@ TheRumpig, it is fuel burn off but not to hit the target rather to just stay in the boundaries of White Sands. Notice the missile doesnt do this when fired at Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii.
@icomethird i think its a programmed fuel burnoff to ensure the the missile hits its target with the required kinetic energy since the (THAAD) missile carries no warhead.
Yeah Right!!! >the world's best air defense equipment at work. How come someone get bypass during the Sept 9-11?????? Obviously it always the inside job just during the president Kennnedy incident trigger war just for MONEY AND POWER !!
ADA was under a lot of pressure in the Gulf? The up side, SCUD became known as Soviet Constructed Useless Device! The downside... I was at the Riyadh Staging Warehouse just a week before it was hit, 'before it got hit, 'Rocket City' was its nickname. ADA is part of modern combat...control the ordinance over your skies, or your enemy will!
@campagnollo The purpose is to get the military technology forward and. The US cannot lag behind in military technology. If it was up to you, anti-military shitheads, the US wouldn't develop any type of weapons and it would remain vulnerable in front of other countries. Russia and China also develop a lot of weapons, even though they have no official enemy to defend against. Why aren't you saying anything about that?
@StiviGun1 : For the record, I have served in the military in a Air Defense Unit with a Air Defense MOS, 14D. From everyone I have heard who served in a ADA unit, ADA MOS or not, have hated the ADA, especially the HIMAD units. Also, speaking as a computer science major in college, technology is grand but has to be utilized in the correct way, otherwise it becomes a useless weapon. See:Davy Crocket Nuclear Rifle.
@campagnollo You're very correct on how the fact that technology should be used in a smart way, otherwise it's in vain. Iraq war is a perfect example of that.
As for you and other hating ADA, why exactly do you hate it?
@StiviGun1 : We hate it because currently ADA has no purpose; the Navy and Air Force usually takes care of all air threats before they get off the ground. Because of that, we are often left to do more mundane tasks than typical in the military.
As for the Davy Crocket, it was a portable nuclear weapon that had a range of 3 miles and a blast radius of 5 miles. Do the math.
@campagnollo Well, there are countries who develop ballistic missile who will come into conflict with the US sooner or later. N Korea and Iran. And that's why missile defense systems must be developed. They have a purpose. To counter the threats from N Korea and Iran. N Korea should've been dealt with during the '90s in my opinion.
As for Davy Crocket, nuclear weapon, yeah, I got that :)))), but wiki gives other figures. What was Davy Crocket's actual yield?
If you are about to enlist or something and you are looking at this thinking, "Oh, man, this is sweet! I want to do this!" Don't bother. There is a 98% chance that you will never, ever fire a missile. Never. Ever. If the American people knew that their tax dollars were being wasted on so much fuel and food and other resources for mindless field training exercises, they would burn down D.C. Don't waste your time with this garbage job.
@chris77jay77, in a way you bring up a great point. True there is a lot of money invested in this job that has not been used since the Gulf War, but what i disagree on is that its not point less. it provids the security for the military and allied countries. I am currently in South Korea and thats where i've been for the past two years. I know that the presence of the Patriot Missile System alone makes it diffecult for our enemy forces to attack. I believe that the money is being well spent.
You sound like Allen Iverson. "We sitting here, I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we're in here talking about practice. Practice. I mean, listen. Were talking about practice. Not a game, not a game, not A GAME, but practice!"
@AdvanXer I actually am Allen Iverson. It is not very well known, but while I had a long and illustrious career in the NBA, I also served as a 14T in the U.S. Army.
@chris77jay77 It is not mindless field training exercise. Our armed forces needs to be ready, well equiped and well trained. I am a US Army Veteran and if we did not train and equiped our soldiers to be the best we will be seeing more casualties. Do not believe the media Hype.
@quickzilver333 How much media hype do you hear about ADA? I was in ADA, why do you think I have so much hate in my heart about it. I know first-hand all about it.
@chris77jay77 Perhaps I misslead you. I'm talking about the media reporting all these mindless exercise that we do in the Military which is not true. We the most well trained Military in the world.
@chris77jay77 "I was in ADA, why do you think I have so much hate in my heart about it. I know first-hand all about it" This is your statement in which you say you the ADA... What's funny about you, anti-military brainless morons is how smart you really think you are. But when someone starts bringing you arguments, you start trolling or insulting. That's ALL you can do. You show your stupidity in all its splendor...
@quickzilver333 "Our armed forces needs to be ready, well equiped and well trained". Well that's the problem with the US army. It is the poorest equipped branch of the US military. It never receives what it really needs. And now, under Obama, the trainees hardly receive proper training anymore.
@StiviGun1 here we go again!!! Where did you get the idea that the US Army is the poorest equipped branch of the US Military? The US Army is well equiped and well trained.
@quickzilver333 And what equipment does the US army have that is so great, ha? The only really good weapons system the US army is equipped with is the M270 MLRS. That's it. Abrams is pretty good but is no way near of being the best tank as some of your "experts" say. And the fact that the US army is denied by many good weapons systems is a fact. The US army is probably the most neglected branch of the US military. The Russian army is much better equipped. More artillery, more tanks, more rocket
@quickzilver333 As for the "best trained" thing, I spoke to somebody who's in the US Army and he said that the trainees don''t get bayonet fighting training anymore and they even get to shoot the 50 caliber machine gun anymore. This is what Obama's reduction in defense spending is doing. He will completely ruin the US military, just like Bill Clinton almost did at the end of the '90s. BTW, the US army receives the lowest amount of funds from all the US military branches.
@quickzilver333 If these were "nonsense", you would have a better argument to come up with... What I said is the pure truth. And those who kid themselves that the US army is the most powerful in the world are day dreamers, not me.
@StiviGun1 Who told you that the US Army is the most powerful? WTF! Where the hell did you get the idea that the US ARMY is the poorest equipped branch of the US military service? WTF! You got an opinion of one soldier out of thousands and you base your opinion that the US ARMY is not well trained and well equipped.
Seriously stop playing wanna be because you will never be execpt PETTER PAN from wonder land. LOL!
@quickzilver333 You said that the US army is the best equipped and the best trained... And the US army really is the poorest equipped branch of the US military. The politicians don't give a shit about it. The US army gets the smallest funds from all the other military branches. And it's not just "one soldier's opinion" it's the opinion of a lot of soldiers. It's just that nobody listens to them. Just like with the M16 and M4. The soldiers are being forced by their superiors to say that those
@quickzilver333 Like I said, you should go talk to real people who really are serving in your military. The US army is not as well trained and equipped as you think. And Obama's cuts in the defense budget affect other branches too. Like the Air Force. The pilots receive much less flying hours than they should.
@StiviGun1 You can't even get your facts straight! Not all soldiers are the same you are dumb as hell. The facts you get from a tanker is diferrent from an infantryman. They are both trained differently budget cuts or not. You have no idea how much we trained and retrained every week,months and years. The equipments that we have is sufficient in technology. Stop making up nonsense and lies that you talked to a soldier. How did you talk to him? email?phone?text?in person?what? Stop the BS..LOL!
@quickzilver333 I talked to that guy here, on YouTube... And the fact that Us army is the most poorly equipped branch of the US military is a fact. Not only that it's poorly equipped, but it also receives a lot of shitty equipment, like the Stryker, which is too tall, it doesn't meet its objective of being air transportable by a C-130 and it doesn't offer enough firepower and cross country maneuverability. Just ask the soldiers in Afghanistan.
@StiviGun1 You are full of shit! The Stryker is C-130 transportable without the slate armor. The US Army still have the M113 Gavin and it's been upgraded to todays warfare. The M113 Gavin is by far "ONE OF THE BEST" APC. The terrians in Afghanistan is not easy as you think even the Best APCs are having a hard time. The Afghan terrain is not suitable for wheeled or track vehicles. Some of the Infantry Observation base there can only be access on foot or Helicopter transport. This is FACTS not BS!
@quickzilver333 Yeah, but when the Stryker doesn't have slat armor, it's not sufficiently protected. And it's still too heavy weighing very close to the limit the C-130 can lift. As for the M113, yes, that s good and that should've been modified and used by the army, not the Stryker. The Stryker shouldn't have even been developed. The M113 should've been used at creating a very mobile armored force, like many generals recommended. Many generals wanted to use the lessons learned in Vietnam and
@StiviGun1 Seriously do you even think first before you write?! The slate armor of the stryker is an add-on which means it can be put inplace once it's out of the plane. The C-130 capabilities far exceed the weight of the stryker but it can only carry light armored vehicles. The sheridan light tanks built to support airborne troops are heavier than a stryker and the C-130 have been carrying it for many years. I still prefer the M-113 because of it's many capabilities and variance.
@quickzilver333 The only thing you good that you said is that you prefer the M113...
As for the M551's weight, you're wrong. It was lighter than the Stryker, in specially the MGS, which weights over 18 tonnes. And the C130 can lift 20 tonnes max. So its lifting capabilities don't exceed the Stryker's weight by far... As for the Stryker, it simply isn't good. It's to tall, it doesn't have enough mobility on rough terrain and it doesn't offer enough protection. And M113 using add-on modular armor
@StiviGun1 There is nothing wrong with my statement. You said that a stryker is not C-130 transportable. Well it is in it's raw configuration. How do you think some of them got there in Afghanistan and Iraq? C-130!!..hehehe!
@quickzilver333 I don't remember saying that it can't be transported by the C-130. I said that it's too tall and heavy for the purpose it was envisioned.
@quickzilver333 would've offered much better protection at the same weight the Stryker weights without the slat armor. And when the Styker has that slat armor on it, it becomes heavier and less mobile. It simply isn't good for what the US army wants to do.
@quickzilver333 they wanted to create a very mobile force that could fight against a larger army, with rigid structures, like the soviet army. The plan was conceived during the '80s, but it was never completed. The idea of interconnecting the systems into an integrated network dates back from that time. I don't remember exactly the name of that network, but it evolved into the civilian Internet during the '90s. They're trying to do something similar now, but that's not like the generals wanted.
@StiviGun1 WTF! quote: "The combat brigades they're trying to create as the centric force of the army are not good enough." You do know that when you said Combat Brigades it envolves all combat MOS from combat engineer, tankers, artillery, Special forces, Rangers, Delta force all the way to infantrymen. Hence the word "COMBAT BRIGADES". Maybe you mean Stryker Brigades?! I let you slide on this one.
@quickzilver333 I didn't mean Stryker brigades, I was talking about the future brigades they're trying to create. These brigades will have everything in them, from tank battalions to special forces to sniper platoons, everything. Go read about them before embarrassing yourself with your cockiness...
@StiviGun1 I'm not being cocky. I'm just correcting all the B.S. The combat brigades you are talking about already exist in small numbers. They use these brigades for special operations. They alo have a brigade in the US ARMY compose of soldiers,airmen,sailors and marines. It's a joint task force brigades. These Brigades are for special operations. It will not be the outline of the entire US ARMY. These are facts not B.S.
@quickzilver333 Well, those brigades are not good enough anyway. But from what I know, the plan was to transform the entire US army and form it only from those brigades. This would make the US army much more mobile and flexible. But colonel McGregor's idea was much better. His fighting formations would've been much better than these brigades. As for those brigades that you say they exist, what is their composition? What weapons systems are they equipped with?
@StiviGun1 Dude seriously?! This will never happend. The brigades that I mentioned are for special operations meaning small light forces. This will include US military forces that can be deployed within 24hrs. You should know by now which US military units Im reffering too. As far as integrating all US ARMY units in one brigade it will never happend. It will slow down deployment. Think about!! Light forces go in first.
@quickzilver333 Go learn more about Future Combat Systems and the doctrine behind using those systems. The US army's transformation was proposed from the early '80s. But people like you, with short sighted minds prevented this from happening. You say that relying on smaller, faster, more mobile and more flexible fighting formations, will slow deployment down... This shows you have mo idea what you're talking about...
@StiviGun1 NO! combining the brigades now will slow the deployments. Do you have any idea how long will it take to deploy artillery and armored units? You need a light forces as a shock force that can be deployed and reach the mission within 24hrs. If you don't know what light forces mean then you have a problem. In the future I would agree with you once the US Army develope a lighter, faster and deadlier armored vehicles. Then what are we talking about 15-20-30-40yrs from now?
@quickzilver333 Why would the deployment of artillery and armored units be slower? On the contrary, it would be much faster, the tanks, the artillery would get where they need much faster than under the current division organization. And you don't need 30-40 years from now, this could've been done even from the '80s. You talk about fast, light forces. Well, these forces have proved their deficiencies during the 1980 intervention in Lebanon and during the 1st Gulf War where they found themselves
@quickzilver333 confronting heavy tanks and artillery and had nothing to fight back with. That's why the generals recommended the creation of smaller, much faster and flexible fighting formations that would incorporate all arms. They called them all arms formations. With proper communication and situational awareness, such formations can defeat much larger, more rigid formations, like divisions and they can also fight asymmetric warfare much more efficient. The idea was to use the lessons
@quickzilver333 learned in Vietnam, where, lightly armored, but very mobile groups defeated a much larger army. Such all arms formations would provide a much better mobility, flexibility and a much shorter deployment time than the current divisions provide, they wouldn't slow the deployment down. How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?
@StiviGun1 WTF! look please read my comments carefully. I was just talking about using light forces meaning using light amored vehicles. I also ask you if you know what light forces mean. Apparently you don't know what it means. When you said combining all combat brigades it will involved heavy artillery and heavy armor. I ask you specifically about this. I will say it again when you say COMBAT BRIGADES it will involved "ALL COMBAT MOS". If you don't know what "MOS" means then you have a problem
@quickzilver333 OK, what does MOS mean...? And the brigades I was talking about are called brigade combat teams. Go read about it on wiki and you'll see how equipping the brigade with everything it needs increases the mobility, flexibility and decreases time deployment. But the brigade combat team concept is not a good one. Colonel's McGregor's fighting formations would've been the perfect solution for what the generals wanted to do with the US army. And with the marines too, I think.
@StiviGun1 MOS(Military Occupational Specialty) in civilian word your "JOB". When you said "COMBAT BRIGADES" you are talking about all Combat MOS. Meaning from Apache pilots, A-10 thunderbolt pilots, Pattriot missile operators, combat engineers, tankers(M1 Abrams), Bradley, Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Special forces, Rangers, Delta, Infantry, mortar team etc...etc... Light Combat Brigades are compose with MOS that can deploy quickly. There is a big differece between the two brigades.
@quickzilver333 I said combat brigades because I forgot the term they used for the new formations that they wanted to make the centric force of the army. I was talking the Brigade Combat Teams. And just like I said, the concept of using light brigades is wrong. That's why they wanted to make the brigades more autonomous equipping them with all sorts of weapons. They wanted to create, smaller, much faster, much more mobile and more independent fighting formations. Of course, they blew it. Using
@quickzilver333 brigades with 3000 soldiers max is not a good concept. There were many people during the '90s that opposed the transformation of the army for some reason. But colonel's McGregor's idea of creating battle formations of 5-6000 soldiers and that would be equipped with all types of weapons, from light armored vehicles to tanks and artillery would've been the solution. Had the US army been equipped like this, it would've been a much more efficient fighting force in conventional wars
@quickzilver333 You say you were talking about using light armored forces. And I was saying that these light armored forces have proved their usefulness in Lebanon and 1t Gulf War when they found themselves facing heavy artillery and tanks. This is why the generals recommended the creation of smaller, much faster and mobile fighting formations that would include all arms, including tanks and heavy artillery. Smaller fighting formations can be deployed much quickly. The US forgot the lessons
@quickzilver333 learned in Vietnam and you payed the price in Afghanistan where you found yourselves fighting guerilla warfare for which the US army was not prepared. The Vietnam lessons were totally ignored by the Clinton adm who refused to allocate the necessary funds to turn the US army into a much more mobile, flexible fighting force.
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass!!! Stop writting nonsense comments and read carefully what I wrote. I have been telling you this several times. I never disagree about light forces being used. This is what the small light combat brigades are compose. They are use for special operations and rapid deployment. I ask you clearly if you know what you mean when you said "COMBAT BRIGADES". Apparently you dont know crap.
@quickzilver333 You don't understand the concept of transforming the entire army in a much more mobile and flexible fighting force. Those light brigades that you talk about don't have enough firepower and they're only good for special operations. But the idea that stood behind the FCS and Brigade Combat Team (that is what I was talking about when I said combat brigades) was to make THE ENTIRE ARMY a much more mobile and flexible fighting force that could've been deployed much more quickly. Can
@quickzilver333 you comprehend this? The current fighting formation that the US army is formed from, the division, is too large, too rigid. That's why, based on the lessons learned in Vietnam, the generals wanted to create a much more mobile and flexible fighting force. That would mean smaller fighting formations with bigger autonomy that can move their equipment and weapons systems like tanks and artillery much faster on the battlefield and can get those weapons where they're needed much faster
@StiviGun1 Ok! now that we sortout your confusion on the definition of Combat Brigades. I totally agree with you and the Generals who wanted a more mobile and flexible force. It can be done but we are limited only by technology. The concept and the idea is great. Once the Army is better equipped with a lighter, faster and deadlier armored vehicles. The required equipment is already in development. Maybe 5-10yrs. The Army will be equiped.
@quickzilver333 Well, that's what I said, you don't need 5-10 years from now. This could've been done from the '90s using the M113 as a platform for new vehicles. Also, the Abrams tank had a version called the CATTB which had modular armor and it could've been made lighter or heavier, depending on the mission. That's what the generals recommended: a fighting force that would've been composed from M113 based vehicles. And also the Abrams tank. Integrating these vehicles in smaller, more
autonomous fighting formations would've made the US army much more mobile and easier to deploy. And this could've been done during the '90s but there were a lot of people who opposed the initiative, citing all sorts of reasons. The real reason why they opposed it was because they didn't want to spend money on it. They were pathetic anti-military liberals. And many of them also have a bad conception regarding the US army. It's just like I said, the US army was always the most neglected and the
@StiviGun1 WTF! you mean the US Army not the US Military?!! War cost money were have you been in the past centuries of war?! The US Army is less respected WTF?! According to you who talk nonsense about the US Army and don't even have any clue how it functions.
