Gulf War II Promises New Weapons, Technology

- During the 1991 Persian Gulf War, U.S. cruise missiles debuted, wowing the world with their ability to whiz around city street corners and zero in on one particular building, all after being launched from hundreds of miles away.

During the 1998 war against Serbia over Kosovo, the Predator reconnaissance drone flew its maiden combat flight, ushering in a revolutionary new era of unmanned warplanes.

If America goes to war with Iraq, the Pentagon is certain to again premiere an array of weapons and equipment. For the military, there is no better test bed than actual combat for putting new technology through real-world paces.

Though the White House maintains no decision has been made to attack Iraq, war planners are contemplating a number of potential weapon candidates for first-time use. Among them are:

- A surveillance aircraft small enough to fit in a Marine's backpack. Costing just $3,000 each, the pint-sized Dragon Eye reconnaissance drone can travel at 40 mph, range nearly 7 miles and stay aloft for an hour, beaming back color video to a screen strapped to a Marine's wrist. It can be launched by bungee cord.

Weighing four pounds and capable of assembly in about 30 seconds, the experimental aircraft would be used to scan over the horizon. The 1st Marine Division, elements of which are now in the Persian Gulf, will be bringing all the prototypes of the drone the service has.

*- A potentially revolutionary "directed energy" weapon, a still-secret technology the Pentagon did not officially acknowledge until last fall. Defense industry experts say the military now has the capability to manipulate microwaves to emit short energy spikes that can zap everything from computer memories and artillery targeting devices to truck ignitions and locomotive engines*.

Wielded by unmanned robot planes or long-distance cruise missiles, these weapons would be capable of attacking 100 targets with 1,000 pulses of destructive energy in a single sortie - without hurting humans or damaging buildings or other infrastructure.

-A robot that scurries across the ground, sniffing for chemical and biological toxins. Called PackBot Unmanned Ground Vehicles, a basic model of the machine was first used to clear caves and compounds by U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Now, a couple of prototypes have been fitted with the sensors, which would give GIs advance notice of airborne poisons lofted by the enemy.

- "Bugsplat," the irreverent nickname for a new Air Force computer program that shows a bomb's likely blast effect and helps commanders minimize the risk of civilian casualties - a top Pentagon priority for any war in Iraq. The Army intends to use a new computer system that allows the brass to instantly see on a laptop screen exactly where every U.S. tank, artillery piece and other vehicle is on a battlefield, as well as their fuel level and ammunition supply.

- A super-cruise missile called the Joint Air to Surface Standoff Missile, or JASSM. The Air Force and Navy have spent $3 billion over the past seven years to develop this satellite-guided munition, which can be launched from a U.S. warplane far beyond the range of enemy air defenses. The radar-evading missile can cruise 200 miles to its target, and carries a 2,000-pound warhead capable of burrowing through heavily reinforced sites.

Also likely in the arsenal will be a new "agent defeat weapon" - a super-powered combination missile-bomb that can penetrate an underground bunker and spew copper plates to puncture any chemical or biological agent-filled tanks stored there. Finally, the weapons releases a mix of chemicals that essentially disinfects any anthrax or other deadly bio-agents present.

- Computerized language translators, which can almost instantaneously translate Arabic, Kurdish and Farsi into English, and vice versa. U.S. Special Forces commandoes will be using handheld "Phraselators," while the Army will use briefcase-sized computers to scan Iraqi documents and translate them to English. Also likely to debut is a computer designed to teach soldiers to speak Arabic or other languages.

- The Army's state-of-the-art Stryker Brigade Combat teams, which the service says will form the heart of the future of the Army. The 3,500-soldier teams are "quick strike" outfits designed to be deployed to a global hotspot within 96 hours.

The heart of the teams is the Stryker troop vehicle, the Army's vision for combining the might of its armored tanks with the agility of a lighter infantry troop carrier. Filled with state-of-the-art equipment, the mini-tank Stryker can cruise at 60 mph and can be dropped into a war zone, ready on landing to fight.

Also likely to debut with the teams is the Shadow 200 unmanned spy plane, which is designed, like the Marines' Dragon Eye, to give soldiers a real-time eye-in-the-sky. Among other things, the 350-pound, propeller-driven robo-plane can circle over hostile forces, scan the countryside for landmines or other deadly obstacles, and identify targets.

The Army's state-of-the-art Stryker Brigade Combat teams, which the service says will form the heart of the future of the Army. The 3,500-soldier teams are "quick strike" outfits designed to be deployed to a global hotspot within 96 hours. The heart of the teams is the Stryker troop vehicle, the Army's vision for combining the might of its armored tanks with the agility of a lighter infantry troop carrier. Filled with state-of-the-art equipment, the mini-tank Stryker can cruise at 60 mph and can be dropped into a war zone, ready on landing to fight.

