It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by JimmyCarterIsSmarter
ok, who dosnt like him????
by saying that your starting people to "not like" you.
BTW calm down, ffs
The first operational test of the LW system was conducted in September 2000 with a platoon of the 82nd Airborne Division at Fort Bragg, NC. The target date for fielding the final version of the LW System -- an even more advanced model, smaller and more affordable -- is 2004.
In order to be accepted by the Army, the Land Warrior System must not increase the Soldier’s Load (currently at 92.5 lbs) in close combat. The LW System as initially fielded in FY04 must weigh no more than 84 lbs. Of this, the electronics weigh approximately 12 lbs. Future versions of the LW will significantly reduce the overall system weight.
Nearly 5,000 Land Warrior systems were to be fielded by the end of 1999. First Unit Equipped (first system in the hands of soldiers) was scheduled for between 2000 and 2001. The Army is currently planning on contracting for 34,000 systems plus spares. The total systems cost is estimated to be approximately $70,000 each in FY96 dollars.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Also SweatMonica whose "we"? Currently I see only you talking about not liking me
[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]
Originally posted by devilwasp
Wish the MOD got such shiny kit....
Is this going to turn into another anti-westy thread?
One thing I have to ask about that gear is how long do you think until the general squaddie has it...
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Honestly where are these "mass" casualties, our soldiers have been fighting in an urban environment for 2 years and we have lost about 1500 men, in conventional wars we have lost more than that in one week. I value every single life lost but to call it a "mass" casualty in not correct.
I think were doing ok considering everything were trying to do, but I think it can be better and I hope Land Warrior helps in urban combat.
[edit on 10-4-2005 by WestPoint23]
I'm saying there potentially will be and most likely in the future, when we are in far deadlier situations than Iraq, there will be a norm of 40% casualties.
In fact, Iraq is nothing. Aside from Somalia, we have yet to see what real, vicious urban warfare is all about.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah, you and your textbook figures. Just like they though we would have 40% casualties in Falluja. You may dispute the figures but we killed over 1200+ insurgents while loosing like 50-60 soldiers. If you think fighting 1200 insurgents in a city is not intense urban combat then I don't know what is.
Also in Somalia we lost 18 SF personnel, do you know how many Somali's they killed?
I’m not saying that urban combat is easy I’m just saying the textbook figure of 40% is incorrect.
Originally posted by ShadowXIX
The goal is to make our troops so deadly nobody even wants to fight them.
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Well you can thank WestPoint for all the attention he's garnered...
Considering how long the Land Warrior program is taking, I say the REALLY advanced stuff is still far off.
The interesting thing about this stuff is that much of it is geared towards urban warfare, despite the fact there's really no viable way to avoid mass casualties in urban warfare.
So what you are saying is, since we haven't had 40% casualties yet, it won't happen and is wrong? That hardly makes sense.
But as we know, that never works out
Another thing to remember about a lot of these systems is that they are in inception phase. Thus, what we see in 2020 may be totally different from what we see they are making now.
That is exactly the point i was trying to make. What good is killing each others robots going to do? It would just be a massive waste of our tax dollars.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yeah... well if it doesn't scare them they will die anyway.
Originally posted by devilwasp
So?
Sorry but that doesnt justify anything..
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Why sorry? I don't feel bad about anything.
Really, what's with the sorrys on this message board?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Originally posted by sweatmonicaIdo
Why sorry? I don't feel bad about anything.
Showing respect.....I am also sorry I dissagree with you because I respect you as a member...
Really, what's with the sorrys on this message board?
Sometimes marks of respect or of pity or of sorrow.