quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

I sometimes do wonder. With all of the oceans that need coverage, we should have a minimum of 700 ships. But that's not gonna happen....GP

quote:

ORIGINAL: btd64

I sometimes do wonder. With all of the oceans that need coverage, we should have a minimum of 700 ships. But that's not gonna happen....GP

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

Pretty sure the Warsaw Pact forces had plenty of AAA assets.....

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

Agreed UAVs have come a long way but we haven't seen any high performance fighter types yet.

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

Cheaper ways of doing this....and only one of the many 'capabilities' the AF touts. And what does the AF NOT expect it to do? And what's the point of having 3 different versions with very little commonality rather than building what the Navy needs, the AF needs, and the Marines need? Round peg and square hole and all that.

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

Could not agree more, to pick on the F-35 a bit more - what is its readiness rate vs older platforms? And how many hours of maintenance are required between sorties vs the older platforms????

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

Don't disagree, but in any conflict today you are fighting with what you have in the portfolio day 1. No Liberty ship program, no training new soldiers, no building new ships, planes or tanks.

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

Hmmm - not sure why that didn't quote properly - sorry guys.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

quote:

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

quote:

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

quote:

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

quote:

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

quote:

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

quote:

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.

quote:

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.

quote:

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

quote:

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

quote:

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

quote:

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.

quote:

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.

quote:

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

quote:

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

quote:

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

They still do the dispatches and hand written orders. You just don't see them or hear about them.

You never did state what your training was. I mean, how long did it take you to learn how to load and fire a TOW missile?

How long was your military training?

quote:

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

Well, here we go then...

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

Some thoughts:

- The A-10 was designed with the role of ground attack on Warsaw Pact armoured columns rolling towards Paris. Building role-specific aircraft runs the risk that the nature of warfare evolves and leaves that behind. In many respects, the A-10 has done well to have lasted as long as it has, but it's day is done.

- Related to that, the number of conflicts where an older airframe like the A-10 is going to be permitted to loiter will be few and far between (read: conflicts where the one side has next to no anti-air assets).

- With advances we've seen in UAV's, what's the need to have a piloted aircraft in the first place?

- Related to the previous point, the F-35 isn't for it to do everything, but for it to serve as a force multiplier for other units (inc. UAV's).

- As for cost, if that was a real concern then the Super Tucano would have featured more prominently in USAF operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BBfanboy

quote:

ORIGINAL: fcooke

The whole US military has become enamored very high tech, in theory very diverse mission capable platforms. The one things these platforms have in common is huge unit costs and huge cost overruns. Thus you have the desire to wipe out A-10s to try and fund F-35s (they can do everything of course, but not really). And Zumwalts that cannot use their gun because the ammo is too expensive. Numerous projects that get started up, then fail, after having spent billions on them. Even very successful programs like the F-16 (a cheap, lightweight fighter) have had all sorts of extra systems bolted on over the years. The one size fits all mantra (F-35) tends not to work well, and the fact that the driver is often given as economically more cost effective - is laughable. Build role platforms instead and please stop saying that that would be more expensive. There is no way an A-10 is more expensive to operate than an F-35, but then again an A-10 is not stealthy or fast - not 'sexy'. Odd bit is I would bet in most of the conflicts we are in or likely to be in, SEEING an A-10 loitering above you would be more terrifying than the F-35 hiding over the horizon. Not to mention Navy seamanship hasn't covered itself in glory recently, between the Pacific collisions and the Bonnie Dick burning to a crisp while docked (yes - I know only partly manned but docked - our AE sprites would never let that happen).

The cost of a platform isn't just the hardware and maintenance, it's the manpower required to make it work. A lot of the efforts seem aimed at using tech to do things that humans are currently doing, with the supposition that you can then cut the payroll as the new systems come online. Wouldn't it be nice if we could send our robots to war and no one gets hurt ... until the loser of the robot battles decides to throw some well trained troops into the fray.

My concern about China isn't so much their AI research as their massive population that could take huge losses without flinching while making us cringe at our own losses. Wars are won and lost on the willingness of each side to take losses.

The days where you could put raw recruits into a three month training programme, provide them with small arms and expect some form of combat effectiveness are far in the past.

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

A large part of the attractiveness of unmanned systems is that it preserves trained manpower (which itself represents significant monetary investment in terms of training and upkeep, as well as the intangible benefits) while still providing military value.

The unmanned systems also don't get tired, hungry, sleepy, misunderstand orders or suffer from bad morale.

The A-10 is still a usable aircraft and is still needed.

Yes, it is usable, but it is fulfilling a role that it fundamentally was not designed for, a role that has by and large completely vanished with the disappearance of the Warsaw Pact.

quote:

I don't believe that it does not take long to learn how to maintain and fire a TOW missile as an operator. How long did it take you?

