chess matches over the internet, only the pieces will be individual Soldiers and machines moved by the C2 cell itself. Grrrr.


They are working on that radio it will replace the MBITR but dont expect to get one anytime soon, the MBITR was a interm radio for SOF its phase 2 of the JTRS program and has a end cost of 9k.

Here is the phase 5 JTRS system : http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/jtrs/RF-300M-HH.pdf#search='JTRS%20handheld'

Im sure that will top the 10k per unit also.:rolleyes:

MtnGoat
07-02-2006, 07:40
They are working on that radio it will replace the MBITR but dont expect to get one anytime soon, the MBITR was a interm radio for SOF its phase 2 of the JTRS program and has a end cost of 9k.

Here is the phase 5 JTRS system : http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/jtrs/RF-300M-HH.pdf#search='JTRS%20handheld'

Im sure that will top the 10k per unit also.:rolleyes:
FYI

"Regular" Army has the MBITR too. Thats why SF didn't get a teams worth in the beggining. Back in 99/00 saw 10th Mtn Plt with as many as my team did back then-4

Beginning of RANT:

The money is in the machines, not the man.

That is ture and the way right now and really for some time that DoD, Defense industry, and Politics play with our money and sometime lives.

How long have we been using Armor on Humvv's?? So why do we throw 20 Million to a DI Company to R&D UP Armor "kits". Don't we have them now, and haven't we had them so some time. How companies can you count that put or make replacement armor?

This is one fact, these three play into what is made and what is "issued" to the military. The facts or statements that Pinhead is tell us to look at are the fact.

Gov't spends some much money on dreams, and only about at most 20% make it to the battle field. Sometimes we the users can say, you spend how much on this? Hell I can make this RC Car for about xx Dollars.

DoD, Defense industry, and Politics will always play thier card games together and each of their pockets will get filled, we will still not have the basic things that we need. Radios, IBA, ETC.

Why, mainly becuase of our leaders, the ones with two stars or more. Yes, you can say it your old Bird at BN level. But really, he is just like you following what is told of him. What equipment is given to whom is driving way above our heads.

Rant over

The Reaper
07-02-2006, 08:33
They are working on that radio it will replace the MBITR but dont expect to get one anytime soon, the MBITR was a interm radio for SOF its phase 2 of the JTRS program and has a end cost of 9k.

Here is the phase 5 JTRS system : http://www.rfcomm.harris.com/jtrs/RF-300M-HH.pdf#search='JTRS%20handheld'

Im sure that will top the 10k per unit also.:rolleyes:

Every shooter in SOCOM can have a cutting edge radio for what ONE infil platform costs, rotary wing, fixed, or underwater.

It doesn't put the money in the right pockets though, or look as good in the videos.

TR

7624U
07-02-2006, 09:03
FYI

"Regular" Army has the MBITR too. Thats why SF didn't get a teams worth in the beggining. Back in 99/00 saw 10th Mtn Plt with as many as my team did back then-4


Rant over

Rgr that the MBITR was a refrence point in my post couse it was a phase 2
radio mainly for SOF, but not strictly, the development did come out of SOF money, remember also at that time the army was handing out ICOM radio's to all the grunts, in most line units they supplemented the ageing squad radio the PRC-126, The ICOM dident hold up at all... People kept breaking off the antenia's and it had alot of problems in wet conditions...
This new phase 5 radio the army is looking to replace everything we have with just this one handheld in both SOF and in the Regular Army.
this will be great news for the SOF community cause then we will be using the same radio's across the board with the rest of mother ARMY.
End state if our $h1t breaks we can take it to any signal shop and get it fixed and not have to goto our own FOB.

mtngoat please continue rant lol:D

7624U
07-02-2006, 09:19
Every shooter in SOCOM can have a cutting edge radio for what ONE infil platform costs, rotary wing, fixed, or underwater.

It doesn't put the money in the right pockets though, or look as good in the videos.

TR

Same goes with night vision systems what am i going to do with just 2 pairs of PVS-15s other then let the drivers wear them.
I personaly like Monoculars much better then Bino's anyway

JGarcia
07-02-2006, 13:10
If you have the patience of a Saint (like me) you can get the 126 to work for you. Its a very finnicky thing.

You've got to love a ten grand a copy hand held radio. How many dummy cords is that going to have? First time one gets lost I guess the entire battalion will be out looking for it. The little Marconi intra squad radios have a range of less than 500M, and they are $800 a copy. You can't even fix them, if they break you throw them away. At least thats the supply code in the fedlog. You could buy a heck of a radio for $800 a copy.

Communications is always something you can bring up at an AAR in the improve category. And I suppose in my lifetime it always will be.

There has got to be something sitting on a shelf somewhere that would work just fine. But of course, you always have to have a study first before you can go out and identify what you need, and then bla, bla bla.

I work as a Security Contractor, the client is an Agency, part of that agency pays grants. One of the grants was for a 'study' after hurricane katrina to examine the communications problem in a disaster. The amount of money they paid out for the study was more than enough to buy a substantial amount of hand held or vehicle communications stuff. Guess how many radios the study provided? ZERO. So, now a new hurricane season is upon us, and there are brand new, state of the art headquarters facilities with walls covered by 52" flat screen monitors, and fancy whiz bang gadgets. But no new radios for the police, fire, or national guard to communicate on.

Stupid is as stupid does. Whose ass do we have to kick?

No wonder people buy/use those FRS radios. :rolleyes:

I vote we call that harris radio the : JAYTRASH not because I know anything about it, but JTRS, reminds me of (and I am dating myself here) the old TRS-80 radio shack computer you see in museums. It was affectionately referred to as the Trash 80. So I saw JTRS and thought Jaytrash. But if it does all it claims to do, I like it. But I think they should field it with the APCO 25 software installed.

Some terrible day in the future we will need commo between military/law enf.

A link to more stuff about FCS and FCS of different countries as well: http://www.armada.ch/06-2/complete_06-2.pdf