Hogwash Stryker is a death trap Once again the Army has stupidly picked a bad vehicle. The Stryker reminds me of the M4 Sherman which was dubbed the "Ronson Lighter" because it always lit the first time. The M8 Buford Armored Gun System (A great vehicle IMHO)was cancelled by Clinton to pay for his Kosovo war leaving the 82nd Airborne with no air droppable armor support. It also left light cav with no counter recon capability. The Stryker doesn't even meet it's program requirements for delivery by C-130 and it costs more than upgrading currently available M113 APC's. Once again stupid Army procurement leaves our troops vulnerable and lacking desperately needed vehicles and equipment. No wonder the lowly American GI is seen as a master of innovation.

Your link is broken.

Once again the Army has stupidly picked a bad vehicle.

The reasons for choosing the wheeled LAV platform over the 113A3 are debatable, but arguing that the LAV is a "death trap" won't hunt. It's a damn sight better than NOTHING, which is exactly what the 82nd ABN had in ODS.

Stryker was fielded just about OVERNIGHT in procurement terms, and no it's not perfect. M8 AGS was cool, and MUCH of that legacy technology will find its way into the AT Stryker variant.

Stryker will have growing pains and it will be frequently upgraded - and if utilized properly, it will provide significant protection, mobility and firepower in a far more deployable package than current mech/armor platforms.

And yes, the Stryker requires a waiver for lift via C130, but it fits and it will be transported that way in theater.

this is even better...and being flown by a Lance Corporal no less..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54068-2003Mar6.html
Washington Post
March 7, 2003
Pg. 14

A High-Tech Pilot Who Keeps His Feet On The Ground

By Jonathan Finer, Washington Post Staff Writer

LIVING SUPPORT AREA 7, Kuwait, March 6 -- Michael Deguzman is not a pilot, but he will have a bird's-eye view of the battlefield if U.S. forces are ordered to invade Iraq. That's because the 21-year-old lance corporal is the only Marine in his battalion with an airplane in his backpack.
< snip >

His job requires a special ability, his commanding officers said, and Deguzman was one of just a handful of Marines selected for an intense month-long training session on the Dragon Eye in November, as the newest version of the drone was finishing production. Deguzman has the compact build of a wrestler, but his thick thatch of brown hair is tinged orange from long days spent surfing back in Huntington Beach, Calif. Good-natured and articulate, he speaks Danish, Swedish and Norwegian.

"He's the only guy we have that can fly it," said Sgt. Maj. Henry Bergeron. "And that says something about him. I like to kid him that it must get pretty cramped in that cockpit."

The appeal of cutting-edge technology is what led Deguzman to the military in the first place. But the Marine Corps, which prides itself on getting by with fewer high-tech gadgets than the other service branches, was an unlikely spot for him to land. "I have three uncles in the Navy, so that might have seemed more obvious," he said. "I chose the Marines because they give young grunts a lot of responsibility. And I'm a good example of that."
< snip >

It's too bad the web page ran out of bandwidth. Sorry, you are wrong on about every single point. The C17 can carry 2 Strykers or 5 M113's which means you get more vehicles per plane.

M8 AGS was cool, and MUCH of that legacy technology will find its way into the AT Stryker variant.

Why not just put the M8 into production? You're already admitting the Stryker isn't as capable as the M8.

Stryker will have growing pains and it will be frequently upgraded

Once again, you're admitting it has problems. Why not just add a low profile turret and powerpack upgrades to the M113 which is proven, dependable, and already in stock with DOD and already has spare parts available?

it will provide significant protection, mobility and firepower in a far more deployable package than current mech/armor platforms.

The M113 is vastly more mobile, it has a much lower profile, and firepower can be easily added to an existing reliable vehicle. M113 can be air dropped and you can carry more than twice as many in a C17.

You're already admitting the Stryker isn't as capable as the M8.

M8 is/was not an infantry carrier -it's a light armored gun platform. Apples and oranges. Stryker is vastly superior to M8 when it comes to transporting infantry.

The C17 can carry 2 Strykers or 5 M113's which means you get more vehicles per plane.

Source? That doesn't pass the smell test. Also, those M113s aren't configured with your handy turret.

Once again, you're admitting it has problems.

Every newly fielded system has problems - Abrams fans forget that platform was derided as another "death trap" when introduced, only later becoming the gold standard for armor. I don't disagree a modified 113A3 would have been an excellent choice - but Stryker was preferred for its superior mobility in urban/suburban terrain.

M8 is/was not an infantry carrier -it's a light armored gun platform. Apples and oranges. Stryker is vastly superior to M8 when it comes to transporting infantry.

When I brought up the M8 I meant to compare it to the 105mm armed Stryker which cannot shoot sideways (too much recoil, it will tip over) and cannot fit in a C130 at all. I'm not sure whether the 105 Stryker can carry troops either. It also weighs over 45,000 lbs while the M8 in it's air droppable setup weighs 39,000 pounds. With the level 2 upgrade armor the Stryker only weighs 44,000 pounds. Right now though the MGS (105 armed Stryker) is being redesigned because it stinks so bad.

February 28, 2002 (U) MOBILE GUN SYSTEM (MGS) WEIGHT REDUCTION PLAN (U). As part of our Risk Management program, the Project Manager Brigade Combat Team (PM BCT) and the Interim Armored Vehicle (IAV) Joint Venture (JV) contractor have initiated a plan to reduce the weight of the Mobile Gun System (MGS). Currently the combat weight of the MGS is 45,165 lbs. At this weight, the user is required to remove 7,165 pounds of equipment from the MGS prior to C-130 transport. At the PM's joint quarterly Program Review, the JV committed to developing and implementing a plan to reduce the vehicle weight through redesign and manufacturing techniques. This reduction of vehicle weight will reduce the impact to the MGS Soldier. The goal of this effort is to reduce the combat weight of the MGS to 43,700 pounds in development (July 2002) and 40,250 pounds in production (June 2003). Both these weights will allow the vehicle to meets its transportability weigh requirement, the latter greatly reducing the need to remove Soldier items. The funding required to support this weight reduction effort is being reviewed by the PM's vehicle Integrated Product Team (IPT) and PM BCT. PM BCT has made initial coordination with the Army Staff and OSD on funding requirements. Impact to the Army: Will require movement of FY03 IAV WTCV funding to RDTE during Congressional marking period. COL David Ogg/PM BCT/(810) 753-2000 Oggd@tacom.army.mil APPROVED BY: LTG John Caldwell

So the airborne and IBCT's are still without heavy direct fire support when a vehicle that was already approved by DOD and merely months away from full-scale production which is better suited to the mission is not fielded. Now a quote from Tom Clancy

"Unfortunately, the need to support the expensive peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia, Haiti, and Rwanda caused the top leadership of the Army to cancel the AGS program, and reprogram the funds. Frankly, given the small size of the AGS program, this was a bad decision. Unfortunately, without any replacement for the M551, the same Army leaders moved from bad decision-making to outright stupidity when they decided to stand down the 3/73 Armored, thus denying the 82nd even the services of 66 thirty-year-old light tanks."

The M113 with a turret will still be shorter than a Stryker without a turret. What are you, some retired Officer working for the company making the Stryker?

Ever hear of the Sedition Act comrade?!

Your make a good candidate!

Stryker demo debunks critics and comrades

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Oct2002/a20021025strykerdemo.html

Moving to take the Stryker out of the "waiver world" into the "routine business world," Simmons said the Air Force is conducting extensive testing with C-130s, Strykers and the associated crews of both. A test conducted Oct. 15 verified that the Hercules' crew, Stryker's crew and infantry squad could exit a C-130 with a Stryker aboard in less than 90 seconds. The test subjects did it in 48 seconds.

http://www.dtic.mil/armylink/news/Oct2002/r20021021transcrip101502.html

Question: General, or COL Simmons. [inaudible]. Talk a little bit about the significance of the waiver required to move the vehicle on a C-130. How timely [inaudible] from an operational standpoint on a routine basis for 130 operations. Address that general point.

Col. Simmons, USAF: First of all, it's not very significant. We've begun training programs already to reduce the impact of the new size variance inside the cargo department of the C-130. The personnel on board conducted some drills last night. In fact, 15 individuals were on-board [a C-130 aircraft] with the Stryker on it. It took them 48 seconds to get off using the emergency escape hatch on board. Our target is 90 seconds.

The waiver process we use in the Air Force is essentially to raise awareness that we're doing something a little bit different than the way we normally do. The regulations, in the last 46 years or so, the C-130s have been deployed in a lot of arenas [inaudible]. In fact we have 153, give or take, different types of vehicles that have permanent waivers in effect so we can carry them on the C-130 for various reasons -- size, weight, whatever. It appears the Stryker will join that family of vehicles.

Let's refresh your memory about sedition.

SEC. 2. That if any person shall write, print, utter. Or publish, or shall cause or procure to be written, printed, uttered or published, or shall knowingly and willingly assist or aid in writing, printing, uttering or publishing any false, scandalous and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame the said government, or either house of the said Congress, or the said President, or to bring them. or either of them, into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them, or either or any of them, the hatred of the good people of the United States, or to excite any unlawful combinations therein, for opposing or resisting any law of the United States, or any act of the President of the United States, done in pursuance of any such law, or of the powers in him vested by the constitution of the United States, or to resist, oppose, or defeat any such law or act, or to aid, encourage or abet any hostile designs of any foreign nation against the United States, their people or government, then such person, being thereof convicted before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment not exceeding two years.

http://www.ku.edu/carrie/docs/texts/sedact.htm

Here's a quote from a guy present during the field testing.

