mack pl
11-01-2004, 02:03 PM
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/posting.php?mode=newtopic&f=7&sid=a4a7d55874d030b20833d265e5d2e56b
only a part of article:
The Bush Administration came into office determined to transform the United States military. It believed that the military of the 20th Century was not well equipped, organized or postured to meet the threats of the 21st Century. These threats would emerge suddenly and in new places. Potential adversaries would employ techniques and technologies intended to deny the United States access to regions of interest and the sea approaches to them. These adversaries might also acquire weapons of mass destruction with which to threaten U.S. allies and forward-deployed forces and possibly even the homeland. To meet these threats, the Bush Administration concluded, U.S. forces would have to be projected farther, faster and with greater striking power when they arrive. With these facts in mind, President Bush argued that the United States needed:
...a future force that is defined less by size and more by mobility and swiftness, one that is easier to deploy and sustain, one that relies more heavily on stealth, precision weaponry and information technologies.
The experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to confirm the Bush Administration's belief in the wisdom of transformation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the plan to transform the U.S. military thus:
Over the next decade, a portion of the force will be transformed. It will serve as a vanguard and signal of the changes to come. Ground forces will be lighter, more lethal, and highly mobile. They will be capable of insertion far from traditional ports and air bases and will be networked with long-range precision- strike systems. Naval and amphibious forces will be able to overcome anti-access and area-denial threats, operate close to an enemy's shores, and project power deep inland. Aerospace forces will be able to locate and track mobile enemy targets over vast areas, and in combination with land and sea forces, strike them rapidly at long ranges without warning. The joint force will be networked in order to conduct highly complex and distributed operations over vast distances and in space.
The vision of a transformed military was given added impetus by the events of September 11 and the subsequent need to project U.S. military power far inland to the capitals of Afghanistan and Iraq. The successful campaigns to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq made use of advances in a range of technologies - including information systems, precision weapons, stealthy aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - to fight a new kind of war.
In Iraq, both the Army and Marine Corps found the need for more armor. In particular, the need arose for what can be called medium-armor units, those with armored vehicles heavier than the Humvee and even M-113, but lighter than the Abrams tank or Bradley fighting vehicle. As the 3rd Infantry Division's after-action report notes, while "tanks were effective against most enemy direct-fire targets, they were overkill in many cases." This was particularly the case in stabilization operations. But on the noncontiguous, nonlinear land battlefields of the future, lighter, agile forces with substantial firepower and force protection features will be needed to rapidly respond to a fluid environment, defeat enemy skirmishers, seize and control key terrain and police the area.
The Marine Corps made extensive and successful use of their Light Armored Reconnaissance units equipped primarily with the wheeled LAV-25 (Light Armored Vehicle) which carried a 25mm cannon to protect convoys, fight irregulars and patrol their sector of Iraq. The 1st Marine Division's after-action report concluded that with some important upgrades, such as a heavy gun/mortar capability, these units "can be the most lethal, versatile forces on the battlefield."
Medium-armored vehicles have proven their value in the fight to stabilize Iraq. Light vehicles such as Humvees are vulnerable to small-arms fire and improvised explosive devices. Heavy armor provides excellent force protection but it is difficult to maneuver in urban terrain. Medium armor provides enhanced force protection as well as mobility. The Stryker brigade deployed to northern Iraq in late 2003 is successfully policing an area that previously required an entire regular division.
The experience in Iraq has taught the United States an important lesson, which is that this country needs to enhance its ground forces. Most immediate is the need for better force protection. In addition to providing up-armored Humvees, the military is acquiring a significant number of the specially designed Armored Security Vehicle, once deployed only with military police units. More generally, there is a need for a broader spectrum of forces and capabilities to include medium armor, tactical unmanned aerial vehicles and a common operating picture of the battle space.
Regards
mack pl
only a part of article:
The Bush Administration came into office determined to transform the United States military. It believed that the military of the 20th Century was not well equipped, organized or postured to meet the threats of the 21st Century. These threats would emerge suddenly and in new places. Potential adversaries would employ techniques and technologies intended to deny the United States access to regions of interest and the sea approaches to them. These adversaries might also acquire weapons of mass destruction with which to threaten U.S. allies and forward-deployed forces and possibly even the homeland. To meet these threats, the Bush Administration concluded, U.S. forces would have to be projected farther, faster and with greater striking power when they arrive. With these facts in mind, President Bush argued that the United States needed:
...a future force that is defined less by size and more by mobility and swiftness, one that is easier to deploy and sustain, one that relies more heavily on stealth, precision weaponry and information technologies.
The experiences of Afghanistan and Iraq appeared to confirm the Bush Administration's belief in the wisdom of transformation. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld described the plan to transform the U.S. military thus:
Over the next decade, a portion of the force will be transformed. It will serve as a vanguard and signal of the changes to come. Ground forces will be lighter, more lethal, and highly mobile. They will be capable of insertion far from traditional ports and air bases and will be networked with long-range precision- strike systems. Naval and amphibious forces will be able to overcome anti-access and area-denial threats, operate close to an enemy's shores, and project power deep inland. Aerospace forces will be able to locate and track mobile enemy targets over vast areas, and in combination with land and sea forces, strike them rapidly at long ranges without warning. The joint force will be networked in order to conduct highly complex and distributed operations over vast distances and in space.
The vision of a transformed military was given added impetus by the events of September 11 and the subsequent need to project U.S. military power far inland to the capitals of Afghanistan and Iraq. The successful campaigns to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan and Saddam Hussein in Iraq made use of advances in a range of technologies - including information systems, precision weapons, stealthy aircraft and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) - to fight a new kind of war.
In Iraq, both the Army and Marine Corps found the need for more armor. In particular, the need arose for what can be called medium-armor units, those with armored vehicles heavier than the Humvee and even M-113, but lighter than the Abrams tank or Bradley fighting vehicle. As the 3rd Infantry Division's after-action report notes, while "tanks were effective against most enemy direct-fire targets, they were overkill in many cases." This was particularly the case in stabilization operations. But on the noncontiguous, nonlinear land battlefields of the future, lighter, agile forces with substantial firepower and force protection features will be needed to rapidly respond to a fluid environment, defeat enemy skirmishers, seize and control key terrain and police the area.
The Marine Corps made extensive and successful use of their Light Armored Reconnaissance units equipped primarily with the wheeled LAV-25 (Light Armored Vehicle) which carried a 25mm cannon to protect convoys, fight irregulars and patrol their sector of Iraq. The 1st Marine Division's after-action report concluded that with some important upgrades, such as a heavy gun/mortar capability, these units "can be the most lethal, versatile forces on the battlefield."
Medium-armored vehicles have proven their value in the fight to stabilize Iraq. Light vehicles such as Humvees are vulnerable to small-arms fire and improvised explosive devices. Heavy armor provides excellent force protection but it is difficult to maneuver in urban terrain. Medium armor provides enhanced force protection as well as mobility. The Stryker brigade deployed to northern Iraq in late 2003 is successfully policing an area that previously required an entire regular division.
The experience in Iraq has taught the United States an important lesson, which is that this country needs to enhance its ground forces. Most immediate is the need for better force protection. In addition to providing up-armored Humvees, the military is acquiring a significant number of the specially designed Armored Security Vehicle, once deployed only with military police units. More generally, there is a need for a broader spectrum of forces and capabilities to include medium armor, tactical unmanned aerial vehicles and a common operating picture of the battle space.
Regards
mack pl