Got a tip for Noah?
SEND IT!
(Guaranteed Confidential)
Subscribe

Subscribe via RSS

Archives by Date
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006

See all Archives
Archives by Category
'Canes
Ammo and Munitions
Armor
Axe in Iraq (and Elsewhere)
Bizarro
Blimps
Blog Bidness
Bomb Squad
Cammo Green
Chem-Bio
Cloak and Dagger
Comms
Cops and Robbers
Data Diving
Dissent Tech
Drones
Eat My Dust
Eye on China
FCS Watch
FOS Files
Gadgets and Gear
Ground Vehicles
Guns
Homeland Security
Info War
Iraq Diary
Lasers and Ray Guns
Less-lethal
Logistics
Los Alamos and Labs
Medic!
Mercs
Missiles
Money Money Money
Net-Centric
Nukes
Planes, Copters, Blimps
Politricks
Rapid Fire
Raptor Watch
Red Team
Retro-Futuro
Roll Your Own
Sabra Tech
Ships and Subs
Space
Strategery
Terror Tech
The Deadlies
Those Nutty Norks
Training and Sims
War Update
You can run...

See all Archives
Related Links
News and Intel
Military.com News
Aviation Week
Natl Defense Mag
Strategy Page
Global Security Newswire
Soldiers for the Truth
Security News
Defense Review
Fed Comp Week

Security Sources
GlobalSecurity.Org
Fed Am Sci
CSIS
Ctr for Defense Info
Defense & Natl Interest
Instit for Sci & Intl Secy
Secrecy News
POGO
Cryptome
The Memory Hole
Natl Security Archive

Geeks and Mad Scientists
Slashdot
Wired News
Security Focus
The Register
Gizmodo
Geek Press
Robots.Net
Cosmic Log
Space Daily
New Scientist
TechCentralStation
Engadget
Space.Com
Technology Review
Gyre
Near Near Future
Fed Dev Blog

Bloggers and Buddies
Phil Carter
Global Guerillas
Jeffrey Lewis
Milblogging
OPFOR
Laura Rozen
Larisa Alexandrovna
Juan Cole
Ryan Singel
Josh Marshall
Cursor
Boing Boing
InstaPundit
Winds of Change
Tapped
TalkLeft
Brad DeLong
Mountain Runner
Gene Healy
Clive Thompson
Greg Djerejian
Jeff Quinton
Workbench
Electrolite
Jim Henley
War in Context
Kathryn Cramer
Wash Park Prophet
Blogs of War
Tom Shachtman

Official Dispatches
DARPA
AF Research Lab
Marine War Lab
Soldier Systems Ctr
Naval Research
Army Research Lab
UK Def Sci Lab
NASA News
DoJ Cybercrime

Military Network
Military Benefits
Veteran Employment
GI Bill Express
Personnel Locator
Free ASVAB
The Few
Fred's Place
Army Insider
Navy Insider
Air Force Insider
Marine Corps Insider
Coast Guard Insider



Edited by Noah Shachtman | Contact

Old is the New New

With the V-22 Osprey ready to enter operational service, the Marines are looking at new toys to take advantage of the tilt-rotor craft's range and versatility. One of these is a new 120-mm rifled mortar. But mortars need vehicles to haul them -- and guess what? The V-22's cabin is too small to fit a Humvee. So the Marines are seriously considering buying a new version of the old M-151 Jeep to move the mortar. Imagine that: the old Jeep back in production, 20 years after it got bumped off the battlefield by the Humvee. It's not the only case where the military is looking to old machines -- some decades out of service -- to meet its current and future needs.

The costs of new weapons are spiraling at an alarming rate. That goes double for adventurous new programs like Future Combat Systems, which are proving largely technologically impossible. But with a war going on, the Defense Department needs gear that's going to work -- now. It's no surprise, then, that the Pentagon is turning to equipment that proved its worth back when Rummy was Gerald Ford's SecDef.

ov-10.jpg Consider the Vietnam-era Light Anti-tank Weapon, or LAW. Finding modern rockets like Javelin too complicated and expensive for urban warfare, the Marines have begun issuing LAWs to units in Iraq. On the aviation side, the Marines have ordered the first UH-1Y Hueys, new-production updates of the 30-year-old UH-1N. The AH-1 Cobra fleet is getting a similar makeover, albeit in a rebuild program for old airframes. Both helos are coming in on time, on budget and with the capabilities the Marines need. Meanwhile, the CH-53 is about to go back into production in a new version to replace choppers worn out in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Across the aisle, the Army is reissuing old M-14 rifles. And soon the UH-60 fleet will be replaced with -- you guessed it -- the UH-60, in an updated model.

In the Navy camp, skeptical old vets are leading a campaign to put two mothballed battleships back into service as alternatives to the Navy's $3-billion-per-copy DD(X) destroyer, which is being touted as a fire-support platform but, according to the Naval Fire Support Association, will provide only a fraction of the firepower of the old BBs at far greater cost, and much later.