Well, you're looking at 10-14 weeks for basic training alone (depending on the nation in question), so you've got a lead-in time of 3-4 months before any prospective soldier is going to be in a position to start specialised training.

quote:

Unless the drones are protected against hacking, they are vulnerable. A pilot can react to things that the drone is not programed for. That is what training does.

Pilots are also vulnerable too, and significantly harder to replace. There are advantages and disadvantages to unmanned vehicles, which we can go in to if you really want.

To address your point in particular, updating the software for unmanned vehicles (say, in response to a new weapons system) is considerably easier than integrating that information across pilots theatre-wide.

quote:

In 3 months, you can have decently trained soldiers. More training just makes them better and reinforces what they learned. Yes, they can learn new things but they still can put fire on a target within that 3 months of training. Experience is a different thing entirely. I mean, just how long did it take you to be a trained soldier?

Define decent.

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

At the bottom end, in 3 months you'll have someone that's able to effectively use small arms. That's probably sufficient for a conscription-based infantry army. Add in the complexities of modern warfare, the use of mechanized and air assets, and that three month period is looking rather short.

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

You may want to look at the effectiveness of the formations from the former Soviet Union, which seems about the level you'd be pitching at - https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/1976-01-01.pdf

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

quote:

Cost is a real concern. And the units are getting so expensive that they can be too expensive to risk in combat (F-22s for example) When you have military platforms that are too valuable to do the things they were designed to do - you have a problem. I mean WTF?

Of course - hence why UAV's etc are becoming more the norm.

Having military assets be too expensive that you don't want to risk them is not a new position. There's plenty of precedent with the naval aspect of WW1.

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

quote:

But they could potentially be hacked, and that would be a disaster.

The same could apply to just about any aspect of military communications networks in the digital age.

Yet I don't see the clamour for us to return to motorcycle dispatches and hand-written orders.

They still do the dispatches and hand written orders. You just don't see them or hear about them.

You never did state what your training was. I mean, how long did it take you to learn how to load and fire a TOW missile?

How long was your military training?

Why, got a good Form 4 that you feel is worth mentioning?

I do like the direct ad hominem though.

quote:

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

quote:

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

quote:

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

quote:

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What ad hominem attack? Direct or indirect? I simply asked a question since you state your opinion on the effectiveness of military training.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

In three months, you can have a soldier trained to fit into a existing squad or fire team, who is trained and capable of handling his own weapon, other small arms, machine guns, missile systems, and radio operations. Not to mention vehicles and aircraft.

That's a big caveat.

What level of newly trained soldiers (as a percentage of the whole) can a unit absorb and still maintain it's previous cohesion and effectiveness?

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

quote:

Not really. It all comes down to the quality of the training and the ability of the recruits.

The quality of which is linked with the time given to assimilate information. Unless you want to argue against decades of educational psychology, of course.

You speak from experience of course, which is?

quote:

I don't give a pile of dreck about the former Soviet Union, it ceased to exist many years ago. The military of the Soviet Union broke up, the personnel, units and equipment are disbursed.

Well that's a shame, you might have learned something.

How do you know what I learned and did not learn about the Soviet Union and its military? What is the basis of your knowledge?

quote:

World War II as well. So what? Just get multiples of less expensive yet capable equipment that is survivable.

Except that's not how military development works. If it did, I doubt we'd have moved on from the bronze-tipped spear.

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

What ad hominem attack? Direct or indirect? I simply asked a question since you state your opinion on the effectiveness of military training.

My opinion is neither here nor there. There's been considerable study into the effectiveness of military training all the way back to Thucydides and the phalanx.

Here's an quite old (but in many ways still relevant) overview on the topic.

The conclusions from that paper may be worth considering in light of our current discussion.

Your opinion is relevant since you stated something and did not quote something while stating the source. I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.

quote:

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

quote:

You speak from experience of course, which is?

I ask again, what is your personal experience in regards to military training and its effectiveness since you stated your opinion on the matter. You did not state that according to a certain person who has bona fide credentials on the subject that it takes a certain amount of time to learn a certain, specific task.

quote:

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

quote:

I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.

quote:

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

quote:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

quote:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

No, it is not a big caveat. It does depend on the unit and what it is doing. Is it in combat or garrison? Combat gives a great motivation to learn while in a garrison situation, things can be learned slower but with more detail and nuance. But one new man in a fire team of four is not hard to accommodate - even two of four can be done. Many units go through a turnover frequently with soldiers leaving and others arriving while unit readiness does not suffer. In fact, it can improve.

So, from what you're saying here a unit can take 25-50% churn and maintain (or even improve effectiveness).

Yes they can, they are constantly training in one thing or another. Some of the soldiers coming into a unit will have prior experience, some will not.

Or, to flip that and frame it in reverse, at least half of a unit must have the relevant experience base to be able to assimilate fresh manpower?

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

Yeah, that seems a big caveat to me. Feel free to disagree.

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

quote:

You speak from experience of course, which is?

I ask again, what is your personal experience in regards to military training and its effectiveness since you stated your opinion on the matter. You did not state that according to a certain person who has bona fide credentials on the subject that it takes a certain amount of time to learn a certain, specific task.

You seem very fixated on my direct personal experience. Do you have prior military experience on the topic at hand that you'd like to share?

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

quote:

Not true. Someone is always looking for a better way to do things, it need not be as expensive. Just compare the T-34 series of tanks against the Panzer mark IIIs and the Panzer mark IVs. Thrown rocks can still kill you.

I did have R&D costs in mind in this aspect (which tend to be much more significant, if intangible to some extent), rather than the unit cost itself.

R & D costs are factored into the cost of each unit produced. The more units that are produced, the more such fixed costs are spread out. So researching a more specialized device yet an also simpler unit can be cheaper per unit and thus more such units can be produced for the same total cost.

quote:

I am not going to read a paper on the subject, I have better things to do.

What a shame, you might have learned something.

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

If you're not going to engage in good faith, then pointless to continue the discussion.

You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

quote:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

Charge the batteries once a month, change the desiccant as needed, go through the PMCS, report any faults so the mechanic can fix them. How hard is that?

Take the equipment, make sure that the charged batteries are installed, hook up the cable from the controller to the firing system - whether it be a vehicle mounted two missile system, or a pop-up type system on an M113 type of vehicle or a similar vehicle, or a pedestal system on a quarter ton vehicle, its replacement, or even a pickup truck, a "dune buggy" type of military vehicle, or just set up a tripod with the launch tube installed, load a missile making sure that the dust cap is off the connector, lock the missile in place. Turn the system on if it is not already on, look through the targeting eyepiece, fire the missile while keeping the cross hairs on the target, depress the firing mechanism. That is not hard to teach.

The operator of the equipment is usually not a mechanic or a technician.

quote:

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

quote:

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

quote:

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

quote:

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

quote:

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

quote:


You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

ORIGINAL: RangerJoe

quote:

ORIGINAL: mind_messing

quote:

Training for modern war... frankly it depends. On the one hand you need very comprehensive training to be a capable 5th generation pilot for instance, so the training factor in many large systems has gotten significantly more complex. The TOW example however, as is the case with many small unit equipment, is not the best one to illustrate the trend. Training an operator on a 1960s vintage AT-3 to a high degree of efficiency is a lot more complex than than doing the same with a current day atgm. Fun fact, the most capable TOW operators currently alive have had very little formal military training but a tremendous amount of field experience with the system, having shot way more missiles than any currently active US military personnel.

I picked the TOW more or less at random to illustrate the point about the cumulative impact of systems complexity. It may be relatively straightforward to provide operator training for. Having the deeper knowledge requires more training. Now combine that with other complex equipment, and it's not just mechanical equipment either - how much of today's infantry equipment requires batteries?

As an aside, note the slight of hand from RangerJoe.

In post #7, I asked:

quote:

How long do you think it would take to train an individual on the proper maintenance, handling and firing procedures for a TOW missile system, for example?

By post #9, that has been reduced to just operating a TOW - obviously a significant reduction in training required above and beyond the maintenance required.

Charge the batteries once a month, change the desiccant as needed, go through the PMCS, report any faults so the mechanic can fix them. How hard is that?

Take the equipment, make sure that the charged batteries are installed, hook up the cable from the controller to the firing system - whether it be a vehicle mounted two missile system, or a pop-up type system on an M113 type of vehicle or a similar vehicle, or a pedestal system on a quarter ton vehicle, its replacement, or even a pickup truck, a "dune buggy" type of military vehicle, or just set up a tripod with the launch tube installed, load a missile making sure that the dust cap is off the connector, lock the missile in place. Turn the system on if it is not already on, look through the targeting eyepiece, fire the missile while keeping the cross hairs on the target, depress the firing mechanism. That is not hard to teach.

The operator of the equipment is usually not a mechanic or a technician.

And the training process for that would be covered within your three month schedule?

There is a reason what the US Army has some 150 MOS assignments. It's because what you can teach in three months has a upper limit. Granted, one that's variable across individuals, but a limit nonetheless.

quote:

The German Army in WWII did it with a lot less.

You'll need to provide more substance to this statement.

quote:

You personal experience in this is? Any military experience? Any civilian experience?

Again, unsure with your fixation on direct experience here. Unless you're trying to imply that vicarious learning is impossible, which is an...interesting position to take.

quote:

It depends upon the job but a rifleman is a rifleman. A carpenter is a carpenter. Some have different motivations, and skill sets. But the end result is the same, getting the job done.

