While the article I read this in came from the "Early Bird", here is a public source one that says something similar:

http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0309/032709cdam2.htm

It seems that the development side of the Army is going to get the axe again.  In the interest of saving money, the Future Combat Systems (which includes many programs, including the "Future Soldier") program is going to be seriously cut again.

What will this mean, other then saving money?  Well, upgrades to things like body armor, vehicle upgrades, replacement systems all come from this program.  So our military can expect to fight another 20 years with 30 year old equipment.

Personally, I am very thankfull for this program.  This is where the IOTV came from.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Improved_Outer_Tactical_Vest

The IOTV is the 3rd generation of body armor to see service since 2001.  And it (and it's predicessors) have saved countless lives in Iraq and Afganistan.

But hell, at $500,000 each, they can easily afford to kill off a few more Soldiers to save a few billion dollars.

And hell, even if they are only wounded, they want to pass that buck off to private insureance instead of the VA.

Personally I think it's a mistake to eliminate the F-22 Raptor. Unfortunately it seems the US believes in a "all or nothing" approach to equipping it's forces. I realize that we can't replace our entire fleet of F-15 Strategic fighters all at once.


Future Combat Systems is an Army program.  It has no effect on Air Force procurements.

it is mostly a large ongoing R&D program.  It looks at the current equipment, and tries to find ways to either improve it, or replace it.

Among the improvements the last 10 years have been body armour (3 generations worth), infrared beacons (to recover soldiers seperated on a battle field, also to identify friend from foe during night combat), combat helmets (3 generations), improved armour for vehicles (HMMWV, LMTV and 5-ton truck), improved vehicle turrets, JTRS (the next generation radio, due out next year), improvement in medical equipment and procedures, digital camouflage, improved ballistic eyeware, thermally cooled undergarments, and the list goes on and on.

And these are just the things they have already developed, and is either with the troops, or due out within the next year.  There are a lot of other things under development that seem to be right out of Star Trek.

Then again, GPS and ballistic ceramic seemed to be out of Star Trek also until a few years ago.

i support military research if it will give us more of cute robots that hop around and stuff.

It's a very foolish policy to send troops into harm's way without equipping them as best you can. 

We gotta cut somewhere to balance the budget.  The military will have to take a few hits here and there.

I just hope we scale down Social Security.  We waste so much money with that crap.

We gotta cut somewhere to balance the budget.  The military will have to take a few hits here and there.

I just hope we scale down Social Security.  We waste so much money with that crap.


Well, this is certainly a good place to start.  A lot of money can be saved here.

After all, when a servicemember is killed, the SGLI and survivor benefits only come to $500k max.  Since it is unlikely that it will cause the deaths of more then 30,000 soldiers, it will save money.


It's a very foolish policy to send troops into harm's way without equipping them as best you can. 


I agree.  And these cuts are going directly into the programs that design and test our future equipment.  Everything from the replacement for the M-16 (an almost 50 year old weapon), to the new Army Combat Shirt (a NOMEX uniform issued to all service members deployed into war theaters).

I love how a few years ago, people were complaining that troops were sent into harms way without the best equipment possible.  Now they want to make cuts to those very projects, and it is perfectly ok.  Just so they get their free health care and lifetime entitlements.

will the government give soldiers adequate protection when it sends them into combat? well, it depends whether the soldiers are making the establishment as much money fighting the war as they're costing in equipment. if the establishment is going to lose money by protecting a soldier i think, in the long run, they'll leave him vulnerable. war is about money and power, and if protecting soldiers becomes a money-losing proposition, they won't protect the soldiers. look how the government treats them after they can't fight any more and the government is finished with them?

right now, though, military equipment is a lucrative business so it's all good. but that could change very shortly. this government is no more averse to throwing human beings wholesale into a meat grinder as most other governments are. the politicians could care less because generally they don't have to go fight. but right now it's less popular to enact policies that kill soldiers than policies that kill civilians. so they opt for the latter. americans right now, by and large, are pretty much indifferent to inflicting death on foreign civilians in enormous numbers -- hell, in iraq we haven't even bothered to keep count! i can't imagine a more perfect demonstration of indifference than that -- and don't seem to care much if veterans return from war physically and emotionally battered. but they get very bent out of shape when soldiers die on the battlefield. so for now that will probably continue to be an area of focus for policymakers and the military, continuing to protect soldiers at the expense of the populations they occupy.

My combative ancestors did just fine with the axe. 

There was a theory the word Saxon (as in Saxons and Anglo-Saxons) derived from an indo-European word meaning battle axe.  Other theories of the origin of the word refer to "master," and "butter-seller."  So....
:-\\