Feral Jundi

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Technology: Israeli Robots Remake Battlefield

“We’re trying to get to unmanned vehicles everywhere on the battlefield for each platoon in the field,” says Lt. Col. Oren Berebbi, head of the Israel Defense Forces’ technology branch. “We can do more and more missions without putting a soldier at risk.”

*****

    Hmmmm. A UAV per platoon huh?  Sounds like drone archer material if you ask me, and it is usually the Israelis that push the envelope on this stuff. I also posted a small deal on Scout Helicopter pilots being replaced by UAV’s for really dangerous missions.  You know, the ones where they try to draw fire in order to locate the enemy. The Hummingbird, Fire Scout, or even the AH 6X Little Bird UAV would all be good choices for such a mission. –Matt

—————————————————————–

Israeli Robots Remake Battlefield

Nation Forges Ahead in Deploying Unmanned Military Vehicles by Air, Sea and Land

January 12, 2010

By CHARLES LEVINSON

TEL AVIV, Israel – Israel is developing an army of robotic fighting machines that offers a window onto the potential future of warfare.

Sixty years of near-constant war, a low tolerance for enduring casualties in conflict, and its high-tech industry have long made Israel one of the world’s leading innovators of military robotics.

“We’re trying to get to unmanned vehicles everywhere on the battlefield for each platoon in the field,” says Lt. Col. Oren Berebbi, head of the Israel Defense Forces’ technology branch. “We can do more and more missions without putting a soldier at risk.”

In 10 to 15 years, one-third of Israel’s military machines will be unmanned, predicts Giora Katz, vice president of Rafael Advanced Defense Systems Ltd., one of Israel’s leading weapons manufacturers.

“We are moving into the robotic era,” says Mr. Katz.

Over 40 countries have military-robotics programs today. The U.S. and much of the rest of the world is betting big on the role of aerial drones: Even Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Shiite guerrilla force in Lebanon, flew four Iranian-made drones against Israel during the 2006 Lebanon War.

When the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003, it had just a handful of drones. Today, U.S. forces have around 7,000 unmanned vehicles in the air and an additional 12,000 on the ground, used for tasks including reconnaissance, airstrikes and bomb disposal.

(more…)

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Military News: Million-Dollar Man

Filed under: Afghanistan,Military News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 10:16 AM

   This is a quick run down as to the cost per soldier over in Afghanistan.  My thoughts on this, is why not just give every soldier a horse?  They can run around all over the country with a horse, and even lay a kevlar blanket under the saddle for a little extra protection.  The horse eats grass or hay or whatever, and drinks water where ever you can find it. A patrol could cover a lot of ground on horseback, and best of all, there is tons of experience to learn from when it comes to horses and warfare. Especially for Afghanistan.

   You could also eat the horse if it is killed, or use it as cover during a fire fight. The horse is pretty quite, compared to the running engine of a HMMV or MRAP.  The horse could be traded and given to the locals when the mission is done or as gifts, and the coalition could take advantage of an industry in Afghanistan that is already in place.  Something to think about, and we have fooled around with horses a little bit in this war in the beginning. Let’s put the cavalry back on the things and reduce our costs? –Matt

——————————————————————

Million-Dollar Man

By Jesse Ellison

Jan 2, 2010

The current cost to station 68,000 U.S. troops in Afghanistan: just over $65 billion—or, to quote a figure politicians have extrapolated, about $1 million a soldier. (Obama’s budget director has cited this ratio in estimating surge costs.) Why so much? A breakdown, using 2010 Defense numbers:

OPERATIONS: The biggest expense—transporting soldiers and equipment to, and around, Afghanistan.49%*$473,371

WORN-OUT GEAR: When units leave, their damaged stuff gets a complete overhaul or is replaced altogether.12.5%$120,339

PROTECTIVE MATERIALS: Armor and equipment, including 1,080 Òmine-resistant, ambush-protected vehicles.11.9%$114,956

TRAINING AFGHANS: Providing Afghan National Security Forces with infrastructure and arms.11.4%$109,747

INTELLIGENCE: Includes airborne sensors and surveillance of high-value targets.5.75%$55,275

CONSTRUCTION:

Flexible funds for small-scale civil and humanitarian projects and miscellaneous building costs.

3.98%

$38,212

COALITION SUPPORT: Reimbursement for operational and logistical support by cooperating nations.2.87%$27,574

RESEARCH: Development of technology to combat IEDs (improvised explosive devices).1.2%$11,287

TRAINING PAKISTANIS: Financial support for Pakistani Security Forces to secure borders and fight insurgents.1.1%$10,294

*numbers do not add up to 100% due to rounding.

Story here.

Sunday, December 27, 2009

Germany: Unleash The Germans In Afghanistan, Please!

Filed under: Afghanistan,Germany,Military News — Tags: , , , , — Matt @ 7:00 AM

   This pisses me off.  First off, the German soldier is an extremely capable soldier, if we allow them to do what they are trained to do.  The awarding of the ‘Iron Cross’ to some German soldiers last summer for actions in Afghanistan, are a prime example of what they are capable of.

