Purge of the Princelings? (As a Gentleman Should, Rumsfeld Takes Out The Garbage)

NRO ^ | 14 Aug 03 | Jeb Babbin

[.cnI redruM]

When Congress gets back from its August recess, you'll hear some caterwauling about how Big Dog is conducting a political purge of the Army. But what is going on in the Army right now is apparently not directed by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and is not even a purge. But it may be the beginnings of one.

As soon as Mr. Rumsfeld took office, his plan to transform America's military ran into various levels of resistance in each of the services. The Navy was shaken by the thought that the aircraft carrier would have to evolve from its current form. The Air Force didn't want to hear that its new fighter — the F-22 — wasn't needed as much as it had been in the Cold War. But nowhere in Fort Fumble did he encounter utter refusal to change except in the Army.

According to an Army source, shortly after his accession Mr. Rumsfeld walked into the Tank — the vault-like conference room on the fourth floor of the Pentagon in which top-secret matters can be discussed freely — for a meeting with the Clintons' Army chief of staff, General Eric Shinseki. Shinseki is the protégé of Hawaii Senator Daniel Inouye, and as political as his mentor. In that meeting, Shinseki tried to give Big Dog the Don Corleone treatment. Let me run things my way, said Shinseki, and I'll make you look really good on the Hill. But forget about transformation. The Army doesn't need it, and we don't plan to do it. Rumsfeld, to the surprise of his interlocutors, declined the offer they thought he couldn't refuse.

Shinseki should have been fired.

[.cnI redruM]

I'm currently assigned to test a variant of The Stryker ICV. I'm thinking it's sad that Shinseki is pushing this vehicle and justifying it on the back of the Interim Brigade Combat Team(IBCT).

The IBCT is a brilliant adaptation of something that both The Soviets and The French had done for years. Getting more combat power on a light enough platform to airdrop on short notice. It's the Stryker that screws up a perfectly good plan.

Even perfectly good plans tend to evaporate on enemy contact. Shinseki's insistance on the Stryker platform constitutes the enemy. Rumsfeld needs to pull out every weed that Shinseki has planted in The Pentagon.

[MEG33]

Be prepared to duck!Thanks for the insight....Tell Rumsfield!

[HiJinx]

Ping!!

[exnavy]

I am employed by General Dynamics, and have been led to believe that the lower troops that have been involved in field tests are very satisfied with Stryker.

What do you think it's shortcomings are?

[SAMWolf]

The Stryker has a role to play, but not at the expense of removing the MBT and keeping the Heavy Armor Units. China and North Korea are still out there.

PS. Dump those stupid berets for non Special Forces Troops!

[.cnI redruM]

>>It's suspension fails to support mounted weapon fire (eg. 120mm Mortar Fire). Every few shots the gun crew has to recalculate the BK because the vehicle shifts from recoil.

>>It's softwear fails to interoperate w/ software applications. (eg M95, FBCB2).

>>The ammo stowage is too vulnerable to enemy fire and could lead to catostrophic secondary combustion. Similar to the problems experienced by the BFV that led to mandatory LFT in DT and OT.

The system is basically immature and is being rammed down the Army's throat to meet an unrealistic production schedule that is based on Gen Shinseki's ambitions rather than the maturity of the system.

Fix Stryker and bring it back in 3 years. Then, my mind might change.

[Blood of Tyrants]

The military has long been enamored of what they want rather than what they need. IMO, the price tag of $200 million per copy for the F-22 far outweighs it's stealth advantages.

1)Hypersonic cruise missiles using pulse detonation engines (coming soon) will deliver a payload with pinpoint accuracy to a heavily defended target and without risk to a pilot.

2)Passive radar (still pretty much in it's infancy) will soon render current stealth technology obsolete.

3) Existing airframes have been modified to provide MUCH greater maneuverability for less cost. Put in a PDE engine and you now have an aircraft that will cruise supersonic on the same fuel it once took to fly subsonic.

[exnavy]

very interesting, thanks for the info.

[libstripper]

Now we know where all of the grousing about how the Iraq war was being run came from--Clintonoid "generals."

[r9etb]

2)Passive radar (still pretty much in it's infancy) will soon render current stealth technology obsolete.

The problems with passive radar are a) that it's easily spoofed, and b) it still requires transmitters, which make dandy targets.

[norton]

I thought Stryker was an interim item in any event.
Isn't there supposed (!) to be something to follow?

[Jim Noble]

Can you even imagine what sort of man you must have been to get a third or fourth star from Clinton???

[MEG33]

I'm sure some of this is political,though I've seen some pretty hot arguments on the Army v Rumsfield threads. Some of it was personality clash,some military v civilian authority and in the papers it was hard to figure out who was who.I am too far from the knowledge to make judgements,but love to read the information. There are the usual resistance to change and power struggles that everyone understands!

[Pukin Dog]

I must disagree with a number of your assertions. The F-22 is a must-have weapon. Dont expect passive radar to have much of an impact for decades to come. We could have had supersonic cruise missiles 20 years ago. The thought then and now, is that subsonic missles avoid announcing their presense through a sonic boom, and NOE flying is a much easier task for the electronics at lower speeds.

Existing airframes are not built for the temperature loads of sustained supersonic cruise, nor the associated G-loading during the slightest change in attitude or heading. You also have to consider the entire flight envelope of a combat aircraft, including landing glide slope considerations for the engine, throttle responsiveness, slams, asymetrical thrust, and other issues.

Only the F-22 has taken all this into account, and it is a necessary addition to our services.

[Pukin Dog]

Stryker is a dead duck. Just wait until the next budget comes out.

[Seydlitz]

Fix Stryker and bring it back in 3 years. Then, my mind might change.

Well said. The concept is a good one, but the implementation leaves much to be desired. Let us not forget that far more serious charges were levelled at the Bradley series when it was first introduced. Every media pundit labelled it a 'death trap'. Yet, the Bradley has performed well, However, the Bradley had to undergo a lot of fixes before it became a reliable weapon. Like the Stryker, it was rushed through on an unrealistic production schedule, warts and all. They fixed the Bradley, and I trust that the Stryker can be fixed, as well.

Military history buffs here know that some of the great tanks of WW II, like the Panther and Tiger, had very inauspicious introductions. After a few fixes, both became real predators.

[dts32041]

Wooden barracks built in WWII were suppose to be temporary, I think finally stopped using them in the Late 90's, nothing is intermin in the Army, expect the troops.

[dts32041]

And the sherman still sucked after all its fixes.

[Mochamadness]

The Stryker is an interim item. The Future Combat Systems program is developing something similar to the stryker, but will have enhanced capabilities, both in platform and ammunitions. Currently I have not seen a plan to replace the heavy forces, ie 1st CAV, 4ID, and 1 AD. Tanks will still rule in open terrain, but the lighter packages gives fire power to the straight leg folks.

[Blood of Tyrants]

But the transmitters can be many miles away from the passive radar and don't have to be military in origin. A TV signal will serve as a signal source.