|
|
|
Subject:
RE:FCs comments
Clausewitz
5/21/2004 3:57:04 AM
|
| I guess that the FCS concept is will fit future needs. Until it really works you have the old fashioned "heavys" as a back up. Some years ahead many third world armies will have some quantities of modern equipment like modern hand held anti armor weapons, ATGW and modern MBT (T 90, T 95). The US can't compete with these numbers on far away shores. In combat - conventional war or peacekeeping - the losses would be to high (for example imagine RPG 29 or modern hand held SAM - SAM 14 ? - in iraq). The FCS concept is a way out to exerxispower projeection with not to many casualties. Even today many IED are found/detonated/defused with high tech equipment. Modern obsevation tools (UAV and UGV) will enable the troops to fight urban insurgents more effectivley. Maybe some non lethal weapons will enable forces to fight insurgents mixed in crowds without putting to many innocent life in the harms way. Maybe some sniper like accuracy will enable the troops to kill just the terrorists using human shields. But nobody will achieve this goals with old fashioned tanks/APC/self propelled artillery/mortars. I admit that the 20 ton concept will not fit current technology. So it may be better to buy a new cargo plane capable of a 40 ton wheigt. But the idea behind the FCS is just right. |
| |
|
|
|
