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
  • Af-Cam
  • 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
  • Crazy Ivan
  • 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
  • F-35 Watch
  • 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 Bubble with Joe Buff
  • 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
  • PEO Soldier
  • 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

  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • 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 » Defense Tech Poll » Do we have a strong case of next-war-itis?

Do we have a strong case of next-war-itis?

All right, so does Gates have a point? As you’ll remember, yesterday DefSec Gates said the services are stuck in a rut…they can’t pull their gaze away from high-tech programs that have nothing to do with today’s bloody fight but rely on assumptions forged into the plan back in the ‘90s.

So what I’ve done is to set up a survey to see what you all think. Lemme know…

[EDITOR: Survey Closed. We’ll post the results soon…]


Share |

May 14th, 2008 | Defense Tech Poll | 284338 Comments »http://defensetech.org/2008/05/14/do-we-have-a-strong-case-of-next-war-itis/Do+we+have+a+strong+case+of+next-war-itis%3F2008-05-14+14%3A15%3A01Ward You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.

« « Army Guard Set to Fly New Euro Helicopter | Boeing Takes Another Hit » »

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. Stu says:
    May 14, 2008 at 11:28 am

    Get Gates out of office

    Reply
  2. Ed says:
    May 14, 2008 at 11:51 am

    Gates will be out of office soon Stu. He leaves on January 20th, the inauguration day for the next president. Gates is better than Rumsfeld ever was and I served under both men.
    DoD has always been doing this push for more expensive and newer toys. This is nothing new. What is new is Gates telling them what the realities of combat are. The age of the major force on force combat has given way to the age of limited engagements, Small unit tactics, and Urban fighting.
    This is not to say they will never happen again, but given the fact that the last 2 major force on force fights we have had since Vietnam were both dealing with Iraq could give you some signs of this.
    Militaries around the world are now realizing that a smaller, determined enemy can cause problems to a larger, more combat ready force.

    Reply
  3. Byron Skinner says:
    May 14, 2008 at 12:35 pm

    Good Morning Folks,
    I’m with Sec. Gates on this one. As former Sec. of Defense Rumsfeld said “…you have to fight the war you got.“
    It’s time for the brass to get their collective heads out of their “six’s” and face reality, we are at war NOW. If we don’t win this one any talk of the future might just be N/A.
    ALLONS,
    Byron Skinner

    Reply
  4. Bill Nelson says:
    May 14, 2008 at 1:29 pm

    I agree with Gates as far as how long our R&D to production time goes. I think the main problem our military and government has is the need to have an absolutely perfect product that takes decades to develop. In the meantime, for example, you go from having the 82nd Airborne to make by with a so-so light tank, the M551 Sheridan, going into Operation Desert Shield that would barely been able to handle a armored assualt. Then the tank is retired in 1996 with no replacement because the XM8 Buford light tank program was cancelled as well. What was wrong with the M8, probably the same thing that is wrong with the FCS Mounted Combat System. So instead of having a Airborne Tank that would be a quick combat force against a variety of future threats, including small terrorist threats, you reduce the units down to light anti-tank units, not much use against terrorist. United Defense, now BAE Systems even has a diesel-electric hybrid version that now has room in the back for some troops. Why can’t we use this tank for Airborne troops instead of having just Anti-tank units that are small an unarmored? I was in both Desert Storm and in OIF, and between both wars, we were better equiped in Desert Storm as far as having what technology we had in the war. It would be alot better to have an Armored Infantry Airborne unit that has an M8 tank with infantry moving beside it moving in downtown Bagdad than in Uparmored Humvees, maybe even that in MRAPS. Even with MRAPS, especially in an urban setting, you have to get out of the vehicle. Would you rather have a small 3–4 man crew per each vehicle, or and infantry squad around a light tank that can manuver more that an M1? We are starting to get to the point of over designing our combat equipment that causing long development cycles that seem to parallel with what the Nazi’s did during WWII. Would if we continue this trend and, say the Next-war-itis does happen, with China or even a resirgent Russia. Would we want us to have overdesigned, expensive systems that take forever and a day to field like the Nazi’s. And have basic, cheap easy to produce systems from China and Russia (like us during WWII)that can handle our current systems but maybe not our new systems that are to late to help because the either still in development of bog down in production? We need to run our military development through lean line design equilvalent and do incremental development that keeps us ahead of any threat in the now and then in the future. Stop doing a whole program a satisfy first what is needed now and improve on it. Sometimes during OIF, especially when Rumsfeld said ” You go to war with the army you have now” this made us feel a desparation almost like what was happening during the beginning of WWII when Germany and Japan was ahead on technology. But then we had far superior technology that had to be developed as a program and need to be just perfect before the troops would get it. Live in the here and now, not so much in the future or you may never get the future you want.

