It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can the M1A2 Abrams be ousted or replaced?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 06:05 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

So do you see the U.S. Army becoming less of a frontline, heavy, super-powerful combat force and more of a small-scale contingency force, like the U.S. Marine Corps?




posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 06:14 PM
link   
When the M1 was designed, it was slated to have a human loader because simply they were much more effective then auto-loaders at the time. When the Army was coming up with the M1A2 they considered an auto-loader for it, but rejected it on the fact that they are still more effective.

The Abrams is supposed to be in service till 2020, when the FCS will come online (hopefully). With further upgrades, such as Dorchester, L55, better ammo and anti-missile systems. It should be able to maintain overmatch.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 06:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
ShadowXIX,

So do you see the U.S. Army becoming less of a frontline, heavy, super-powerful combat force and more of a small-scale contingency force, like the U.S. Marine Corps?

mabye thier planing on doing what we british have done have a small well trained army. you guys could have an army half its size today and have it excellantly trained and excellantly equiped.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 08:54 PM
link   
We already have an army excellently trained and excellently equipped...despite it's size..



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 09:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
ShadowXIX,

So do you see the U.S. Army becoming less of a frontline, heavy, super-powerful combat force and more of a small-scale contingency force, like the U.S. Marine Corps?


I think it will be combination of both. There will always be a need for large heavy conventional force. I dont think it would be wise to model the entire military to fight small terrorist cells. There has to be a middle ground somewhere right now the military is really designed to fight a large conventional war and we should always be able to do that really good. But our military has to be able to adapt to fight new threats.

I think right now our enemies understand they cant take the US in a conventional war so there are starting to take on new tactics we are really not designed to fight right now. But if switch completely to fight this new threat we might become more vulrenable to a conventional war.

So yes I do see the military turning atleast in part to a lighter, faster version of its old self. Some what of a hybrid of the two. We have to be flexible to new threats but not forgot the hard lessons we learned.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:22 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

But this "middle-ground" military won't be able to take on superior hostile forces like the Warsaw Pact, right? More against inferior conventional forces like China, correct?



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
ShadowXIX,

But this "middle-ground" military won't be able to take on superior hostile forces like the Warsaw Pact, right? More against inferior conventional forces like China, correct?


All due respects but there is no WARSAW PACT any more unless you are refereing to the EUropeans?


I would also suggest its very dangerous to think of a potential opponent like China as inferior. REmember The USA will have to power project into their own back yard, your never going to win such a war thinking your opponent is inferior.Thats the kind of thinking that got the USA into the current mess in IRaq.



posted on Aug, 28 2004 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
ShadowXIX,

But this "middle-ground" military won't be able to take on superior hostile forces like the Warsaw Pact, right? More against inferior conventional forces like China, correct?


Yeahs thats could be one drawback to this form of military. But I think China like Russia is more geared to a large conventional war. Which would in take advantage of its superior numbers. Thats why I think if we changed over to a army designed to just fight small groups like terror cells it would leave us weaker to a attack from a country like China. I think the whole SDI program was designed to counter a Chinese nuclear attack rather then a Russian one which it could never have stopped.

I see the new doctrine more geared to countries like Iran and N Korea and also Terrorist groups. The threat of MAD will still apply to states like China and Russia which will take a attack of the US of the table for them in a conventional way. They may adapt tactics of terror cells or use the cells themselves as a effective way of attcking the US.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by psteel
All due respects but there is no WARSAW PACT any more unless you are refereing to the EUropeans?


I would also suggest its very dangerous to think of a potential opponent like China as inferior. REmember The USA will have to power project into their own back yard, your never going to win such a war thinking your opponent is inferior.Thats the kind of thinking that got the USA into the current mess in IRaq.


I was referring to a Warsaw Pact-type threat. Hypothetically, so demonstrate the magnitude of it, that's all.

