cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) (03/06/91)
From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) While the recent conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of several of the weapons in the US arsenal, it also demonstrated some real weaknesses in our military. In particular, our lack of fast sea lift capability could have proven disastrous, and our mine sweeping capability was inadequate. Sexy, sleek weapons have their place, but so do the more "boring" pieces of equipment. Does anyone know whether the Pentagon is adjusting its budget to fill in some of the gaps in the less exciting parts of its arsenal? --Scott Cromar cromar@math.rutgers.edu
em31+@andrew.cmu.edu (Eric Andrew Morgan) (03/13/91)
From: Eric Andrew Morgan <em31+@andrew.cmu.edu> I know for a fact that the Defense Department in it's budget request to Congress asked for much more funding for the C-17 Transport Plane. Congress is inclined to give it to them. Also, Congress supposedly intends to force more Fast Sealift Vessels on the Navy, just like they did last time. ---------------------------------------------------------- Eric Andrew Morgan Carnegie Mellon University
carlson@haven.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) (03/13/91)
From: carlson@haven.mitre.org (Bruce Carlson) In article <1991Mar6.035953.22789@cbnews.att.com> cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) writes: > >From: cromar@math.rutgers.edu (Scott Cromar) >While the recent conflict demonstrated the effectiveness of several of >the weapons in the US arsenal, it also demonstrated some real >weaknesses in our military. In particular, our lack of fast sea lift >capability could have proven disastrous, and our mine sweeping >capability was inadequate. Sexy, sleek weapons have their place, but >so do the more "boring" pieces of equipment. >Does anyone know whether the Pentagon is adjusting its budget to fill >in some of the gaps in the less exciting parts of its arsenal? >--Scott Cromar >cromar@math.rutgers.edu (the info on SINCGARS was from an article in a commercial magazine; Defense Electronics, if I remember correctly) I think another significant "missing link" in our tactical capabilities is the sad condition of most of the Army's tactical communications equipment. Nearly all Army units in the gulf are still using the VRC-12 family of VHF radios, which is a mid 60's design. The SINCGARS radios (that replace the VRC-12 series) have been issued only to a few units, primarily the 82d Airborne and other high priority units. SINCGARS is now at full production but there wasn't enough time to produce the radios and train the thousands of personnel that have to operate them. If we had to operate for an extended period of time, especially in hot weather, I think there could have been significant commo problems within the Division and Corps units. The VRC-12 radios work, but they have a very low MTBF compared to newer radios and they don't tolerate heat very well. It seems ironic that we can spend money on weapons systems that may have a multi-million dollar cost per unit, but can't afford to buy the equipment that allows the commander to control his tactical troops. If you look at HF radio equipment the situation is even worse. There are so many things that can break or malfunction in the HF radio-teletype rigs that most units feel they are doing pretty well if they can keep about 50% of them operational and on the air. The newest piece of equipment in the RATT rigs is the teletype, which can transmit at up to 1200 baud. However, since all the other equipment (modem, etc.) is so old the rigs still operate at 75 baud. The archival storage capability is punched paper tape that uses 5-level baudot code. Bruce Carlson carlson@gateway.mitre.org Disclaimer: The opinions expressed are my own and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of my employer or the US Government.
henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (03/14/91)
From: henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) >From: Eric Andrew Morgan <em31+@andrew.cmu.edu> >I know for a fact that the Defense Department in it's budget request to >Congress asked for much more funding for the C-17 Transport Plane. >Congress is inclined to give it to them... Congress is, however, starting to ask what the C-17 can do that more C-5s couldn't do sooner and cheaper. Lockheed is offering to restart production of the C-5 for much less than what McDD wants/needs to build C-17s. The orthodox excuse is that the C-5 is incapable of flying heavy loads direct to the front lines, while the C-17 can do this. Surprise surprise, if you look at the original C-5 specs, it was supposed to be able to fly heavy loads to the front lines! There were problems with debris damaging engines when operating on soft surfaces, and the USAF was reluctant to clear the C-5 for such operations in the end; nothing has been said about why the C-17 won't have the same problems. The clincher is that like the C-5, the C-17 will be bought in sufficiently small numbers that the USAF almost certainly would never authorize risking them in front-line flights. As shown by both recent and earlier experiences, heavy airlifters are very valuable. If there aren't many of them, they will be kept well back from the combat zone and front-line capability will be irrelevant. -- "But this *is* the simplified version | Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology for the general public." -S. Harris | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry