Quantcast
Channel: Army
Viewing all 917 articles
Browse latest View live

A decorated war hero was arrested for trying to smuggle a lot of cocaine into the US on a military aircraft

$
0
0

A joint special operations force runs to board a CV-22 Osprey.

An Army Special Forces soldier was arrested Monday for smuggling 40 kilos of cocaine into the United States hidden in two backpacks aboard a military aircraft, NBC News reported on Friday.

  • Master Sgt. Daniel Gould was taken into custody by Drug Enforcement Administration agents after two military-issue “punch out” bags somehow connected to him were discovered filled with 40 kilos (90 lbs) of cocaine on a U.S. military aircraft bound for Eglin Air Force Base.
  • NBC News reports that cocaine was identified after another service member “found the drugs on the plane while it was on the ground in Colombia and reported the discovery.”
  • Gould, assigned to the 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin, was already in the United States when the drugs were discovered, according to NBC News, which reported that the Green Beret “used a proxy” to get the bags onto the aircraft.
  • “We are aware of recent allegations concerning a U.S. soldier assigned under U.S. Army Special Operations Command for reportedly attempting to smuggle narcotics from Colombia into the U.S.,” Army Special Operations Command spokesman Lt. Col. Robert Bockholt told NBC News. “We are cooperating fully with law enforcement officials concerning this matter.”

NBC’s reporting suggests that Gould had traveled to Colombia “on vacation,” which is likely garbage. But just for reference, here’s what 35 kilos of cocaine seized by the U.S. Coast Guard in the Gulf of Mexico in July 2018 look like:

cocaine seized

Why Gould thought he could get away with sneaking the stuff into the country on a U.S. military plane without even being there is a puzzle worthy of the Pentagon’s top minds.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: How Columbia House sold 12 CDS for $1


The Army is reinstating dozens of discharged immigrant recruits after falsely labeling them security risks

$
0
0

velcro army

Dozens of discharged immigrant recruits are being reinstated after reviews concluded they were falsely flagged as security risks during counterintelligence screenings. 

The Department of Defense fell under intense scrutiny in July after an Associated Press story revealed it had been quietly discharging immigrants recruited through a program that promised expedited citizenship through military service. The report stated that some recruits were given no reason for their discharge while others were given nonsensical or contradictory reasons.

Results of background and security checks, often cited as the reason for an immigrant recruit’s discharge, have been revealed through Freedom of Information Act requests, according to reports.

The Washington Post reported that the discharges were often related to the recruits’ foreign ties, including the existence of foreign relatives, sending money overseas or making routine phone calls to family members abroad. Foreign ties are commonly flagged during counterintelligence screenings, but none of the screenings that were obtained by the New York Times showed any evidence of involvement with terrorist or foreign intelligence organizations. 

Other recruits were flagged erroneously. In one case, the investigator — who is not a medical professional — noted that the recruit might have autism. The recruit, a Chinese PhD student who has never been diagnosed with the condition, was reportedly flagged for a "lack of interpersonal skills" because he did not laugh at the investigator's joke. Other errors included the wrong country of origin and incorrect information regarding recruits' family members or financial backgrounds, reports say.

Several lawsuits have been filed, claiming the discharges violate Army policy and even the Constitution. According to the Post, court filings show the Army is currently reviewing the records of nearly 150 discharged recruits.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: INSIDE WEST POINT: What it’s really like for new Army cadets on their first day

The Army has identified the Army sergeant who died in Afghanistan on Tuesday

$
0
0

Army Diobanjo Sanagustin

  • The Army identified Staff Sgt. Diobanjo Sanagustin, 32, as the solider who died Tuesday in a non-combat incident in Afghanistan
  • Staff Sgt. Sanagustin is the seventh U.S. troop to die this year in Afghanistan
  • The Army is still investigating the unspecified incident that led to his death

The Army has identified a staff sergeant killed Tuesday in a non-combat incident in Afghanistan.

Staff Sgt. Diobanjo Sanagustin, 32, died in the unspecified incident at Bagram Airfield, a massive military aviation hub north of Afghanistan's capital, Kabul.

The incident is under investigation, officials said.

Sanagustin, originally from National City, California, was an infantryman assigned to 1st Stryker Brigade Combat Team, 4th Infantry Division, out of Fort Carson, Colorado.

Fort Carson officials said Sanagustin enlisted in May 2007 and arrived at his current post in January of this year. He deployed to Afghanistan in May; he had previously deployed once each to Kuwait and Iraq.

His awards include two Army Commendation Medals and seven Army Achievement Medals, officials said.

"Staff Sgt. Diobanjo Sanagustin served as a Squad Leader in Bravo Company, 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment during Operation Freedom's Sentinel," Lt. Col. David Uthlaut, commander of 4th Battalion, 9th Infantry Regiment, said in a statement. "He made a lasting impact on the Manchu formation and we will forever cherish his memory. Our deepest condolences are with the Sanagustin family."

Sanagustin's death came a day after another soldier, Command Sgt. Maj. Timothy Bolyard, was killed in an apparent insider attack in Afghanistan in eastern Logar province, to the south of Kabul. Bolyard was the senior enlisted soldier in 1st Security Force Assistance Brigade out of Fort Benning, Georgia, a new element created by the Army to advise Afghan troops in their fight against the Taliban.

The deaths come the same week Army Gen. Scott Miller took over as the 17th commander of all U.S. operations in Afghanistan, succeeding Gen. John Nicholson to the post.

To date this year in Afghanistan, seven U.S. troops have died in hostile or combat circumstances, according to Pentagon records. Sanagustin is the first service member to die under non-hostile circumstances in Afghanistan this year.

-- Hope Hodge Seck can be reached at hope.seck@military.com. Follow her on Twitter at @HopeSeck.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: INSIDE WEST POINT: What it’s really like for new Army cadets on their first day

As the Army starts fixing lead hazards on bases worldwide, military families say now their drinking water is toxic

$
0
0

Fort Benning Lead Caution Tape

  • Last month, a Reuters report uncovered lead hazards lurking on U.S. Army bases, prompting Congressional calls to action.
  • The inspections, which could cost as much as $386 million, are underway at Fort Benning; Army bases worldwide are conducting town hall meetings to address residents' concerns.
  • Military families are now reporting new concerns after tests showed unsafe levels of lead in Fort Benning's drinking water.

FORT BENNING, Georgia (Reuters) - Inside the gates of the U.S. Army's Fort Benning, the din of power tools blared this week. Maintenance workers wearing respirators were busy removing old and potentially toxic paint from homes. Plastic tarps surrounded cordoned-off housing, with signs reading, "CAUTION POISON" and "LEAD HAZARD AREA."

The activity is part of a larger effort, on Army posts around the world, to respond to residents' lead poisoning concerns after a Reuters report last month uncovered lead hazards lurking on U.S. bases.

The article documented the risks of lead-based paint exposure in older and mostly privatized Army housing across several states, and found that more than 1,050 small children tested high for lead on U.S. bases in recent years. Army clinics often were failing to report high test results to state health authorities as required.

The report prompted a call for action by members of the U.S. Congress. Some 700,000 Americans, including approximately 100,000 small children, live in family housing on military posts across the United States.

Defense Secretary James Mattis told reporters the Army's duty to provide safe housing to military families was a "moral obligation." Within a week, the Army drafted plans to test 40,000 older homes for lead, and to remove families from homes when necessary. The inspection efforts could cost as much as $386 million, Reuters reported last month.

"We have developed and are executing enhanced protocols for screening the interiors of homes, sampling potable tap water, and testing soil samples to identify, mitigate and correct potential hazards," Army spokeswoman Colonel Kathleen Turner wrote in a statement Wednesday.

All Army installations worldwide with family housing are conducting town hall meetings to address residents' concerns, she said.

