DefenseTech Military.com
  • Categories
  • Full Archives
  • Monthly Archives
  • About Defense Tech
Subscribe to RSS

About Defense Tech

Defense Tech exam­ines the inter­sec­tion of tech­nol­ogy and defense from every angle and pro­vides analy­sis on what’s ahead.

Tip Us Off

Tip for Defense Tech?

SEND IT!

It’s Confidential!

Categories

  • 'Canes
  • Afghan Update
  • Ammo and Munitions
  • Armor
  • Around the Globe
  • Av Week Extra
  • Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
  • Bizarro
  • Blimps
  • Blog Bidness
  • Body Armor Blues
  • Bomb Squad
  • Brownshoes in Action
  • Bubbleheads, etc.
  • Cammo Green
  • Catch the "Buzz"
  • Chem-Bio
  • Civilian Apps
  • Cloak and Dagger
  • Commandos
  • Comms
  • Contingency Ops
  • Cops and Robbers
  • Cyber-warfare
  • Data Diving
  • Defense Tech Poll
  • Defense Tech Radio
  • Dissent Tech
  • Door Kickers
  • Drones
  • DT Administrivia
  • Eat DT's Dust
  • Extra! Extra!
  • Eye on China
  • Fast Movers
  • FCS Watch
  • Fire for Effect
  • FOS Files
  • Friday Funnies
  • Gadgets and Gear
  • Going Green
  • Grand Ole Osprey
  • Ground Vehicles
  • Guns
  • Homeland Security
  • In the Weeds with Eric
  • Info War
  • Iraq Diary
  • Jarhead Jazz
  • JSF Watch
  • Just War Theories
  • Lasers and Ray Guns
  • Less-lethal
  • Logistics
  • Los Alamos and Labs
  • M4 Monopoly
  • Medic!
  • Mercs
  • Missiles
  • Money Money Money
  • Most Wanted
  • MRAP Edge
  • Net-Centric
  • Nukes
  • Old Skool
  • Our Shrinking Planet
  • Planes, Copters, Blimps
  • Podcast
  • Politricks
  • Polmar's Perspective
  • Popular Mechanics
  • Rapid Fire
  • Raptor Watch
  • Red Team
  • Retro-Futuro
  • Robots
  • Roll Your Own
  • Sabra Tech
  • Ships and Subs
  • Snipertech
  • Soldier Systems
  • Space
  • Special Ops
  • Star Wars
  • Strategery
  • Stray Trons
  • Tactical Development
  • Terror Tech
  • The Deadlies
  • The Defense Biz
  • The Peoples' Site
  • The Sunday Paper
  • The Tanker Tango
  • The View from Av Week
  • Those Nutty Norks
  • Training and Sims
  • Trimble on the Case
  • Uncategorized
  • Video Lounge
  • War Update
  • Ward'z Wonderz
  • You can run…

Archives

  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • July 2008
  • June 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • December 2007
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • September 2007
  • August 2007
  • July 2007
  • June 2007
  • May 2007
  • April 2007
  • March 2007
  • February 2007
  • January 2007
  • December 2006
  • November 2006
  • October 2006
  • September 2006
  • August 2006
  • July 2006
  • June 2006
  • May 2006
  • April 2006
  • March 2006
  • February 2006
  • January 2006
  • December 2005
  • November 2005
  • October 2005
  • September 2005
  • August 2005
  • July 2005
  • June 2005
  • May 2005
  • April 2005
  • March 2005
  • February 2005
  • January 2005
  • December 2004
  • November 2004
  • October 2004
  • September 2004
  • August 2004
  • July 2004
  • June 2004
  • May 2004
  • April 2004
  • March 2004
  • February 2004
  • January 2004
  • December 2003
  • November 2003
  • October 2003
  • September 2003
  • August 2003
  • July 2003
  • June 2003
  • May 2003
  • April 2003
  • March 2003
  • February 2003
  • January 2003