China is a capable, worthy opponent, but still inferior. Inferior does not mean you automatically lose. I am one of those who strongly believe China can beat us.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:07 AM
link   
ShadowXIX,

What about infantry? How do you see them in 20 years? Or how about the next five years?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 02:33 AM
link   
If it would be possible to made some good exoskeletons (light, simple and cheap) in the future, the infatry could play a HUGE role again. Many of armored vehicles could became obsolete, just imagine soldier in full body armor (resistant against current bullets and RPG shrapnels ) able to carry 250 kg weight, with IR sensors and other futuristic gadgets. And it would ben especially good for good trained smaller profesional armies, because of value of soldiers live. The infantry is the last thing where the 3world countries can match western armies is infantry. The profesional soldiers are be better trained, but they can be still killed by a bullet for few cents.

[edit on 29-8-2004 by longbow]



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 07:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
We already have an army excellently trained and excellently equipped...despite it's size..

no you have a well trained army with one company of rangers.
imagine an army of rangers? how about that?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:30 AM
link   

Originally posted by devilwasp

Originally posted by Kozzy
We already have an army excellently trained and excellently equipped...despite it's size..

no you have a well trained army with one company of rangers.
imagine an army of rangers? how about that?


Since it takes almost one million dollars to train the average soldier, I can't imagine what training a ranger takes.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy
Since it takes almost one million dollars to train the average soldier, I can't imagine what training a ranger takes.


Whoa!?!?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 10:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Kozzy


Since it takes almost one million dollars to train the average soldier, I can't imagine what training a ranger takes.

WHAT?
Thats like the basic money it costs to train a fighter pilot.
hell even our royals dont cost that much what the hell do you waste it on?



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
ShadowXIX,

What about infantry? How do you see them in 20 years? Or how about the next five years?


Well in 5 years I see systems like the Land Warrior comming into use with the introduction of the new rifles XM-8 and XM-29. Soldiers will like the Land Warrior system but will have some problems with the size/weight of it and some battery life issues.

This will lead to the creation of a smaller version of the Land Warrior with better battery life. NV will start to be replaced by a vision system that will be a mix of NV and Thermal imagers. This new vision will have the range of Thermal Imagers and the ability to see a person body heat but will have the sharp clear image of the new Nightvision systems. We also might see some increase in the areas of the body that are protected by body armour in these years.

20 to 25 Years thats when things will get real interesting. They will be a new suit with head to toe body armour. The armour will be flexible in some areas that will sense a incoming round and turn hard before the round strikes. Other areas like the head and chest will have hard armour made up of something like carbon nano tubes.

Camo will be the new optical stealth system blending a person into the background of whatever area he is in. With a great reduction in a persons IR signature.

Human Performance will be increased with the use of a exo skeleton, but it will not really be like what we see in movies like Aliens. It will be made of a type of synthetic muscle a type of man made fiber that will work the way a human muscle does.

Rifles will use smart bullets and smart grenades. Bullets that will chase down the target they are fired at and change course to hit that target.

This soldier will be like a F- 16 on legs,because it will give soldiers the same capabilities as they would normally have on aircraft and other platforms. These soldiers will require a huge investments and large amounts of training but they will be unparalled in combat.

Heres some links on the Future Warrior system

www.defenselink.mil...

usmilitary.about.com...

www.military.com...



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:43 PM
link   
ShadowXIX,

All sounds juicy. Force XXI and Land Warrior was the reason I wanted to join the Army in the first place. But, things have changed.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 12:52 PM
link   
Yeah these things are going to be quite amazing, talk about "A Army of One"

I wonder what someone that really does not know that much about modern tech will think when they see one of these guys. Or more likely when they see one of there comrades drop dead and they dont see anything.

The technology gap is going to be larger then it has ever been in history when you compare ground soldiers. These Future Warriors may still be fighting people with the same AKs they use now handed down to them from their grandfathers.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:07 PM
link   
Shadow I agree with you except the cloaking camo thing. IR stealth is possible, but I think optical cloaking camos will be too expensive and very difficult to maintain for regular soldier. Maybe only some special units or scouts could use them.



posted on Aug, 29 2004 @ 01:12 PM
link   
I agree with you longbow when this stuff first comes out people like snipers and SF will be the first to use it due to the high cost. Snipers will most likely always get the best most costly version.

The full package of this stuff might form a new class of soldiers in the military just for the types of missions that would require this type of tech due to huge cost investments.

But as time goes on more and more people will get this tech



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join