NTC was ordered to support MC02. It was told to provide whatever support JFCOM required. Trouble is JFCOM does not know what it wants. Does know what it does not want. OPFOR waxing the Stryker company or Blueforce brigade. OPFOR allowed only one Stryker kill per engagement, and is a considerably weaker OPFOR than a regular rotation. Also not allowed to attack without permission from JFCOM/JTF. Big events are a light battalion airdrop to secure Bicycle lake. C-17 air landing of 4 Strykers (2 per plane), an attack against a small remnant of an OPFOR regiment,securing an area for the SOF to dismantle a weapon of mass effects, and a live-fire. -The infantry O/Cs (Tarantulas) are managing the operation. Light units have FBCB2 in their TOCs, (which will not move during the rotation)but no land warrior, no digital conect One light battalion is at NTC the other two are added via virtual simulation. Not clear if the other two battalions are going to be used. Air drop of light infantry to secure the landing field (Bicycle lake) was done with 12 C-130s loaded with a total of about 600 soldiers and two artillery tube drop packages. Drop started at 2:10 AM. First drops were the artillery. Then for the next 45 minutes the battalion dropped from the sky. OPFOR was in position to lob motors at the rather noisy and bright airdrop, but was not allowed. Lots of VIPs watching from bleachers(over 200 generals scheduled to visit NTC during MC02). Drop was very impressive, even when viewed via Low light TV. Only 3 soldiers and two O/Cs injured in the drop. Took a long time to regroup on the ground. At 4 am, the tarantulas were still trying to figure out who had jumped, location of units and injury list. The blueforce soldiers were stil wandering/regrouping on Bicycle lake. Looked like another hour before they would be ready for combat. Majority of OPFOR were out of direct and indirect fire range. Looked like a company minus of OPFOR. Some engagements/ clashes with OPFOR planned for that day. HUMMWV surrogates for the mobile gun system will be principle blueforce fire power. The Stryker air lift was delayed because the AF wanted to land under limited vis conditions so the whole rotation/demo was delayed about a day. No problem the OPFOR was more than happy to be finally allowed to use its mortars. AF had not delivered any Q-16 counterbattery radars so the blueforce got mangled up in front of a lot of VIPs. Another example of the fine joint spirit that permeates the experiment. Another confidential source of mine quibbles with my first source by noting that the LAV-III/Strykers after being flown long distance from Fort Lewis by C-17s, were flown a ridiculously short distance from Victorville to Bicycle Lake, NTC which saves fuel weight so the C-130s can carry these overweight vehicles. What are you going to do if you have to fly a LAV-III/Stryker from Diego Garcia to Afghanistan in a C-130? We should not lose sight of the fact that only TWO weakly armored LAV-III/Stykers with .50 cal popguns can fly in a C-17---we can fly TWO far more capable M2A3 Bradleys which are RPG-protected and have 25mm cannons, TOW ATGMs and a 7.62mm co-ax machine gun that doesn't malfunction in a C-17. Better yet, we could instead fly 5--that's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5...upgraded, RPG-protected M113A3 Gavins with autocannon turrets in every C-17. The M113A3 Gavin at 10.5 tons empty can be fitted with all the armor, fuel, ammo and C4I you could dream of and be under the 16 ton C-130 short, unimproved runway payload limit to roll-on/off the rear ramp COMBAT-READY. The LAV-III/Stryker without C4I, applique armor is 16.5 tons, with the added weights the Army wants 19-21 tons. However, my second confidential source makes some important observations about the "smoke and mirrors" the Army is doing to make it appear that LAV-III/Strykers are C-130 transportable, like stripping the vehicles down to make weight and using two aircraft. My source reports: "Yes, they used C-17s to fly from Lewis to SCLA (Victorville) but they used C-130s to fly from SCCLA to Bike Lake (desert strip) at NTC. I was on the ground at Bike Lake when they arrived. I stood beneath the tail as they unloaded. But it wasn't without problems. You just need to get your facts straight. The FACT is that it required two C-130s to transport one vehicle. The crew and their gear had to come on a second aircraft (8 C-130 lifts for 4 Strykers). When the groups arrived at SCLA, they loaded all their gear into the Strykers. The AF then told them that the vehicles were 2000 lbs. heavy. Apparently, they could have redistributed this weight on pallets in front of the vehicles and still made weight. However, no pallets were available so they had to come in two aircraft loads".

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.