@quickzilver333 Well, the US army always receives the lowest funds from all other branches. A lot of equipment and weapons systems (like LOSAT) have been denied to it because the politicians consider it the least important branch of the military. Tell me, what other good weapons systems is it equipped with besides the Abrams and the M270 MLRS, which are not even the best in the world? Tell me.
@StiviGun1 LOL! Military priorities have change in WWI and WWII the US Army got alot of funding even during Korean, Vietnam etc...etc... Remember what I told you that becareful what you wrote. Looks like you never learned your lessons. You are a dumbass. Why Am I gonna tell you what other new weapons we have in the US Army?!
Lets talk about the ROMANIAN Army...hehehehe!!! They don't even have the balls to challenge the Might of the US Army....hehehe!!
@quickzilver333 You can say whatever you want and you can throw whatever stupid insults you want (BTW, this really shows the level of your intelligence...). The fact remains that the US army is the most disregarded branch of the US military by the politicians. And you don't need to tell me what "other" weapons systems the US army has because I already know all the weapons systems it has.
As for the Romanian army, you have to be real dumb to compare your army with a much smaller country's army...
@quickzilver333 As for WW1 and WW2, in those periods of time, the US army was not looked at the way it is today. The tradition of considering the US army the least important branch of the military started after WW2. Even during WW2, it was denied by the equipment it needed. For instance, the Sherman tanks should've been replaced by the T20 series of tanks even from 1942 when the US secret services found out about the development of the Tiger and the Panther.
@StiviGun1 You are talking nonsense and I have already proven how stupid you are several times. Do you even have any idea that back in WWI and WWII there was no US Airforce. Just guess what brach of US military the US fighters and bomber planes of WWI and WWII belong too?!
I will get back with you in two days once you know the answer.
You haven't proven anything, except only in your imagination...
As for the USAF,. yes, I know it has been established after WW2 ended, in 1947, if I remember correctly. And yes, the the bombers and fighters belonged to the army. But after the USAF became a separate branch, the US army starting to be considered as less and less important and looked at with disregard. How may good weapons systems have been denied from it during the Cold War and in specially after the Cold War ended, do you know
@quickzilver333 that? Use those 2 days to find out the answer... And all those weapons systems were rejected simply because the US army is not considered to be very important (although it does perform the most dangerous and dirtiest missions) but the decision makers. The reason why so many good weapons systems were denied to the US army is because the decision makers don't consider the US army important enough to spend money with it to give it what it really needs. This is a fact, not a bashing.
@StiviGun1 LOL! Do you even read what you wrote?! You are talking nonsense you jump from differrent topics as soon as I foundout your bullshit. You said theUS Army "ALWAYS" receives the lowest funds from all the branches. In WWI and WWII the US Army recieves most of the fundings the Airforce back then belongs to the US ARMY. It's called US ARMY AIRCORE. The Armys fundings was higher that the rest of the Branch all the way to Vietnam War. The US Army downsized after the cold war. Your an IDIOT!!!
@quickzilver333 the US Army is not the most disregarded branch. they simply have a different mission than that of the other branches. the army is the largest and is the main branch of the U.S. military. a majority of generals who commanded the iraq and afghanistan war (or even previous conflicts) were army generals.
@quickzilver333 Actually, you're an idiot. Always receives is not the same with always received... And during the WW2 the branch who got the most funds was the navy, not the Army. As for the Vietnam war, the money was spent on war necessities, not on actual weapons development and procurement and that's what I'm talking about. So you can't count in the Vietnam War period. Anyway, after the Vietnam War ended, the US army was the military branch that was most hated and disregarded.
@StiviGun1 You talk nonsense. Romania won't even exist if not for the Allies and the US Army fighting the Nazis. In WWI and WWII the US Army got the most fundings because the Airforce also belongs to the US Army then. The US Army is the most hated branch according to who? You? hahaha! The USMC receives the lesser defense budget because they are the smallest branch of service. There is no such thing in the US military as the most hated or most favored. We support each other. You are an Idiot!
@quickzilver333 First of all, the victory in WW2 was due to ALL allies that fought it, not just America. America alone wouldn't have won the war against the Nazis. Russia also had a HUGE contribution. As for the US army's funding during WW2, yes it a lot of funds, more than it started to receive after the war ended but only because it also comprised the air force. After that, it started to get less and less funds and it started to be considered less and less important. This is not according to
@quickzilver333 me, this is a fact. I gave as an example the numerous weapons systems that were denied to it simply because the politicians didn't think the army is important enough to spend money with it. The USMC is the branch that get the smallest funding and this also sucks because they're the one that handle the most dangerous jobs. The army is second from this point of view. As for the most hated or most favored military branch, yes, there is such a thing. The US navy is the most favored
@quickzilver333 branch of the US military. The army never gets what it really needs simply because it's not considered important enough to spend the money needed on it. This is a fact. The equipment and weapons systems it's equipped with and the fact that many good weapons systems (some of which were not even that expensive) are being denied to it, proves this. Why didn't they adopt the LOSAT missile, why did they stop the Abrams and MLRS production? Because when it comes to budget cuts, the
@quickzilver333 army takes first place. The NLOS cannon and the Dragon Fire mortar were also canceled. Why? They were not even that expensive. They didn't cost even 10% of some USAF and USN programs. Yet they were canceled because the US is considered as being not important enough. And that sucks because after the USMC, it performs the most dangerous jobs. I'm not saying that the USAF and the USN should receive less attention, but the US army should be appreciated more. As for Romania, don't you
@StiviGun1 You simply don't understand the difference between military branch. I can explain it to you all day but I don't have the time to do that. First of all it's not a contest of who has the most or who has the less. We do have friendly rivalry between branch of service. Other than that we relly on each other. Each branch has it's own specific objective. It's like asking a sailor to do a soldiers job. It's just plain stupid.
@quickzilver333 I never said it's a contest of who gets more... And you're the 1 who just can't get what I'm saying. This is not about who gets more, this is about giving a certain military branch (in this case the army) what it needs. And this is not the case with US army not with the USMC. The US army doesn't get the weapon systems it should get. You still didn't answer the question why systems like LOSAT, NLOS cannon and Gragon Fire mortar were canceled. It's interesting how they don't cancel
@quickzilver333 the F-35, which cost 3 times more than it was supposed to cost and it takes A LOT of tax payers' money, but the canceled the NLOS cannon and the Dragon Fire mortar which probably cost less than 5% of the F-35's costs. Another weapons system that was canceled was a wireless TOW variant. So it's just like I said, the US army doesn't receive the weapons systems it should receive.
@StiviGun1 WTF! Dude seriously the more you talk the more you embarras yourself. The USA have other priorities besides putting more money on the US Army weapons upgrade. Like I said we have sufficient technology for our soldiers. The Airforce gets the bigger piece of the funds then the Navy, Army and Marines.
@quickzilver333 "Other priorities"... You talk like one of those anti-military liberals now... The US' budget for the 2010 was 700 bullion dollars and that accounted for about 5% of the entire GDP. The US has enough money to give the Army what it really needs.
"besides putting more money on the US Army weapons upgrade". When I said the Abrams upgrades were canceled, you contradicted me. Now, you're the ones who says that the weapon systems shouldn't be upgraded... But the truth is that since the
@quickzilver333 US sends its marines and Army all over the world, then you better equip them with what they need, or stop sending them overseas. Simple as that. That "sufficient technology" is not enough. You need to be the best. Your invasion of other countries and your claims that you have "the most powerful military in the world" makes others develop weapons against you just to show you that you're not as tough as you think. So that "sufficient" of yours is not enough to maintain the military
@StiviGun1 only one word that make sense. The rest are just ramdom bullshit. I have been telling you over and over and over and over and over again to check my comments before you write anything. You are an idiot jumping from one topic to another as soon as I foundout your bullshit.
@quickzilver333 Nobody jumped from topic to topic. The topic is the same. The US army is treated like it should be. And you haven't managed to prove me otherwise. All you can come up with is stupid insults and you call that "found out your bullshit"... Lame.
@StiviGun1 Your a dumbass!!! You saying words I never said like" the most powerful military in the world" which I never said. Your arguements are pointless. WWI and WWII Germany is the most powerful Military what happend?! You are talking about GDP which has nothing to do with the topic. I told you before the bigger piece of the military budget goes to the Airforce first then Navy then Army then Marines.
@quickzilver333 Many Americans, including many of your politicians, like Obama, claim that America has "the most powerful military in the world". They just love to say this, even though it's not true.
The GDP came when you said the US has other priorities than spending on upgrading the US army's weapons systems. I brought the GDP point to show that this is bullshit. The US can perfectly take care of other important business and in the same time, give the US army what it needs. This was my point
@quickzilver333 when I talked about the US' GDP. Get it now? And you talk like someone who doesn't like the idea of the US army really being the best equipped in the world. This is pretty suspicious to me...
@quickzilver333 And your point about the German military in WW1 and WW2 is bullshit. 1st of all, the Germans never had the economic power the US has to form a military and, in both wars, they made the stupid mistake to fight against multiple enemies. That's why they lost.