My friend Jim Doner, a retired Marine warrant officer who flew forward air control missions over Vietnam, is not at all surprised at this development. He says the best weapons are the old proven ones ... paired with an experienced, courageous operator. In particular, he laments the premature retirement of the OV-10 Bronco, a rugged, slow, cheap little airplane that excelled at getting airborne controllers over the battlefield where they could direct artillery and bombs more accurately than even today's controllers with their whiz-bang targeting pods. Doner says the OV-10 went away (in 1995) in favor of hi-tech multi-role jets that aren't always good at the simple, dirty and dangerous missions that are important in low-intensity wars.

--David Axe

Latest Comments

I need to contact Jimmy/James Doner who flew OV-10D's and worked with the SLEP program through to the D+.

I am producing the documentary "YOV-10D Best Of Breed". It covers the return of the OV-10 to KP Rice's and Bill Beckett's original convept for air support vs the FAC role it was forced into.

I am interviewing principals in the evolution of 155395 and 155396. These were NAA mules utilized in every version of the YOV-10DNOS/NOS/D/SLEP/D+ and now the proposed OV-10X.

Please have Jim contact me ASAP via email at wmclayman@comcast.net

Thanks,

Ed

Posted by: Ed Clayman at July 30, 2009 10:55 PM


Response to the guy about the Matell Ie m16, Reason for the m-16, is to wound the enemy. If i shoot and kill you, oh well. If i wound you, then someone has to help you move around. Someone has to rescue you. Hence 1 bullet means 2-3 people out of action. EVEN if for only a few moments.

Also, until someone comes up with a better weapon, the M16 / m4 is a awesome weapon. HIGHLY accurate to 500M. Lots of people say hey the AK47 is the greatest.. Well, it isnt accurate for jack. I dont want to hear about "well with my ak, i am such and such" All i know is that i can get any marine, with a m16, and from 300 m, he can engage the enemy, and be pretty confident on hitting what he is shooting at..

In war, it isnt about always the ability to kill the enemy, but more so, to stand off, and be able to survive while still inflicting damage yourself

Posted by: racheal at December 29, 2006 9:24 AM


The core problem here is the V-22. What this article says, in fact, is that the advantages which supposedly justified its $100 million per plane cost were either a fantasy or a lie. The main task it was touted for - reaching deep into enemy territory with combat-useful loads - is impossible.

A larger helicopter like the H-92, which could be bought for less than half the cost, would be able to fly current vehicles into position at about 150 mph. The Osprey can't fly anything in because it's far to narrow - or if it does fly anything in, what it flies in must be customized, expensive, and won't have any serious protection. See the Growler as enhibit A. Fly in the 120mm mortar that's needed as fire support? Well, it can sling it below... and fly more slowly than an H-92. Lovely.

The V-22 is going to eviscerate the combat capability of the US Marine Corps for a generation. First by eating up vast funds with its cost, which can't fund other priorities. Then with the small number the Marines will have when it's all done. Now add the additional expenses it will require to create equipment that can fit in it (and which will be sub-standard). Finally, via all the things it will not be able to do, and which the Marines will therefore stop trying to do.

Posted by: Joe Katzman at January 8, 2006 4:16 AM


The GD vehicle's for the MV-22 are, in fact, quite expensive. $155,000 for starters, and probably slightly more expensive than the UDLP solution over the duration of the contract.

Posted by: Mike F. at December 21, 2005 12:42 PM


"So the Marines are seriously considering buying a new version of the old M-151 Jeep to move the mortar. Imagine that: the old Jeep back in production, 20 years after it got bumped off the battlefield by the Humvee. It's not the only case where the military is looking to old machines -- some decades out of service -- to meet its current and future needs."

"One more thing, if we can't design a land vehicle better than a 60 year old Jeep"

That's a bit misleading as the USMC was offered a modified UDLP (now BAe) ITV mated with a Soltam 120mm mortar for their EFSS requirement. If the USMC decided to go for a Growler modified M151 with a French RDA 120mm mortar, that's their perogative, it was probably cheaper than the considerably more modern UD alternative.

UDLPs ITV:
http://img106.imageshack.us/img106/4500/itv0wj.jpg

UDLPs EFSS contender:
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/6005/efss6yz.jpg

"alternatives to the Navy's $3-billion-per-copy DD(X) destroyer, which is being touted as a fire-support platform"

And would they retro-fit the AN/SPY-3, MK57 VLS cells, SM-6, SM-3, and ESSM on the BBs as well? DD(X)'s fire support role has always been considered a secondary role over ABM and fleet air defense.

Posted by: Gab at November 22, 2005 5:29 AM


» View All 15 Comments

» Post a Comment