Army proposes cutbacks, Land Warrior not spared

Just a few weeks after the Army announced that the first battalion equipped with its high tech Land Warrior gear would be shipping out, it now looks to suddenly be putting the brakes on the program, proposing a $3.3 billion cut to its massive Future Combat Systems initiative. That cost cutting measure would not only take out the entire Land Warrior program, but a number of other futuristic weapons systems as well, and see other projects cut back or shifted to other areas. Of course, as Defense Tech points out, this is just a proposed cut, and given the recent changes at the Defense Department and in Congress, it's entirely possible that the Army will get the funding they want in the end. If not, us humans will have a few less tools at our disposal in our attempts to ward off the inevitable robot uprising.

[Via docinthemachine]

[Robert Lew @ Dec 8th 2006 1:32PM]

Spray and pray...

[jdkchem @ Dec 8th 2006 4:08PM]

"Spray and pray..."

Only in Hollywood

[Thomas Trautman @ Dec 8th 2006 1:53PM]

Our soldiers are not James Bond secret agents (no need for all the gadgets). They do not require and extra 50+ pounds of misc. BS to slow them down any further.

I say take that money and spend it on the troops. Improve pay, family programs, and base facilities.

Cpl USMC '93 - '97

Just look how awkward things look in the photo above. What happens when the batteries die?

[Wonderboy @ Dec 8th 2006 2:18PM]

On second thought, I'd prefer this approach over a tax break...

"I say take that money and spend it on the troops. Improve pay, family programs, and base facilities."

[Timothy @ Dec 8th 2006 2:29PM]

Damn straight! I couldn't have said it better myself.

US Army, Retired.

[Jeff @ Dec 8th 2006 4:15PM]

"I say take that money and spend it on the troops. Improve pay, family programs, and base facilities."

And increase the number of recruits. I think it's pretty obvious now that our army is just too small for all we're asking of it - the LW program and others like it were designed to allow it to become even smaller while retaining the same lethality. But as we've now proven to both ourselves and the rest of the world over the past couple years, it's not all about lethality - it's also about coverage. One guy just cannot secure the same amount of ground as three or four, no matter how many pieces of electronics he's got strapped to his back. One guy can also only be in one country at a time, whereas four guys can be split into two groups of two. (Ok, the "guy" thing is an analogy - I'm talking divisions here, really.)

Cut the high-tech crap out of the budget and put another division or two back into the regular army instead.

The other armed branches could deal with the same reordering of priorities. We need to *be* in many places at once (rather than simply being able to "project" force anywhere we want - we can only project to one place at a time with any given asset); all this downsizing in favor of high-tech weaponry has reduced our ability to do that.

[Wonderboy @ Dec 8th 2006 1:51PM]

I'm honestly hoping this cut is applied... well, actually I'm hoping a lot of cuts to the Federal Budget are applied, but that's another day's conversation.

I think bloated budgets are allowing for silly, non-sensical weapon designs. Instead of having a super expensive sighting-system using electronics and micro-computers (as shown above), why not just fasten a system of mirrors to the scope? Cost ya what... 20 bucks? Then you save tons of money, it's not reliant on electronics which can go haywire and you don't have to wear a goofy eye-piece.

[fnb @ Dec 29th 2006 7:02PM]

We'd have the money if we weren't in an overwhelmingly opposed front somewhere in Mesopotamia.


Just sayin'.

[ketsuke @ Dec 8th 2006 3:18PM]

@Thomas Trautman:

Ooh Rah Brother!

USMC Sgt '97-'05

You are absolutely right. Many times I had to live in conditions your average American would be complaining about, or had gear that was already in service when the Grenada Situation happened. We definitely need more money to be spent on us, the poor grunts and not in overpriced-near-useless weapons systems that probably weight a ton and could malfunction while you are engaging the enemy. No thanks. Give my my trusty M16A2 and K-Bar and I am set.

[Lattyware @ Dec 9th 2006 9:03AM]

I dunno... After playing Ghost Recon, the Camera is very cool...

Frankly, I like the idea of a camera being shot over my head.

Yeah, this is meant to be said as a joke.

[jdkchem @ Dec 8th 2006 4:08PM]

"gear that was already in service when the Grenada Situation happened"

Hey!!! I resemble that remark!

It seems that those of us who have served don't think much of "toys" and would rather see more money spent on troop welfare.

