Comments on: An Army at a Crossroads

By: sdag

sdag — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:29:05 +0000

DVD Converter Mac is a powerful DVD converter for Mac OS users to rip DVD to all popular video and audio formats with various customized settings and convert video among all popular video and audio formats with perfect 1:1 ratio on Mac. In fact, the DVD Converter Mac is a DVD Converter for Mac Ultimate which includes 4 outstanding multimedia applications: DVD Ripping Mac, DVD Creater for Mac, Copy DVD on Mac and Mac Video Converter.With the DVD Converter Mac, you can convert MP4, M4V, MPA, MPG, MPEG, MOV, 3GP, 3GP2, FLV, VOB, DAT, TS, TP, TRP, M2TS, AVI to DVD and even burn DVD movie on Mac.That’s sure powerfully, hurry to see it!http://www.dvdconvertermac.comDVD Converter for Mac.Now let’s see another converter software is Mac AVI Converters.Mac AVI Converters is a powerful and versatile Video/Audio Conversion utility for Mac OS X users to convert video files from one format to another and extract or save the audio tracks on Mac OS X (including OS X 10.5 Leopard). The Mac AVI Converters helps you convert AVI to video formats like, DivX, MPEG, MPG, FLV, DAT, MOV, ASF, FLV, etc. It can also extract audio from video to MP3, WMA, AC3, AAC, M4A, WAV, OGG, 3GP, etc.The Mac AVI Converters can also convert MPEG1, MPEG2, MP4, 3GP, 3G2, MOV, Mpeg TS/TP (for HD Video) formats, too.With such powerful and versatile AVI converter for Mac, you can easily playback AVI video files on any popular video players, like iPod, PSP, Apple TV, Archos, iRiver, Creative Zen, PS3 or other portable MP4 players. Try Mac AVI Converter for free.That’s a turely chance,hurry to see it!http://www.macaviconverters.com.

By: dfh

dfh — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 05:24:48 +0000

By: sdgadg

sdgadg — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 04:01:33 +0000

By: dfshf

dfshf — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 03:59:24 +0000

By: Vstress

Vstress — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 10:37:21 +0000

Whoever in the world figured that giving more money will convince the good soldiers to stay?
If people are in it for the money… they will go into contract military stuff!
There must be other reasons for people wishing to join — if it is an education that was the reason — then we should maybe give them a job for life where they can truly apply their wished education — maybe a restructure of the allocation program?
I don’t work in the military, but purely financial incentives don’t work here either. Money is only an incentive when you can convince yourself that it is only a temporary solution!
Anything long-term and personal wishes will take over. I’m saying this because I’m an engineer in aerospace — even though I could earn double my wage in the oil business. I however wouldn’t trade my job for 4x the wage… unless I knew it was only for an extremely brief period of time.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Mon, 24 Nov 2008 08:41:01 +0000

We need to redistribute defense dollars to raise Barky's "Obama Youth" Praetorian Guard force. that's where all of the money will be going,for barky's new pseudo/neo/para military force. I'm going to show my dissent against Barky by wearing "Thor Steiner" & "Lonsdale of London(I hope I spelled that right)" fashion wear. I'm also going to start wearing Minnesota Viking jerseys & other apparel(which if anybody cares to look up "Thor Steiner," they'll understand where THAT is coming from),even though I'm in Atlanta Falcon/Carolina Panther territory.

By: Cole

Cole — Sun, 23 Nov 2008 22:21:44 +0000

Here’s one of many problems with Dr. K’s argument.
He proposes going from the plan below on the left, to his plan on the right:
Modular Full Spectrum…Modular Dual Surge
Active/Reserve.….……Active/Reserve
19/7.….….Heavy BCT.….….13/9
6/1.….…..Stryker BCT.….…6/1
23/20.……Infantry BCT.….…8/0
0/0..Security Cooperation BCT..15/15
If you look at his numbers, note a voluntary depletion of 6 active component heavy BCTs, which in and of itself is problematic insofar as it does not allow a needed mix of heavy and FCS BCTs. The 6/1 Stryker BCTs are identical in both plans. That leaves the Infantry BCTs picking up nearly the total bill for his proposed 30 active and reserve component SC BCTs.
There goes the ability to deploy substantial combat forces for urban or complex terrain warfare, not to mention that he would eliminate our most rapidly air deployable forces!
Now consider the normal ARFORGEN cycle for Army forces. In it, only 1/3 of available active BCTs being ready to deploy at any given time. This gives the remaining 2/3 of BCTs a break and time to train. Therefore, under Dr. K’s plan, the total combat BCTs available/trained to deploy at any given time would be just 27…leaving 9 total active BCTs ready to go to war. In contrast, the current Army plan would have 48 active BCTs, so 1/3 of those BCTs would be 16 ready to deploy.
9 vs. 16 warfighting BCTs!!!! Dr. K’s plan nearly cuts in half the ready-to-fight active BCTs. This would spell a complete disaster if facing another situation like our current one, with significant forces fighting in two areas in large numbers. Nine BCTs only represents 28,000–45,000 Soldiers.
He might actually have a point about the Security Cooperation BCTs, but we certainly would not want so many of them. In addition, a greater number of reserve component BCTs would be more appropriate. I personally could see adopting aspects of his plan while retaining the Army’s proposed active BCT numbers. More appropriate numbers might be:
Heavy BCT 10 active/5 reserve component
FCS BCT…9/2
Stryker BCT 6/1
Infantry BCT 17/10
SC BCT 6/10
The above would retain 42 active warfighting BCTs and 6 Security Cooperation BCTs, which would mean a typical Soldier would only spend 1/7th of his 20 year career performing dedicated stability operations.
One major advantage of Dr. K’s SC BCT idea is that it could become the home of all the MRAPs and MRAP-Lights. The high ride height of these vehicles could prove ideal for National Guard forces supporting conditions with flooded roads. They also would provide survivable vehicles for conducting future stability operations against IEDs/small arms/RPGs.
I would also submit that your typical National Guard Soldier will have more experience dealing with the civil sector and better diplomatic skills, particularly if he/she is a police officer, is involved in business, or is in the medical profession.
A final, difficult-to-speak-of but true aspect of giving SC BCTs the MRAPs would be that they could withstand the blast and radiation of small terrorist or rogue nation nuclear explosion. Their height off the ground would reduce radiation/chemical exposure when fallout ash or liquid chemicals were on the ground.

By: ArmyWonk

ArmyWonk — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 18:50:45 +0000

RPB,
Re: your comment — “We’re going to need new equipment, but light armor is not the way to take the whole force.” Simply because FCS MGVs are lighter DOES NOT mean they are not as survivable as current force platorms. Consider body armor — over the last ten years, the Army has introduced several versions of body armor that are lighter in weight than previous versions but offer superior ballistic protection. Everybody thinks that is great because Soldiers have greater mobility due to the reduced weight of their armor. The same applies to FCS manned ground vehicles. FCS breaks the paradigm that weight alone equals survivability.
Additionally, current force platforms are vulnerable now. What’s the solution — make them heavier? Put another 10 tons of steel on them? Fantastic — then you need a new engine, etc. The Army needs to pursue FCS now.

By: Max

Max — Sat, 22 Nov 2008 01:50:03 +0000

Exactly, Total. You took the words right out of my mouth. The military never has a problem with recruitment during a recession, and I guarantee you that if there is any right now, there won’t be pretty soon, because the job market is horrendously bad and getting worse.

By: RPB

RPB — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 19:03:22 +0000

Agreed with above. Unfortunately its time to axe the FCS. Spin off the technology and start over with legacy platforms as a base. We’re going to need new equipment, but light armor is not the way to take the whole force. Air-Mech-Armor is a far off possibly. Almost a pipe dream. Deployment, even with the lighter stuff, still will not be fast enough. 1–3 light armor BCT should be enough to satisfy most any “quick-reaction” requirement. You’ll always need a follow on that can fight armor or withstand assaults. If it aint broken …