    Reply
  5. Brian says:
    May 14, 2008 at 3:18 pm

    Defense acquisitions are complicated enough without having an idiot like Gates screw things up.
    Are there problems with our current acquisitions process? Of course. Can those problems be fixed? Well, some of them can.
    Nobody is ever going to fix Congress sticking their noses into every little project. No one is ever going to fix some Senator pushing for his hometown factory to get a contract over some factory somewhere else. And no one is ever going to fix Congress pussing out and delaying acquisition programs for a decade or more because they don’t want to spend the money now.
    None of those things are the fault of the military, and none of them come from “gold-plated weapons systems”. They’re simply the cost of doing business in an imperfect democracy.
    We can’t afford to have another war like WW2. The ONLY reason that we’ve seen a sharp decrease in the number of high-intensity wars is that the US has overwhelming superiority versus any other country on Earth, or any other group of countries. If all of Asia declared war against the US, major hostilities (i.e., fighting against organized forces) would be over within a year, with the US a solid victor. The US cannot be defeated in conventional combat. And everybody on Earth knows it. THAT is why nobody tries it. Do you pick a fight with a guy who is seven feet tall and has fists as big as basketballs? Not if you are smart, you don’t.
    The only reason the US is in this position is because of our “military industrial complex”. We have decades of investment in creating an immensely powerful army. No one else is even close. But this is not a divine birthright. It came from decades of work. We certainly have the ability to piss it away, which is exactly what Gates is suggesting.

    Reply
  6. CSI says:
    May 14, 2008 at 3:59 pm

    Are there even going to be any more Iraq largescale counter-insurgencies? Many of the rationales behind that war (e.g. that you can use the military to successfully impose regime change) have been largely disproven, and just about everyone has lost the taste for “preventive” wars.

    Reply
  7. Poskiki says:
    May 14, 2008 at 6:25 pm

    Gates has it right. Unless the guys and gals in service are over there they seem to want to focus on the future with their predictions. Will China be a threat one day, probably but thats decades away. Is Russia a threat, not really since their military is in disrepair. The only way they could inflict damage to us is with nukes and I see no reason to use them right now.
    We need to focus on getting what we need to finish the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. We need stop building stuff for the future when the current events arent being handled correctly. Do we need F-22’s and F-35’s. Yes, but not every plane we have needs to be stealth. We cant afford every plane to be stealth. We have transport planes older than their pilots that are in high demand and theirs political bs wasting more time there. Either give it to company that won or decide to keep military spending with US companies but you cant have it both ways.
    We need to focus on whats going on right now instead of what might happen. Theirs too much bueacracy in the Pentagon and govt together and even with a budget of 600+ bil a year, we cant get what we need to our troops in combat. That is pure bs and shouldnt be happening. Stop funding programs that need materials and technology 20–30 years out when our military is stretched and our equipment isnt being replaced fast enough and out country is raking up debt we’re going to have trouble handling 10 years down the road.

    Reply
  8. Brad says:
    May 14, 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Fighting an insurgency is tactics, not procurement. This is among the most damn fool threads ever, one huge non-sequitar.
    SOCOM with 17,000 people is fully converting to the MK-16 SCAR rifle for just $20 million. We could probably convert the Corps for $200 million, the Army for $500 million. The stuff to fight an insurgency is cheap. It’s tactics.

    Reply
  9. WR says:
    May 14, 2008 at 7:39 pm

    Byron,
    That is nothing further from the truth.
    TINSTA ALLONS,
    WR

    Reply
  10. ELP says:
    May 14, 2008 at 7:43 pm

    Gates is wrong. Drinks are on me when he and England go.
    Pretty short duration for a poll.

    Reply
  11. pedestrian says:
    May 14, 2008 at 11:23 pm

    I agree in some terms with Gates, but only in case of very limited budget. My conclusion is that there is not just enough for military budget and should be what it was during the Cold War era. In other words, we should have enough money to spend for current wars, and for possible wars of the future. The Beijing Olympics is about to come and it has been often rumor it would be the point which China would start considering invasion of Taiwan after the Olmpics is over, the most likely scenario of war with western countries. We should not be dreaming a post Cold War era, we are in Cold War II with China, but even worse China is now a non-democratic Capitalist country that will not fall like USSR.