USMC 83-88 Semper Fi

[Airhab @ Dec 8th 2006 4:18PM]

I would feel stupid having to wear that pussy shit.

[jeff Foster @ Dec 8th 2006 8:28PM]

as neato as the new toys may be, i can think of about a million better uses of 3.3 billion dollars of my own money.

We are the richest country in the world, and our army grunts get paid like crap... and us regular citizens dont even have healthcare. fuck that fancy gun. cut the fat.

[Steven Palter, MD @ Dec 8th 2006 4:24PM]

Thanks for the hattip to docinthemachine.com on this post-- A $300 Billion project is certainly a target for cuts but very few realize the enormous peace dividend of a project of this technologic magnitude. Please see my original post on this subject that engadget linked to-- here I discuss the incredibly significant multitude of immediate and vital medical surgical advances coming today from this project. It will open your eyes to what we surgeons do today with military hardware.

post at
http://docinthemachine.com/2006/12/08/army-axing-high-tech-soldier-of-tomorrow-medtech-losses-predicted/

[TheCash @ Dec 8th 2006 4:40PM]

"given the recent changes at the Defense Department and in Congress, it's entirely possible that the Army will get the funding they want in the end"

With the democrats back in power? Hah, don't bet on it soldier. Clinton, and democrats in general, go straight to the defense budget when they need extra funding for their feel good bills. That's always been amusing to me... in the constitution it is clearly laid out that national defense is one of only mandates of our government, yet nowhere do you find anything about welfare or the gov as surrogate mommy and daddy. But hey, it's just the constitution right, who gives a crap about that these days?

[Timothy @ Dec 8th 2006 4:53PM]

But the Democrats also initiate more welfare raises for our troops. Bush has fucked veterans four ways from Sunday.

[jdkchem @ Dec 9th 2006 8:41PM]

@Timothy

Sorry they don't. They tried shutting down the PX's during their last time in power and during the Carter administration there were military families who were applying for food stamps. The troop welfare and moral angle is an outright lie.

[aeo @ Dec 8th 2006 5:30PM]

Hmmm... we're assuming that the 3.3B is going to something useful. The money's just not going to be spent on this particular project. Maybe the YF-22 Advanced Tactical Fighter is running a little over budget. :-P

[Time Lancer G. Alcharon @ Dec 8th 2006 5:58PM]

NO, seriously guys, we need this shit. In 2114, we repelled a major alien invasion from our base on Olympus Mons on Mars with technology based on the Land Warrior system. Our military history books lavish praise upon whoever in your time came up with the original unit. We at the UETDF have run many temporal simulations that show that had this technology not been pursued further, we would have been enslaved, except for our roaming colony fleets.

No matter: should you choose to cancel this, we will simply come to your time and make it happen anyway. It's that vital.

UETDF (United Earth Time Defense Force)
2107-2121

[ketsuke @ Dec 8th 2006 5:35PM]

@jdkchem:

Sorry about that, I used Grenada as an example of how old some of the gear I used while in.

As far as increasing the number of men and women serving, I could see that as a viable alternative, but in reality, it is hard to even maintain the current number of troops. The choice to join any of the Armed Forces is a very unpopular one. Even in peace time. Also, why increase the number of troops? to maintain this country's jingoistic posture in the world? No. The average citizen rarely sees or experiences anything like some of us have seen due to our xenophobia and bullying.

For those of you that are all about our might and wars, talk to me when you see one of your best friends die in front of you.

[chenry @ Dec 8th 2006 6:14PM]

Now, take the money they save and maybe buy the troops some frigging body armour. Amirite?

[Dan Smith @ Dec 8th 2006 10:04PM]

@ Wonderboy @ - You're suggesting a return to trench warfare technology with your periscope gun (the Brits invented it), however the primary objective of the remote optics system was for urban operations and building entry, which won't work with fixed optics.

@ Jeff Foster @ - The gun's not that fancy, considering that it was first fielded in the early 1960's. The sight, on the other hand, is expensive and heavy. So heavy, in fact, that the Army has settled on a lighter weight M16 variant (the M4 carbine) as the standard service rifle. Unfortunately, most of the weight reduction came at the expense of the durability of the barrel and the mechanical components, so the functional field life is shorter and the accuracy is reduced.