A visit to Fort Benning shows the broad response underway. At several old homes, signs have been posted saying, "New windows coming soon." Old lead paint sloughing from window areas can be hazardous to children.US Army Fort Benning Georgia lead military base housing warning

Some families have been moved, and others residing in older homes are having their drinking water tested. Fort Benning's clinic has been holding walk-in lead testing to accommodate a rush of children being screened.

Villages of Benning, the public-private consortium that manages the Georgia base's family housing, is planning to certify 60 additional staff to respond to lead-based paint concerns before next month, a six-fold increase, according to Army documents reviewed by Reuters. Earlier, Reuters tested five Benning homes and found lead paint hazards in all of them.

When properly maintained, old lead paint isn't considered dangerous, but when it deteriorates it becomes a hazard.

At Fort Benning, some residents aren't waiting for the Army. On a private Facebook group where families discuss military housing concerns, residents are posting photos of store-bought consumer lead-testing swabs and sharing results.

Quicker fixes, new concerns

One resident, Stephanie Campbell, told Reuters she had reported lead hazards when she moved into her historic home over a year ago. Her first lead-related maintenance requests took months to resolve, she said. But another request she made last month was addressed within weeks.

"They are being more responsive," said Campbell, who lives on base with her husband and year-old daughter.

Four neighbors on her street have recently been moved out of their homes or have moves scheduled, she said, pending lead remediation activities.

(Editing by Ronnie Greene)

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

The Army is developing a new strategic cannon to devastate targets over 1,000 miles away

$
0
0

A U.S. Army M109A6 Paladin deployed in support of Combined Joint Task Force -- Operation Inherent Resolve, assigned to 1st Calvary Division, fires during training operation at Camp Manion Iraq, March 10, 2017.

  • The commander of Army Futures Command told Congress on Thursday the command wants to field a long-range cannon that can shoot out to 1,000 miles.
  • Gen. John "Mike" Murray testified at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness to explain to lawmakers how the newly established Futures Command will change the Army's acquisition and modernization process.
  • Development of long-range precision fires technology is the Army's number one modernization priority.

The commander of Army Futures Command told Congress on Thursday the command wants to field a long-range cannon that can shoot out to 1,000 miles.

Gen. John "Mike" Murray testified at a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee's Subcommittee on Readiness to explain to lawmakers how the newly established Futures Command will change the Army's acquisition and modernization process.

Rep. Trent Kelly, R-Mississippi, asked how the service is going to get ahead of near-peer threats such as Russia and China in long-range fires.

Development of long-range precision fires technology is the Army's number one modernization priority. In October, the service unveiled LRPF, along with its five other modernization priorities -- the next-generation combat vehicle, future vertical lift, a mobile network, air and missile defense, and soldier lethality -- as part of a plan to overhaul modernization and build a future force.

"From a tactical fires perspective, we are going through basically a two-step upgrade to our current Paladin, going to the M109A7, which is a new chassis," Murray said. "The next step is coming very quickly. We call it the extended-range cannon artillery. ... We have already shot a ... round out of that tube and more than doubled the range of our current artillery. And the goal is to get that out even further."

For operational fires, the Army is working on a Precision Strike Missile "that will have a range of approximately 499 kilometers," he said, adding, "Our current missile has a range of 350 kilometers."

Murray said the Army wants to get out much farther with strategic fires.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," he said.

That’s the equivalent of 1,150 land miles.

Murray didn't provide any further details but said in the short term, the Army is adding back "both cannon and rocket artillery into our formations."

In air and missile defense, the Army plans to field mobile short-range air defense, or MSHORAD, "to keep up with our maneuver brigades," he said.

Under a new streamlined acquisition approach, the service was able to shave five years off the development process, Murray said. "The initial estimate was we could field one in 2025. We are now down to [fielding] four battalions in fiscal year 2020. The requirements process was done in 90 days, as opposed to the three to five years."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: What drinking diet soda does to your body and brain

Disturbing new data show troops are still at high risk of sexual assault — despite years of efforts

$
0
0

Military Sexual Assault Study

Men and women assigned to Navy ships at sea are far more likely to be sexually assaulted than service members at bases elsewhere across the force, according to a new Defense Department report.

Across the services, the safest places to work were at the Pentagon or other national capital region headquarters buildings, according to the report.

The Pentagon released the data on Friday as part of a much-anticipated report, that for the first time looks at the likelihood of sexual assault on a military installation or ship and ranks them by service.

The rankings were commissioned by the Defense Department and are based on 2014 data that was gathered through more than 170,000 surveys of active-duty service members collected by the RAND Corporation. Because of the five-year time lag, defense officials said the rankings do not reflect what the most dangerous bases are today. The study faced other limitations too, such as that assaults reported that were linked to a base could have occurred off-base or off-ship, such as while on liberty or leave. But the data is still jarring:

Navy

The risk for sexual assault was highest for men and women aboard the Navy’s ships. For men, “all but one of Navy men’s highest-risk installations are ships or clusters of ships, including five aircraft carriers." For women, of the 15 installations with highest risk for women, “13 are ships or clusters of ships, including eight of the ten aircraft carriers.”

In one stunning example, RAND found that “on one of these ships, we estimate that close to one in every 25 men was sexually assaulted in FY 2014.”

But RAND won’t name the ship, saying it was trying to respect the anonymity of the respondents. In the survey, RAND eliminated ships and bases with fewer than 50 survey responses, or with ship or base populations of less than 100 personnel.

For Navy women, ships were particularly dangerous, according to the report. “Our model estimates that more than 10 percent of all women experienced a sexual assault at each of these high-risk installations over a one-year period, and more than 15 percent of all women were assaulted at two of them,” the report found.

For both men and women, Navy ships assigned to the FPO code 96671 — which based on Navy data includes cruisers Champlain and Lake Erie, submarines Louisiana and Louisville, and destroyer William P. Lawrence — “are associated with risk more than 100 percent greater than the average installation-specific risk in the Navy," RAND found.

Army

Fort Drum in upstate New York was one of the most dangerous places for both Army men and women in terms of risk of sexual assault.

For Army women, the top five locations in terms of risk of sexual assault included Fort Huachuca in Arizona.; Osan Air Base, Korea; Fort Drum; Okinawa, Japan and Fort Riley, Kansas.

For men, the top five locations with the highest risk were located in Italy, at Fort Myer, Fort Benning, Fort Drumand Rose barracks, Germany. “While the lowest-risk installations for men are dominated by small, command, or support installations, the highest-risk list includes many installations with a more prominent combat unit presence,” the study found.

For the Army, a cross section of the top fifteen most dangerous bases for men and women showed that "almost half of these highest-risk installations are identical,” the study found, suggesting that location or culture at those locations could be a contributing factor that could be addressed in further study, said Nate Galbreath, director of DoD’s Sexual Assault and Prevention Office.

Air Force

Undergraduate pilot training bases were among the most dangerous places for both Air Force men and women for the risk for sexual assault, the report found.

For women, the top five installations in terms of risk were Vance Air Force Base, Calif., Laughlin Air Force Base, Texas, Altus Air Force Base, Okla., Columbus Air Force Base, Ohio and Goodfellow Air Force Base, Texas.

For men, the top five installations in terms of risk of sexual assault were Altus Air Force Base in Oklahoma, Laughlin Air Force Base in Texas, Joint Base Anacostia-Bolling in Washington D.C., Luke Air Force Base, Arizona, and Columbus Air Force Base in Ohio.

Marine Corps

Marine Corps Air Ground Combat Center Twentynine Palms, in California, was one of the top five most dangerous places for Marine men and women for risk of sexual assault, the report found.

Responses for male Marines showed that the other most risky locations to be assigned included Japan, Korea, and Afghanistan.

For female Marines, Marine Corps Air Station Yuma, Arizona, MCAS Beaufort, MCAS New River and USMC Mobile, 3rd Marine Logistics Group were reported to have the highest risk of sexual assault.

