View Full Version : "Good enough" weapons systems/platforms
In the small arms world,the M4/M16 system has proven to be "good enough" for around four decades, with attempts in the past to replace it having fallen by the wayside. It remains to be seen if the "Individual Carbine" effort will be a significant departure from that basic design.
The HMMWV was state of the art in 1985, and has soldiered on (with myriad modifications). It's notional replacement, the JLTV, is a leap of technology but may price itself out of the picture. They're already looking at a recap/further upgrade of the HMMWV in this era of tight budgets.
Coming from the USAF Munitions community, munitions systems can stay in the inventory (albeit in upgraded/modified form) for 40 or 50 years, or more. The basic 500/1000/2000 pound bombs of the Mk 80 series have been around since the 1950's and still form the warheads of the laser-guided bomb and JDAM families.
Is "good enough" pretty much "good enough" in this current budgetary environment? It seems that new systems price themselves out of contention or have so many bugs that older systems get modified as the fall-back option.
(NOTE: It's interesting to note that some of our most successful systems such as the Sidewinder missile, M16 rifle, M1 Garand, laser-guided bomb, etc. were the products of a single inventor instead of a committee).
I think that good enough works just fine. It may be another couple of decades before the M16/M4 FOW is retired from service. Congress forced the M1911 issue in the 80s and look where we are now. Everyone is clamoring for a replacement for the M9 and the pistol that gets mentioned the most is the M1911 (personally I'd like an H&K or S&W in 45 ACP). We replaced the jeep with the HMMWV with Chevy trucks as an interim stop gap measure. No complaints there. The HMMVW has far exceeded expectations for being multipurpose. I still don't think there was much need to retire the venerable M35 family of trucks (Deuce and a half) for the LMTVs. You can fix a Deuce on the fly while LMTVs are much more complicated. Bottom line is we can fight and win with the weapons and equipment we have now. What I am worried about is what happens to the people that have to do the fighting. We are going to have one hell of a draw-down and we will lose many talented leaders. Equipment comes and goes but it is damn hard to find and train a good military leader. You also have factor in the combat experience. With OPs winding down for the time being we will find more leaders in the formations that have never seen combat. I'll take good enough equipment any day if I have the best combat leadership in the world to employ it.
I think that good enough works just fine. It may be another couple of decades before the M16/M4 FOW is retired from service. Congress forced the M1911 issue in the 80s and look where we are now. Everyone is clamoring for a replacement for the M9 and the pistol that gets mentioned the most is the M1911 (personally I'd like an H&K or S&W in 45 ACP).
The ones mentioning the M1911 are smoking dope. Or something stronger. Not gonna happen.
We replaced the jeep with the HMMWV with Chevy trucks as an interim stop gap measure. No complaints there. The HMMVW has far exceeded expectations for being multipurpose.
I would suggest the HMMWV makes a crappy jeep. And an even crappier truck. Too big for one, and too small for another. The French and Turks have the correct answer, imo.
I still don't think there was much need to retire the venerable M35 family of trucks (Deuce and a half) for the LMTVs. You can fix a Deuce on the fly while LMTVs are much more complicated.
In 2003, our unit actually had an odd mix of M35A3s, M35A4s and the LMTV. After driving the upgraded M35s, and then the LMTV, I was left to wonder why in hell we adopted such a worthless turd as the LMTV. The upgraded M35s rock, frankly.
Bottom line is we can fight and win with the weapons and equipment we have now. What I am worried about is what happens to the people that have to do the fighting. We are going to have one hell of a draw-down and we will lose many talented leaders. Equipment comes and goes but it is damn hard to find and train a good military leader. You also have factor in the combat experience. With OPs winding down for the time being we will find more leaders in the formations that have never seen combat. I'll take good enough equipment any day if I have the best combat leadership in the world to employ it.
I think you are quite on the right track, here. We can strategically upgrade things that need it, while keeping the fundamentals the same. Some extremely excellent militaries in the past did this, such as the Romans and the Mongols, and remained predominant throughout their political reigns.
Too many people act as if equipment has an expiration date.
