• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

U.S. successfully tests airborne laser on missile

Why....once the world was even flat. I'm sure to many, Columbus' attempts were futile.

The Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.

That Columbus story is complete bull****.

Sadly, it appears that military technology gives new creed to the term "trial by fire".
 
And this is my point about it entirely. The "ifs" are unnecessary. Unless we go to war with China, the dog fights are over. And even if we do, what we have surpasses what they have by a long shot. Our troops need air support now. At a time when our military needs more pickups, we insist on supplying useless Ferraris..

I think we still need to play “what if” to a certain extent, because there will be future wars; there is no doubt about that. As far as dog fighting being over, that is not true, there many countries with capable air forces. During Operation Desert Storm, there were dog fights, and there will be some in future wars too.

The first I saw it was in 2002. It is 2010. A lot of war has been happening in between. Because of this lack of attention into systems at the troop and commander level the military has been flooded with civilian equipment of all types. Units have been paying for ruggedized civilian equipment for years. Because of these "Urgent UNS" (Universal Need Statement), our systems are as confusing as they are conflicting.
..

We are spending billions on new ideas for this war with the urgent operational need requests. Almost anything that has to do with countering IEDs gets funding. I know a lot of the new equipment is commercial off the shelf (COTS) civilian equipment, but that is to drastically reduce the time to get it to the field. It takes too long to make mil-spec equipment because of the research and development time. COTS is also cheaper, and as far as computers are concerned, it ensures we have almost the best on the market. Although it is too bad some of those systems are coming out half-ass. But using COTS is happening at all levels, I am sure the computer systems on the Airborne Laser uses it, and many upgrades to other existing systems are getting COTS.
 
If I were in charge, literally every new device the military used from here on out would involve lasers somehow. Laser grenades. Laser vests. Laser trucks. Laser toothbrushes.

Because seriously, who would mess with us then?
 
If I were in charge, literally every new device the military used from here on out would involve lasers somehow. Laser grenades. Laser vests. Laser trucks. Laser toothbrushes.

Because seriously, who would mess with us then?

Mirrorman?

Mirrorman%20website.jpg
 
The cost. To actually make any use out of these, we will need lots of them. Don't forget also, these things are massive high-tech lasers strapped to the inside of a 737. The amount of money needed to make these things could be used more wisely elsewhere.

Absolutely.... like another $787,000,000,000 stimulus/slush fund.... the unions are running out of money again.
 
I didn't see where in the article that the ALTB had been canceled. TIA.
 
The Greeks knew the Earth wasn't flat.

That Columbus story is complete bull****.

Sadly, it appears that military technology gives new creed to the term "trial by fire".



It was the point I was making, Encyclopedia Brown.
 
I think we still need to play “what if” to a certain extent...

And we do this. But there is a practical reality involved. This is a reality our Defense Industry denies and a reality our politicians are too stupid to grasp. The Defense Industry, the Air Force, and the Army have spent two decades preparing for wars they want to fight instead of the wars we are going to fight. And this is exactly why Afghanistan and Iraq caught them all off guard. They absolutely demanded that Gulf War lessons be the primary focus and that it was Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo that was the exception to our future wars. Well, the urban setting and un-uniformed enemy of Afghanistan and Iraq have proved them wrong. Future wars will do the same. The world has learned that the only way to even try to compete with our military is to fight as cowards within their people and with the media on their side.

, because there will be future wars; there is no doubt about that. As far as dog fighting being over, that is not true, there many countries with capable air forces. During Operation Desert Storm, there were dog fights, and there will be some in future wars too.

None of which was a threat to our fighters and that was my point. Future wars will see the same thing we saw in the Gulf War. There is no threat from dog fights from anyone on earth.


We are spending billions on new ideas for this war with the urgent operational need requests. Almost anything that has to do with countering IEDs gets funding. I know a lot of the new equipment is commercial off the shelf (COTS) civilian equipment, but that is to drastically reduce the time to get it to the field. It takes too long to make mil-spec equipment because of the research and development time. COTS is also cheaper, and as far as computers are concerned, it ensures we have almost the best on the market. Although it is too bad some of those systems are coming out half-ass. But using COTS is happening at all levels, I am sure the computer systems on the Airborne Laser uses it, and many upgrades to other existing systems are getting COTS.

COTS isn't the problem. You are correct. COTS is great. The purpose of some our past equipment was to translate civilian white gear into military green gear for the tactical environment. COTS merely extends civilian systems into our environment with mil specs on board for our purposes. It is easier, cheaper, and practical. But COTS isn't the problem.