This story will be updated.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ray Dalio says the economy looks like 1937 and a downturn is coming in about two years

Here's what the new Army fitness test will entail — and officials' tips for acing it

$
0
0

US Army physical fitness test

  • Armyfitness officials released the manual for the upcoming Army Combat Fitness Test (ACFT), including tips to please graders on each event.
  • The ACFT is scheduled to officially replace the Army Physical Fitness Test in October 2020.
  • The manual states that incorrectly performed repetitions will not be counted and there are no re-starts.
  • The ACFT retains the two-mile-run portion of the APFT, which is designed to measure aerobic and muscular endurance.

 

Army fitness officials recently released the manual for the upcoming Army Combat Fitness Test, including tips for pleasing graders on each event.

Beginning in October, the service will conduct a large field test of the ACFT, involving soldiers from 60 battalions across the active-duty, National Guard and Reserve components.

"While the ACFT is backed by thorough scientific research and has undergone several revisions, there are still details that have not been finalized," according to the ACFT Field Testing Manual released Sept. 6. "The purpose of the Field Test is to refine the field administration and scoring of the ACFT."

The six-event ACFT is scheduled to officially replace the Army Physical Fitness Test in October 2020.

In addition to test preparation, equipment lists, event procedures and administrative guidance, the manual provides advice for graders scoring each event.

"There are no test event re-starts. Incorrectly performed repetitions will not be counted," the manual states.

Here is a look at what graders will likely be looking for on each ACFT event:

Strength deadlift

This is a three-repetition maximum deadlift to test muscular strength. Graders will terminate a record attempt (which counts as one of two record attempts) if the soldier drops or bounces the weights off the ground or rests in the down position. Resting means no continuous effort is being made to lift the weight.

Standing power throw

This event involves throwing a 10-pound medicine ball as far as possible over the head and to the rear. The soldier must make one practice throw and two record throws. A record attempt will not count if a soldier steps on or over the start line during a throw. This is a fault, and the throw will be repeated. Two faults in a row will count as a record attempt, and the soldier will receive a "0" for that record attempt.

Hand-release push-ups

This event forces the soldier to go all the way to the floor and raise his/her hands before coming back up again. A repetition will not count if the index finger is outside the outer edge of the shoulder, feet are more than a boot's width apart, the soldier fails to simultaneously raise the shoulders and hips (the whole body) off the ground in a straight alignment from the top of the head to the ankles, or the soldier bends or sags at the shoulders, hips or knees while in the front leaning rest position. After a warning, the test event will be terminated if the soldier lifts a foot off the ground, lifts a hand off the ground or rests on the ground or in any position other than the front leaning rest position.

250-meter sprint-drag-carry

This is five different events within one event: a 50-meter sprint; a backward 50-meter drag of a 90-pound sled; a 50-meter movement; a 50-meter carry of two 40-pound kettle bells; and a final 50-meter sprint. Graders will call soldiers back to the start line or the 25-meter turn line to correct violations in performance to include: failure to touch the line with a hand and foot while sprinting or doing laterals or failure to pull the entire sled across the 25-meter or start line.

A soldier's body must continue past the line pulling the sled backward until the entire sled crosses the line. The soldier may then turn the sled. Failure to pull the entire sled across the start line before beginning the laterals or throwing or tossing the kettlebells on the ground will also result in violations in performance.

Leg tuck

A soldier hangs perpendicular to the pull-up bar and brings his knees up to his elbows and back down again for one repetition. A repetition will not count if a soldier: fails to touch both knees (or thighs) to both elbows, swings or twists to establish momentum to lift the knees, fails to return to a straight-arm position; has arms fully extended in the down position or pushes off the post, ground or bar with back or foot to establish momentum to lift the knees. Incidental contact with the ground, post or bar is not penalized if the grader deems the soldier has gained no advantage. The event will be terminated if the soldier drops from the bar or rests on the ground.

Two-mile run

The ACFT retains the two-mile-run portion of the APFT, which is designed to measure aerobic and muscular endurance. Soldiers must complete the event without any physical help. Soldiers may pace another soldier or be paced by another soldier. Leaving the course at any time during the event will cause the event to be terminated.

After completing all six events, soldiers must review and sign their scorecards, the manual states.

"Any discrepancies must be resolved at the test site," it adds. "Requests for reconsideration will not be permitted after the scorecard has been signed and turned in."

SEE ALSO: Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been on the Supreme Court for 25 years today — here's the workout she uses to stay on top of her game

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Why horseshoe crab blood is so expensive

Why Green Berets are the smartest, most lethal fighters in the world


Trump awarded the Medal of Honor to Special Forces soldier-turned-Secret Service agent for heroism in the mountains of Afghanistan

$
0
0

Ronald J. Shurer II conducting a mission in Afghanistan

  • Ronald Shurer II, a former Special Forces medic who now protects the president as a member of the Secret Service, was awarded the Medal of Honor Monday for heroism in Afghanistan.
  • According to the Army, he went "above and beyond the call of duty" by fighting his way up a mountain to provide aid to his Special Forces teammates and their Afghan counterparts.
  • In an intense firefight, Shurer suffered wounds of his own, but he continued to support pinned down elements and provide aid to critically injured troops.
  • He was initially awarded a Silver Star for his actions. That award was upgraded Monday.

President Donald Trump today awarded the Medal of Honor to Ronald Shurer II, a former Army Green Beret who now protects the president as a Secret Service agent.

"Today is a truly proud and special day for those of us here in the White House because Ron works right here alongside of us on the Secret Service counter assault team; these are incredible people," Trump told a crowded room filled with Shurer's family, fellow soldiers and Army senior leaders.

Shurer was initially awarded a Silver Star for performing heroic feats as a medic during a daring combat mission in the mountains of Afghanistan on April 6, 2008.

Trump upgraded his award to the Medal of Honor after hearing his story.

"Several weeks ago, my staff invited Ron and his wife Miranda to a meeting in the West Wing," Trump recounted, as Shurer sat in his Army dress blue uniform. "They didn't know what it was about; they walked into the Oval Office, and I told Ron that he was going to receive our nation's highest military honor. It was a moment I will never forget."

Trump then told the story of Shurer's bravery during that 2008 mission to "hunt down a deadly terrorist, a leader in that world he was in a remote mountain village."

"Ron was among two dozen Special Forces soldiers and 100 Afghan commandos who dropped off by helicopter into Shok Valley, a rocky barren valley, far away from reinforcements," Trump said.

As the lead assault element approached the target village, "roughly 200 well-trained and well-armed terrorists ambushed the American and Afghan forces," Trump said.

Shurer immediately began treating the wounded. He then sprinted through enemy fire to reach several of his teammates who were pinned down on a cliff above.

"There was blood all over the place," Trump said. "It was a tough, tough situation to be in. Immediately, Ron climbed the rocky mountain, all the while fighting back against the enemy and dodging gun fire left and right. Rockets were shot at him, everything was shot at him.

"For more than six hours Ron bravely faced down the enemy; not a single American died in that brutal battle thanks in great measure to Ron's heroic actions."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

It's been 25 years since the infamous 'Black Hawk Down' incident — here's how that fierce fight change American combat operations

$
0
0

Members of the 2nd Battalion, 14th Infantry Regiment, arrive at the Mogadishu Airport, Dec. 17, 1993

  • The infamous "Black Hawk Down" incident, the bloody two-day Battle of Mogadishu, began 25 years ago today in Somalia.
  • This fierce firefight, praised by some as a tactical success and criticized by others as a strategic failure, left 18 Americans dead and more than 70 injured.
  • US forces learned valuable lessons from this fight that dramatically affected US combat operations in the post-9/11 era.

Twenty-five years ago, news flashed across television screens that U.S. troops had engaged in some of the most intense urban combat since Vietnam and suffered more dead and wounded in a matter of hours than recent years of operations combined.