So the problem that's starting to become clear in the modern setting is that being a front-line solider and a carpenter was fine for the Roman legions.

Now that technology has expanded in recent years, there's proficiency with electrical and digital settings to be added to that as well. There's only so much of that you can cover in a three month period.

quote:

You are the one making pronouncements about the military training. I just want to know if it is from personal experience and if so, what experience? Or is it just dry reading from who knows their experience, training, and research? One thing about researchers, they will fake information to fir their agenda.

I'll ignore the anti-intellectual red flag and ask if you have an experience that runs contrary to the information presented so far?

quote:

I have learned may things and I am still learning so there is no shame. I have better things to do than to read an entire research paper of who knows how long without knowing the credentials of the person or persons writing it nor the motivation and agenda of the person or persons who are doing the research paper or those who want the research done.

See, that's what I meant in post #22 when I said you might have learned something.

The great thing about academic papers is that the author is at the top.

For interest, it took me all of 15 seconds and three Google searches to find all of this information.

On the dissonance between your opening sentence and the subsequent actions, I have no comment other than to point out that your actions are not those typically associated with success learning.

Then again, if one does not try, one cannot fail.

quote:


You are the one not engaging in good faith when you make a pronouncement then when asked where said statement comes from, you refuse to answer. Then you make personal attacks.

Good attempt to deflect, but not quite up to the mark.

The ad hominem came from you in post #14 - the implication being that having a required characteristic (in this case, military service) was required in order for the argument to have substance.

quote:

You are the one deflecting.

quote:

I asked what you are basing your comment on. Was it actual experience or just from reading about it or wherever.

quote:

I never stated that having actual military experience was necessary to comment.

quote:

I do know of cases of intellectual fraud in research to fit the researcher's agenda.

quote:

Three Scholars Submitted Fake Papers to Academic Journals. Guess What Happened Next.

Poe’s Law basically says that without a clear indicator of intention, it’s impossible to parody extreme views without it being mistaken for the genuine article. Time and time again, this has proven true as some of the more bizarre arguments from the left that we thought were satire turned out to be real.

Of course, it also seems the reverse is equally true.

Yesterday, news broke that a trio of people decided to take a swing at the social justice establishment and, in the process, show just how ridiculous that side really is. They did it by making some incredibly bizarre statements, supporting it with a healthy dose of BS, and waiting to see what would happen.

Well, they got published (via The Wall Street Journal)

quote:

Misconduct in Medical Research

Every time a researcher takes taxpayer money and publishes fabricated, falsified, or plagiarized findings, the taxpayer has in effect been swindled. Furthermore, given our budget deficit, there is never enough money to go around. Each dollar wasted on a dishonest researcher is a dollar that might have gone to another, more worthy candidate who might have made a real contribution. In short, there is an opportunity cost for each grant that is abused.

Moreover, the nature of scientists and the scientific method is to build on the interesting results obtained by others. Every paper published with fabricated or falsified data will spur other scientists using still other federal grants to try to replicate or extend the results, wasting even more money and time.

How widespread, then, is the problem of scientific misconduct? The only honest answer is that we do not know. One indicator is a study conducted by a small research group called the Acadia Institute1,2. This study found that approximately 40 percent of the deans of the nation's major graduate schools knew of confirmed cases of scientific misconduct occurring in their own institutions within the previous five years.


Another indicator is the recent survey sponsored by the American Association for the Advancement of Science3. It found that 27 percent of a group of scientists surveyed said that they had personally encountered, during the previous 10 years, research that they suspected was falsified, fabricated, or plagiarized. Those 27 percent reported, on average, witnessing at least two such incidents. Furthermore, close to half of the respondents said that the incidence of fraud was on the rise, whereas only 2 percent thought it was declining. More than half characterized university investigations of misconduct as lax. Although I would not characterize these findings as scientific, it is difficult to call them inconsequential.

Equally notable, however, were the scientists' responses when asked what they had done about the misconduct they had recognized. The vast majority had done little or nothing. The few who took action generally confined themselves to discussing the incident privately with a few people. Only 2 percent brought the matter to the attention of the public. Ironically, although large numbers had seen misconduct, although virtually none who had seen it had acted, and although the majority viewed university investigations as ineffectual, nearly all claimed that scientists should monitor themselves and that outsiders should not become involved.

The subcommittee also found disturbing attitudes when we contacted some 20 leading scientists to solicit their views on misconduct. In private interviews, almost all these scientists cited examples of misconduct they had witnessed, whistle-blowers they had seen harassed, or other matters engendering concern. Yet none were willing to testify, write open letters, or even have their names used publicly, for fear of retaliation.