A Comparison of US Army assets versus the state of the art elsewhere.

[scribd id=288634074 key=key-AHwRCurfldEnyF5mDZvr mode=scroll]

This Rand report is a couple years old. What’s interesting is that a fair number of the issues it raises are actually in the forefront of Army  planning right now. One that comes quickly to mind is the current push to swap out the M2 .50cal on the Stryker ICV with either a 30mm cannon or a Javelin missile mount.

One other thing that strikes me. The emphasis placed on foreign MLRS range and capabilities. Reports from the fighting in Ukraine have repeatedly stressed that Russian artillery and MLRS strikes on maneuver forces have been utterly devastating.

It takes the Russians longer (in theory) to perform the kill chain from detection to kill, but not that much longer. US maneuver elements traditionally have counted on their mobility to prevent such strikes from hitting them. But that’s not always a viable option. Or friends at Think Defence ask a reasonable question.

1 thought on “A Comparison of US Army assets versus the state of the art elsewhere.”

  1. Practice defense? You are a defeatist, sir. Besides, all that digging is bad for the environment and disturbs the habitats of innumerable creatures. Maneuver rules! It’s way cooler.

    “But that’s not always a viable option.”

    A wee bit of an understatement there.

Comments are closed.