The Battle of Mogadishu on Oct. 3-4, 1993, in Somalia would later be viewed as a tactical success in which, despite daunting odds and unforeseen mishaps, a force of about 100 Americans held off more than 1,000 enemy who poured streams of small arms and rocket attacks in an intense, coordinated ambush.

U.S. forces had arrived in the war-torn country in 1992 on a humanitarian mission to get food to starving people in a city where resources were controlled by various warlords. One of those warlords, Gen. Muhammed Farah Aideed, had directed forces that conducted attacks on U.N. allies, killing dozens, and also a bombing in August 1993 that killed four U.S. military police officers.

Those attacks changed the mission for Task Force Ranger to begin focusing on raids to capture Aideed and his top commanders. Those raids, initially the kind soldiers train for routinely, erupted into a crisis when militiamen downed two Black Hawk helicopters using rocket propelled grenades. The 15-hour battle that ensued left 18 Americans dead and 73 injured. And shocking images of American soldiers dragged through the streets of Mogadishu were seared into the memories of many Americans at home.

The book by journalist Mark Bowden and later the movie “Black Hawk Down” chronicled the battle in harrowing detail, memorializing it and contributing to its enduring legacy in both military and civilian circles.

Though the Army Rangers, Delta Force operators, 10th Mountain Division soldiers and other service members who took part in the fight would be recognized for their heroism, the battle signaled the end of Operation Restore Hope in Somalia and was characterized by many as a strategic failure.

U.S. forces would go on to perform multiple humanitarian and peacekeeping missions for the rest of the 1990s, but military and civilian leaders were careful to avoid such intense combat and losses. The lessons learned by the special operations forces echoed into the post-9/11 era and continue to resonate to this day.

Lt. Gen. Fran Beaudette, head of U.S. Army Special Operations Command, told Army Times that the sacrifices and bravery of those who fought in Mogadishu are reminders of the “professionalism, cohesion and valor of our forces.”

Beaudette was not in Mogadishu at the time but had submitted his Special Forces selection package just prior to the battle and recalled trying to piece together what had happened with friends and colleagues from his conventional infantry unit.

“The battle reinforced my decision to join [Army special operations forces], and I doubled down on my training and prep,” Beaudette said.

He would later benefit from others' experience from that battle when he arrived at his Operation Detachment-Alpha team and met his team sergeant, Rick Lamb, a Mogadishu veteran.

The three-star called Lamb “one of the finest leaders” he’d ever served with in his career.

After 9/11, as the Global War on Terror unfolded nearly a decade later, several Mogadishu veterans were in key positions of leadership in the ranks.

“They hammered home to us the criticality of being comprehensively ready, how being an expert in the basics was fundamental, and how personal and professional discipline, especially in combat with our indigenous partners, was paramount to success,” Beaudette said.

Individuals interviewed, and multiple case studies of the battle repeat that same takeaway — realistic training and repetition to the point of mastery were crucial.

Command Sgt. Maj. Reese Teakell was still a teenager when he deployed with 3rd Ranger Battalion to Somalia. Some of his noncommissioned officers had combat experience from operations in Grenada or Panama, but many had never seen a firefight. But they had all been brought up by the Vietnam generation, who drilled into them the importance of rigorous training.

“There was a warrant officer who told me this: He said, ‘Hey, make sure you’re ready to go. Nobody improves in a firefight. You go into the firefight with the skill and knowledge you’ve trained with,' ” Teakell said. “Don’t use the time you have to prepare lightly.”

It’s easy for current soldiers to see the past two decades of near-constant deployments as the norm. But for troops from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, actual combat operations were rare and brief.

Retired Army Maj. Larry Moores at the time counted himself lucky ― or unlucky, if you asked his mother, he said.

He had deployed to Grenada but missed Panama because he was in Officer Candidate School. He later deployed to Somalia, Haiti and then Afghanistan before retiring.

A year after Somalia, his unit, Bravo Company, 3rd Battalion, 75th Ranger Regiment, was one of the few with combat experience to share with troops then headed to Haiti.

Though many of the fundamental skills remained the same, some training and operational tactics changed immediately.

Moores noted that for both Haiti and later Afghanistan, Rangers flew into areas from ships offshore for raids rather than establishing ground bases in or near large cities, such as in Mogadishu.

A 2002 paper on Mogadishu by Maj. Christopher Forbes at the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College, titled “In order to win, learn how to fight: the U.S. Army in Urban Operations,” noted that lessons learned included focus on marksmanship, physical fitness, battle drills and medical training.

After Mogadishu, Rangers added more close-quarters combat training to their marksmanship drills and strove to have every Ranger certified as a combat lifesaver since the ratio of troops to medics was 48-to-1.

They also found problems with planning for contingencies. The Mogadishu raid was expected to be a one- or two-hour operation, so many soldiers brought only a basic ammunition load, no night vision goggles and one canteen of water.

Even commonly trained tactics such as “stacking and moving” along walls in the urban area proved “extremely perilous,” Forbes wrote.

That required later changes in dismounted movement.

A larger tactical shortfall, though, was more due to operational or even strategic miscalculations. The Rangers had no armored vehicles, and even their Humvees lacked firepower beyond .50-caliber machine guns. They had no grenade launchers, and due to the civilian-packed urban terrain, fire support was limited to close-air support from helicopters.

High level plans lacked thorough analysis, noted another study out of the Combat Studies Institute Press, titled “Understanding the ‘Victory Disease’ From the Battle of Little Bighorn to Mogadishu and Beyond,” by Maj. Timothy Karcher.

Karcher points out that Task Force Ranger had six times conducted missions using similar tactics to those used in the Battle of Mogadishu before the incident. That established a pattern that enemy forces could recognize and exploit.

“If you use one tactic twice, you should not use it a third time, and the Americans already had done basically the same thing six times,” a Somali militia commander told the Washington Post after the battle.

Even to date, only a handful of battles over the past two decades even come close to matching the sustained intensity of that 15-hour fight in Mogadishu.

Most enemy contact in recent years has been through improvised explosive device attacks or short-term ambushes that last minutes before adversaries retreat.

Teakell points out that Mogadishu was an ambush that went “on for hours.”

In those situations, the defending force is designed to lose.

But that wasn’t the case in Mogadishu.

“The circumstances were seemingly to the enemy’s benefit,” Teakell said. “We not only fought through it, we stayed to take care of our people.”

He was shoved into the driver’s seat in his vehicle convoy. A turret gunner was killed early in the ambush and immediately replaced by another soldier who was then shot in the leg.

Those are lessons he still carries with him now as the command sergeant major for the 3rd Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division.

“What does it take to have a team that can not only survive that level of contact, but also persevere in it?” he said. “That’s a lesson for any formation, how to build a team with those kinds of people, soldiers, leaders.”

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: The Samsung Galaxy Note 9 is a $1,000 phone that's actually worth it

These are the incredible stories of US troops who've earned the Medal of Honor during the war on terror

$
0
0

MOH mural in Afghanistan

  • The US's war on terror launched on October 7, 2001 with the invasion of Afghanistan, a campaign known as Operation Enduring Freedom.
  • Throughout the 17-year war, 21 service members have received the nation's highest award for combat valor.
  • The Medal of Honor is reserved for service members who display extraordinary bravery or selflessness in conflict, often at the expense of their own lives. 

On April 4, 2005, President George W. Bush spoke to a somber crowd gathered to honor Army Sergeant First Class Paul Smith, who had died two years earlier during the Battle of Baghdad. During the ceremony to follow, President Bush presented the Medal of Honor to Smith's parents, inducting their son into a venerated fraction of military service members and veterans.

"Since World War II more than half of those who have been awarded this medal gave their lives in the action that earned it," President Bush said. "Sergeant Paul Smith belongs to this select group."