@StiviGun1 Hey retard!!! You are from Romania and yet you dont know that Germany is not the only one fighting against the Allies in Europe. The Axis forces Germany, Italy and Japan was the most powerful military forces against the Allies and yet they were defeated. Do I need to give you more examples that having a powerful military alone does not win a war? You should know this by now. The USA just came out of Depression to join WWII with out dated weapons. You are a dumbass!!!
@quickzilver333 No, you're a retard. Italy's army was a joke. Without Hitler's intervention, they would've been occupied almost from the beginning of the war. As for Japan, you moron, it had nothing to do with fascism or the Nazi ideology. It was considered and ally of Germany and Italy only because it was anti-American. And Japan, you idiot, never matched America's economic power to build a military. That's why it was defeated. Because it simply fought against a more powerful enemy. And Germany
@quickzilver333 lost because it practically fought alone against US, UK, Canada, USSR. That's why it lost. But like I said, this is not America's case. 1st of all, America has a much bigger economic capability to build a military and it will never fight against the whole world.
As for what you say, that America entered the war with outdated weapons, that's not true. The bombers they had, for instance were pretty advanced. The M1 Garand and other infantry weapons were actually very advanced for
@quickzilver333 their time. Even the Sherman tank proved to be superior to the 1st generations of German tanks. The fighters they had were also advanced. So you see, you moron, most of the weapons America entered the war with were actually pretty advanced, in specially for their time.
@StiviGun1 You are jumping from one topic to another like an idiot!!! Your arguement doesn't make sense! You are comparing the 1st generation of German tanks to the Sherman. What an idiot! The first generation of German tanks was in WWI not WWII. We are talking about WWII the German tanks/weapons are advance compared to the USA weapons. Do you even read your own comments? You don't make sense at all!! Have you been day dreaming lately about wonderland?!
@quickzilver333 worry, it would have existed just fine. The Allies didn't help Romania with anything. On the contrary, it was left to the soviets. So before making stupid comments like this, why don't you go get some education and then start opening your pie hole?
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass back in WWII Russia is part of the Allies. You talk a bunch of nonsense. You don't even understand US military lingo and you critizes everything about the US Army. Once I have proven your arrogance. You change the topic thinking that you will get away with your bullshit. The USMC receives the lesser defense budget because they are a small branch "NOT THE ARMY". When you said the US ARMY "ALWAYS" get the lesser budget is BULLSHIT from you.... Change topic again???!!
@quickzilver333 I know Russia was part of the allies in WW2 and I never changed topic... And what I criticize is the politicians attitude towards the US army (and the USMC since you brought it up) not the US army. In my opinion, giving the US army and the USMC the smallest funds just because they're smaller military branches is wrong. The budget should also be in accordance with the missions the military branches undertake. And the US army and USMC undertake the most dangerous missions. As for
@quickzilver333 my statement that the US army receives the smallest budget, I guess I was wrong. But the point that was I was trying to make, that it doesn't receive the funding it should receive, still remains.
@quickzilver333 weapons are outstanding in their reports. But if you think the US army is so well equipped, then tell me, what is the equipment that is so great?
@StiviGun1 WTF?! I know where exactly your trying to bring this conversation into. Let me guess you want a RUSSIA VS USA arguement don't you?...hehehe! Did you remember what happend when you pulled this game on me? hehehe! be careful what you wrote because I will embarrass you again.
@quickzilver333 No, I don't want to turn this into a Russia vs USA argument... And when the fuck did you embarrass me...? What I'm saying here is that the US army doesn't receive the attention it should receive from those that are in charge with weapons systems procurement. The US Army is considered to be the most less important branch of the US military. And that's not the way things should be, since the Army (and the marines) take care of the most dangerous jobs.
@StiviGun1 Look! I will give you a chance to read all your comments to me because you kept changing your statements about the US ARMY.....I will get back with you in two days. Seriously man! You are digging yourself in deep nonsense bullshit.
@quickzilver333 I never changed my statements about the US army. On the contrary, I continuously maintained my point that the US army is the most poorly equipped branch of the US military. That's my point. Maybe you can't understand what I write...
@StiviGun1 You just love to over exagerate things like using the word "POORLY". First of all if you know crap about military you don't depend alone on your euipment. WW1 and WWII should give you that wisdom. Second who the fuck did you talk to in the US ARMY? What is his rank? MOS? Where was he stationed? What is his UNIT? You don't know any of these because you are just making up shit. Third not all basic training fires the 50 cal. You get to train and fire it when you get to your unit.
@quickzilver333 The guy I talked to said he operates on the Abrams tanks. He told me he talked to other soldiers in the US army that told him that hand to hand combat, bayonet and .50 caliber machine gun training have bee cut from their basic training. He also said that the number of training hours on the Abrams tanks has been reduced. Also, a lot of improvements that should've been brought to the Abrams were also cancelled.
@StiviGun1 You are full of shit! Stop making up stories! You dont know crap about the US ARMY. First of all not all basic training facilities are training recruites with the.50 cal machine gun. They will learn that when they get to their duty sation/unit. Second bayonet/ hand to hand combat is mandatory especially in a Combat MOS. You hae no idea what I just said don't you? Third Abrams are being used by the ARMY and the USMC and upgrades are already done.
@quickzilver333 Why don't you go talk to real soldiers who really serve in the US Army, ha? Maybe that will open your eyes and you wonţt live in fairy tale world anymore.
@booya155 Your talking about the cork screw? Its burning off excess energy so it does not leave the confines of the missile range and enter civilian airspace. Its in Whitesands Newmexico. I am a patriot operator going on 9 years now so i know a thing or three about air defense, if you have any more questions let me know.
Just passed my Army OCS board! I will be leaving later this year for basic, then it's off to fort benning! I put ADA as my second choice so I'm crossing my fingers!
1. THAAD is not a part of patriot. they are separate parts of air defense, if a missile makes it past THAAD it is patriots job to engage it.
2. 14J kid, i feel bad for you. air defense isnt the army, its air defense. youll get stuck in a BTOC or a BCP doing air battles. your job is a lot easier than mine but its still shitty.
3."best air defense at work" theres a whole lot of patriot here. wheres this so called good ADA at cause i saw it nowhere in this video.
@adrenanimal im sure you know this by now but uh.... you wont be firing missiles. 14j is more of a support. you'll be graduating from AIT soon. if your coming to Korea ill probably see you here next month. im in a SHORAD unit though stinger missile... at least i get a radar.... haha
@infamus219 ive realized this now. but in 1-1 ADA Delta Battery we get thrown on everything. The ECS, radar, AMG, or the BCP. Ive gotten switched to each crew. Dammit!!!! lmao
@klote2314 not really no, but it is integrated into the same comms net and also run and operated by patriot operators in patriot units out of bliss tx
Why do they make it look so cool? When it's not......
nickb4231 1 month ago
@nickb4231 it don't even look cool if you see russia in action xD
WalterSolano 1 day ago
one of those missiles fired retardedly !!!
jamesnewman1976 1 month ago
@jamesnewman1976 it does that to burn off fuel
JPSwissCheese 1 month ago
No Air Defense pride ever. Seriously.
293940cabster 1 month ago
Recruiter used this vid to try to get me in the army when I was in high school..
fusionstar916 2 months ago
@ TheRumpig, it is fuel burn off but not to hit the target rather to just stay in the boundaries of White Sands. Notice the missile doesnt do this when fired at Pacific Missile Range in Hawaii.
hahask8er2008 3 months ago
Die besten Fla-Raketensysteme der Welt besitzt Russland, das S300, S400 und bald das S500.
4711im 4 months ago
how come at :47 the missile looks out of control and then gets corrected. is that how its supposed to work?
icomethird 4 months ago
@icomethird i think its a programmed fuel burnoff to ensure the the missile hits its target with the required kinetic energy since the (THAAD) missile carries no warhead.
could be wrong though
TheRumpig1 4 months ago
Yeah Right!!! >the world's best air defense equipment at work. How come someone get bypass during the Sept 9-11?????? Obviously it always the inside job just during the president Kennnedy incident trigger war just for MONEY AND POWER !!
nazzat34 5 months ago
ADA was under a lot of pressure in the Gulf? The up side, SCUD became known as Soviet Constructed Useless Device! The downside... I was at the Riyadh Staging Warehouse just a week before it was hit, 'before it got hit, 'Rocket City' was its nickname. ADA is part of modern combat...control the ordinance over your skies, or your enemy will!
granddad2002 6 months ago
Why dey wiggle dey ass lack dat?
emanres100 7 months ago
Three former Air Defenders dislike this video
campagnollo 8 months ago
Two former Air Defenders dislike this video
campagnollo 8 months ago
@campagnollo So is it two or is it three?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
whatever the hell these are>S-500
hotpocketpoison 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
where did u seen a s-500???
harrikelm 9 months ago
@hotpocketpoison
by the way, s-500 doesnt exist. :)
harrikelm 9 months ago
@harrikelm damn i meant 400, i didnt even notice XP
hotpocketpoison 9 months ago
All that high tech equipment yet hardly any purpose. ~a former 14D.
campagnollo 10 months ago
@campagnollo The purpose is to get the military technology forward and. The US cannot lag behind in military technology. If it was up to you, anti-military shitheads, the US wouldn't develop any type of weapons and it would remain vulnerable in front of other countries. Russia and China also develop a lot of weapons, even though they have no official enemy to defend against. Why aren't you saying anything about that?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 : For the record, I have served in the military in a Air Defense Unit with a Air Defense MOS, 14D. From everyone I have heard who served in a ADA unit, ADA MOS or not, have hated the ADA, especially the HIMAD units. Also, speaking as a computer science major in college, technology is grand but has to be utilized in the correct way, otherwise it becomes a useless weapon. See:Davy Crocket Nuclear Rifle.
campagnollo 7 months ago
@campagnollo You're very correct on how the fact that technology should be used in a smart way, otherwise it's in vain. Iraq war is a perfect example of that.