@ TheCash @ - despite the political meme that Republicans take care of the military and Democrats allow the military to twist in the wind -- historically, the facts have shown the opposite is true. The Clinton Administration made substantial quality of life and paygrade increases (especially compared to the 1st Bush Administration), and the G.W. Bush Administration hasn't continued that trend. Not to mention that a majority of the current weapons systems that were used so effectively in the combat phases of Enduring Freedom and Iraqi Freedom were developed and fielded by the Clinton Administration.

@ Chenry @ - The troops get armor, it's just not very good. The best armor on the market isn't being purchased by DoD (because of a multi-year contract) and troops who buy it privately (@ $3,500+) are told they'll lose their disability coverage/life insurance.

[I, Robot @ Dec 8th 2006 10:30PM]

OMG!!! They are proposing cutback DURING a time of WAR!! WTF! Can’t you decide this crap --- AFTER our service men are back home? You think, maybe? That fact totally seems like a no brainier.

Let's bring the troops home first, than you can cut the budget all you want. If war is too expensive, you should have thought about that --- BEFORE hand, not after the fact.

[cloud811 @ Dec 9th 2006 2:16PM]

when are these people ever going to learn to stop ****ing investing 25% of there countries money in war and more into helping the people "IN" there country...? And why the cut back? wtf else are they going to use the money on? =_=;;

[jdkchem @ Dec 9th 2006 12:26AM]

@ketsuke

No problem. I thought it was ironic that the gear that I considered new is now "ancient."

@Steven Palter, MD

If the medical field has a need for those technologies then perhaps the medical field should conduct the research and development. If you had any military experience at all you would run from land warrior.

@Dan Smith
Why does an infantryman need a remote optics system to enter a building? Law enforcement, sure.

[Dan Smith @ Dec 9th 2006 12:44AM]

@ jdkchem @ - because, statistically, the second soldier through the door of a blind entry is most likely to be wounded or killed. House-to-house fighting (urban move and clear) is one of the most unpredictable and dangerous missions a soldier can undertake. Being able to look around a corner or through a doorway, without exposing yourself and having your weapon immediately ready is a huge advantage.

In addition, some of the Future Soldier 2025 effort was aimed at fielding shock-reactive liquid armor that is currently under development by MIT.

[jdkchem @ Dec 9th 2006 8:51PM]

@Dan Smith

That is what we used grenades for. And if your not firing your weapon when you enter a room then you've been trained by idiots. If you're an infantryman land-warrior is unnecessary dead weight, that especially includes entering/clearing a building/room. Since you gleefully quote statistics you must not have any training or experience.

[lifesoliveit @ Dec 12th 2006 11:04PM]

I am actually an engineer on the FCS program (not in land warrior directly). I agree on 2 things:

1. The defense budget is full of waste

2. Defense money should be allocated more for soldier welfare

You have to understand that Land Warrior was meant to be far more than just a periscope gun, as indicated in the pictures. The entire package, as I understand it, would include:

* Systems to prevent friendly fire incidents
* Better ballistic armor and human wearable (reactive armor)
* much better Command and Control/Communications between units and command
* Much better situational awareness by tieing troops in to the information net.
* Integrated health monitoring and minor splinting capability built into the armor
* Better protectection against NBC attacks.

Now, if all of you guys in the field who are saying we need more guns and bullets thing what I outlined above is frivolous, I stand corrected, but I think these technologies would be an amazing advantages to grunts in the field, and could save a lot of lives. The product pictured in the article is a first generation system that probably shouldn't be deployed because, as noted, it is rather bulky and doesn't much of an advantage for the weight. I think that a lot of people were under pressure to produce results, and this is what came out. I say rather than Congress doing it's usual hack job they should simply convince the pentagon to better manage projects and control the spending, the savings will flow from there.

Speaking of issues of soldier care and manpower, remember that this FCS program employs thousands of people and cutting it is going to hurt R&D in the defense industry for a long time. This in an era where our enemies, like Iran, are becoming more technologically savvy. So I agree, wars are not run by expensive toys but by grunts on the ground, we still need to keep an R&D edge or those grunts in the ground will be facing much better equipped enemies in the near future. The US has always won wars by having better trained and EQUIPPED soldiers, not by having more of them.

[army ranger @ Dec 18th 2007 3:49PM]

In the US, Rangers were generally considered for local frontier security, mostly because George Washington felt the issue of frontier security was local. The military soldiers were used for battles against the British and others. In order to read more about this item, you must visit http://www.usarmyrangers.info/