Wednesday, November 13, 2013

F-35 kills Army modernization.


The US Army bore the brunt of the heavy lifting in the Global War on Terror (GWOT for those that forgot) and what do they get for the hard work?  Hammered in the testicles, penis penned to the wall and a budgetary dick shoved up'em for good measure.

Check this out from Breaking Defense.
But the Army is going to have to deter and defeat future enemies with its current weapons, albeit modestly upgraded. “In the next few years, are we capable of having an Army that doesn’t look like it does today, with new technology, new equipment? I don’t think so,” said Maj. Gen. Rossi. “If you go down to the motor pools at Fort Hood five years from now, you’re still going to see [M1 Abrams] tanks and [M2] Bradleys.”
What about the replacement for the Bradley, the better-armored, larger-capacity, higher-tech Ground Combat Vehicle that the Army planned to start entering service in 2017? “We certainly have a requirement for a ground combat vehicle,” said the second general in the room, Maj. Gen. Dyess. “There are certain technologies that we are very interested in in the science and technology area.”
I notice, I said, that you’re saying “science and technology,” not “development” of a specific weapons system, let alone “procurement.”
“You’re pretty good at reading between the lines,” he answered.
And there you have it.  The US Army is not only going to get much smaller but they're also looking at a procurement holiday.  GCV?  Dead.  AMPV?  Dead.  Armed Scout?  Dead.  AH-64E?  Much delayed.

They don't even fly F-35's but they get to help pay that bill.  This one aircraft program is having an effect across the Pentagon.  It must be killed.  No program is worth the price we're paying to get it across the finish line.

12 comments :

  1. Yep, the Army is the victim of the current environment. They are being used as a cushion for cuts against the F-35 program now.

    Back when the Air Force first tried to kill the A-10 Warthog the Army fought back and said that they would buy all of them and keep them in service, which was one of the reasons the Air Force decided not to do it. This time the Army was silent because they are getting their budget slashed to bits to feed money to the black hole that is the F-35 program. The Air Force has preference now over nearly everything.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just to be fair, army had nobody to blame for her modernization failure but itself. It spent over 4 billions dollar on FCS, botched armed scout helicopter program twice. It was given plenty of opportunities to set the record straight and failed miserably. You can't put that amount of incompetency on the shoulder of F-35 fiasco.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yes.

      The Army's modernization programs from 1999 to now have been dismal failures. EVERY SINGLE weapon system besides MRAPS has been over-budget and canceled. FCS,Comanche, Armed Scout, ect. All canceled due to Army incompetence. Look at the ACU debacle. Billion on camouflage that is garbage.

      Delete
  3. The folks in DC do not want a modern military they say the modern US military is the worlds biggest threat to the world and so are destroying that capability.
    Just as Marines fought the first battles of WW2 with WW1 weapons and uniforms that is the plan for any new military mission, obsolete and totally helpless against a hostile military.
    The new mission for the US military is humanitarian assistance not combat.

    That M-1 Abrams engineer vehicle would do a bang up job on Zombies.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That is not an engineering vehicle with a real dozer blade. That is just a mine plow. There is a rumor an M1 Abrams is not compatible to a real dozer blade?

      So why not just buy an amored engineering vehicle?
      http://www.army-technology.com/projects/kodiak-vehicle/

      Before someone mentions "incompatible" Caterpillar D7 is also quite incompatible with an Abrams.

      Delete
    2. that M1 is a mine clearing vehicle

      Delete
  4. Japan is upgrading its F-15Js into the Silent Eagle standard(minus the Conformal Weapons Bay). This is an indirect confirmation of Japan stopping its F-35 purchases at 42, and holding out until the F-3(A YF-23 sized fighter jet) becomes ready to replace F-15MJs. This decision is not driven by the need to protect the local industry as was in the past and was purely capability driven, because the components for this upgrade kit will be imported from the US.

    Lockheed Martin was hoping to win the 150 jet F-15J replacement jet order following the initial 42 jets, but this was not to be. http://www.janes.com/article/29978/japan-mulls-f-15mj-upgrade-for-eagle-fighters

    ReplyDelete
  5. recommended video
    An Australian Look at the Lockheed F-35 Joint Strike Fighter
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pteMgYPm1xM

    ReplyDelete
  6. You might want to actually look at the SE standard as MJ is nowhere near it. It has no canted tail, no AESA, no IR MAWS (likely), no internal FLIR, no FBW, and does not have any fastpacks.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Agree SpudmanWP. I would say that the MJ upgrade is nowhere near to SE standard....and I haven't seen anywhere Japan saying they are only going to buy 42 JSFs, maybe they might run out of money to pay for more but I haven't seen the cut off being 42.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't understand the need for an M1 replacement. It is a damn good thank. It's only real flaw at the moment is it's gas turbine, which needs to be replaced with a diesel. Also, GDLS has proposed an upgrade package that adds a diesel, and replaces copper wiring with fiber optics, saving 2 tons of weight.

    The Chinese Type 96s are roughly T-72B comparable, and the Type 99 is not going to be exported. The Type 96 is exported as the MBT-2000 or the VT1A.

    I do agree that the Bradley needs to be replaced, as a 9 man squad needs 2 Bradleys. However, the blame lies on the Army for blowing 24 BILLION on the idiotic FCS system, not to mention 6 billion on the Comanche.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.