    Reply
  12. Ed says:
    May 15, 2008 at 8:05 am

    I just realized a corolation here that might be useful.
    If any of you are followers of any sports team or season, especially football, what do you always hate that your team might do when there is a strong opponent coming up in the schedule and the week before you face what you think is a weak team that all you have to do to win is show up on the field and the game is yours.
    Its called looking ahead, and in the sports world it is very dangerous and has led to many teams having major upsets to supposedly weaker teams. Sound familiar to any scenario going on in the military?
    Iraq was identical to this. We thought for sure that there would be no insurgency in Iraq, that the Iraqi Army would for the most part throw down their arms and we would be greeted in the streets by the Iraqi People. Now we are deep in a hard fight which from the looks of things might be close to turning around for us. I’m not saying Iraq is turning for sure, although I hope that it is. But don’t you see the issue here? Yes we need to be prepared for future conflicts, but not at the expense of losing the battles we fight today.
    This is what Gates is trying to stop. Are systems like the F-22, the F-35, the Virginia class submarines, LCS, FCS, etc. important for us to be a viable threat to future opponents? Most certainly this is the case. But have you all forgotten who some of our adeversaries are? North Korea, Syria, and Iran come to mind here, and guess what? Even though they have a large conventional force, they all also have unconventional forces and doctrines as well that fit into the combat we are doing today.

    Reply
  13. Brian says:
    May 15, 2008 at 8:56 am

    Ed, the reason we’re facing problems in Iraq today is not because we’re “looking ahead” at the moment. It is because Rumsfeld pursued a strategy that worked fine for overthrowing Saddam, but had very little real ability to stabilize Iraq afterward. Had we gone in with many more boots on the ground, expecting a bigger fight post-war, we’d have done a much better job in preventing this insurgency from springing up.
    We were looking ahead in 2003, but we are not now.
    Lesson for next time, if you are going to occupy a country, send lots and lots of men.

    Reply
  14. cheap imvu credits says:
    August 12, 2008 at 12:54 am

    I want to forget you, but I cannot achieve, see the computer and I remember you, see my cheap imvu credits that I remember you once again.

    Reply
  15. buy mabinogi gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 12:55 am

    Actually I hoped that other come to buy mabinogi gold for their hurts.

    Reply
  16. cheap lastchaos gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 1:02 am

    The husband, for you, I will want to adjust myself diligently and I will make cheap lastchaos gold.

    Reply
  17. cheap Hellgate gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 1:03 am

    But others actually need to practice the level laboriously from the first floor, make cheap Hellgate gold to buy the equipment laboriously, all the times upgrade to the high rank.

    Reply
  18. LOTRO Gold says:
    August 12, 2008 at 1:04 am

    Finally, I gained have sufficed the LOTRO Gold, had the family. We were in together finally.

    Reply
  19. cheap Habbo Coins says:
    August 12, 2008 at 1:06 am

    As your apprentice, I always waste your cheap Habbo Coins. But I really not to think that you left so suddenly, then am duty-bound not to turn back!

    Reply
  20. GHD Straighteners says:
    September 20, 2009 at 5:08 am

    buy cheap nokia n95 experience without nokia mobile learning is better than learning without excperi-ence. I have nokia 6300 but one lamp wait which my feet are guided; and that bose headphones is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the apple touch past. http://​www​.leadsoftstore​.com/

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to cancel reply.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree

NOTE: Comments are limited to 2500 characters and spaces.

By commenting on this topic you agree to the terms and conditions of our User Agreement

    Recent Articles
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
    • Petraeus to SASC Today; Israel-Palestine to Come Up? (Updated)
    • South of the Border Mayhem
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
    • Rise of the Cyber Arms Dealers
    • Author Steven Pressfield Blogs Afghan Visit With Gen. Mattis
    • Army Fast Tracks GPS Mortar Round
    • That Elephant’s Going To Do What? Where?
    • JSF Costs Jump 50 Percent
    • Let’s Talk AirSea Battle
    Recent Comments
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      God Bless our Troops! It is through the power of...
      SouthernGent
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      If China attacks Taiwan while Obama is in...
      Nobama
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      How about using Predator drones to just blow up the perps...
      Henry
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Amen….China is such a help...
      Stephen Keyser
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Flood the Tawain coast with...
      Stephen Keyser
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      "And may I ask why not compare al...
      gmanaz
    • Bigger, Badder IEDs in Afghanistan
      Yes, deterent measures are being taken, but I still...
      derrick
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      The coast of Tawain is rugged and a...
      Stephen Keyser
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      Hate to burst your bubble but do you think...
      BILL D
    • F-16 Sale to Taiwan, Would It Make A Difference?
      I agree with Tom.consider the fact that...
      BILL D
  • 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| © 2010 Military Advantage