I asked because I fail to grasp your point...
Totally agree and I did not object to that use -- I did make a snide comment about possible misuse by a poor Commander. Poor Commanders can misuse anything, high tech or no tech.Originally Posted by Cole
I also totally agree with that. The key is that in "must be weighed." I would hope and really expect most units would do that competently.I understand doctrine about radio silence to avoid being targeted. But that must be weighed, IMHO, against the unlikelihood that it will occur at all due to weak threat opponents, or because his EW emissions or artillery would result in a near instant more capable friendly response. Don't we remote antennas for a reason? Is a communicating moving target likely to be struck...although admittedly a stationary CP in Baghdad was hit in OIF 1.Uh, yeah. However doesn't that paragraph tend toward less technology? You seem to be arguing with yourself. Or is it just certain Air Force and Naval technology that is objectionable?A similar quandary exists in air combat training. How many pilots are lost annually in training versus actual air combat? Couldn't simulators perform more of that training? Threat opponents don't get anywhere near our flight hours or simulation training. Look at Russian airpower problems over Georgia. Read DefenseTech to see how confident Chinese leadership is regarding homegrown reverse-engineered old tech jets. Yet we always seem to consider the threat to be a 10 feet tall boogeyman on land, sea, and in the air.Yes to all that -- and no one here has suggested otherwise. I trust you are not an employee of or are yourself a Contractor who lost out on the FCS cxl...FCS had embedded simulation as a KPP and many other promising technologies...largely victimized by JTRS not being ready. Isn't the use of technology for training a good idea? Pursuit of promising BCT Modernization tech like Class I UAS should not be eliminated due to imperfect datalinks on someone else's development schedule.
Regardless, valid points all -- and, again, no one here is arguing otherwise.I frankly do not understand that. I would submit that we have no Cavalry Scout Vehicles, that the vehicles we use for that role travel in packs and are prepared for combat. If an opponent sees one, he knows there will be more nearby and they are looking for trouble.Should testers be committing fratricide by claiming that hearing a UAS at 2 kms and seeing it at 4 kms is unacceptable? Can you see and hear a tank or cavalry scout vehicle at 2-4 kms? Why is one shockpower and exploitable via deception and the other is a no-go? And how much shock does the heavy BCT create when it never arrives before the war is over and then runs out of gas because we decide we need 50 ton infantry fighting vehicles?
A recon or surveillance UAS OTOH may be employed hopefully covertly or at least stealthily to not let a targeted enemy know of our interest in a specific area of ground. In short, I think we have a Pomegranates and Kiwi Fruit comparison...
The 'solutions' to your latter conundrum are many, not least that we should plan better and / or develop a C5 replacement (and those are both quite serious comments).
You're fighting the age old protection versus mobility battle which has never been resolved. It is also unlikely to be resolved because every war is different even though a lot of planning is expended on re-doing the last one. I personally opt for mobility in most cases but acknowledge the need for the protection afforded by 50t IFVs and 80t Tanks on occasion. The US Army is trying to sort out which way it will go. My bet is a compromise that annoys many because that's the only reasonably prudent course.
I may be wrong but I believe that you did not provide an example of me or anyone else in this thread really being "tech averse" or suggesting the US not use any of the systems you cited. Thus I'm still unsure of your point. My apologies for being old and dense...
Bookmarks