Home » Planes, Copters, Blimps » Older is Better

Older is Better

U.S. Army avi­a­tors in Iraq and Afghanistan have begun remov­ing the Longbow radars from their AH-​​64D Apache heli­copters. Which is funny, since the radar is pretty much the point of the $10-​​billion Longbow upgrade. apache.jpg
The radar weighs 1,500 pounds and makes the Apache slug­gish in hot and high-​​altitude envi­ron­ments — really the only places the Army fights any­more. Aviators are cool with fly­ing with­out their radars since the things were designed for tak­ing out Soviet tanks. “It was designed for a dif­fer­ent fight than we’re find­ing our­selves in now,” Lt. Col. Mark Patterson told Defense News. He added that the A-​​model Apache (dat­ing from 1983) is bet­ter suited to today’s fights.
This is old news. In Balad, Iraq, in February, Sgt. Erik Morrow told me that the M-​​1A1 Abrams tank was bet­ter for Iraq than the newer M-​​1A2 since the A1 tank is more reli­able and starts up quicker. Earlier, the Marine Corps avi­a­tors of All-​​Weather Fighter Attack Squadron 332, deployed to Al Asad in west­ern Iraq, had told me their old $40-​​million F/​A-​​18D Hornets equipped with sen­sor pods are better-​​suited to counter-​​insurgency com­bat than $130-​​million F-​​22A Raptors, which don’t even have hard­points for pods. See my Flickr for pics.
The major impe­tus for the con­stant devel­op­ment of new and more high-​​tech weapons was the arms race with the Soviet Union and the need to counter massed tank armies with much smaller forces. Those things no longer apply, and now crit­ics across the ser­vices are call­ing for a dif­fer­ent way of doing things — namely, stick­ing with weapons that work, even if they’re old. In some cases, the Defense Department has lis­tened, which is why we’re see­ing M-​​14 rifles and Light Antitank Weapons pulled out of stor­age for troops in Iraq.
But old stuff doesn’t keep the defense indus­try flush with cash. And Pierre Sprey, one of the design­ers of the F-​​16 Fighting Falcon and an F-​​22 critic, told me that’s the point of most new weapons. More on that later.
–David Axe
P.S. — The excel­lent Daniel Robert Epstein inter­viewed me for Suicidegirls​.com. Check it out.
UPDATE 06/​27/​06 8:44 AM: Eric Umansky looked at the Apache’s woes all the way back in ’99.

Share |

June 26th, 2006 | Planes, Copters, Blimps | 197731 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2006/06/26/older-is-better/Older+is+Better2006-06-27+00%3A36%3A33hambling You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Pentagon’s “Best Source of Intel”: TV | Rapid Fire 06/​27/​06 » »

This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.

  1. BWJones says:
    June 26, 2006 at 9:05 pm

    Speaking of older ver­sus newer, I would say that there are many places where the new tech­nol­ogy would work just fine (like IT), but in many places as the DOD has found, older designs work bet­ter, per­haps with some improve­ments.
    For instance, there is a fas­ci­nat­ing story behind the Army’s search for a new com­mon bat­tle­field weapon. They have spent years and many, many mil­lions look­ing at var­i­ous designs from Heckler & Koch with the XM8 and other com­pa­nies with their designs and have real­ized that with a few mod­i­fi­ca­tions (mov­ing to a short stroke gas pis­ton design instead of the M4/​M16 direct gas blow­back sys­tem), things work pretty well. And from a train­ing per­spec­tive, other weapon cal­ibers based on the same design that func­tion and undergo main­te­nance with the same man­ual are the most effi­cient way to go.
    It is a story I would love to see you guys cover here on defense tech from a vari­ety of per­spec­tives. Logistics, devel­op­ment, fund­ing, per­for­mance, etc…etc…etc…

    Reply
  2. Brian says:
    June 26, 2006 at 9:18 pm

    Hey Dave, how do the Marines know that the F/​A 18 is bet­ter than the F-​​22, since, you know, the Marines don’t FLY the F-​​22? What’s next, inter­view­ing an Army Ranger about the pros and cons of the new DDX?
    Insurgents aren’t the only groups we could the­o­ret­i­cally fight. We need to keep upgrad­ing our forces to main­tain our advan­tage over real militaries.

    Reply
  3. BWJones says:
    June 26, 2006 at 11:45 pm

    Brian,
    Read more care­fully next time. David quoted the Corps avi­a­tors as say­ing their F/​A-​​18s have *hard­points* that allow them to be con­fig­ured for a vari­ety of mis­sions whereas the F-​​22s do *not* have hard­points. While the F-​​22 *can* per­form air to ground ops, they are opti­mized for air to air ops whereas the F/​A-​​18 was designed and built from the ground up to be much more mod­u­lar in the num­ber and types of stores it can carry and deploy.
    One does not have to be an Air Force avi­a­tor to under­stand or appre­ci­ate the issues asso­ci­ated with mis­sion spe­cific require­ments.
    Bryan

    Reply
  4. Brian says:
    June 27, 2006 at 12:20 am

    Bryan, Dave said:
    ”(Marines) had told me their old $40-​​million F/​A-​​18D Hornets equipped with sen­sor pods are better-​​suited to counter-​​insurgency com­bat than $130-​​million F-​​22A Raptors, which don’t even have hard­points for pods.“
    He quoted this as if the marines had expe­ri­ence with both sys­tems. The fact that the F-​​22 does not have hard­points for pods does not mean jack squat about its per­for­mance. Have any of the marines ever flown an F-​​22? Nope.
    That argu­ment aside, this entire arti­cle is full of polit­i­cal spin.
    “Oh, they’re tak­ing off the long­bow radar! Why are we pay­ing 10 bil­lion dol­lars to upgrade it when we aren’t even using what we have?” Maybe because the long­bow radar is designed to destroy enemy tanks, and insur­gents don’t have tanks.
    “‘Oh, the F/​A 18 is bet­ter at this sort of work than the F-​​22,’ said a cou­ple of pilots who will never get to fly the new jet.” Regardless, that’s like say­ing that an F-​​150 is bet­ter than a Ferrari because it has more tow­ing capac­ity. The Ferrari ain’t designed for tow­ing capac­ity. The F-​​22 isn’t replac­ing the F/​A 18 any­way.
    Finally, we have the com­ment on the M1-​​A2 Abrams. That tank has a lot of new elec­tron­ics built in, most of them NOT designed to fight insur­gents. So the fact that the older ver­sion is eas­ier to use when fight­ing a bunch of jack­asses in tur­bans is not really news­wor­thy.
    The point of the arti­cle is “Hey, all this new stuff is a waste of money.” I can sum it up in 3 sen­tences:
    1) “Apache anti-​​tank radar use­less when insur­gents have no tanks.“
    2) “New jet designed for air-​​to-​​air com­bat not as good at hunt­ing guys on ground, says pilot who has never laid eyes on it.“
    3) “Advanced elec­tron­ics designed to link dozens of tanks together in massed com­bat not use­ful when using only one tank.“
    Sadly, these sound like head­lines from The Onion.

    Reply
  5. David Axe says:
    June 27, 2006 at 12:32 am

    What some folks are miss­ing, I think, is that we’re still field­ing Cold War-​​style weapons when the fight we’re in now … and the mostly likely future fight … demands sim­pler, cheaper and more robust weapons. It’s not that an F-​​22 ain’t good at air-​​to-​​air (although Sprey would say it isn’t). The point is that the F-​​22 is pretty much use­less when Iraq rep­re­sents the present and future of armed con­flict. Now, if you dis­agree with THAT, you might be right to say we need F-​​22s and M-​​1A2s and AH-​​64Ds.
    Cheers.

    Reply
  6. Moose says:
    June 27, 2006 at 4:14 am

    Its funny that the plethora of equip­ment show­ing abil­ity to do things they weren’t designed to ori­gion­ally has instilled a mind­set in some that ALL equip­ment should be able to do ALL things. An M9 and a M249 are both guns, but nei­ther will do the other’s mis­sion very well. Does that mean they’re bad equip­ment?
    Sprey’s off the reser­va­tion, he’s paint­ing the Raptor with short­com­ings it doesn’t have, and attempt­ing to cull wor­ship in the infal­li­bil­ity of his own pet projects. I love the A-​​10 and F-​​16 as much as any­one, but any seri­ous air-​​to-​​air threat force is going to be field­ing con­tem­po­rary designs. Against this our force-​​reduced, recruitment-​​trouble air­force isn’t going to be able to over­wh­lem with num­bers, we need supe­rior train­ing equip­ment and, unlike the Me-​​262, to not have them bombed on the ground or kept out of the war by Hitler (don’t imag­ine that sec­ond one will be as much of a prob­lem).
    If you believe there will never be a con­flict between the US and a devel­oped mil­i­tary again, the Raptor seems like a tremen­dous waste. But, if you believe as I do that we might be mix­ing it up with Sukhois at some point, hav­ing the Raptor will be a wel­come bit of fore­sight.
    Just stick­ing with old designs becuase they get the job done isn’t an answer, even the Long War model demands adap­tion, he who doesn’t inno­vate is dead. Sure, the M14 is cheap and there’s back­stock lying around. But put it and a Mk. 17 into a troop­ers hands and which would he rather have? Given a choice of an M113 and a Stryker, which does he want to roll through the Triangle in?

    Reply
  7. Moose says:
    June 27, 2006 at 7:30 pm

    I’m sure the pilots of all those F-​​86s will won­der how they’d fare if they too had radar-​​guided mis­siles. If quan­tity were the ulti­mate fac­tor then Sparta would have never made anyone’s his­tory books. Rome would have beena pre­ten­tious city in the Latin league, and we’d have taken 20–30% casu­al­ties min­i­mum in both Gulf Wars. The Raptor is the con­tin­u­a­tion of this doctrime: supe­rior weapons and train­ing used intel­li­gently will defeat numbers.

    Reply
  8. Murc says:
    June 27, 2006 at 7:31 pm

    Pierre Sprey, one of the design­ers of the F-​​16 Fighting Falcon and an F-​​22 critic, told me that’s the point of most new weapons.

    Reply
  9. Brian says:
    June 27, 2006 at 8:22 pm

    David,
    Of course we don’t need Apache Longbows in Iraq. The Longbows already did their job. We achieved air supe­ri­or­ity over Iraq back in ’91, mak­ing most of the Raptor’s advanced capa­bil­i­ties moot. We don’t need them… in Iraq. The real ques­tion is, will we need these weapons against an enemy that DIDN’T have the major­ity of their forces corn­holed 15 years ago.
    Again, anti-​​tank weapons ARE use­less, if the enemy has no tanks. Air to air fight­ers are use­less, if the enemy has no fight­ers. And armored tanks are use­less if the enemy has no guns. But unless our next war comes against Mrs. Jensen’s Special Ed class, I’d sug­gest we not throw away pow­er­ful new mil­i­tary equip­ment.
    Really, this arti­cle was beneath you.

    Reply
  10. Rick Bradley says:
    September 5, 2006 at 10:09 am

    Anti-​​tank sys­tems are good for other things besides tanks, like bunkers.
    Also heat sen­sors can also pick up warm truck engines when not look­ing for tanks

    Reply
  11. ro zeny says:
    August 2, 2008 at 12:43 am

    I played RO that I used the first account was a girl num­ber of wave, a knight. The num­ber also has a lit­tle ro zeny. I still remem­ber that the world has just stepped into the RO; I stood the door of Pulongdela South, I even have my own way can not see, I looked at the lawn in front of do not know how to oper­ate. At that time, wave on the line, he stood out­side and said: come out, come out to see, use a mouse.

    Reply
  12. Tibia Gold says:
    August 8, 2008 at 10:10 pm

    Furnish your new home with all kinds of fur­ni­ture and impress your fel­low Tibia Gold with your stately home! Invite your friends and have par­ties! You will find that hav­ing a home of your own is a reward­ing expe­ri­ence you would not want to miss once you have had it!

    Reply
  13. Requiem Lant says:
    August 8, 2008 at 10:11 pm

    Now I love the Avenging Angel Preview very much and have more expe­ri­ence about this. Now I talk about some­thing about the Avenging Angel Preview of Requiem Lant.

    Reply
  14. 2moons dil says:
    August 16, 2008 at 1:08 am

    I only know that in the game the 2moons dil is very important.

    Reply
  15. dofus kamas says:
    August 16, 2008 at 1:22 am

    we together to earn the dofus kamas, I think this life­time I will never forget.

    Reply
  16. cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold says:
    September 2, 2008 at 3:54 am

    ow when I talked with them, I often told them how to bought the cheap Final Fantasy XI Gold, they all said that I had a great changed, I am very happy

    Reply
  17. Adam Brooks says:
    June 4, 2009 at 2:11 am

    David Axe how would you know fag­got have you ever been in the marines besides the f22 is an air­force plane the air­force are not tied with with the marines marines use their own planes

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

    Most Popular Posts
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Marines Quiet About Brutal New Weapon
    • Starship Troopers Meets G.I. Joe
    • Dowd's Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
    • Adapting Women to Subs
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Mystery Drone Revealed
    • REPLACEMENT ARM, GOOD AS NEW
    Recent Comments
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      "I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare...
      Sam
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      No. I am not saying a grenade launcher on a rifle is a hoax. I...
      Zandor
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      For someone who trashes all the readers of the blog you sure do...
      a1189
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
      These devices vibrate tissue and bone not just...
      WJS
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      So are you saying the grenade launcher is a hoax or the M-16?...
      WJS
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Dear Cannon Fodder; Only politically correct patriots should be accepted...
      Zandor
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
      LOL Still all this pissing an moaning about the editorial...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      I'd say go read some history on fascist ideology and then compare that...
      Philo
    • Fort Hood Rampage
      Islame isn't a race, genius……
      Philo
    • Semi-auto Grenade Thrower
      I sure as hell don't need to have someone take pictures of me...
      Zandor
    Recent Articles
    • Semi-​​auto Grenade Thrower
    • Market for Acoustic Defense Systems Heats Up
    • Fort Hood Rampage
    • Keep it Simple
    • Airbag Defense
    • Dowd’s Bogus Grief Deficit
    • Did Someone Move the Furniture Around?
    • Lockheed Says Sbirs Still on Track For 2010
    • What Does this Handle Do?
    • Adapting Women to Subs
  • Channels: Military.com | Military Benefits | Military News | Off Duty | Join the Military | Military Education | Veteran Jobs | Military Money | Military Deals | Military Family | Military Community
  • Military.com Network: Military.com | MilBlogging | Defense Tech | DoD Buzz | SpouseBuzz | Fred's Place | GI Bill Express
  • Services: Army | Navy | Air Force | Marine Corps | Coast Guard | National Guard | Military Spouse
  • About Military.com About Us | Advertise With Us | Press | Affiliate Program | Monster Network | Help | Feedback | Privacy Policy | User Agreement | © 2009 Military Advantage