As for you and other hating ADA, why exactly do you hate it?
And what about the Davy Crocket nuclear device?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 : We hate it because currently ADA has no purpose; the Navy and Air Force usually takes care of all air threats before they get off the ground. Because of that, we are often left to do more mundane tasks than typical in the military.
As for the Davy Crocket, it was a portable nuclear weapon that had a range of 3 miles and a blast radius of 5 miles. Do the math.
campagnollo 7 months ago
@campagnollo Well, there are countries who develop ballistic missile who will come into conflict with the US sooner or later. N Korea and Iran. And that's why missile defense systems must be developed. They have a purpose. To counter the threats from N Korea and Iran. N Korea should've been dealt with during the '90s in my opinion.
As for Davy Crocket, nuclear weapon, yeah, I got that :)))), but wiki gives other figures. What was Davy Crocket's actual yield?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
ADA all the way!!
jaronfrazier1991 11 months ago
@aztecdude69 what is that wep at 1:10
Crashbandicoot701 1 year ago
@Crashbandicoot701 CRAM it engages inbound mortors
nic3866 1 year ago
If you are about to enlist or something and you are looking at this thinking, "Oh, man, this is sweet! I want to do this!" Don't bother. There is a 98% chance that you will never, ever fire a missile. Never. Ever. If the American people knew that their tax dollars were being wasted on so much fuel and food and other resources for mindless field training exercises, they would burn down D.C. Don't waste your time with this garbage job.
chris77jay77 1 year ago
@chris77jay77, in a way you bring up a great point. True there is a lot of money invested in this job that has not been used since the Gulf War, but what i disagree on is that its not point less. it provids the security for the military and allied countries. I am currently in South Korea and thats where i've been for the past two years. I know that the presence of the Patriot Missile System alone makes it diffecult for our enemy forces to attack. I believe that the money is being well spent.
aztecdude69 1 year ago 10
@chris77jay77
You sound like Allen Iverson. "We sitting here, I'm supposed to be the franchise player, and we're in here talking about practice. Practice. I mean, listen. Were talking about practice. Not a game, not a game, not A GAME, but practice!"
AdvanXer 10 months ago
@AdvanXer I actually am Allen Iverson. It is not very well known, but while I had a long and illustrious career in the NBA, I also served as a 14T in the U.S. Army.
chris77jay77 10 months ago
@chris77jay77 Hey! Why don't you come to Fort Sill and encourage our 14Ts??? Seriously, you'd cheer everybody up!!!
artisana55 9 months ago
@chris77jay77 It is not mindless field training exercise. Our armed forces needs to be ready, well equiped and well trained. I am a US Army Veteran and if we did not train and equiped our soldiers to be the best we will be seeing more casualties. Do not believe the media Hype.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@quickzilver333 How much media hype do you hear about ADA? I was in ADA, why do you think I have so much hate in my heart about it. I know first-hand all about it.
chris77jay77 8 months ago
@chris77jay77 Perhaps I misslead you. I'm talking about the media reporting all these mindless exercise that we do in the Military which is not true. We the most well trained Military in the world.
quickzilver333 8 months ago
@chris77jay77 The fact that you were in ADA doesn't justify your hate for your own country's military. Why exactly do you hate it?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Quit trolling. You're putting words in my mouth. Now, go search another random topic on youtube and comment five times on it, too.
chris77jay77 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@chris77jay77 "I was in ADA, why do you think I have so much hate in my heart about it. I know first-hand all about it" This is your statement in which you say you the ADA... What's funny about you, anti-military brainless morons is how smart you really think you are. But when someone starts bringing you arguments, you start trolling or insulting. That's ALL you can do. You show your stupidity in all its splendor...
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 "Our armed forces needs to be ready, well equiped and well trained". Well that's the problem with the US army. It is the poorest equipped branch of the US military. It never receives what it really needs. And now, under Obama, the trainees hardly receive proper training anymore.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 here we go again!!! Where did you get the idea that the US Army is the poorest equipped branch of the US Military? The US Army is well equiped and well trained.
Have you been dreaming again?
quickzilver333 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 And what equipment does the US army have that is so great, ha? The only really good weapons system the US army is equipped with is the M270 MLRS. That's it. Abrams is pretty good but is no way near of being the best tank as some of your "experts" say. And the fact that the US army is denied by many good weapons systems is a fact. The US army is probably the most neglected branch of the US military. The Russian army is much better equipped. More artillery, more tanks, more rocket
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 launchers. They also have a larger variety of infantry weapons, including anti-tank weapons, which are better than yours.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 As for the "best trained" thing, I spoke to somebody who's in the US Army and he said that the trainees don''t get bayonet fighting training anymore and they even get to shoot the 50 caliber machine gun anymore. This is what Obama's reduction in defense spending is doing. He will completely ruin the US military, just like Bill Clinton almost did at the end of the '90s. BTW, the US army receives the lowest amount of funds from all the US military branches.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF! stop your nonsense arguement. Are you day dreaming again about wonderland?
quickzilver333 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 If these were "nonsense", you would have a better argument to come up with... What I said is the pure truth. And those who kid themselves that the US army is the most powerful in the world are day dreamers, not me.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Who told you that the US Army is the most powerful? WTF! Where the hell did you get the idea that the US ARMY is the poorest equipped branch of the US military service? WTF! You got an opinion of one soldier out of thousands and you base your opinion that the US ARMY is not well trained and well equipped.
Seriously stop playing wanna be because you will never be execpt PETTER PAN from wonder land. LOL!
quickzilver333 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 You said that the US army is the best equipped and the best trained... And the US army really is the poorest equipped branch of the US military. The politicians don't give a shit about it. The US army gets the smallest funds from all the other military branches. And it's not just "one soldier's opinion" it's the opinion of a lot of soldiers. It's just that nobody listens to them. Just like with the M16 and M4. The soldiers are being forced by their superiors to say that those
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Here we go again do you really wanna do this again. PLEASE READY VERY CAREFULLY WHAT I WROTE.
This is what I wrote: "THE US ARMY IS WELL EQUIPED AND WELL TRAINED" I did not write "BEST"
now I will get back with you in another two days so that you can slap yourself.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Like I said, you should go talk to real people who really are serving in your military. The US army is not as well trained and equipped as you think. And Obama's cuts in the defense budget affect other branches too. Like the Air Force. The pilots receive much less flying hours than they should.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You can't even get your facts straight! Not all soldiers are the same you are dumb as hell. The facts you get from a tanker is diferrent from an infantryman. They are both trained differently budget cuts or not. You have no idea how much we trained and retrained every week,months and years. The equipments that we have is sufficient in technology. Stop making up nonsense and lies that you talked to a soldier. How did you talk to him? email?phone?text?in person?what? Stop the BS..LOL!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I talked to that guy here, on YouTube... And the fact that Us army is the most poorly equipped branch of the US military is a fact. Not only that it's poorly equipped, but it also receives a lot of shitty equipment, like the Stryker, which is too tall, it doesn't meet its objective of being air transportable by a C-130 and it doesn't offer enough firepower and cross country maneuverability. Just ask the soldiers in Afghanistan.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are full of shit! The Stryker is C-130 transportable without the slate armor. The US Army still have the M113 Gavin and it's been upgraded to todays warfare. The M113 Gavin is by far "ONE OF THE BEST" APC. The terrians in Afghanistan is not easy as you think even the Best APCs are having a hard time. The Afghan terrain is not suitable for wheeled or track vehicles. Some of the Infantry Observation base there can only be access on foot or Helicopter transport. This is FACTS not BS!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Yeah, but when the Stryker doesn't have slat armor, it's not sufficiently protected. And it's still too heavy weighing very close to the limit the C-130 can lift. As for the M113, yes, that s good and that should've been modified and used by the army, not the Stryker. The Stryker shouldn't have even been developed. The M113 should've been used at creating a very mobile armored force, like many generals recommended. Many generals wanted to use the lessons learned in Vietnam and
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Seriously do you even think first before you write?! The slate armor of the stryker is an add-on which means it can be put inplace once it's out of the plane. The C-130 capabilities far exceed the weight of the stryker but it can only carry light armored vehicles. The sheridan light tanks built to support airborne troops are heavier than a stryker and the C-130 have been carrying it for many years. I still prefer the M-113 because of it's many capabilities and variance.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 The only thing you good that you said is that you prefer the M113...
