en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/976064 Comments by StevenDDeacon http://defensetech.org/2013/03/13/kendall-f-35-production-ramp-up-a-tough-call/#IDComment598797461 If not the F35 ,,, then what? The loss of air superiority will be the biggest tragedy in the history of the United States armed forces since Pearl Harbor! Mon, 18 Mar 2013 22:23:00 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2013/03/13/kendall-f-35-production-ramp-up-a-tough-call/#IDComment598797461 http://defensetech.org/2010/10/07/just-when-you-thought-the-v-22-was-out-of-the-woods/#IDComment104523997 We are where we are with the V-22 Osprey. We are millitarily and monetarily commited to the V-22. Remember what the Bradley Fighting Vechicle was when it was first deployed ... a disaster. We have to fix the problems with the V-22 like we did with the Bradley. The Bell XV-15 seems to be a beautiful VSTOL and I would think it could do quite nicely in the private sector if it meets expectations. We've needed a VSTOL solution that can fly like a plane for a long time so lets push on and get it done. Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:45:18 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/10/07/just-when-you-thought-the-v-22-was-out-of-the-woods/#IDComment104523997 http://defensetech.org/2010/10/05/u-2-still-flies-believe-it-or-not/#IDComment104522370 Why retire an air frame when it still can do the job it was designed for. We've been flying the B-52's since the early 1950's because they still work. Every time someone writes an article about retiring the A-10's I wonder what's the matter with them. The A-10 did a stupendous job during the Gulf Wars. The Infantrymen love the A-10 especially when they need ground support against armor. Sun, 17 Oct 2010 21:27:10 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/10/05/u-2-still-flies-believe-it-or-not/#IDComment104522370 http://defensetech.org/2010/08/11/the-future-of-the-marines-and-forcible-entry-in-a-battle-network-regime/#IDComment95605711 There is approximately 217,490 miles of coast line and millions of square miles of littoral, intertidal water zones, and estuaries waters in our world today. To believe we no longer need an amphibious fighting force is a dangerous and ill fated belief to have in an age when world politics is such a deadly game being played by such devious governments. Sat, 28 Aug 2010 00:46:02 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/08/11/the-future-of-the-marines-and-forcible-entry-in-a-battle-network-regime/#IDComment95605711 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment94059351 The problem with using vehicle mounted direct fire chain guns is getting them to the rough terrain and high altitudes being patrolled by our ground troops who can't even get a HMMWV there. This makes it impossible to get any other vehicles to those areas with the fire power you want to use. We need enough long range direct fire to pin down the Taliban in that terrain. Our troops can also use AT4-CS and Javelins to keep them pinned down then hit them with indirect mortar fire and/or air support to pulverize them in the uneven terrain at those altitudes. Thu, 19 Aug 2010 05:32:56 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment94059351 http://defensetech.org/2010/08/06/marines-forced-to-lean-on-contractors-for-fire-support/#IDComment91283935 The M777 is a lighweight technological Howitzer wonder. But when the technology breaks down your not going to find a Geek Squad readily available to fix the problems. What a mobile flued Mariine Corp requires is an even smaller more easily managed howitzer artillery piece with really smart long range in-direct munitions targeted by ease of use input freindly firing solutions. Not a technological wonder artillery piece which will most definately breakdown in the field at the worst possible time. Fri, 6 Aug 2010 22:35:27 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/08/06/marines-forced-to-lean-on-contractors-for-fire-support/#IDComment91283935 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/30/first-looks-northrops-new-ground-combat-vehicle/#IDComment90814766 What are we going to do with all the Armored Personnel Carriers and Armored Fighting Vehicles such as the Bradley, Stryker, MRAP Cougar, MRAP, Buffalo MRV, up-armored HMMWV, a meriad of MRAP II candidates how does the BAE Systems and Northrop Grumman’s offering for a Ground Combat Vehicle fit into the grand scheme of things? Can we afford to design, develop, service, and facilitate this Armored Fighting Vehicle with all the other in service Armored Vehicles and the development of new APC's and AFV's? Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:47:28 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/30/first-looks-northrops-new-ground-combat-vehicle/#IDComment90814766 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/mattis-still-supports-light-coin-plane-air-force-wants-dead/#IDComment90810038 Agreed. But the Air Force only began singing praises for the A10 Thunderbolt II after Desert Storm and Iragi Freedom. Before that there were continued rumors that the A10 was going to be retired because it did not belong in a modern jet fighter ground attack air force. Wed, 4 Aug 2010 16:15:47 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/mattis-still-supports-light-coin-plane-air-force-wants-dead/#IDComment90810038 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/mattis-still-supports-light-coin-plane-air-force-wants-dead/#IDComment90238724 For this type of mission the A-1 SkyRaider's credentials were pretty darn demonstrative. The A-1 SkyRaiders flew in so many conflicts and were so highly effective that they were flown till they were completely worn out. The Air Force has been trying discontinue the Fairchild A10 Thuderbolt II air ground attack and support asset for decades even after its sterling record in Gulf War of Desert Shield and Desert Storm, and Iragi Freedom, as well as other sandbox operations. An aircraft as the venerable A-1 SkyRaider with modern technology and avionics would be a significant asset for loitering, targeting, and attacking enemy ground as well as targeting enemy ground assets for our jet air ground attack assets. A state of of the art A-1 SkyRaider would also have an excellent ability to track down and identify our downed aviators for extraction. Mon, 2 Aug 2010 02:11:04 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/29/mattis-still-supports-light-coin-plane-air-force-wants-dead/#IDComment90238724 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment86532021 By assault rifle I mean the M16A4's with 20" barrels and FNH MK 17 SCAR-S with accurized 16" barrels. If the M32 is such a piece of garbage then even more so. Ask the Marines what it was like on rugged uneven or mountainous terrain on Tarawa, Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and Korea and how important indirect fire was to get to the enemy. The US Marines used hand grenades, rifle grenade launching, mortars, small Howitzers, and air support to overcome the terrain factor. If you study military strategy you must remember the three most important things which dictate strategy and tactics ... terrain, terrain, terrain. Also required is one man high-volume small arms fire like the WWII US Marines modiifed M1919A2 Stinger and Browning BAR in 30'06. Today this would be a M60 or M240 machine gun firing the NATO 7.62X51mm caliber. Tue, 13 Jul 2010 19:57:49 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment86532021 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment84603770 We need M16A4's and FNH MK 17 SCAR-S with accurized 16" barrels using a 77 grain 5.56X45mm and 7.62X51mm respectively. Assault rifles should have M203 grenade launchers attached. In addition M32 rotary granade launchers and as many AT4's, AT4-CS's, and Javelins as possible. Several of the assault weapons would be fitted with double drum magazines. For sniping the FNH USA MK 17 SCAR-LB with 20” barrel or a Barrett M98B .338 Lapua Magnum for greater range. Machine guns required would be M2 Browning heavy machine gun; M240G medium machine gun 7.62X51mm.. The FN MK 48 Mod 1 belt fed squad automatic weapon caliber 7.62X51mm can be configured with clip-on combat pouches for 100 rounds each with quick change barrel capability making it a truly lightweight squad automatic weapon the military can hump in rough terrain. And now motars humped over rough mountainous terrain the 60mm M224 weight 14.4 lb, bipod 15.2 lb, base plate 14.4 lb, could be mounted on pack animals with effective range 3500~ meters or the 81mm M252 mortars, with effective range of 6000~ meters to saturate fixed enemy positions with devastating indirect fire power. Sat, 3 Jul 2010 19:20:36 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment84603770 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment84351679 If the 6.5 Grendel is too heavy then I guess the Remington 6.8 SPC and the NATO 7.62X51mm must be way too heavy?. What's too heavy when your life is at stake? I have commented on this issue in these "Taking Back the Infantry Half-Kilometer" posts identifying existing small arms weapons and explosive ordinance all the way up to to the MRAP's and Strykers required. Ammunition is like water ... you have to have enough of the right kind in order to survive. Fri, 2 Jul 2010 22:10:48 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/07/01/taking-back-the-infantry-half-kilometer-part-4/#IDComment84351679 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment83156938 The Taliban and al-Qa'ida are more fanatical than the VC and NVA. They are willing to carry the fight to our own homeland. As for the US Army, its not just the US Army but the US Army, Air Force, Navy, Marine Corps, Coast Guard with NATO combined forces coordinating their efforts through CentCom to confront the enemy. Our NATO forces in Korea deported themselves admirally when North Korean troops were driven back toward the Chinese boarder and completely beaten and then NATO was confronted with the Chinese People's Volunteer Army invation to overwhelm NATO forces by an enormous number of troops. With the use of an arsenal of WWII weapons, armor, and air cover NATO was finally able to throw the Chinese invasion back to a stalemate. Our troops were armed with M1A Garands and carbines; Thompson machines guns; M3 and M3A1 grease guns; M1903 sniper rifles; Browning M1918 BAR's; M1919 Browning Machine Gun; M2 Browning Machine Gun; Browning M1911's; 81mm and 60mm mortars; 75mm Howitzer Artillery; and Chaffee, Pershing, and Patton tanks, P51 Mustang and F-86 Sabre fighters. Tue, 29 Jun 2010 17:56:24 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment83156938 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment83142343 When did kill, win, or even exterminate mean the same thing as the "systematic destruction of these fanatical terrorist organizations"? We need to disrupt and destroy all of the Taliban's and al-Qa'ida, which will require killing, but mostly the destruction and capture of their command structure and their associated operating cells. At no point did I say anything about extermination. We need to deploy our troops to the areas our enemies occupy and destroy their infrastructure. The weapons I suggested were as light as possible for humping over hard rough open and mountainous terrain with overwhelming firepower. We need to be light and mobile, like Rogers' Rangers of the 18th century, in order to move and strike quickly ... not to just kill but to capture prisoners to gather human intelligence. Tue, 29 Jun 2010 16:06:10 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment83142343 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82598174 I believe you misunderstood my comment. I believe that both the B-52 and B1B bombers should be kept in our arsenal. I also believe both bombers are still capable of being upgraded with new avionics and ordinance. The B1B is the newer bomber air frame and capable of more extensive changes. I believe there is a discussion of a upgraded B-1R below. A bomber with the B-1R fight characteristics would complement our strike fighters. I would keep as many of the B1B's as possible and retain enough B-52's to supplement the B1B's. New advanced avionics and ordinance are getting smaller with greater precision, as well as, stand off capability. I believe this to be a bigger plus for the B1B's even though it would extend the life of our B-52's as well. Sun, 27 Jun 2010 18:04:30 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82598174 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82596294 My bad. I did mean the F-111 Aardvark swept wing instead of the F-117. I also met the F-117 stealth aircraft with the B-2 bomber when I made my original comment. Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:48:42 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/24/b-1b-lancer-fleet-to-the-boneyard/#IDComment82596294 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82594340 The War in Afghanistan is nothing like the War in Vietnam except that the Taliban are fanatics like Sir Charles and NVA. No jungles, but rough open and mountainous terrain, like Korea, which can temporize and galvanize a soldier or destroy him. Believe me the Taliban and al-Qa'ida are a product of their environment. They are galvanized ... we had better get that way too! Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:30:51 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82594340 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82592809 By the way Semper Fidelis! Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:16:57 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82592809 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82591558 Our assault weapons and battle rifles need M203's in the Afghani rough and mountainous terrain for indirect fire. The Taliban are the masters of concealment in their own terrain. Once we stir the wasps nests by hitting them with mortar fire and they break cover we hit them with a little indirect fire with our M203's and M32's by dropping in on their positions. Then hit them with our machine guns, battle and sniper rifles, AT4's, and armored vehicle weapons as they try to scatter. Our M16's would be used for close in fighting at 100 to 300 yards. The M203 is worth the little extra weight just like water is! Sun, 27 Jun 2010 17:06:31 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82591558 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82439826 Our U.S. Civilian Government are the ones to blame for al-Qa'ida, Osama Bin Laden, and the Taliban still being operational. Our new ROE in Afghaniststan and Pakistan should be the systematic destruction of these fanatical terrorist organizations. We need small arms like M16A4's in 20 inch barrels firing out for a distance of 300 meters with attached M203's grenade launchers. The FN SCAR S 7.62X51mm can reach out to 600 meters. Ask a rancher or hunter what a good scout rifle can do .We should have real battle rifles. Like the NATO 7.62X51mm FN SCAR MK17 LB, Heckler & Koch HK417, or Knight's Armament M110 SASS, all in 20 inch barrel. Range ~800 to ~1000. A light portable machine gun is required like the FN MK 48 Mod 1 with the medium M240G machine gun. Our troops will need M32 Multiple Grenade Launchers, AT4's and AT4-CS's, Javelins, M252 81MM mortars, plenty of hand grenades and good air cover for our troops. On our MRAP's and Strykers we need M2 Brownings, Javelins, MK-19 Mod 3 grenade launchers, and Dillon Aero Inc M134 minigun, M1129 Stryker Mortar Carrier 120mm and 81mm. It's time to quit messing around and catch or kill Osama and his cohorts. Sat, 26 Jun 2010 19:21:15 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2010/06/25/petraeus-to-loosen-controversial-afghan-roe/#IDComment82439826