Smith was the first service member awarded with the nation's highest military honor for his actions during the global war on terror. In the time since, 20 more have been awarded for conspicuous gallantry — an obvious display of bravery in battle that often shows disregard for one's own life.

Here are their incredible stories.

Navy SEAL Senior Chief Petty Officer Britt Slabinski

On March 4, 2002, Navy SEAL Senior Chief Petty Officer Britt Slabinski’s helicopter was shot down over Takur Ghar mountain in Afghanistan. Through deep snow, Slabinski protected his teammates by fighting off insurgent forces, exposing himself to direct enemy fire throughout. At one point, Slabinski carried a wounded teammate to safety while calling in airstrikes for protection. Originally awarded the Navy Cross, in May 2018 President Donald Trump upgraded the award to the Medal of Honor.



Air Force Technical Sergeant John Chapman

Air Force Technical Sergeant John Chapman was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor over 16 years following his actions during the Battle of Robert’s Ridge on March 4, 2002. After a rocket-launched grenade toppled his team’s helicopter, Chapman led the effort to rescue one of his teammates who was thrown from the aircraft. He fought for over an hour through enemy gunfire, ignoring numerous injuries in the attempt to save Navy SEAL Neil Roberts.

Tech. Sgt. Chapman was originally awarded the Air Force Cross for his actions during the battle, becoming the first Air Combat Controller in history to earn that medal. The Battle of Robert’s Ridge resulted in numerous decorations, including 12 Silver Stars and three Air Force Crosses. President Donald Trump upgraded his award in August 2018, making Chapman the first member of the Air Force to earn the Medal of Honor since the Vietnam War.



“He gave his all for his men”: Sergeant First Class Paul Smith

On April 4, 2003, Sergeant First Class Paul Smith coordinated the defense of over 100 US soldiers who came under attack near Baghdad, Iraq. Surrounded by enemy forces, Smith fought them off with hand grenades, anti-tank weapons, and a truck-mounted machine gun, exposing himself to direct enemy fire. He suffered mortal wounds while saving the lives of wounded soldiers, who were rescued while he provided protective fire.

Sgt. First Class Smith was awarded the first Medal of Honor of the Global War on Terror by then-President George W. Bush on April 4, 2005.



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Britain has reportedly practiced a cyberattack to send Moscow into total blackout

$
0
0

Tuesday, September 25, 2001, during Exercise Saif Sareea 2, a bi-lateral military exercise near Camp South in Oman.

  • Britain's military just underwent a $130.5 million (£100 million) exercise, part of which focussed on what to do if Russia attacks the West.
  • If Russia does, Britain will send Moscow into total darkness by launching a cyberattack on its electricity supply, Military sources told the Sunday Times.
  • The two-day training exercise took place on Saturday and Sunday deep in a desert in Oman.

British military forces reportedly practiced a cyberattack on Russia on Saturday to send Moscow into total darkness if Vladimir Putin's forces attack the West.

Military sources told the Sunday Times that the only other way of hitting Russia back would be to use nuclear weapons.

But cyber weapons reportedly give Britain the best chance of deterring Russia because the West no longer has small battlefield nuclear weapons.

The Sunday Times reported that the test to "turn out the lights" in Moscow – which will give Britain more time to act in the event of war – happened during the UK's biggest military exercise for a decade.

5,500 British troops took part in the desert exercise in Oman, where troops also practiced other war games to combat Russia's ground forces.

A combination photograph shows the lights of the St. Basil's Cathedral before (L) and after they were switched off for Earth Hour in Red Square in central Moscow, Russia, March 19, 2016.

The £100m ($130.5 million) exercise in the Omani desert reportedly involved 200 armoured vehicles, six naval ships, and eight Typhoon warplanes.

Sources told the Sunday Times that in a series of mock battles, the Household Cavalry played the role of an enemy using Russian T-72 tanks.

Britain-Russia tensions are being tested at the moment over the fate of two Russian military intelligence (GRU) agents who Britain accused of poisoning former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in March this year, and over accusations that Russia is behind a host of global cyberattacks.

On Thursday, British and Dutch intelligence exposed an operation by the GRU to hijack the investigation into the assassination plot against the Skripals.

SEE ALSO: 4 Russian spies got caught in an audacious revenge hack aimed at chemical weapons inspectors, Dutch intelligence says

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Apple might introduce three new iPhones this year — here’s what we know

The Army wants this revolutionary rifle that fires four bullets simultaneously and supposedly won't jam

$
0
0

L5 rifle Army

  • The Army is requesting a prototype of a revolutionary personal rifle that has four bores. 
  • The L5 rifle fires blocks of ammunition, allowing the operator to shoot one or four bullets at a time.
  • The rifle manufacturer, FD Munitions, also claims that it cannot jam, is electrically fired, and weighs less than today's common weapons.

The Army is requesting a prototype of a personal rifle that has four bores, triggering headlines everywhere — but the bigger news might be that the manufacturer claims that it cannot jam, is electrically fired, and weighs less than today's common weapons.

First, let's discuss the "four barrels" thing that's flying around the internet. FD Munitions actually describes their prototype with five openings as a five-bore design — and that's more accurate. The weapon has a single barrel, meaning a single bar of metal, but that bar has five holes in it, each of which lines up with a bullet when the weapon is loaded. The Army version would have four bores and, consequently, four bullets.

And, we're using "bullet" here instead of "round," the general military term, intentionally. Rounds are self-contained units with propellant, projectile, and primer. Most of them also have a case. But the L5, FD Munitions' prototype that will feed into the Army's requested design, uses blocks of ammo instead.

In the block ammo, a single block of metal has multiple hollows carved out. In the case of the Army proposed prototype, it has four hollows. Each hollow is filled with propellant and a bullet is placed at the front of the hollow, precisely aligned with a bore. When the shooter fires, an electronic charge passes through the propellant, igniting it, sending the bullet down the bore and towards the target.

L5 rifle

The shooter would still typically fire one round at a time. The bores are stacked vertically as are the "blocks" of ammo. Each trigger pull typically fires the next round in sequence. When four rounds have been fired, the first "block" of ammo is ejected and the next block is loaded.

But, when necessary, the shooter can tell the weapon to fire the entire block at once, sending four 6mm rounds flying at once.

All of this allows for a system with much fewer moving parts than a traditional, all-mechanical rifle. FD Munitions claims that, since only the blocks are moving and they only move 0.5 inches at a time, the weapon has a minimized probability of jamming. And, since most of the heat of the weapon firing stays in the block, which is soon ejected, the weapon has much less chance of overheating.

FD Munitions L5 rifle blocks ammunition

But, of course, the Army has to test all of this before it can make a decision — hence the prototype.

We heard back from the inventor, Martin Grier, about the firing rates and velocity just after we originally went to press. Here's what he told us about the numbers (light edits for clarity):

  • The velocity quote of 2,500 mph is close, with velocities of 3,400-3,600 fps. achievable with our composite Charge-Block ammunition (depending on projectile mass).
  • The COPV (composite overwrap pressure vessel) design is much stronger than steel and can safely operate at 80k psi.
  • The maximum theoretical rate of fire with our electronic fire control is about 6,000 shots per minute (SPM) in full-auto mode, since the pulse width is 10ms. (1/100 sec.) 
  • In burst-fire mode, That rate goes up to 7,500 spm since the pulses can be overlapped somewhat for short periods. 
  • In actual use, for a personal weapon, 4-600 spm in full-auto mode seems to be the most controllable, just as with other weapons, and in burst fire 1,800 spm is the sweet spot.
  • Since the tech is fully scalable, in other applications, such as [Squad Automatic Weapon], or other crew-served weapons, different rates of fire may be more useful.
  • The electronic fire control can be easily set for any rate up to the maximum.

L5 ammunition

The Army would need to verify those rates. And, it would need to know at what ranges the weapon is accurate in both standard firing and when firing four rounds simultaneously. Do the rounds affect each other in flight when traveling so close together at such high speeds?

And how much weight would a combat load be with the metal blocks? They certainly contain more material than four loose rounds would, so would an infantryman need to carry significantly more weight? And while the ejected blocks may take a lot of the heat with them, there's still the friction of the rounds traveling down the bores with the exploding gasses to heat up the barrel. What's the sustained rate of fire before it overheats?

While the Army digs into all the numbers and tests things like reliability and heat dissipation, the rest of us can talk about how cool it sounds. It's like a video-game weapon come to life.

SEE ALSO: The Russian maker of the AK-47 just unveiled a new AK-308 rifle with a large 7.62 mm NATO round

SEE ALSO: Here's every weapon the US Army gives to its soldiers

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

The Army whiffed on its recruiting goal last year — here's what it says it'll change in 2019

$
0
0

us army recruit

WASHINGTON (AP) — It will take time to overcome the recruiting challenges that caused the US Army to miss its enlistment goal this year, but plans to beef up recruiting and other changes will enable the service to get the recruits it needs in 2019, top Army leaders said Monday.

Gen. Mark Milley, Army chief of staff, said the recruiting shortfall was "certainly a warning light out there" as the Pentagon works to increase the size of the soldier service to 500,000 by 2024.

"We recognize and acknowledge we did not meet (the goal) for '18," Milley told reporters during an Army conference. "We are making some adjustments going forward in our recruiting strategy, our marketing strategy. We're also increasing recruiters."

For the first time since 2005, the Army missed its recruiting goal this year, falling short by about 6,500 soldiers, despite pouring an extra $200 million into bonuses and approving some additional waivers for bad conduct or health issues.

The Army signed up about 70,000 new active duty recruits in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30, well below the 76,500 they needed. The Army National Guard and Army Reserves also fell far short of their goals, by more than 12,000 and 5,000 respectively.

us army recruit

Army Secretary Mark Esper said the service is moving recruiters into 20 more cities and upgrading the storefront enlistment stations to entice recruits.

"I think we can and we will do a lot better," he said. "It's going to take some time to reposition ourselves."

According to the Army, there are about 9,600 recruiters now, and the plan is to increase that to about 10,250 by next summer.

Only about 30% of 17- to 24-year-olds meet the physical, mental and moral requirements for the military, and only one in eight are interested in serving.

Milley said the Army could have reached the recruiting goal this year but instead focused on taking higher quality recruits, rather than enlisting lower quality young people just to make the numbers.

He laid out an ambitious plan to bring in enough soldiers in the coming years to ensure that key operational units are actually staffed above full strength. That way, he said, the military will still have the soldiers they need when some become injured or ill and can't deploy or are out of their jobs for several months.

And he said efforts to improve the Army's readiness to go to war are slowly taking hold, as the service recovers from 17 years of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Efforts to upgrade equipment, reorganize the force and focus spending on key new programs is helping to make the Army more lethal, Milley said. For years, modernization and other programs were sacrificed in order to get the most critical troops and equipment on the battlefields.

"We stopped the bleeding and we're on an upward swing," Milley said. "We have, I think, turned the corner. We're not out of the woods yet. We have a ways to go."

SEE ALSO: A Special Forces soldier accused of a multimillion-dollar drug-smuggling attempt is heading to trial, and he faces life in prison

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: 7 things the CIA looks for when recruiting people

The US Army's top general says the next squad weapon will fire faster, farther than previous infantry rifles and penetrate any body armor

$
0
0

US Army Rangers

  • US Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley revealed new details for the service's next-generation squad weapons Monday at the 2018 Association of the United States Army conference.
  • The 6.8mm rifle will, according to Milley, be "accurate at ranges in excess of any known rifle,""fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today," and "penetrate any existing or known ... body armor."

The U.S. Army's chief of staff said Monday that its 6.8mm, next-generation weapons, slated to replace the M249 squad automatic weapon and the M4A1 carbine, will be able to penetrate any body armor on the battlefield.

"It will fire at speeds that far exceed the velocity of bullets today, and it will penetrate any existing or known ... body armor that's out there," Gen. Mark Milley told Military.com at the 2018 Association of the United States Army's Annual Meeting and Exposition. "What I have seen so far from the engineers and the folks that put these things together, this is entirely technologically possible. ... It's a very good weapon."

Milley's comments come on the heels of an Oct. 4 draft solicitation announcing the Army's plans to "award up to three prototype Other Transaction Agreements ... with each offeror developing two weapon variants and a common cartridge for both weapons, utilizing government-provided 6.8 millimeter projectiles," according to the solicitation posted on the federal contracting website FedBizzOpps."The weapons include the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Rifle (NGSW-R) and the Next Generation Squad Weapon-Automatic Rifle (NGSW-AR)."

The Army also intends to make follow-on production awards for "250,000 total weapons system(s) (NGSW-R, NGSW-AR, or both), 150,000,000 rounds of ammunition, spare parts, tools/gauges/accessories, and engineering support," the solicitation states.

The awards could be worth "$10 million the first year and $150 million per year at the higher production rates," it adds.

The solicitation comes about three months after the Army announced it had selected five gun makers to build prototypes of the next-generation squad automatic rifle.

The contracts were the result of a prototype opportunities notice the Army posted in March for the small-arms industry to submit ideas for the NGSW-AR, an effort to replace the M249 squad automatic rifle, made by FN America.

Milley would not comment on the recent prototype contracts, but said that there were "several prototypes that were advanced forward."

He added that the Army will likely not "speak too much about its technical capabilities because our adversaries watch these things very closely."

"It's a very sophisticated weapon, a very capable weapon. It's got an integrated sight system to it, and it also integrates into the soldier's gear and other equipment that we are fielding," Milley said. "And not surprisingly with a weapon like that, it's probably pretty expensive. We expect it to be expensive so we are probably not going to field the entire Army with this weapon."

He explained the service will likely field these cutting-edge weapons to infantry and other close-combat forces.

"The bottom line is we are committed to a new rifle and a new squad automatic weapon," Milley said. "We hope to be able to shoot it on ranges down at Fort Benning, [Georgia], hopefully ... maybe sometime next year late summer."

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Ray Dalio says the economy looks like 1937 and a downturn is coming in about two years


Russia and China started blowing things up at great distances, and now the US Army is going to do the same with new long-range cannons

$
0
0

A U.S. Army M109A6 Paladin deployed in support of Combined Joint Task Force -- Operation Inherent Resolve, assigned to 1st Calvary Division, fires during training operation at Camp Manion Iraq, March 10, 2017.

  • The US Army is undergoing its largest modernization program since the 1970s, Secretary of the Army Mark Esper said at the Association of the United States Army's conference on Monday.
  • The Army Futures Command is a new command designed to expedite next-generation weaponry and prepare the Army for wars against formidable opponents.
  • While the US focused on counterinsurgency capabilities, Russia and China pursued long-range standoff weapons, said Gen. John M. Murray, the first head of the Futures Command.
  • Now the Army is investing heavily to ensure the US can maintain overmatch against its strategic rivals.

The head of the US Army's new four-star command for the development of next-generation weapons identified Russian and Chinese advances in weapons as motivations for some of its projects in the works, including a long-range cannon that could strike targets nearly 40 miles away.

"That is a big piece of it,"Gen. John M. Murray, the first head of Army Futures Command, a new command designed to prepare the Army for wars against formidable opponents, said Monday at the Association of the United States Army's conference in Washington, DC, where Secretary of the Army Mark Esper earlier said the branch was undergoing its largest modernization program since the 1970s.

"We did a study called 'The Next-Generation Russian Warfare Study,'" Murray said, adding that it "was kind of the wake-up call in terms of the capabilities that the Russians had been developing."

He explained that "the Russians, and in many ways the Chinese as well, are able to outrange most of our systems."

"They are establishing standoff capabilities, Murray said. "We saw that in the Ukraine. We saw the pairing of drones with artillery, using drones as spotters."

Defense News quoted a 2015 Rand Corporation report as aruging that Army rocket systems were "falling behind the increasing range of similar Russian and Chinese rocket systems."

An interest in standoff weaponry has also been seen in Russian and Chinese research into air-to-air missiles intended to eliminate vulnerable aircraft supporting the US's F-35 Joint Strike Fighter and enhance each country's anti-access, area-denial capabilities.

"The Russians have made some significant advances — that was a wake-up call for us to start looking at this in a more serious manner," Murray said, noting that the Army's focus is now in line with the National Defense Strategy, which stresses the return of "great power competition."

He said the gaps that the Futures Command programs were meant to address "shift back to a focus on great power competition, against near-peer states."

"Those were the capabilities that we didn't walk away from but kind of mortgaged over the last 17 years to do the counterinsurgency fight," he added.

Murray pointed to the Extended-Range Cannon Artillery program, part of the priority long-range precision-fire project, as one that changed based on lessons learned from Russia and China.

Murray explained that while the US maintained a competitive edge in quality of artillery, Russia had a notable advantage in quantity and range. But he said that's changing as the Army adapts to new security challenges from peer and near-peer competitors.

"We just doubled the range of our cannon artillery last week, demonstrating that at the Yuma Proving Grounds," Murray told reporters, adding that the cannon fired a shell roughly 62 kilometers, or about 40 miles.

Col. John Rafferty, the head of a long-range precision-fire cross-functional team, told Defense News: "We know we need the range; in order to maintain overmatch, we need 70 to 80 kilometers because that's the start, and then we will be able to get farther."

He added: "Right now we are on a path to 70 kilometers with ERCA."

The Army isn't stopping there.

Testifying before Congress in September, Murray said the Army was pursuing a strategic cannon that could fire on enemy positions as far as 1,000 miles away.

"We are looking very hard and starting down the path of hypersonics and also looking at what we call the Strategic Long-Range Cannon, which conceivably could have a range of up to 1,000 nautical miles," or about 1,150 miles, he said, according to Military.com.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One bite from this tick could ruin red meat for the rest of your life

The US Army's future tank may not be a tank at all, but it will be 'decisively' lethal

$
0
0

M1 Abrams

  • A major project for the Army's Next-Generation Combat Vehicle team is finding a replacement for the M1 Abrams tank.
  • But the replacement "might not be a tank," Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the NGCV cross-functional team, told reporters Tuesday at the Association of United States Army annual meeting in Washington, DC.

WASHINGTON — The Army’s future tank may not be a tank, Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, who is in charge of combat vehicle modernization, told Defense News in an interview at the Association of the U.S. Army’s annual show.

While the M1 Abrams tank still has life in it yet, the Army is starting to begin the thinking and planning process for a future tank, “which is really exciting because it might not be a tank,” Coffman said. “It is decisive lethality and what that decisive lethality is will be determined by academia, our science and technology community within the Army and industry.”

The Army will choose a path in 2023 on how it plans to replace the Abrams and some of the ideas cropping up in discussions have been “everything from a ray gun to a Star Wars-like four-legged creature that shoots lasers,” Coffman said, “but the reality is that everything is on the table.

“We have to get away from these paradigms that we created that decisive lethality must come from a tank,” Coffman said. “It may be a tank in the end and that would be great, but we need choices for our soldiers, so we can really move into a position of lethal advantage over the enemy.”

Coffman is spearheading that effort along with some more near-term plans to replace the Bradley Fighting Vehicle with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle and bring online the Army’s Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV) and a light tank called the Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) system.

The one-star is in charge of the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle Cross-Functional Team housed under the Army Futures Command tasked to modernize the force.

While the Bradley has a need for relatively immediate replacement because of its power limitations that simply prevent it from being able to accommodate effective upgrades, the Abrams is going through an upgrade program now.

The Army began accepting the M1A2 System Enhancement Package Version 3 — or M1A2 SEP V3 — from General Dynamics Land Systems a year ago.

The service expects to begin fielding the version in fiscal year 2020.

The main intent of the upgrade is to buy back size, weight, and power lost during the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as the Army focused on protective measures for the tank. The upgrade also includes a modernized architecture.

The modernized architecture allows for the inclusion of an ethernet connection that enhances processing within the tank to accommodate an updated fire control system that will allow users to engage targets more quickly.

The Army is also installing an ammunition data link that will allow the tank itself to talk to the new smart rounds it is fielding in order to optimize the effect of those rounds.

The variant rolling off the production line essentially primes the pump for the integration of future technology and improved lethality because of the new architecture and restoration of power to the vehicle.

The next round of upgrades — the M1A2 SEP V4 — will fall in on the tail end of the M1A2 SEP V3 production that is focused on increasing lethality of the system. The Army just awarded GDLS a contract over a year ago to develop the M1A2 SEP V4.

The service will make a production decision in fiscal year 2023 and hopes to field to the first brigade in 2025.

The keystone technology is the incorporation of the third generation Forward-Looking Infrared (FLIR) camera.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: One bite from this tick could ruin red meat for the rest of your life

The US Army is searching for a new combat vehicle to defeat the toughest adversaries — here are 3 leading possibilities

$
0
0

Lynx KF 41 (14)

As the US Army pursues accelerated modernization to meet the potential future demands of high-intensity warfighting against top adversaries like Russia and China, the service is searching for a new next-generation combat vehicle to replace the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle produced by BAE Systems.

The Next-Generation Combat Vehicle (NGCV) program is the second highest priority for the recently-established Army Futures Command. This brand new four-star command is dedicated to the research and development of future weapons systems for this new era of great power competition.

"The Russians and the Chinese have used the last 15 years to modernize their forces," Brig. Gen. Ross Coffman, director of the NGCV cross-functional team, told reporters Tuesday, "We need to do the same."

Replacing the Bradley Fighting Vehicle is the top priority for the Next-Generation Combat Vehicle program

The primary focus right now is replacing the Bradley with an Optionally Manned Fighting Vehicle (OMFV), although the requirements are still in the works, with Army officials noting that "all options are on the table." The Army's NGCV cross-functional team is looking for something lethal, survivable, and most importantly upgradeable so that it can continue to meet the Army's needs for year's to come, NGCV team leaders explained Tuesday at the 2018 Association of the United States Army conference in Washington, DC.

The Army appears to be pursuing a vehicle that can be reconfigured for different missions, has an outstanding power-to-weight ratio for intensity-based and technological upgrades and modifications, and can wage war in both urban and rural environments to provide a deterrent force in Europe and beyond.

The program is expected to issue an official request for proposals later this year, and companies will have around six months to prepare their offers. The NGCV program expects to field its new OMFV in 2026. This Futures Command team is also looking at a new Armored Multi-Purpose Vehicle (AMPV), Mobile Protected Firepower (MPF) option, Robotic Command Vehicle (RCV), and replacement for the M1 Abrams tank, but the expected delivery dates for these projects are farther out.

There are three full-scale OMFV concepts put foward by BAE Systems, Raytheon and Rheinmetall, and General Dynamics on display at AUSA 2018, although there may be more potential designs later on when the official request for proposals is sent out. While the three concepts on the floor offer many similar features, each vehicle brings something unique to the table.



Characterizing it as a conversation starter, BAE Systems is offering the latest version of its proven combat vehicle — the CV90 Mark IV

There are 15 variants of the Combat Vehicle (CV) 90 in service in seven nations, so BAE Systems is coming to the table with the latest iteration of a proven vehicle. "We're pretty proud of this vehicle," a spokesman for the company told Business Insider at AUSA. "We brought this as our best way to start a conversation with the Army and help the Army help us figure out what it is that soldiers need."

The strengths of this vehicle, according to its makers, include its growth potential and the mission-specific modularity and flexibility.