The fact that we are still using M2s shows that is not the case. You only replace an item when a better item comes along or a new role demands a new piece of equipment.
We should of course continue to R&D new equipment for it's potential (otherwise me might still be carrying M-14 variants) but that doesn't mean one should attempt to replace entire inventories every 20 years simply to be fashionable.
During WWII the Germans made dramatic leaps in weapons development but at the end of the day it wasn't enough to keep hordes of Russians with antiquated bolt rifles and low quality SMGs out of Berlin.
If you want to dramatically improve the military do it at the personnel level. Stop trying to be PC with the image of the American soldier, stop tasking him with roles unrelated to national defense and change the name of the Department of Defense back to the War Department and conduct yourself accordingly.
CarlosDJackal
01-24-12, 13:33
Is "good enough" ever good enough? It depends on (A) What piece of equipment we are talking about; and (B) What the situation in which it will be used.
Contrary to popular belief, equipment do have expiration dates. If this were not true we would still be using muskets and sabers in our daily fight. You can only prolong the use of a particular item for so long.
While the "Ma Deuce" and the B-52 have far exceeded their expected lifespan; this does not mean they will never be replaced. On the contrary. These tools are perfect examples of what is wrong with our R&D and procurement systems.
Instead of retrofitting old equipment to make them fit into the current scheme of things; we should have been developing their replacements in an HONEST AND ETHICAL MANNER so that their replacements exceeds the current standards and performance.
But noooooooooooo!! We have to give contracts based on political clout instead of the merit of the equipment being tested. In the current procurement system candidate replacements are eliminated from the competition based on their manufacturer's capabilities.
So basically, if the choice is a widget that was designed by a bunch a small design firm that met or exceeded ALL the capabilities that the Warfighter wants and needs, or one that only meets 80% of the requirements but is being offered by one of the established manufacturers (IE: a "good ol' boy"); guess who will win?
This is not how we won WWII. The Jeep is a perfect example of how we should approach equipment procurement. The company who submitted the prototype (by Bantam BRC) may not have had the manufacturing capability but they had a vehicle that performed as needed. The result is their design was adopted by our military and the production of which was awarded to Willys-Overland and Ford. And the rest, as they say, is history.
America's propensity to latch onto a particular piece of equipment and dispel any replacement has hurt us over the years. The M-16 is a perfect example of this. Had they given this rifle an honest chance during the initial trials before the Vietnam War; then maybe those who were killed because of the flawed first issued versions might have lived. But instead, those who had a blood allegiance to the government-owned Springfield Armory factory actually sabotaged the test that was conducted at Fort Wainwright, AK.
Sometimes "good enough" is good enough. Throughout our military's history our troops were issued equipment that barely met their needs. And yet, under the circumstances and because the ultimate weapon is the Soldier himself, the equipment provided the users with the capability that they needed to overcome all of our enemies until something better came along. JM2CW.
Too many people act as if equipment has an expiration date.
The fact that we are still using M2s shows that is not the case. You only replace an item when a better item comes along or a new role demands a new piece of equipment.
We should of course continue to R&D new equipment for it's potential (otherwise me might still be carrying M-14 variants) but that doesn't mean one should attempt to replace entire inventories every 20 years simply to be fashionable.
During WWII the Germans made dramatic leaps in weapons development but at the end of the day it wasn't enough to keep hordes of Russians with antiquated bolt rifles and low quality SMGs out of Berlin.
If you want to dramatically improve the military do it at the personnel level. Stop trying to be PC with the image of the American soldier, stop tasking him with roles unrelated to national defense and change the name of the Department of Defense back to the War Department and conduct yourself accordingly.
The Russians didn't capture Berlin because of their "antiquated rifles and low quality SMGs" but I hear what you're saying.
There is alot of equip/tech that we use that is "good enough" and gets the job done, and yeah, it might be old but it still turns buildings into rubble and people into corpses. We just need to know where and when to point it, and IMHO be more accepting of collateral damage. The military would be better off focusing more on actionable intelligence, target discrimination and training killers; than buying new toys while fostering a hugs-n-kisses attitude.
The Russians didn't capture Berlin because of their "antiquated rifles and low quality SMGs" but I hear what you're saying.
There is alot of equip/tech that we use that is "good enough" and gets the job done, and yeah, it might be old but it still turns buildings into rubble and people into corpses. We just need to know where and when to point it, and IMHO be more accepting of collateral damage. The military would be better off focusing more on actionable intelligence, target discrimination and training killers; than buying new toys while fostering a hugs-n-kisses attitude.
I actually agree with you.
Cut the Army down to a very small standing raiding/defense of CONUS force, and give their budget to the Department of State. Then we can create a force to conduct the great bulk of our conflicts that we can trust to actually fight them, and not bitch about why they are not allowed to murder more civilians.
Of course, this will result in most soldiers being put out of work. Wishful thinking about how wars SHOULD be fought does not equal how they WILL be fought in the future.
Newer isn't always better. Saw an ad for the S&W K-22 from the 1930s with the slogan "Accurate as a watch, rugged as a tractor".
Alternatively, my 1972 Jeep CJ-5 is just a product improved WW II Jeep MB. Certainly not perfect, but definitely "good enough". Why the hell we didn't adopt an upgraded 1972 Toyota Land Cruiser instead of the Humvee is a mystery.
Similarly, the only replacement for a DC-3 is another DC-3.
We are such sheep.
I actually agree with you.
Cut the Army down to a very small standing raiding/defense of CONUS force, and give their budget to the Department of State. Then we can create a force to conduct the great bulk of our conflicts that we can trust to actually fight them, and not bitch about why they are not allowed to murder more civilians.
Of course, this will result in most soldiers being put out of work. Wishful thinking about how wars SHOULD be fought does not equal how they WILL be fought in the future.
Department of state?
toasterlocker
01-26-12, 00:08
The Russians didn't capture Berlin because of their "antiquated rifles and low quality SMGs" but I hear what you're saying.
I don't think he was saying "because of," I think he was saying "in spite of."
I actually agree with you.
Cut the Army down to a very small standing raiding/defense of CONUS force, and give their budget to the Department of State. Then we can create a force to conduct the great bulk of our conflicts that we can trust to actually fight them, and not bitch about why they are not allowed to murder more civilians.
Of course, this will result in most soldiers being put out of work. Wishful thinking about how wars SHOULD be fought does not equal how they WILL be fought in the future.
What size force would you recommend to defend a country the size of the United States? We are already woefully inadequate to provide the security our people deserve. I have the opportunity to work with various NATO and ISAF partners here in Afghanistan. I know that the countries with small small standing armies are limited to what they can do whether it be kinetic effects or civic projects. They use some of the same weapons and tech that we possess (most of it bought from U.S. companies). They come up short in the personnel department. They just don't have the Soldiers to get the job done. Believe me you don't want to find out that you lack the personnel to accomplish a mission when you have already started the mission. I liken it to playing soccer a man down with no subs (90+ minutes of hell on earth). The State department will not be able to do much unless they can negotiate from a position of strength. I know of only one way to gain that position and that is by having a strong national defense backed by a healthy, strong industrial base to support it. The baddest dude on the block is the one who can put the meanest MFs on the field and back them up more MFs all hellbent on destroying the enemy. The U.S. has proven that we are adept at doing that. We have it down to a science in fact. We are so good that we can conduct large operations without wiping out the civilian populace. The State departments job is to broker terms for cessation of hostilities after we have kicked the crap out of them.
As a civilian looking from the outside at the US military, I feel that our military needs to be smaller and more CONUS-defense focused, none of this nation-building in backwards cesspools in the middle east or Africa or where ever the hell.
We oughta shrink the military, invest in more intensive training and more advanced weapon systems, and simply say to any potential enemies of America that should they decide they'd like to attack us, we are the deadliest, most efficient fighting force in the world, and our elimination of the threat will use the most time-, cost- and American-life-efficient methods possible, to include (if certain middle-eastern or far-eastern countries constitute the appropriate threat level) nuclear weapons. Do not rule out any potential options we have as a nation, and establish there will be no rebuilding of enemy nations, there will be no occupation of their countries, only a swift, lethal attack that will cripple the hostile nation or organization (and anyone harboring or defending them). Then we will leave.