Urgents UNS is exactly my point. Why is the commander in the field having to purchase tactical slings, body armor, and radio systems? Never in our history has this been the path of our supply. Had our defense industry been doing what it was supposed to do, while being controlled by our politicians as they were supposed to do, we would not have the problem we have today. We have so many different systems amongst the branches and within the branches that it has wrecked some of our integrity to operate. One unit does things very different from another and it is based mostly on the equipment someone bought off the Internet from one year to the next. Every year, units showed up to a new Iraq. Units that left Iraq in 2004 came back in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. to new and different equipment. Units fell in on systems that had been purchased and installed by those before them only to replace the equipment with something even newer before the next unit arrives. It was bad enough when our units had to take a month to re-learn the new environment every time they returned without having to train Marines on equipment every time because they've never seen it before. This is not the way to do business. In the past, we had to contend with a government that wasted money on toys. Today, we have to contend with the same thing plus what the Urgent UNS system has created.

And it all goes back to the abuse and neglect our Defense Industry has been allowed to get away with by those who know no better. The motto used in Congress to sell big war toys, "Nothing is too good for our troops," is no good when the troops are having to purchase what they truly need on their own.
 
Last edited:
And we do this. But there is a practical reality involved. This is a reality our Defense Industry denies and a reality our politicians are too stupid to grasp. The Defense Industry, the Air Force, and the Army have spent two decades preparing for wars they want to fight instead of the wars we are going to fight. And this is exactly why Afghanistan and Iraq caught them all off guard. They absolutely demanded that Gulf War lessons be the primary focus and that it was Somalia, Bosnia, Kosovo that was the exception to our future wars. Well, the urban setting and un-uniformed enemy of Afghanistan and Iraq have proved them wrong. Future wars will do the same. The world has learned that the only way to even try to compete with our military is to fight as cowards within their people and with the media on their side.

None of which was a threat to our fighters and that was my point. Future wars will see the same thing we saw in the Gulf War. There is no threat from dog fights from anyone on earth.

COTS isn't the problem. You are correct. COTS is great. The purpose of some our past equipment was to translate civilian white gear into military green gear for the tactical environment. COTS merely extends civilian systems into our environment with mil specs on board for our purposes. It is easier, cheaper, and practical. But COTS isn't the problem.

Urgents UNS is exactly my point. Why is the commander in the field having to purchase tactical slings, body armor, and radio systems? Never in our history has this been the path of our supply. Had our defense industry been doing what it was supposed to do, while being controlled by our politicians as they were supposed to do, we would not have the problem we have today. We have so many different systems amongst the branches and within the branches that it has wrecked some of our integrity to operate. One unit does things very different from another and it is based mostly on the equipment someone bought off the Internet from one year to the next. Every year, units showed up to a new Iraq. Units that left Iraq in 2004 came back in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, etc. to new and different equipment. Units fell in on systems that had been purchased and installed by those before them only to replace the equipment with something even newer before the next unit arrives. It was bad enough when our units had to take a month to re-learn the new environment every time they returned without having to train Marines on equipment every time because they've never seen it before. This is not the way to do business. In the past, we had to contend with a government that wasted money on toys. Today, we have to contend with the same thing plus what the Urgent UNS system has created.

And it all goes back to the abuse and neglect our Defense Industry has been allowed to get away with by those who know no better. The motto used in Congress to sell big war toys, "Nothing is too good for our troops," is no good when the troops are having to purchase what they truly need on their own.

I agree with you about needing improvements with the ground forces equipment, but I don’t agree that the Army and Air Force has spent “two decades preparing for wars they want to fight instead of the wars we are going to fight”, because they did fight a war they prepared for as recently as 2003 during the main war (so-called Shock and Awe) in Iraq. That part of the war was a huge success and enabled a lightning fast take-over of the country. Things could have been a lot worse if that hadn't happened the way it did, and that is fighting a country that is not as strong as say, North Korea, or other potential adversaries.

We do need to work on this occupation of a hostile country and guerilla warfare/anti-insurgency part--with upgrades in equipment and tactics that we are continuing to do. For example getting the MRAP fielded...not perfect, but a nice upgrade don't you think? It has saved lives, but of course not a lot can save you from an EFP.

As far as fighter jets, there already are aircraft out there that are better than ours, and we are falling behind, and as I mentioned in another thread about the F-22: The proliferation of advanced surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems pose problems to the F-15 and F-16s survivability. The F-22 has higher survivability chances because of it's low observability to radar systems. Also F-22's can engage more targets and at greater distances, so you would not need as many F-22's as you would F-15's.

