3 ms·

> The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced an

> The military we have—an army built around tanks, a navy built around ships, and an air force built around planes, all of which are technologically advanced and astronomically expensive—is platform-centric. The US has been transitioning off tanks for a while now https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021/03/22/goodbye-tanks-how-the-marine-corps-will-change-and-what-it-will-lose-by-ditching-its-armor/ https://www.marinecorpstimes.com/news/your-marine-corps/2021... I suspect, most systems will continue to move underwater for the navy. We will also likely couple it with autonomous drones and decoys

caycep 4y ago
yeah, I remember that was the whole idea re the Stryker divisions of the army too. reading that article, maybe that means there are longer range standoff weapons than Javelin/Stinger up the infantry's sleeve that we may not know about yet?
- greedo 4y ago
  No, there's no magic bullets waiting to be unveiled for the infantry or Marines. Stinger is old, in some ways out of date, and a planned replacement was never given enough funding to proceed. Javelin? It's fine for the foreseeable future, until top-attack defenses get good enough to reduce its effectiveness. Things like Trophy APS might be the solution, but those aren't cheap. Eventually, the AGM-179 will replace the TOW/Hellfire/Maverick missiles, but this isn't really something soldiers will be humping around on raids like in Ukraine. These are heavy missiles (not counting their launch hardware), that require vehicles or aircraft to employ.
jcranmer 4y ago
The US hasn't been transitioning off tanks. One of the US's ground forces (the USMC) is getting rid of tanks, but the other ground forces (the actual US Army) is still retaining them. Indeed, one of the reasons that the USMC is getting rid of tanks is because it's arguing that the US Army can provide them when needed.

caycep 4y ago

yeah, I remember that was the whole idea re the Stryker divisions of the army too. reading that article, maybe that means there are longer range standoff weapons than Javelin/Stinger up the infantry's sleeve that we may not know about yet?

greedo 4y ago
No, there's no magic bullets waiting to be unveiled for the infantry or Marines. Stinger is old, in some ways out of date, and a planned replacement was never given enough funding to proceed. Javelin? It's fine for the foreseeable future, until top-attack defenses get good enough to reduce its effectiveness. Things like Trophy APS might be the solution, but those aren't cheap. Eventually, the AGM-179 will replace the TOW/Hellfire/Maverick missiles, but this isn't really something soldiers will be humping around on raids like in Ukraine. These are heavy missiles (not counting their launch hardware), that require vehicles or aircraft to employ.

jcranmer 4y ago

The US hasn't been transitioning off tanks. One of the US's ground forces (the USMC) is getting rid of tanks, but the other ground forces (the actual US Army) is still retaining them. Indeed, one of the reasons that the USMC is getting rid of tanks is because it's arguing that the US Army can provide them when needed.