If this policy is backed up by the US government, no one will dare attack us, knowing the efficacy with which we can deploy submarines, cruise missiles, and special forces.
Now, perhaps I am greatly overestimating the abilities of the US military, and the potential enhancements that could be made to the military through R&D and training. And maybe I'm out of line in some great way on another front.
YMMV.
If this policy is backed up by the US government, no one will dare attack us, knowing the efficacy with which we can deploy submarines, cruise missiles, and special forces.
.
I think you under estimate the dedication/extremism/ego/stupidity of our enemies.
Now, perhaps I am greatly overestimating the abilities of the US military, and the potential enhancements that could be made to the military through R&D and training. And maybe I'm out of line in some great way on another front.
YMMV.
i might add that you may be overestimating the world's ability to tolerate such a stance.
the scene from the patriot comes to mind where cornwallis says paraphrase: after the war is over we still have to trade with them.
if you just rape a country and leave you end up with at least one generation of people who hate your nation to the core of their being. case in point, most of east asia hates japan. if you are taiwanese, korean or chinese, your grandparents told you the stories about how the japanese are nonredeemable people.
if you go ahead and extrapolate such a mindset onto a culture that fosters animosity and aggression from some other part of the world, it can't really bode that well. even shitholes have resources. even imperialism requires stability.
i think the crux of the issue is that the united states needs to get involved in international affairs less. how much less is not an easily determined. it does cost us blood and treasure, sometimes it's a thankless endeavor (maybe many or most times). it's surely not the case that "someone's gotta do it," but there are times in history where good people in good nations can't stand idly by while bad things happen and violate fundamental principles.
We oughta shrink the military, invest in more intensive training and more advanced weapon systems, and simply say to any potential enemies of America that should they decide they'd like to attack us, we are the deadliest, most efficient fighting force in the world, and our elimination of the threat will use the most time-, cost- and American-life-efficient methods possible, to include (if certain middle-eastern or far-eastern countries constitute the appropriate threat level) nuclear weapons. Do not rule out any potential options we have as a nation, and establish there will be no rebuilding of enemy nations, there will be no occupation of their countries, only a swift, lethal attack that will cripple the hostile nation or organization (and anyone harboring or defending them). Then we will leave.
If this policy is backed up by the US government, no one will dare attack us, knowing the efficacy with which we can deploy submarines, cruise missiles, and special forces.
Now, perhaps I am greatly overestimating the abilities of the US military, and the potential enhancements that could be made to the military through R&D and training. And maybe I'm out of line in some great way on another front.
YMMV.
I guess quite a few civilians have short memories. I joined the active Army back in 1987. The U.S. Army consisted of 16 full divisions (30k soldiers), four Corps, and 5 Armies. Now we are a shadow of our former glory. We are done to 10 Active Divisions and the Corps do not have there full complement of units. We went into Panama captured Noriega and left just like you suggested. We liberated Kuwait and left. Then our civilian leadership rewarded our competence with a major draw down. The argument was that we could win using air power, ships, and subs with limited ground interdiction. Clinton spent the 90s hurling cruise missiles at terrorist organizations (Al Qaeda). You know how effect that was. We tried to stop the Serbs with air power but that didn't stop the genocide. Smaller isn't necessarily better or more efficient. I can't see our Armed Forces getting any smaller or we won't be able to protect the homeland. You have to a strong ground force that can project and enforce the National will. Stand off weapons are nice but they have proven to be ineffective against none Nation state groups and organizations. Our enemies need to know that we are ready, willing, and capable of taking the fight to them. Diplomacy and deterrence works better when the enemy knows you will send American grunts to their front door.
Alaskapopo
01-27-12, 21:43
What size force would you recommend to defend a country the size of the United States? We are already woefully inadequate to provide the security our people deserve. I have the opportunity to work with various NATO and ISAF partners here in Afghanistan. I know that the countries with small small standing armies are limited to what they can do whether it be kinetic effects or civic projects. They use some of the same weapons and tech that we possess (most of it bought from U.S. companies). They come up short in the personnel department. They just don't have the Soldiers to get the job done. Believe me you don't want to find out that you lack the personnel to accomplish a mission when you have already started the mission. I liken it to playing soccer a man down with no subs (90+ minutes of hell on earth). The State department will not be able to do much unless they can negotiate from a position of strength. I know of only one way to gain that position and that is by having a strong national defense backed by a healthy, strong industrial base to support it. The baddest dude on the block is the one who can put the meanest MFs on the field and back them up more MFs all hellbent on destroying the enemy. The U.S. has proven that we are adept at doing that. We have it down to a science in fact. We are so good that we can conduct large operations without wiping out the civilian populace. The State departments job is to broker terms for cessation of hostilities after we have kicked the crap out of them.
We spend 10 times as much on our miltiary as the rest of the world combined does on theirs. I think we have enough people to defend our borders. I don't think we need to be acting like the worlds police force that is what requires all this money and man power.
Pat
For the purposes of national defense, I think a larger reserve force (and a resurgence of state-sanctioned militias) would allow for complete national defense potential (I.e. terrorist attack, those reservists are on base and in full battle rattle in 24 hours, state militias assist law enforcement, etc.).
Regarding the world's opinion of such a stance, I think they'll get over it. My experience in other countries is that while they think we're all slobs (in the oh-so-sophisticated, up-on-their-high-shop-looting-horse first world countries of Europe and Canada) they love our culture. They love our Levis and Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition and Coca Cola. They'd scream and shout when we waxed some backwards Muslim extremists, and they'd make a horrible noise we were discretely assassinating the leaders of regimes supporting those extremists, but they'd still buy Levis and drink Coke.
And frankly, I don't care what they think, as long as people leave us alone. And I'm not saying we should end the hunt for terrorists, I believe it should continue, but we can't afford to occupy countries. It's too expensive in lives and money. We should be quick, in, hit the guys who need hitting, and then leave, without a trace. Be discrete, if you don't need to level a city block, don't, use drones and precision ordinance, but kill the baddies. Keep following leads, actionable intelligence, and exterminate them. If enemies of the US have a reputation of being riddled with holes by snipers, that will be a serious deterrent to the leaders of countries considering attacking us. I'm not saying it will always work, and I'm not saying we surrender the capability to commit full-scale conventional warfare, I'm just saying we use other, cheaper options first. If one nuclear missile silo needs leveling, a single plane and bunker-buster can do the job adequately, no need to put 250,000 troops on the ground.
We need, overall, to make attacking the US as terrifying an idea as possible. Then, offer to those nations the concept of Levi's, Coke, Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Edition, and representative democracy.
You don't need to introduce those concepts with US troops. Buy 500,000 copies of Swimsuit Edition, and distribute them. Buy 100,000 levi's and smuggle them in. I think it'd make a difference, because these are the unique things in America that everyone else in the world wants, they want levi's. They want what we have, prosperity. It's hard to feel prosperous with troops in Humvees driving through every day.
I am drawing on personal experience in other countries around the world, and I lack any experience in the Middle East. I know that when you give a Coke and an American Flag to a kid in a 3rd world country, he thinks, "Wow, that was good. I want that." You put fear in his heart when you send troops through the neighborhood.
There isn't a correlation between the amount of money spent on defense and the size of the force. Our military is smaller than others around the world but has much more capability. While it is true that sheer manpower is necessary to accomplish many tasks, we can still do a lot with a smaller force.
The US needs to be able to prjoect power and influence into the world in order to secure stability for economic trade with otherwise unstable regions but I don't this its our place to be the "world policeman" or to stop other peoples from living how they want to live or even give them the opportunity to choose. If they want freedom and prosperity then let them earn it on their own as a country, culture and civilization.
Unfortunately one of the most unstable regions in the world is also rich with resources we need. It'd be nice not no need oil on the scale we currently do and just tell that part of the world to go **** itself. Until that happens we are going to be and should be involved with the middle east and like stated earlier, we have to be able to project power there. Rapid deployment with targeted destruction to great political effect.
Were going to draw down now and we'll have to ramp up again, I'm just hoping were not drawing down just in time to watch some huge glob of shit to hit the fan.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.