Please tell me why we aren't seeing a US Army Stryker or Armored Brigade co located with Marines in Australia. Hell, I'll even take an Air Defense Artillery Brigade or even mech artillery. This is how the Army starts taking steps to becoming part of the Pacific tilt.
Well besides the fact that the M-1 is an over-rated tank. The Stryker is an answer to a non-existing problem; is a death-trap and a logistical disaster. As for troops in Australia, not needed. The Australian taxpayer has to pay part of the USMC bed-down FYI. Also, the Australian Army is the subject matter expert on regional other-than-war operations. Better use of U.S. military basing here would be airfield support facilities to enable a rapid deployment of F-22s, F-15Es B-1s, B-2s, tankers, etc.
ReplyDeletedisagree totally. the USAF has its staging base in the Pacific in the form of Guam. nothing else is needed for them. the Abrams isn't over rated (i totally disagree with your writings on this subject) and in my opinion the only thing it needs is a diesel engine its seen more combat than a Leopard 2 ever has and its held up wonderfully.
Deletethe Stryker is just another wheeled AFV. nothing great, nothing terrible. it is what it is. but compared to the BMP i think its probably mechanically more reliable.
the Australian Army might be the experts in the area for operations other than war, but war is the skill set that these moves are all about. humanitarian crisis response can kiss my ass...thats UN and Salvation Army territory. no self respecting warrior places that as the end all be all mission for him.
I agree with Solomon.
DeleteThe M1 is an outstanding tank. It's only real flaw is that it's gas turbine is way too thirsty, but diesel engine swapout packages are almost ready. I also wish it had an autoloader, but the US Army decided that the benefits of having another crew member outweighed any autoloader benefit.
That Leo 2 that you like Eric has never been shot at by another tank, ever. The Leclerv is nice, but again, it has never seen combat. it just drove around the former Yugoslavia in UN white.
As for the Stryker, it is a pretty by the numbers 8 wheeled APC. It carries 9 men, goes pretty fast, provides small arms and shell splinter protection, and is the basis for a goof family.
Agree with the diesel engine. Also needs a bridging unit based on the same hull and mine clearance scoops.
DeleteNever thought I would say this... In defense of the Stryker I read an Army Commendation Medal Citation that was awarded to a SGT for keeping his Stryker at 95% readiness doing daily operations in Iraq. That is impressive.
DeleteI do not care what a machine can do on paper if it is hanger queen it contributes nothing.
Quote "USMC 0802Thursday, September 19, 2013 12:19:00 AM
DeleteNever thought I would say this... In defense of the Stryker I read an Army Commendation Medal Citation that was awarded to a SGT for keeping his Stryker at 95% readiness doing daily operations in Iraq. That is impressive."
A medal for keeping your vehicle running??
That will never happend in the Danish Army! There it is expected that your vehicles are up and running all the time.
What's next?, a medal because your weapon can shoot when you are at the range?
are you being serious in your derision? we're not talking about peacetime ops. we're talking about a unit that (i imagine) was conducting combat operations on a daily basis and when it came time to see what vehicles were available, this Soldier's was. spotty parts delivery, rough use, battle damage all that could see vehicles deadlined.
Deletethis guy did the work and made it happen.
We are doing 95 % with the CV9035DK (10 vehicles), 90% with the Leopard 2A5 (4 vehicles) in Afghanistan.
Deleteyou're ruining my calm. i do my best to respect other militaries but you're really bringing out the UGLY AMERICAN in me. how long have you had those vehicles? when the Army rolled into Iraq those were brand new, spotty supply chain and they were getting beat to hell. MUCH MUCH TOUGHER FIGHTING THAN YOU"RE EXPERIENCING.
Deletesorry to be cruel but its not even in the same ballpark.
The Aussies will accommodate a Marine company part time (Apr-Sep), as they have done last year and this, but anything more would be difficult because it would complicate relations with China, even though Darwin is far from China.
ReplyDeletewe already have more than a company of Marines located in Australia. soon it'll be a full MEU and eventually the US Army will get its head out of its ass and get forces down there.
DeleteThis is just going to lead Australia saying 'its ok americans will protect us' then Australia will never get serious about security... ANZSG (aus,NZ,Singapore) have a GDP of about 2TN and only singapore has a land border. If our military spending was at apropriate levels of GDP and we foccused on Airforce and Naval(including marine capabilites) there is no reason why we cant defend ourselves, cut off asias oil supply, mine the chokepoints and grab them by the balls whilst strangling them. China is pretty much bogged down in Asia as it is.
DeleteThere were about eight hundred Marines there for two weeks last month, Exercise Koolendong 2013, but normally (Aug-Sep) it's only about 150 members of Lima Company, 3rd Battalion, 3rd Marines.
DeleteDoes the public understand that, also it is a political statement....
DeleteAustralia released its 2013 Defence White Paper in May, outlining various defense challenges and goals the nation faces.
DeleteOne area of surprise is the paper’s claim that “Australia welcomes China’s rise.”
It has an economic basis. The Australian dollar will become the third currency to trade directly with the renminbi, alongside the US dollar and the Japanese yen. According to a news release issued by the Foreign Ministry after a Tuesday meeting between Premier Li Keqiang and Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Beijing, the two sides have agreed to "strengthen financial and monetary cooperation, and to launch direct trading between the RMB and the Australian dollar". Australia is the fifth-biggest source of goods bound for China.
Yes and having the perception of this US security will not help... When I speak to Australians a common response is that 'but china needs us to buy our resources', which is ironic as that is the sort of reasons historically that countries invade other countries. Also the I heard that the reason for beijing wanting to allow trade with the AUD is because they have a large trade deficit with AUS and they want to maintain a high conversion rate to AUD while maintaining a Low rate to USD and other currencies (to get the best of both worlds).
DeleteI like Pacific "tilt" better than "pivot" especially when Admiral Greenert does it.
ReplyDelete"We’ll have 60 percent of our ships home ported in the Guam, Hawaii, West Coast region by the end of this decade. Right now, we’ve got about 57 percent."
Take THAT, China.
http://www.cnas.org/files/multimedia/documents/CNAS%20ADM%20Greenert%20Audio%20May%2021%202013%20-%20transcript.pdf
On the Abrams:i do belive the future M-1A3 could be a great tank if:
ReplyDelete-It gets an guided missile fired from the cannon like the Lahat...come on the Russian have these since the 1980s
-IF it gets a good HE round for anti-personel,structure busting and destroying light vehicles
-If it gets an diesel engine
-If it gets better tracks
On the Leopard II vs the Abrams...well the leo and the MerkavaIV are the best tanks around...the current Abrams as to many flaws to compete with them...but they can(and should)be corrected