Comments on: US Army Defining Modernization Plan

By: STemplar

STemplar — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 02:18:46 +0000

I thinks it’s implied training is always a given. However the point of the article is equipment and in regards to what and how to upgrade. How we ride to the fight is interesting, but when we get there it isn’t always that useful in how we fight.
Much along the lines of not needing to over do it in the USAF with F22s, the same principal applies here. lt is highly unlikely we will be in some large set piece armor battle ever. ln particular in the next 10 to 20 years. We are going to be involved in the fights we’re in right now for prob 10 more years in Stan alone.

By: stephen russell

stephen russell — Wed, 02 Sep 2009 00:35:44 +0000

Why not all forces, save USAF which is always leading Edge.
Modernize ALL & upgrade.
Set designs now to replace BUFF?
B1B, Trident FBM.
Think outside the Box

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 19:00:03 +0000

I think the balance we’re looking for here is not “Jack of all trades, master of none,” but “jack of most trades, master of some.“
Whether we like it or not, we cannot simply say that brigade will be light infantry to the exclusion of everything else, and this brigade will be armored.“
Units are going to have to accept some flexibility to pivot from their core missions, because we don’t have numbers to have sufficient expertise in the number of personnel we have. The old Light Infantry, like 7th ID(L) when I was in it (I’m dating myself here) practiced primarily at humping up and down mountains and performing attack, defense, patrolling, and everything else we did dismounted. While we were very skilled at a lot of basic infantry stuff, and could do some pretty impressive things from LPC, we had difficulty operating with mechanized forces, and we didn’t have long range mobility or firepower. There’s going to have to be more cross training in the combat arms, to at least familiarize armor and artillery troops with the infantry mission, equipment, and capabilities and vice versa.
Either that, or we grow the army to three million men, and I don’t see that happening no matter who is president.

By: Wes

Wes — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:56:32 +0000

Indeed, too much emphesis on vehicles and mounted warfare.
The Army needs to focus on true LIGHT INFANTRY.
Weapons and equipment needs to be improved, yes, but Light Infantry is above all a highly evolved skillset, so TRAINING is the key, not just more/better “stuff”.

By: STemplar

STemplar — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 07:49:04 +0000

I can see a need for some updating but I’d have to agree there needs to be more focus on what we are doing now. Quite frankly what we are doing now is what we are likely going to be doing in ten years.
There always seems to be a need for more air mobility. I also think more focus needs to be spent on making the dismounted infantryman more lethal and better protected than what he is mounted in. Ways to carry more ammo, bigger weapons, more accurate weapons, longer range weapons, better commo, etc.

By: pfcem

pfcem — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 03:25:42 +0000

‘
All 73 Army BCTs will now be

By: soonergrunt

soonergrunt — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 01:06:39 +0000

Are they going to include small arms in the modernization?
What is the plan for dismounted comms? Is there even anything approximating a plan?
Any concepts for light mounted formations like light cavalry or anything along the lines of the old 9th Infantry Division (Motorized) or a lighter setup for the Stryker BCTs?

By: todd

todd — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 00:38:14 +0000

What are the plans for the MULE autonomous ground robot? It was part of FCS, is it still alive? When will it be fielded?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 31 Aug 2009 23:40:13 +0000

So how does this incorporate the current PEO GCS and it’s project offices of HBCT, Stryker Brigades and Robotics JPO. It seems there’s a large amount of overlap here.