Whispering Death said:Oh please, the NASA of today isn't the NASA of the Apollo days. Back then they where able to get stuff done. Today they run 40-million-dollar taxi rides up to low earth orbit and can't even do that right.
I'm not saying Landwarrior isn't a good idea and isn't really fun and shiney to look at on paper and see guys running around on TV looking like something out of a Sci-Fi movie. But we're still using the M-16. The greatest technological improvement for the infantry in the last 50 years has been the camelbak. Our infantry need a lot more advancements in technology that they can actually take onto the field tomorrow than continually ****ing money into this pie-in-the-sky thing.
The #1 thing they should be worried about is getting our boys a decent modern rifle. We're 2 or 3 generations of fighter plane further than when the M-16 was invented. Why are we forcing the guys who take all the casualties to still be using the same generation of weapon as any poor Somalian can pick up off the street corner?
Then we need to work on getting our boys better lighter body armor. 2 years ago we where still having problems just getting armor on our fighting infantry. We need to do a much better job of getting better and lighter life-saving equipment on our infantry, who are, again, the one MOS who constantly take 25% of all casualties in modern wars.
Then we need to be exploring and getting better APC and IFV technologies. If an enemy as poor and inexperienced as Iraqi insurgents can consistaintly break through all our technology to kill and wound soldiers daily, multiple times daily, this is a huge problem. You don't think Iran, Syria, North Korea, and every war planner in the world isn't taking note? You can bet top dollar that in every war we fight from here on we are going to see an insurgentcy and an insurgentcy that will use roadside bombs.
If we can handle all that, then maybe, just maybe, we can start looking seriously at the OICW as a realistic compliament to the infantry squads for its lethality. It's a very ambitious weapons design and has been heald up over and over again as the techs are finally figuring out how big this bite they've taken out and now have to start chewing on. But as hard as the OICW is to actually get in the field, it's a cakewalk compared to how unrealistic landwarrior is.
I could go on with more. But our infantry is drastically underequipped and underfinanced compared to other fighting units. The fighter pilots have unprecendented technology at their disposal. The tankers have M1 Abrams tanks which have proven themselves in multiple wars over multiple decades to be one of the greatest tank designes in the history of warfare. Helicopter pilots have unprecedented lethality and survivability in their craft. But the humble workhore infantryman has been stuck with technology still on par with anything that can be picked up on a street corner in a 3rd world country. They deserve better. I would love to see the day when we can start talking about the landwarrior system but the truth is it's just a drain on resources that need to be better impliamented. It's one of those congress-darlings that pentagon R&D guys can take into the budget meetings to wow the politicians into more funding. It will be 10 years before it's even in the hands of the special operators, meanwhile the humble infantryman will still be trying to clean his M-16.
FYI: The M16 wasn't in U.S. Infantrymans hands until 1966. Besides, why fix something that isn't broken? We might use a similiar system to those of the enemy (the M16) but can he get ahold of an M203, AIMSPOT laser, SUREFIRE flashlight, and M885 Ball rounds. Anyone can get any weapon in the world. Besides most enemies prefer the AK.
Have you even seen the LW 2000 today? Take a look and the Janes Defense from last year.
What infantry in 1968 was armed with.
What troops in the current conflicts are armed with.