Wednesday, October 17, 2018
US History. Since our birth we have been at war for 225 years, and at peace for 21 years?
I like infographics. They give a cliffnotes explanation of complex topics and can help point you towards things that might be of interest without having to read piles of papers on a particular subject.
So when I found an "infographic vid" on the national debt I was intrigued.
Little did I know that it would also cover topics we talk about constantly on this blog.
If you don't have much time, fast forward to 1:28 and drink in the info (that I must confirm).
Since our nation's birth we have been at war for 225 years and at peace for only 21 years. Our country has been at war for 94% of its existence and at peace for only 6%?
Drink that in!!
From my chair this is jarring information.
If this is true and I plan on turning to this in just a few minutes, then we definitely are built in the mold of the Roman Empire.
I have been a fiscal hawk and believe that we spend too much on defense as a matter of choice.
I'm beginning to wonder.
Is it by choice or necessity? Have we in essence built a wartime economy? Have we reached a point where we cannot have prosperity without being at war?
That would explain why so many military thinkers don't seem to have a problem with the current war on terror. Two decades at war seems unthinkable to me but you will not hear the so called professionals even questioning it.
Chew on that vid tribe while I try and hunt down the truth on that little factoid I told you about.
Tuesday, October 16, 2018
The US Army wants a 50mm cannon on its future IFV...what does that mean for the USMC?
You've read the story about General Dynamics taking the lead for the US Army's future IFV. What you missed was this. via Breaking Defense.
AUSA: General Dynamics looks like the early favorite to replace the Army’s 1980s-vintage M2 Bradley troop carrier. That’s my personal assessment after talking at length to officers and contractors at last week’s Association of the US Army conference, where months of uncertainty finally gave way to some real clarity about both what the Army wants and what industry can offer.----------
Only the Griffin actually has a 50mm installed right now, however. The others currently have 35mm cannon. It’s also the only vehicle that can point its gun almost straight up, at an 85 degree angle, to hit rooftop targets in urban combat, something the Army has worried about extensively. Details like this suggest that General Dynamics has been listening more closely to the Army than its competitors. In fact, even where the Griffin III underperforms its competitors, most notably by carrying fewer infantry, it does so in areas where the Army is willing to make tradeoffs.Story here.
I probably could have done a better job of cutting up this story to illustrate my point but I think you get the general idea.
The US Army wants a 50mm gun on their ride.
I'm shocked.
This is the first I heard of that.
The discussion has been between the 30/35/40. Now we see they're by-passing all that and heading straight to a 50mm cannon?
My question is this.
Does this mean (and I think it does) that even APC/IFV are becoming armored enough to withstand 30mm cannon fire?
The implications of that are staggering.
We're talking about a world where its becoming at least a THEORETICAL possibility of IFVs engaging MBTs at least from the sides and rear with their main gun and getting penetrating hits. I'm positive that once the geeks get to play with the round that we will see that as automatic pens after a few years of it being in service.
Am I reading this wrong or is the US Army (following Russia's lead...remember they came out with that 57mm) changing the armored warfare game? And if they are then what are the implications for the USMC? We're dependent on ATGMs for our infantry when engaging armor, but with APS coming online and with 50 or 57mm becoming the new norm, how do we defend ourselves if Marine Air is off on another mission?
CH-53K is running short of spares. Our parts procurement system is broken..bring back the warehouses!!!
via Bloomberg.
Timely delivery of Lockheed Martin Corp.’s $29 billion CH-53K King Stallion helicopter for the U.S. Marine Corps may be jeopardized by a potential shortage of specialized metal components two years after the bankruptcy of a key supplier.Story here.
In an illustration of how even the biggest defense contractor depends on its supply chain, the Navy’s aircraft development and acquisition command has assembled a team with Lockheed to assess options for ensuring a steady supply of the parts. General Robert Neller, the Marine Corps commandant, is monitoring the issue.
Is the idea of stocking enough parts at the beginning of a program to ensure that you have enough for the life of a program a bridge too far?
The system as it exists today is based on the "just in time" model that big box stores use to lower costs and prevent spoilage in warehouses.
But the military is a totally different beast.
How many times have we seen the military purchase airplanes, tanks, whatever only to find out after a few years that the companies that produced the parts have gone out of business.
Additionally I have a problem with spreading out manufacturing to a whole host of companies. All that does is increase vulnerability to supply disruption in my opinion.
If I recall correctly there was a time when everything needed to build widget A was found under the roof of one company and they would build it from beginning to end without including others in the work.
I don't know the answer but its beyond obvious that the current system is fraught with shatter points.
Siege of Marawi, rescue of an injured Philippine combat engineer while under heavy enemy fire.
Jesus! I really should dig into that fight. I ignored it because I didn't realize the ramifications of the battle but they seem pretty huge. Definitely gonna circle around and find out more.
Subscribe to:
Comments
(
Atom
)