Additionally, I found this site that brings up some interesting points from a USMC prospective since air power is something all services have to deal with: F-22A Raptors for the Marine Corps
A quote from it:
“…In modern warfare, the old F/A-18A/C/D Hornets have little capability against new Sukhois [Su-35s] and SAMs. The ‘Super Hornet’ is already obsolete. The much delayed, untested, battlefield interdictor Joint Strike Fighter was never designed to impose air dominance against modern ACFs, nor will it penetrate a modern IADS with SAMs that can detect and fire on the radar returns from pigeons when the radar reflections of the Joint Strike Fighter will be more of the size of a goose. Courage in the face of a technologically superior enemy unjustly results in the death of many fine warriors…”
 
... because they did fight a war they prepared for as recently as 2003 during the main war (so-called Shock and Awe) in Iraq.

"Shock and Awe" was an extreme failure. Nobody ran towards our troops with their arms in the air. Nobody surrendered without a fight. It did nothing but create a sky show for Iraqis. The ground troops were constantly calling in fire missions for equipment no where near the "Shock and Awe" targets and Marines fought their way all the way to Baghdad.

"Shock and Awe" was a hold over retardation from Rumsfeld's idea of our rediculous Gulf War imagined future.

The Army spent the entire decade of the 90s preparing for big box wars while the Marine Corps spent the decade preparing for Somalia type scenarios. The Air Force looked towards China as the future enemy (F/A-22) and the Navy relied upon their support towards the Marines as their means to mattering in any scenario.

This is fact and I can offer you some outstanding readings from Ralph Peters if your like. He is a former Lt.Col. in the Army who spent the majority of his career in Europe in the intel world and now spends an enormous amount of time going on analyzing missions for the White House (Bush and Obama) and as a military voice on popular news.
 
Last edited:
We had huge defense budget cuts in R&D throughout the 90's as well.
 
"Shock and Awe" was an extreme failure. Nobody ran towards our troops with their arms in the air. Nobody surrendered without a fight. It did nothing but create a sky show for Iraqis. The ground troops were constantly calling in fire missions for equipment no where near the "Shock and Awe" targets and Marines fought their way all the way to Baghdad.

"Shock and Awe" was a hold over retardation from Rumsfeld's idea of our rediculous Gulf War imagined future.

The Army spent the entire decade of the 90s preparing for big box wars while the Marine Corps spent the decade preparing for Somalia type scenarios. The Air Force looked towards China as the future enemy (F/A-22) and the Navy relied upon their support towards the Marines as their means to mattering in any scenario.

This is fact and I can offer you some outstanding readings from Ralph Peters if your like. He is a former Lt.Col. in the Army who spent the majority of his career in Europe in the intel world and now spends an enormous amount of time going on analyzing missions for the White House (Bush and Obama) and as a military voice on popular news.

The “shock and awe” air war destroyed Iraq's command and control and that meant the Iraqi leadership could not really respond to the US military's rapid advances on the ground, while the US-led aircraft also softened up the Iraqi forces for the US army and marines.

Do you really think this didn’t help us topple the government and most of the military in 21 days?:

…20,753 combat sorties and used 18,467 smart bombs and missiles and 9,251 dumb bombs. Most of the smart bombs were JDAM (6,542) and laser guided (8,618). U.S. Navy ships also fired 802 cruise missiles. There were 153 air launched cruise missiles used, 98 EGBU-27 GPS/Laser Guided bombs and 408 anti-radar missiles. There were 908 guided cluster bombs dropped. Other missiles used include Hellfire (562), Maverick (918), AGM-130 (4), AGM-84 SLAM ER (3) and AGM-54 JSOW (253).

Fewer bombs were needed in 2003 than in 1991 because of better sensors (UAVs and more JSTARS) and communications (faster and more people connected to the "battlefield Internet"). What didn't work in 1991 (lots of massive dumb bomb attacks) was not used in 2003. The Iraq campaign used a different approach to finding and destroying targets. Everything was done with more accuracy and speed.

About half the combat sorties were used against the six Iraqi Republican Guard divisions, which was the only military force they had that showed any willingness to fight. The Iraqis made the mistake of trying to move these divisions, and discovered that U.S. UAVs and surveillance aircraft (mainly JSTARS) could track their movements 24/7, even during sandstorms. While those storms gave the Iraqis some protection from missiles and laser guided bombs, they were no help against GPS guided high explosive and cluster bombs. The Iraqis quickly realized what was going on, and all but a few dozen of the Republican Guards 3,000 armored vehicles were destroyed (mostly from the air) or abandoned.

There were 15,592 sorties against Iraqi ground forces. In comparison, only 1,799 sorties were flown against command and control targets (headquarters and communications) and only 832 against missile and NBC (Nuclear, Biological, Chemical) targets.

Ground and air commanders made 30,542 requests for targets to be hit, and 25,240 of these requests were approved and 19,898 of the targets were actually hit. Many of the "target requests" were for bombers to patrol certain areas ("kill boxes") and hit any enemy forces found there…
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom