الشعب يريد اسقاط النظام
...show me the schematic
...show me the schematic
Wut, you think 9 years in the inventories haven't been restocked?FEOS wrote:
Money's already been spent.
You're living in a dreamworld.
Of course it could.It's not like it could've or would've been spent elsewhere in the future.
Except its not a war any more, its a counter-insurgency. Cost in lives and materiel is critical.You don't fight a war looking at the tally. That's the surest way to lose your ass.
Not as many as they thought, due to budget problems.Ask the MoDs of the UK and Australia (and Turkey and Germany and Italy and Spain and...) how many F35s they're buying.
Fuck Israel
You're the one living in a dreamworld, Dilbert. Those Javelins would've been bought whether we'd been at war in Afghanistan or not. The acquisition of that weapon system started long before Oct 01 (which was eight years ago, not nine).Dilbert_X wrote:
Wut, you think 9 years in the inventories haven't been restocked?FEOS wrote:
Money's already been spent.
You're living in a dreamworld.
No, it couldn't. The program was already in motion before the war started, thus the money would already have been allocated.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course it could.It's not like it could've or would've been spent elsewhere in the future.
Hate to be the one to break this to you, but COIN is a type of warfare. The only thing that matters is whether you achieve your objectives and bring your troops home alive. Material costs be damned.Dilbert_X wrote:
Except its not a war any more, its a counter-insurgency. Cost in lives and materiel is critical.You don't fight a war looking at the tally. That's the surest way to lose your ass.
When you start nickel and dimeing troops over materiel, you get them killed. Simple as that (not supplying up-armored HMMWVs, for example). You're approaching it from the same perspective as your hero Rumsfeld.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Not at all, had those missiles not been used they would still be sitting in store, the store would not have had to have been replenished, costing money. Its that simple.
I'm not advocating doing things on the cheap, just the most effective way.
Fire off 10 Javelins and thats one MRAP which gets cancelled or postponed.
I'm not advocating doing things on the cheap, just the most effective way.
We're talking British Army, not USAF.Material costs be damned.
Fire off 10 Javelins and thats one MRAP which gets cancelled or postponed.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-03 15:04:30)
Fuck Israel
And again, you're not the one putting your pudgy pink ass on the line. If you had your way, those troops would have to ask permission to fire a round to ensure it wouldn't break the bank. That attitude gets troops killed. Plain and simple.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not at all, had those missiles not been used they would still be sitting in store, the store would not have had to have been replenished, costing money. Its that simple.
I'm not advocating doing things on the cheap, just the most effective way.We're talking British Army, not USAF.Material costs be damned.
Fire off 10 Javelins and thats one MRAP which gets cancelled or postponed.
Had those missiles not been used, they would've exceeded their shelf life and been scrapped, costing the same amount of money. It's that simple.
What's even more simple is your plain lack of understanding of the most fundamental military concepts, yet you spout off nonsense as if you have all the answers and are the only one to have considered your millimeter-deep thoughts on the matter. If it were really that simple, don't you think it would've already been resolved?
You are absolutely advocating doing things on the cheap rather than the most effective way. That is clear from your focus on the cost (cheapest way) rather than on the operational requirement (most effective way).
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The MRAP's don't solve the IED problem anyway. There needs to be more helicopters to bypass roads altogether, and that falls upon the RAF, not the Army.Dilbert_X wrote:
Not at all, had those missiles not been used they would still be sitting in store, the store would not have had to have been replenished, costing money. Its that simple.
I'm not advocating doing things on the cheap, just the most effective way.We're talking British Army, not USAF.Material costs be damned.
Fire off 10 Javelins and thats one MRAP which gets cancelled or postponed.
Reality...
You are being shot at. Someone is despirately trying to kill you. You have a rifle, a Javelin, and a radio with 155mm arty back at base.
Your rifle ammo cannot penetrate the cover the enemy is hiding behind. It might keep their heads down momentarily or kill an unlucky enemy...not very effective.
Your artillery support will take a couple minutes to call in, and land on target. The risk of collateral damage/blue-on-blue is low to moderate.
Your Javelin will take out the enemy MG behind the wall with little chance for collateral damage and almost zero risk of blue-on-blue (as long as you can get a good lock).
Which do you use?
If you say rifle: you are a moron.
If you say artillery, you are risking your life and the lives of your troops needlessly (due to time delay and comm. errors).
If you use the Javelin, you get to go back to base in 5 minutes and report 5 dead Taliban.
You are being shot at. Someone is despirately trying to kill you. You have a rifle, a Javelin, and a radio with 155mm arty back at base.
Your rifle ammo cannot penetrate the cover the enemy is hiding behind. It might keep their heads down momentarily or kill an unlucky enemy...not very effective.
Your artillery support will take a couple minutes to call in, and land on target. The risk of collateral damage/blue-on-blue is low to moderate.
Your Javelin will take out the enemy MG behind the wall with little chance for collateral damage and almost zero risk of blue-on-blue (as long as you can get a good lock).
Which do you use?
If you say rifle: you are a moron.
If you say artillery, you are risking your life and the lives of your troops needlessly (due to time delay and comm. errors).
If you use the Javelin, you get to go back to base in 5 minutes and report 5 dead Taliban.
Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm asking if there are more effective alternatives.FEOS wrote:
And again, you're not the one putting your pudgy pink ass on the line. If you had your way, those troops would have to ask permission to fire a round to ensure it wouldn't break the bank. That attitude gets troops killed. Plain and simple.
Not necessarily.Had those missiles not been used, they would've exceeded their shelf life and been scrapped, costing the same amount of money. It's that simple.
Of course not, military procurement takes decades.If it were really that simple, don't you think it would've already been resolved?
And assuming every question has already been answered is close-minded.
Again wrong, I'm trying to look at overall effectiveness. Not much point in your squad having a Javelin each if they get blown to bits by IEDs on the way home from lack of an MRAP - which is the bulk of casualties in Afgtfoistan IIRC.You are absolutely advocating doing things on the cheap rather than the most effective way. That is clear from your focus on the cost (cheapest way) rather than on the operational requirement (most effective way).
I'd say use the Javelin, but have a think about whether different eqpt or tactics should be available to the squaddies on the ground.RAIMIUS wrote:
If you say rifle: you are a moron.
If you say artillery, you are risking your life and the lives of your troops needlessly (due to time delay and comm. errors).
If you use the Javelin, you get to go back to base in 5 minutes and report 5 dead Taliban.
An infra-red homing missile with a HEAT head seems like overkill to take out a mud wall.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-03 16:50:06)
Fuck Israel
If it gets the job done speedily, thats all that matters when people's lives are at risk.Dilbert_X wrote:
An infra-red homing missile with a HEAT head seems like overkill to take out a mud wall.
Its really hard to critique something you know nothing about.
I'm asking the question, and don't tell me the Pentagon has all the answers.
Fuck Israel
Putting people in harms way way with the wrong equipment is the bigger issue.If it gets the job done speedily, thats all that matters when people's lives are at risk.
Fuck Israel
So what exactly in the terms of tactics and equipment are you getting all pissy about?Dilbert_X wrote:
Putting people in harms way way with the wrong equipment is the bigger issue.If it gets the job done speedily, thats all that matters when people's lives are at risk.
The fact they are firing off $80,000 AT missiles when they are short of body armour and 0.50 ammo for example.So what exactly in the terms of tactics and equipment are you getting all pissy about?
Fuck Israel
Then the same terminalogy applies when the Air Force drops hundreds of thousands of dollars in munitions and hits nothing. (YES it happens FEOS)Dilbert_X wrote:
The fact they are firing off $80,000 AT missiles when they are short of body armour and 0.50 ammo for example.So what exactly in the terms of tactics and equipment are you getting all pissy about?
Thats expected of the AF, the Army not so much, but thats not the question here.S3v3N wrote:
Then the same terminalogy applies when the Air Force drops hundreds of thousands of dollars in munitions and hits nothing.
Fuck Israel
And just what would those be?Dilbert_X wrote:
Thats not what I'm saying at all, I'm asking if there are more effective alternatives.FEOS wrote:
And again, you're not the one putting your pudgy pink ass on the line. If you had your way, those troops would have to ask permission to fire a round to ensure it wouldn't break the bank. That attitude gets troops killed. Plain and simple.
We've already established that your "field gun" alternative isn't one of them.
According to you, they should only be used against armor. Which armor-using adversary would they be used against before their shelf life is up?Dilbert_X wrote:
Not necessarily.Had those missiles not been used, they would've exceeded their shelf life and been scrapped, costing the same amount of money. It's that simple.
Why not? That's essentially what you've done. You've answered it...no need to bother people who actually do this for a living or anything.Dilbert_X wrote:
Of course not, military procurement takes decades.If it were really that simple, don't you think it would've already been resolved?
And assuming every question has already been answered is close-minded.
You view it as an either-or situation, when it's not. Those troops have both the Javelin and the MRAP. It's not like Her Majesty's MoD said, "You can either have your Javelins or an MRAP, take your pick. Hurry up now, haven't got all day..." You're putting non-existent choices out there. Clearly, your situation didn't happen, as they clearly DID get to where they were going with their Javelin, otherwise they wouldn't have been able to employ it, thus setting you all atwitter with your nonsensical arguments.Dilbert_X wrote:
Again wrong, I'm trying to look at overall effectiveness. Not much point in your squad having a Javelin each if they get blown to bits by IEDs on the way home from lack of an MRAP - which is the bulk of casualties in Afgtfoistan IIRC.You are absolutely advocating doing things on the cheap rather than the most effective way. That is clear from your focus on the cost (cheapest way) rather than on the operational requirement (most effective way).
It's only overkill if you have something else at your disposal that would do the job just as effectively. Again, easy for you to say when it's not your pink pudgy on the line.Dilbert_X wrote:
I'd say use the Javelin, but have a think about whether different eqpt or tactics should be available to the squaddies on the ground.RAIMIUS wrote:
If you say rifle: you are a moron.
If you say artillery, you are risking your life and the lives of your troops needlessly (due to time delay and comm. errors).
If you use the Javelin, you get to go back to base in 5 minutes and report 5 dead Taliban.
An infra-red homing missile with a HEAT head seems like overkill to take out a mud wall.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
LIES!S3v3N wrote:
Then the same terminalogy applies when the Air Force drops hundreds of thousands of dollars in munitions and hits nothing. (YES it happens FEOS)Dilbert_X wrote:
The fact they are firing off $80,000 AT missiles when they are short of body armour and 0.50 ammo for example.So what exactly in the terms of tactics and equipment are you getting all pissy about?
It only happens because the grunts give the wrong coordinates.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
No you haven't.FEOS wrote:
We've already established that your "field gun" alternative isn't one of them.
Incorrect, they are desperately short of MRAPs and helicopters, and a are getting wiped out by IEDs as a result, more so than in actual combat engagements.You view it as an either-or situation, when it's not. Those troops have both the Javelin and the MRAP.
Your argument is circular and self-defeating, if they didn't have Javelins you'd be saying 155mm howitzers were the only available solution and therefore weren't overkill.FEOS wrote:
It's only overkill if you have something else at your disposal that would do the job just as effectively.
No, I've asked the question and suggested one possible solution. Maybe the MOD should be buying RPGs, or LAW, I don't know.FEOS wrote:
That's essentially what you've done. You've answered it...no need to bother people who actually do this for a living or anything.
Saying 'The status quo is perfect, nothing to see here' is the answer I expected though
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-03 18:52:43)
Fuck Israel
Then you obviously 1) haven't read the data on the 105 and 2) haven't read the engagement infoDilbert_X wrote:
No you haven't.FEOS wrote:
We've already established that your "field gun" alternative isn't one of them.
But why would you? That takes effort and may just obviate your clearly stellar argument that's backed by years of experience.
And--as has been stated before--those Javelins have zero to do with the MRAPs and helos that are needed. That's simply not how acquisitions works.Dilbert_X wrote:
Incorrect, they are desperately short of MRAPs and helicopters, and a are getting wiped out by IEDs as a result, more so than in actual combat engagements.You view it as an either-or situation, when it's not. Those troops have both the Javelin and the MRAP.
And nobody's getting "wiped out" by anything. Enough with they hyperbole. It just makes your argument weaker...if that were even possible.
No, it's not. And your argument here clearly shows you know fuckall about the employment of the 105 (much less the 155) vs the Javelin and the tactical situation that started this whole discussion. RAIMIUS pretty much hit the nail on the head and you ignored it because it didn't suit your view of the situation.Dilbert_X wrote:
Your argument is circular and self-defeating, if they didn't have Javelins you'd be saying 155mm howitzers were the only available solution and therefore weren't overkill.FEOS wrote:
It's only overkill if you have something else at your disposal that would do the job just as effectively.
Your "one possible solution" was simplistic and completely unworkable from an operational perspective and would've resulted in more troops dead, not fewer. As would buying RPGs and LAWs (both woefully outdated pieces of gear, btw). Again, you've strayed into an area you clearly know nothing about, and if anyone was stupid enough to actually take your advice, people would die as a result who would be alive otherwise.Dilbert_X wrote:
No, I've asked the question and suggested one possible solution. Maybe the MOD should be buying RPGs, or LAW, I don't know.FEOS wrote:
That's essentially what you've done. You've answered it...no need to bother people who actually do this for a living or anything.
Saying 'The status quo is perfect, nothing to see here' is the answer I expected though
Thank God nobody will.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
The MOD is stretched for cash, there are tradeoffs between ongoing costs and money spent on new eqpt.FEOS wrote:
And--as has been stated before--those Javelins have zero to do with the MRAPs and helos that are needed. That's simply not how acquisitions works.
Scroll down this list and count the "Explosions"FEOS wrote:
And nobody's getting "wiped out" by anything.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/5121552.stm
They need better vehicles and are barely starting to get them
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7703703.stm
They need more helicopters and aren't getting them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 20161.html
http://www.reuters.com/article/featured … USLU373842
I'm just asking if they have the right eqpt. and tactics, I reckon they don't.
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2009-11-04 04:58:24)
Fuck Israel
Let's look at some choices...
(From fas.org stats)
Javelin:
Range: 2000m
Armor penetration: 600+mm
AT-4
Max effective range: 400m
Armor penetration: 400mm
M-72 LAW
Max effective range: 200m
Armor penetration: approx. 300mm
Which do you give to the troops in Afghanistan?
(From fas.org stats)
Javelin:
Range: 2000m
Armor penetration: 600+mm
AT-4
Max effective range: 400m
Armor penetration: 400mm
M-72 LAW
Max effective range: 200m
Armor penetration: approx. 300mm
Which do you give to the troops in Afghanistan?
Just to put the Javelin in a cost perspective. The MOD spent £30 million on destroying cluster munitions last year. We didn't sell them to the many countries that still use them, including the US. We spent that much destroying unused equipment. 60k for a Javelin pales in comparison as it's actually one of the best pieces of kit we have.
Cut down Air Force spending. In current warfare, it is unnecessary for such an expensive airforce.Dilbert_X wrote:
The MOD is stretched for cash, there are tradeoffs between ongoing costs and money spent on new eqpt.FEOS wrote:
And--as has been stated before--those Javelins have zero to do with the MRAPs and helos that are needed. That's simply not how acquisitions works.
I'm no Armchair general but all of those have their own uses. They all weigh differently, have differently sized warheads and are used in different situations. An M72 weighs 2.5Kg and a Javelin fully loaded weighs about 16Kg more.RAIMIUS wrote:
Let's look at some choices...
(From fas.org stats)
Javelin:
Range: 2000m
Armor penetration: 600+mm
AT-4
Max effective range: 400m
Armor penetration: 400mm
M-72 LAW
Max effective range: 200m
Armor penetration: approx. 300mm
Which do you give to the troops in Afghanistan?