As for the M551's weight, you're wrong. It was lighter than the Stryker, in specially the MGS, which weights over 18 tonnes. And the C130 can lift 20 tonnes max. So its lifting capabilities don't exceed the Stryker's weight by far... As for the Stryker, it simply isn't good. It's to tall, it doesn't have enough mobility on rough terrain and it doesn't offer enough protection. And M113 using add-on modular armor
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 There is nothing wrong with my statement. You said that a stryker is not C-130 transportable. Well it is in it's raw configuration. How do you think some of them got there in Afghanistan and Iraq? C-130!!..hehehe!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I don't remember saying that it can't be transported by the C-130. I said that it's too tall and heavy for the purpose it was envisioned.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 would've offered much better protection at the same weight the Stryker weights without the slat armor. And when the Styker has that slat armor on it, it becomes heavier and less mobile. It simply isn't good for what the US army wants to do.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 they wanted to create a very mobile force that could fight against a larger army, with rigid structures, like the soviet army. The plan was conceived during the '80s, but it was never completed. The idea of interconnecting the systems into an integrated network dates back from that time. I don't remember exactly the name of that network, but it evolved into the civilian Internet during the '90s. They're trying to do something similar now, but that's not like the generals wanted.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 The combat brigades they're trying to create as the centric force of the army are not good enough.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF! quote: "The combat brigades they're trying to create as the centric force of the army are not good enough." You do know that when you said Combat Brigades it envolves all combat MOS from combat engineer, tankers, artillery, Special forces, Rangers, Delta force all the way to infantrymen. Hence the word "COMBAT BRIGADES". Maybe you mean Stryker Brigades?! I let you slide on this one.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I didn't mean Stryker brigades, I was talking about the future brigades they're trying to create. These brigades will have everything in them, from tank battalions to special forces to sniper platoons, everything. Go read about them before embarrassing yourself with your cockiness...
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 I'm not being cocky. I'm just correcting all the B.S. The combat brigades you are talking about already exist in small numbers. They use these brigades for special operations. They alo have a brigade in the US ARMY compose of soldiers,airmen,sailors and marines. It's a joint task force brigades. These Brigades are for special operations. It will not be the outline of the entire US ARMY. These are facts not B.S.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, those brigades are not good enough anyway. But from what I know, the plan was to transform the entire US army and form it only from those brigades. This would make the US army much more mobile and flexible. But colonel McGregor's idea was much better. His fighting formations would've been much better than these brigades. As for those brigades that you say they exist, what is their composition? What weapons systems are they equipped with?
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Dude seriously?! This will never happend. The brigades that I mentioned are for special operations meaning small light forces. This will include US military forces that can be deployed within 24hrs. You should know by now which US military units Im reffering too. As far as integrating all US ARMY units in one brigade it will never happend. It will slow down deployment. Think about!! Light forces go in first.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Go learn more about Future Combat Systems and the doctrine behind using those systems. The US army's transformation was proposed from the early '80s. But people like you, with short sighted minds prevented this from happening. You say that relying on smaller, faster, more mobile and more flexible fighting formations, will slow deployment down... This shows you have mo idea what you're talking about...
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 NO! combining the brigades now will slow the deployments. Do you have any idea how long will it take to deploy artillery and armored units? You need a light forces as a shock force that can be deployed and reach the mission within 24hrs. If you don't know what light forces mean then you have a problem. In the future I would agree with you once the US Army develope a lighter, faster and deadlier armored vehicles. Then what are we talking about 15-20-30-40yrs from now?
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Why would the deployment of artillery and armored units be slower? On the contrary, it would be much faster, the tanks, the artillery would get where they need much faster than under the current division organization. And you don't need 30-40 years from now, this could've been done even from the '80s. You talk about fast, light forces. Well, these forces have proved their deficiencies during the 1980 intervention in Lebanon and during the 1st Gulf War where they found themselves
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 confronting heavy tanks and artillery and had nothing to fight back with. That's why the generals recommended the creation of smaller, much faster and flexible fighting formations that would incorporate all arms. They called them all arms formations. With proper communication and situational awareness, such formations can defeat much larger, more rigid formations, like divisions and they can also fight asymmetric warfare much more efficient. The idea was to use the lessons
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 learned in Vietnam, where, lightly armored, but very mobile groups defeated a much larger army. Such all arms formations would provide a much better mobility, flexibility and a much shorter deployment time than the current divisions provide, they wouldn't slow the deployment down. How the fuck did you get to this conclusion?
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF! look please read my comments carefully. I was just talking about using light forces meaning using light amored vehicles. I also ask you if you know what light forces mean. Apparently you don't know what it means. When you said combining all combat brigades it will involved heavy artillery and heavy armor. I ask you specifically about this. I will say it again when you say COMBAT BRIGADES it will involved "ALL COMBAT MOS". If you don't know what "MOS" means then you have a problem
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 OK, what does MOS mean...? And the brigades I was talking about are called brigade combat teams. Go read about it on wiki and you'll see how equipping the brigade with everything it needs increases the mobility, flexibility and decreases time deployment. But the brigade combat team concept is not a good one. Colonel's McGregor's fighting formations would've been the perfect solution for what the generals wanted to do with the US army. And with the marines too, I think.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 MOS(Military Occupational Specialty) in civilian word your "JOB". When you said "COMBAT BRIGADES" you are talking about all Combat MOS. Meaning from Apache pilots, A-10 thunderbolt pilots, Pattriot missile operators, combat engineers, tankers(M1 Abrams), Bradley, Artillery, Air Defense Artillery, Special forces, Rangers, Delta, Infantry, mortar team etc...etc... Light Combat Brigades are compose with MOS that can deploy quickly. There is a big differece between the two brigades.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I said combat brigades because I forgot the term they used for the new formations that they wanted to make the centric force of the army. I was talking the Brigade Combat Teams. And just like I said, the concept of using light brigades is wrong. That's why they wanted to make the brigades more autonomous equipping them with all sorts of weapons. They wanted to create, smaller, much faster, much more mobile and more independent fighting formations. Of course, they blew it. Using
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 brigades with 3000 soldiers max is not a good concept. There were many people during the '90s that opposed the transformation of the army for some reason. But colonel's McGregor's idea of creating battle formations of 5-6000 soldiers and that would be equipped with all types of weapons, from light armored vehicles to tanks and artillery would've been the solution. Had the US army been equipped like this, it would've been a much more efficient fighting force in conventional wars
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 but it could also fight in asymmetric warfare and you wouldn't have had the problems you had in Afghanistan and Iraq.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 You say you were talking about using light armored forces. And I was saying that these light armored forces have proved their usefulness in Lebanon and 1t Gulf War when they found themselves facing heavy artillery and tanks. This is why the generals recommended the creation of smaller, much faster and mobile fighting formations that would include all arms, including tanks and heavy artillery. Smaller fighting formations can be deployed much quickly. The US forgot the lessons
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 learned in Vietnam and you payed the price in Afghanistan where you found yourselves fighting guerilla warfare for which the US army was not prepared. The Vietnam lessons were totally ignored by the Clinton adm who refused to allocate the necessary funds to turn the US army into a much more mobile, flexible fighting force.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass!!! Stop writting nonsense comments and read carefully what I wrote. I have been telling you this several times. I never disagree about light forces being used. This is what the small light combat brigades are compose. They are use for special operations and rapid deployment. I ask you clearly if you know what you mean when you said "COMBAT BRIGADES". Apparently you dont know crap.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 You don't understand the concept of transforming the entire army in a much more mobile and flexible fighting force. Those light brigades that you talk about don't have enough firepower and they're only good for special operations. But the idea that stood behind the FCS and Brigade Combat Team (that is what I was talking about when I said combat brigades) was to make THE ENTIRE ARMY a much more mobile and flexible fighting force that could've been deployed much more quickly. Can
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 you comprehend this? The current fighting formation that the US army is formed from, the division, is too large, too rigid. That's why, based on the lessons learned in Vietnam, the generals wanted to create a much more mobile and flexible fighting force. That would mean smaller fighting formations with bigger autonomy that can move their equipment and weapons systems like tanks and artillery much faster on the battlefield and can get those weapons where they're needed much faster
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Ok! now that we sortout your confusion on the definition of Combat Brigades. I totally agree with you and the Generals who wanted a more mobile and flexible force. It can be done but we are limited only by technology. The concept and the idea is great. Once the Army is better equipped with a lighter, faster and deadlier armored vehicles. The required equipment is already in development. Maybe 5-10yrs. The Army will be equiped.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, that's what I said, you don't need 5-10 years from now. This could've been done from the '90s using the M113 as a platform for new vehicles. Also, the Abrams tank had a version called the CATTB which had modular armor and it could've been made lighter or heavier, depending on the mission. That's what the generals recommended: a fighting force that would've been composed from M113 based vehicles. And also the Abrams tank. Integrating these vehicles in smaller, more
StiviGun1 6 months ago
autonomous fighting formations would've made the US army much more mobile and easier to deploy. And this could've been done during the '90s but there were a lot of people who opposed the initiative, citing all sorts of reasons. The real reason why they opposed it was because they didn't want to spend money on it. They were pathetic anti-military liberals. And many of them also have a bad conception regarding the US army. It's just like I said, the US army was always the most neglected and the
StiviGun1 6 months ago
less respected branch from all the military branches in the US military. And this cost the US a lot in the Afghanistan and Iraq war.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF! you mean the US Army not the US Military?!! War cost money were have you been in the past centuries of war?! The US Army is less respected WTF?! According to you who talk nonsense about the US Army and don't even have any clue how it functions.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Well, the US army always receives the lowest funds from all other branches. A lot of equipment and weapons systems (like LOSAT) have been denied to it because the politicians consider it the least important branch of the military. Tell me, what other good weapons systems is it equipped with besides the Abrams and the M270 MLRS, which are not even the best in the world? Tell me.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL! Military priorities have change in WWI and WWII the US Army got alot of funding even during Korean, Vietnam etc...etc... Remember what I told you that becareful what you wrote. Looks like you never learned your lessons. You are a dumbass. Why Am I gonna tell you what other new weapons we have in the US Army?!