"On the left and right sides of it are boxes, they look like they are bolted on, those are weapons station modules," the spokesman explained, "On [the left] side, you have a Spike missile module connected to the vehicle, and on the right side, you have a 7.62 coaxial machine gun with 2,000 ready rounds in the box."

Those modular systems are all on attachment points, meaning that they could be swapped out for other modules, such as a Mark 19 grenade launcher, to suit the mission at hand. "It gives the Army, the unit commander, and the vehicle commander the maximum flexibility they need based on the mission," he said, calling it "sexy."

In addition to this flexibility, there is also growth potential in the vehicle weight. The vehicle has a maximum weight of 40 tons. The floor model weighed around 30 tons, allowing for the addition of extra armor and weapons systems should the intended mission require these modifications.



The CV90 Mark IV comes with a number of other potentially desirable features and capabilities as well

The vehicle's 35 mm cannon can be easily modified should the Army show an interest in a 50 mm main gun, something Col. Jim Schirmer, the project lead for the NGVC, told reporters Tuesday that the Army is seriously considering.

The BAE Systems vehicle also features a drive-by-wire system for manned and unmanned missions, advanced data transfer capabilities, enhanced survivability as it sits low to the ground (hard to see, hard to hit), advanced 360 surveillance, smart targeting systems, airburst munitions for counter-drone warfare, and active protection systems that can be modified as the Army presents a clearer picture of what it expects.

 

 

 



See the rest of the story at Business Insider

Here's what the US Army's top general says his soldiers need for future wars as the rivalry with Russia and China heats up

$
0
0

U.S. Army General Milley testifies at a Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on his nomination to become the Army's chief of staff, on Capitol Hill in Washington

  • The Army is undergoing its largest modernization program in decades, putting increased focus on advancements in soldier lethality, vertical lift, long-range precision fire, enhanced training, and next-generation vehicles.
  • These projects are part of the Army's push to bolster readiness after years of strain from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. 
  • At an annaul conference, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley shared his vision for how the service should prepare for these future fights against rivals like Russia and China.

As he enters his fourth year as the Army’s top general, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley continues to push for a more ready, lethal and focused force, one that’s always training for the next fight.

This includes pushing ahead on key modernization efforts to make sure soldiers have the best equipment the Army can provide.

"It's the infantry, still today, that suffers 70 to 80 percent of the casualties. I want those kids to have the best, bar none, with nothing held back," Milley said. "We owe it to them."

What’s your assessment of the Army today?

We’ve made some really good progress over the last couple of years. Some external factors have contributed. One is the budget. The second is the op tempo relative to the war in the Middle East.

At one point in time, when I first became the chief, people were actively talking about an [active] Army of 420,000 [soldiers], some were saying 400,000. Those conversations largely are over. So, in terms of manning and strength, I think the bleeding, if you will, the reduction in forces, has stopped.

That’s good news.

That doesn’t mean we don’t have challenges. We do. There are still holes in too many units. We have units, battalions, brigades going to premier training events at less than optimal strength.

Optimal strength I would define as in excess of 90 percent. We are not there yet because we still have gaps and holes in many of our operational units, but there are less gaps and holes than there were 36 months ago.

How is the Army preparing for the next war or challenge?

We refocused on great power competition, or higher-end warfare or full-spectrum operations.

What we did was we wanted to replicate the capabilities that are out there amongst the near-peer competitors, Russia, China, North Korea. We merged them together into an operational environment so that the [opposition forces at the combat training centers] would replicate those types of threats.

The Army is back into doing gunneries on a routine basis. Artillery units are back into doing mass fires. Attack aviation units are back into doing significant aviation operations and air assault operations and so on.

So, across the board, across the entire Army, there has been a refocus. We are hitting the sled repeatedly over and over and over again.

What’s next as you continue to refocus?

I knew we were going to have to shift gears at some point and put a focus on modernization. Secretary [of Defense Jim] Mattis was very plain in his national defense strategy [and] the return of great power competition.

In order to do that, you are going to have to have the capability to shoot down enemy fixed wing, rotary wing, and missiles. So we have got to, in some cases, rebuild, and in other cases innovate brand-new systems that are capable of protecting our tactical units in that type of war.

We have good capability with Patriot and THAAD, but our SHORAD has really been depleted over time, so we are rebuilding that.

We are exploring lots of different innovations in terms of modernization, and we think we can field some things in relatively short order to significantly improve that capability.

I think the American soldier should have the absolute, without question, best equipment, from head to toe, that the American people can possibly afford. That’s everything from the helmet to the goggles to the rifle to the pistol, to the body armor, the uniform, the boots, you name it.

How will the Army afford this?

We cut every single nickel out of the office[s] of the Chief of Staff of the Army and the Secretary of the Army, cut our electricity bill, cut all our computers, cut all the paper we use, cut every single person up here by half, cut the entire Army staff in half, cut all other kinds of budget.

Do not cut the ability of soldiers to have lethality and readiness on the battlefield. That is the last of the cuts.

You don’t cut unit end strength. You don’t cut drill instructors, recruiters. For too many years those are the first things to give way. No, absolutely not.

Cut everything else. Cut aides, cut bands, cut whatever perks people have.

Cut everything before you start cutting shoot, move, communicate for ground forces. That’s my opinion.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

It's been 3 years since the Army opened combat positions to women — here's how they're doing

$
0
0

US Army Infantry begin their first day of Infantry Station Unit Training in early 2017

  • Since the military opened combat positions to women nearly three years ago, almost 800 women have integrated into previously male-only units.
  • Army Deputy Chief of Staff Lt. Gen. Thomas Seamands said that women are doing "incredibly well" in their new roles.
  • His comments came the same day Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis declared the jury was still out for women in combat.

This January will make three years since the Army opened infantry, armor, fire support and special operator jobs to women for the first time.

At last count, there were 783 women serving across five divisions and one independent brigade, the Army’s deputy chief of staff for personnel told Army Times in a Sept. 25 interview.

“They’re doing incredibly well,” Lt. Gen. Thomas Seamands said. “We have females graduating from Ranger School. The things that we looked at when we opened up the specialties are happening across the board."

His comments came the same day that Defense Secretary Jim Mattis demurred on making an overall assessment of the integration effort, when responding to a question from a cadet during an engagement at he Virginia Military Institute.

“We don’t even have data at this time that I can answer your question,” he said.

Those remarks sparked a backlash from advocacy groups.

“When the most senior military leader makes it clear that this was not a policy that he supported but one that he ‘inherited,’ he is tacitly endorsing efforts to undermine the success of the women currently serving in the infantry and in combat arms," the Service Women’s Action Network said in a Sept. 26 release. “He is sabotaging the efforts of his men and women who are working to integrate women, and his remarks likely put women at greater risk from those in their units who would do them harm because he has signaled that he doubts women belong in their units.”

But according to the Army’s personnel chief, things are going as planned.

“We have females that are volunteering to go to infantry, armor out of all the commissioning sources,” Seamands said. “I asked West Point, the think tank up there, to tell me what they saw [with] the propensity, and looking at the West Point cadets, the propensity is actually going up among our females.”

And as of late September, 18 women had graduated from Ranger School, an all-but-required test for a successful career in ground combat leadership.

“They continue to be interested, and we see that as a real positive thing,” Seamands said.

Women are currently serving in the 1st Cavalry Division, 1st Armored Division, 4th Infantry Division, 82nd Airborne Division, 101st Airborne Division and 173rd Airborne Brigade Combat Team, commands chosen for their size and range of opportunities.

Moves to open up the 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 25th Infantry Divisions are still up in the air, Seamands said,

“My guess is if we continue on the path, you would probably see it further expansion, but no decisions yet,” he said.

Join the conversation about this story »

NOW WATCH: Inside the Trump 'MAGA' hat factory

Viewing all 917 articles
Browse latest View live


<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>