   So when I hear of their country taking a giant dump on their soldiers for fighting the war in Afghanistan, I get pissed.  You’re either in, or you’re out.  If you don’t want your soldiers in that war, then pull them out.  If you want to send soldiers there, but really don’t want them to be soldiers in that war, then the message you are sending to the rest of the world and to your soldiers is a confusing one. It shows that you are confused about the realities of war and you could really care less about combating terrorism or defeating the Taliban. You want to play, but you don’t want to risk anything, and that does no good to the rest of soldiers in Afghanistan fighting the ‘just war’. If anything, your just taking up space and eating up food and fuel by being an ineffective army.

    You do not win wars, with half measures and bad language.  It takes extreme violence and serious resolve to defeat an enemy and break their will to fight. It sounds like the only war the politicians and a few people in Germany are wanting to fight, is the one against their own soldiers.  Pfffft. By the way, I am thankful for the sacrifice and good work of the German soldier in Afghanistan. –Matt

——————————————————————-

Germans Make War Over War

December 27, 2009

Strategy Page

There’s another military scandal playing out in Germany. Senior officers are being accused of lying. Although the lies were told to save German lives, many Germans don’t want their soldiers involved in combat, and are seeking to punish army commanders as much as possible for any activities related to combat.

All this began earlier in the year when the phrase, “the use of deadly force is prohibited, unless an attack is underway or imminent,” was quietly dropped from the NATO rule book for troops in Afghanistan. This particular rule meant that you could not shoot first, even if surrounded by armed Taliban. The Taliban knew all about this rule, and increasingly exploited it. The NATO contingents that followed this rule (not all did), were stationed in parts of northern Afghanistan where there were no Taliban. But in the last few years, Taliban moved into parts of the north occupied by Pushtun tribes, and proceeded to terrorize these tribes into tolerating, or supporting, the Taliban presence. The local NATO troops, there to provide security, were unable to do so. The Taliban knew the NATO rules, and exploited them.

(more…)

Saturday, December 26, 2009

Military News: British Troops To Get First New Camouflage In 40 Years

   Congrats to the British for picking an outstanding camouflage.  Kudos to Crye Precision for making such an excellent camouflage too.  I am not sure what the reaction is of the troops, but I am sure they will welcome the new threads.  I know multicam has been getting a lot of positive reviews from some of the special forces crews and such operating in Afghanistan.

   Meanwhile, the U.S. Army is still using a uniform that stands out like a sore thumb.  What is that stuff called, UCP? I think they will be getting a change of uniform soon from what I hear…..I hope. –Matt

——————————————————————-

Multicam

The new stuff is on the left.

British troops to get first new camouflage in 40 years

12/20/2009

London, England (CNN) — British troops will get new camouflage uniforms for the first time in more than 40 years, based on computer modeling of Afghanistan’s terrain, the Ministry of Defence announced Sunday.

The “multi-terrain pattern,” as the military has dubbed the new design, is the first new pattern from the Ministry of Defence since 1968, it said.

It is specifically designed with Afghanistan’s Helmand province in mind, the ministry said in a statement. The British military have suffered heavy losses in the southern province this year. More than 100 British troops have died in Afghanistan in 2009, making it the deadliest for UK troops in many years.

The new design was put together in six months, funded as an “urgent operational requirement” project worth £250,000 ($400,000).

(more…)

Saturday, December 19, 2009

Military News: Georgia And The War In Afghanistan, By Mikheil Saakashvili

   This is actually pretty interesting.  This is a thousand troops that the Marines can use to do all sorts of violent things with, and with no limitations.  But the most interesting aspect is Georgia wants in NATO, and this is kind of a double sided insurance policy.

   On one side, a move like this will help to up the level of combat effectiveness of the Georgian military.  Marines are already training Georgians in their country, and they were doing that even before Georgia’s quick war with Russia.  I think a move like this is smart, because now the Georgians will have combat veterans that could make life for an invading force a little more painful if not damn near impossible.

   The other side of this is Mikheil is also trying to earn his country’s admission into NATO, so that Russia would think twice before invading again.  The question I have, is if Russia would actually care if Georgia was a NATO member or not?  Because I think Russia will do whatever they want, despite what club Georgia is a member of.

   Now if I was Mikheil, I would develop an asymmetric warfare capability big time.  Keep working on this other diplomatic stuff, but if these guys want to make life miserable for an invading force again, they need to start thinking more like Hezbollah and less like some kind of a conventional army. Get some combat time, learn from the enemy in Afghanistan, and apply those lessons to defending Georgia.  The Marines will definitely help them to get there, and help them with the asymmetric stuff as well. –Matt

——————————————————————

Georgia and the War in Afghanistan

December 19, 2009

Why the young democracy is sending nearly 1,000 troops to the war effort.

By MIKHEIL SAAKASHVILI

Following President Obama’s speech on our common mission in Afghanistan, NATO members and other countries pledged about 7,000 additional troops. My country committed just under 1,000, which makes Georgia the highest per-capita troop contributor to the war effort.

Some might be surprised that a small country not yet in NATO—and partly occupied by more than 10,000 hostile Russian troops—would make this commitment to an Allied mission abroad. Let me explain why it makes perfect sense.

As President Obama pointed out, the threat of violent extremism endangers all nations that subscribe to the principles of liberal democracy. Those principles made America the target on 9/11. Spain was hit on March 11, 2004, and Britain on July 7, 2005. Any of our countries could be next.

(more…)

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »

Powered by WordPress