Lets talk about the ROMANIAN Army...hehehehe!!! They don't even have the balls to challenge the Might of the US Army....hehehe!!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 You can say whatever you want and you can throw whatever stupid insults you want (BTW, this really shows the level of your intelligence...). The fact remains that the US army is the most disregarded branch of the US military by the politicians. And you don't need to tell me what "other" weapons systems the US army has because I already know all the weapons systems it has.
As for the Romanian army, you have to be real dumb to compare your army with a much smaller country's army...
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 As for WW1 and WW2, in those periods of time, the US army was not looked at the way it is today. The tradition of considering the US army the least important branch of the military started after WW2. Even during WW2, it was denied by the equipment it needed. For instance, the Sherman tanks should've been replaced by the T20 series of tanks even from 1942 when the US secret services found out about the development of the Tiger and the Panther.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are talking nonsense and I have already proven how stupid you are several times. Do you even have any idea that back in WWI and WWII there was no US Airforce. Just guess what brach of US military the US fighters and bomber planes of WWI and WWII belong too?!
I will get back with you in two days once you know the answer.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
You haven't proven anything, except only in your imagination...
As for the USAF,. yes, I know it has been established after WW2 ended, in 1947, if I remember correctly. And yes, the the bombers and fighters belonged to the army. But after the USAF became a separate branch, the US army starting to be considered as less and less important and looked at with disregard. How may good weapons systems have been denied from it during the Cold War and in specially after the Cold War ended, do you know
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 that? Use those 2 days to find out the answer... And all those weapons systems were rejected simply because the US army is not considered to be very important (although it does perform the most dangerous and dirtiest missions) but the decision makers. The reason why so many good weapons systems were denied to the US army is because the decision makers don't consider the US army important enough to spend money with it to give it what it really needs. This is a fact, not a bashing.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 LOL! Do you even read what you wrote?! You are talking nonsense you jump from differrent topics as soon as I foundout your bullshit. You said theUS Army "ALWAYS" receives the lowest funds from all the branches. In WWI and WWII the US Army recieves most of the fundings the Airforce back then belongs to the US ARMY. It's called US ARMY AIRCORE. The Armys fundings was higher that the rest of the Branch all the way to Vietnam War. The US Army downsized after the cold war. Your an IDIOT!!!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 the US Army is not the most disregarded branch. they simply have a different mission than that of the other branches. the army is the largest and is the main branch of the U.S. military. a majority of generals who commanded the iraq and afghanistan war (or even previous conflicts) were army generals.
hmnanda 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Actually, you're an idiot. Always receives is not the same with always received... And during the WW2 the branch who got the most funds was the navy, not the Army. As for the Vietnam war, the money was spent on war necessities, not on actual weapons development and procurement and that's what I'm talking about. So you can't count in the Vietnam War period. Anyway, after the Vietnam War ended, the US army was the military branch that was most hated and disregarded.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You talk nonsense. Romania won't even exist if not for the Allies and the US Army fighting the Nazis. In WWI and WWII the US Army got the most fundings because the Airforce also belongs to the US Army then. The US Army is the most hated branch according to who? You? hahaha! The USMC receives the lesser defense budget because they are the smallest branch of service. There is no such thing in the US military as the most hated or most favored. We support each other. You are an Idiot!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 First of all, the victory in WW2 was due to ALL allies that fought it, not just America. America alone wouldn't have won the war against the Nazis. Russia also had a HUGE contribution. As for the US army's funding during WW2, yes it a lot of funds, more than it started to receive after the war ended but only because it also comprised the air force. After that, it started to get less and less funds and it started to be considered less and less important. This is not according to
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 me, this is a fact. I gave as an example the numerous weapons systems that were denied to it simply because the politicians didn't think the army is important enough to spend money with it. The USMC is the branch that get the smallest funding and this also sucks because they're the one that handle the most dangerous jobs. The army is second from this point of view. As for the most hated or most favored military branch, yes, there is such a thing. The US navy is the most favored
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 branch of the US military. The army never gets what it really needs simply because it's not considered important enough to spend the money needed on it. This is a fact. The equipment and weapons systems it's equipped with and the fact that many good weapons systems (some of which were not even that expensive) are being denied to it, proves this. Why didn't they adopt the LOSAT missile, why did they stop the Abrams and MLRS production? Because when it comes to budget cuts, the
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 army takes first place. The NLOS cannon and the Dragon Fire mortar were also canceled. Why? They were not even that expensive. They didn't cost even 10% of some USAF and USN programs. Yet they were canceled because the US is considered as being not important enough. And that sucks because after the USMC, it performs the most dangerous jobs. I'm not saying that the USAF and the USN should receive less attention, but the US army should be appreciated more. As for Romania, don't you
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You simply don't understand the difference between military branch. I can explain it to you all day but I don't have the time to do that. First of all it's not a contest of who has the most or who has the less. We do have friendly rivalry between branch of service. Other than that we relly on each other. Each branch has it's own specific objective. It's like asking a sailor to do a soldiers job. It's just plain stupid.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I never said it's a contest of who gets more... And you're the 1 who just can't get what I'm saying. This is not about who gets more, this is about giving a certain military branch (in this case the army) what it needs. And this is not the case with US army not with the USMC. The US army doesn't get the weapon systems it should get. You still didn't answer the question why systems like LOSAT, NLOS cannon and Gragon Fire mortar were canceled. It's interesting how they don't cancel
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 the F-35, which cost 3 times more than it was supposed to cost and it takes A LOT of tax payers' money, but the canceled the NLOS cannon and the Dragon Fire mortar which probably cost less than 5% of the F-35's costs. Another weapons system that was canceled was a wireless TOW variant. So it's just like I said, the US army doesn't receive the weapons systems it should receive.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF! Dude seriously the more you talk the more you embarras yourself. The USA have other priorities besides putting more money on the US Army weapons upgrade. Like I said we have sufficient technology for our soldiers. The Airforce gets the bigger piece of the funds then the Navy, Army and Marines.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 "Other priorities"... You talk like one of those anti-military liberals now... The US' budget for the 2010 was 700 bullion dollars and that accounted for about 5% of the entire GDP. The US has enough money to give the Army what it really needs.
"besides putting more money on the US Army weapons upgrade". When I said the Abrams upgrades were canceled, you contradicted me. Now, you're the ones who says that the weapon systems shouldn't be upgraded... But the truth is that since the
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 US sends its marines and Army all over the world, then you better equip them with what they need, or stop sending them overseas. Simple as that. That "sufficient technology" is not enough. You need to be the best. Your invasion of other countries and your claims that you have "the most powerful military in the world" makes others develop weapons against you just to show you that you're not as tough as you think. So that "sufficient" of yours is not enough to maintain the military
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 superiority.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Wow! only one word?! It's a miracle coming from a crap talker....hehehe!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 "one word"...? Are you retarded...?
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 only one word that make sense. The rest are just ramdom bullshit. I have been telling you over and over and over and over and over again to check my comments before you write anything. You are an idiot jumping from one topic to another as soon as I foundout your bullshit.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Nobody jumped from topic to topic. The topic is the same. The US army is treated like it should be. And you haven't managed to prove me otherwise. All you can come up with is stupid insults and you call that "found out your bullshit"... Lame.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Your a dumbass!!! You saying words I never said like" the most powerful military in the world" which I never said. Your arguements are pointless. WWI and WWII Germany is the most powerful Military what happend?! You are talking about GDP which has nothing to do with the topic. I told you before the bigger piece of the military budget goes to the Airforce first then Navy then Army then Marines.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Many Americans, including many of your politicians, like Obama, claim that America has "the most powerful military in the world". They just love to say this, even though it's not true.
The GDP came when you said the US has other priorities than spending on upgrading the US army's weapons systems. I brought the GDP point to show that this is bullshit. The US can perfectly take care of other important business and in the same time, give the US army what it needs. This was my point
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 when I talked about the US' GDP. Get it now? And you talk like someone who doesn't like the idea of the US army really being the best equipped in the world. This is pretty suspicious to me...
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 And your point about the German military in WW1 and WW2 is bullshit. 1st of all, the Germans never had the economic power the US has to form a military and, in both wars, they made the stupid mistake to fight against multiple enemies. That's why they lost.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 Hey retard!!! You are from Romania and yet you dont know that Germany is not the only one fighting against the Allies in Europe. The Axis forces Germany, Italy and Japan was the most powerful military forces against the Allies and yet they were defeated. Do I need to give you more examples that having a powerful military alone does not win a war? You should know this by now. The USA just came out of Depression to join WWII with out dated weapons. You are a dumbass!!!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 No, you're a retard. Italy's army was a joke. Without Hitler's intervention, they would've been occupied almost from the beginning of the war. As for Japan, you moron, it had nothing to do with fascism or the Nazi ideology. It was considered and ally of Germany and Italy only because it was anti-American. And Japan, you idiot, never matched America's economic power to build a military. That's why it was defeated. Because it simply fought against a more powerful enemy. And Germany
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 lost because it practically fought alone against US, UK, Canada, USSR. That's why it lost. But like I said, this is not America's case. 1st of all, America has a much bigger economic capability to build a military and it will never fight against the whole world.
As for what you say, that America entered the war with outdated weapons, that's not true. The bombers they had, for instance were pretty advanced. The M1 Garand and other infantry weapons were actually very advanced for
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 their time. Even the Sherman tank proved to be superior to the 1st generations of German tanks. The fighters they had were also advanced. So you see, you moron, most of the weapons America entered the war with were actually pretty advanced, in specially for their time.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are jumping from one topic to another like an idiot!!! Your arguement doesn't make sense! You are comparing the 1st generation of German tanks to the Sherman. What an idiot! The first generation of German tanks was in WWI not WWII. We are talking about WWII the German tanks/weapons are advance compared to the USA weapons. Do you even read your own comments? You don't make sense at all!! Have you been day dreaming lately about wonderland?!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 worry, it would have existed just fine. The Allies didn't help Romania with anything. On the contrary, it was left to the soviets. So before making stupid comments like this, why don't you go get some education and then start opening your pie hole?
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are a dumbass back in WWII Russia is part of the Allies. You talk a bunch of nonsense. You don't even understand US military lingo and you critizes everything about the US Army. Once I have proven your arrogance. You change the topic thinking that you will get away with your bullshit. The USMC receives the lesser defense budget because they are a small branch "NOT THE ARMY". When you said the US ARMY "ALWAYS" get the lesser budget is BULLSHIT from you.... Change topic again???!!
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 I know Russia was part of the allies in WW2 and I never changed topic... And what I criticize is the politicians attitude towards the US army (and the USMC since you brought it up) not the US army. In my opinion, giving the US army and the USMC the smallest funds just because they're smaller military branches is wrong. The budget should also be in accordance with the missions the military branches undertake. And the US army and USMC undertake the most dangerous missions. As for
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 my statement that the US army receives the smallest budget, I guess I was wrong. But the point that was I was trying to make, that it doesn't receive the funding it should receive, still remains.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 weapons are outstanding in their reports. But if you think the US army is so well equipped, then tell me, what is the equipment that is so great?
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 WTF?! I know where exactly your trying to bring this conversation into. Let me guess you want a RUSSIA VS USA arguement don't you?...hehehe! Did you remember what happend when you pulled this game on me? hehehe! be careful what you wrote because I will embarrass you again.
quickzilver333 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 No, I don't want to turn this into a Russia vs USA argument... And when the fuck did you embarrass me...? What I'm saying here is that the US army doesn't receive the attention it should receive from those that are in charge with weapons systems procurement. The US Army is considered to be the most less important branch of the US military. And that's not the way things should be, since the Army (and the marines) take care of the most dangerous jobs.
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 Look! I will give you a chance to read all your comments to me because you kept changing your statements about the US ARMY.....I will get back with you in two days. Seriously man! You are digging yourself in deep nonsense bullshit.
quickzilver333 7 months ago
@quickzilver333 I never changed my statements about the US army. On the contrary, I continuously maintained my point that the US army is the most poorly equipped branch of the US military. That's my point. Maybe you can't understand what I write...
StiviGun1 7 months ago
@StiviGun1 You just love to over exagerate things like using the word "POORLY". First of all if you know crap about military you don't depend alone on your euipment. WW1 and WWII should give you that wisdom. Second who the fuck did you talk to in the US ARMY? What is his rank? MOS? Where was he stationed? What is his UNIT? You don't know any of these because you are just making up shit. Third not all basic training fires the 50 cal. You get to train and fire it when you get to your unit.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 The guy I talked to said he operates on the Abrams tanks. He told me he talked to other soldiers in the US army that told him that hand to hand combat, bayonet and .50 caliber machine gun training have bee cut from their basic training. He also said that the number of training hours on the Abrams tanks has been reduced. Also, a lot of improvements that should've been brought to the Abrams were also cancelled.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
@StiviGun1 You are full of shit! Stop making up stories! You dont know crap about the US ARMY. First of all not all basic training facilities are training recruites with the.50 cal machine gun. They will learn that when they get to their duty sation/unit. Second bayonet/ hand to hand combat is mandatory especially in a Combat MOS. You hae no idea what I just said don't you? Third Abrams are being used by the ARMY and the USMC and upgrades are already done.
quickzilver333 6 months ago
@quickzilver333 Why don't you go talk to real soldiers who really serve in the US Army, ha? Maybe that will open your eyes and you wonţt live in fairy tale world anymore.
StiviGun1 6 months ago
As a Unit Supply Specialist, I'm being sent to an Air Defense Artillery unit. I don't know how my role will contribute towards this kind of Unit.
69in89 1 year ago
14T is the operator and 14E are the peeps in the van with the radar a 14J Maps out stuff...the tan radar that you see though is for thaad
HydroDrunkness 1 year ago
WTF!!! did anyone else get here from a slipknot music video?
holydiverbyDIO 1 year ago 2
The cork screwing is burning off excess energy so it does not leave the confines of the missile range and enter civilian airspace.
tentons123 1 year ago
L-A-M-E
FelixA9 1 year ago
sorry to say that mates but the russian plasma weapon is far more better for defense against icbms or bombers and even make jet planes more faster.
Zappina 1 year ago
Can anyone tell me what the missile is doing from 0:49-0:52?
booya155 1 year ago
@booya155 im guessing its stabilizing its flight
spartan2527 1 year ago
@booya155 That is actually a manuever it has to do to burn off energy when shooting within a "confined" space.
teamhess 1 year ago
@booya155 Your talking about the cork screw? Its burning off excess energy so it does not leave the confines of the missile range and enter civilian airspace. Its in Whitesands Newmexico. I am a patriot operator going on 9 years now so i know a thing or three about air defense, if you have any more questions let me know.
tentons123 1 year ago
@tentons123 What's it like being so fucking awesome?
malinko35 1 year ago
Just passed my Army OCS board! I will be leaving later this year for basic, then it's off to fort benning! I put ADA as my second choice so I'm crossing my fingers!
CatNov20 1 year ago
@CatNov20 big mistake man
tentons123 1 year ago
have fun in 2-6 at fort sill little buddy. i wish you the best of luck in that hell hole
soldier14E 2 years ago
1. THAAD is not a part of patriot. they are separate parts of air defense, if a missile makes it past THAAD it is patriots job to engage it.
2. 14J kid, i feel bad for you. air defense isnt the army, its air defense. youll get stuck in a BTOC or a BCP doing air battles. your job is a lot easier than mine but its still shitty.
3."best air defense at work" theres a whole lot of patriot here. wheres this so called good ADA at cause i saw it nowhere in this video.
soldier14E 2 years ago
I chose this job for the army. 14J baby!!! I leave for boot camp on the 30th of December. This is going to kick ass
adrenanimal 2 years ago
@adrenanimal im sure you know this by now but uh.... you wont be firing missiles. 14j is more of a support. you'll be graduating from AIT soon. if your coming to Korea ill probably see you here next month. im in a SHORAD unit though stinger missile... at least i get a radar.... haha
XternalRage 1 year ago
@adrenanimal 14j Is not Patriot Operator man, sorry bro your recruiter lied to you.
tentons123 1 year ago
@tentons123 i know man. But the interesting thing about 1-1 ADA Delta Battery we get thrown on anything they want to put us on.
adrenanimal 1 year ago
@adrenanimal no it wont troop...
infamus219 1 year ago
@infamus219 ive realized this now. but in 1-1 ADA Delta Battery we get thrown on everything. The ECS, radar, AMG, or the BCP. Ive gotten switched to each crew. Dammit!!!! lmao
adrenanimal 1 year ago
Can anyone here tell me if there is an ANTI-nuke missile out there that can stop nukes from landing ?
LegendOfJomtein 2 years ago
The THAAD(part of the Patriot system) has the capability should it be needed.
MAOfights 2 years ago
thaad is not part of the patriot system
klote2314 2 years ago
@klote2314 not really no, but it is integrated into the same comms net and also run and operated by patriot operators in patriot units out of bliss tx
tentons123 1 year ago
Check : SM3, THAADS, GBI, ARROW, ABL , THEL for a starter, also : GALOSH, ABM...
shiningkarma 2 years ago