Marine Corps Equipment After Iraq Einstellungen

[BigLinus]

Hier der Link zu einem 29-seitigen Aufsatz in englischer Sprache von Lawrence Korb & Max Bergmann (Center for American Progress) sowie von Loren Thompson (Lexington Institute) mit dem Titel "Das Equipment des US-Marine Corps nach dem Irak".

[ Quelle ]

Marine Corps Equipment After Iraq

by Lawrence J. Korb and Max A. Bergmann of the Center for American Progress and Loren B. Thompson of the Lexington Institute

August 23, 2006


The United States has understandably focused on the tremendous human costs of the war in Iraq, yet there are other costs that must be addressed as well. Earlier this year the Center for American Progress and the Lexington Institute compiled a report examining the impact of the war in Iraq on Army equipment. This report does the same for the Marine Corps, the other service that has borne the brunt of the occupation.

Over the past three years the Marine Corps has maintained 40 percent of its ground equipment, 50 percent of its communications equipment, and 20 percent of its aviation assets in Iraq. This equipment is used at as much as nine times its planned rate, abused by a harsh environment, and depleted due to losses in combat. To maintain acceptable readiness levels, the Marines have been taking equipment from non-deployed units and drawing down Maritime Prepositioned stocks, including equipment stored in Europe, thus limiting their ability to respond to contingencies outside of Iraq.

Resetting and recovering the force will be expensive. The cost of restoring the Marines’ ground and aviation equipment to its pre-Iraq level, as of the summer of 2006, will require $12 billion plus an additional $5 billion for each year the Marines remain in Iraq.

Recovery will also not be easy. The Marine Corps, like the Army, must incorporate the lessons of Iraq into its future procurement plans while upgrading its forces. The Marines may prefer expeditionary operations to acting as an occupying force, but urban counter-insurgency and peacekeeping operations will more likely be the rule rather than the exception in the future.

(...)

Der Beitrag wurde von BigLinus bearbeitet: 28. Aug 2006, 22:45

[DEST]

Sehr interessant. Gibt es solche Überlegungen auch für die BW? Oder ist man so kurzsichtig nur die laufenden Kosten zu betrachten, aber nicht an die schnellere Abnutzung der im Einsatz befindlichen Ausrüctung mit einzubeziehen?

[BigLinus]

Protecting Our Troops
June 15, 2006

After finally providing short-term relief for chronic payroll and personnel problems caused by the strain of Iraq, Congress today turns to the issue of troop protection. The House Armed Services Committee will address troop protective equipment in a hearing today. As it does so, we urge them to remember the stress that Iraq places on military equipment and the implications that has for U.S. military performance. Congress must ensure that our men and women in uniform have better protection on the battlefield.

The Army has sustained a high level of readiness in Iraq despite equipment strains, but readiness for non-deployed units and units outside Iraq has already been reduced. Lack of proper equipment places the soldiers themselves at great risk and also endangers the long-term military goals in Iraq.

In order to protect American troops and assure Army equipment readiness, Congress should fully fund the military’s $9 billion request to replace and repair equipment destroyed and worn out by the war effort. And Congress should continue to fund equipment repair and replacement for at least two years after a force is deployed to ensure full resolution of all war-related equipment problems. The Department of Defense should also conduct and submit to Congress a comprehensive review of new equipment that will be required for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve to recover fully from Iraq deployments and enable the reserve component to meet future commitments.

In April, Lawrence J. Korb, Loren B. Thompson, and Caroline P. Wadhams of the Center for American Progress released a report detailing their recommendations for Army equipment after Iraq. We urge Congress today to keep these recommendations in mind and work towards keeping our troops in Iraq and around the world fully protected.

Hier der Link zu oben genannten Aufsatz in englischer Sprache von Loren Thompson (Lexington Institute) sowie Lawrence Korb & Caroline Wadhams (Center for American Progress) mit dem Titel \"Army Equipment nach dem Irak\" vom April 2006, der sich mit der obigen Thematik auseinander setzt.

[ Quelle ]

Is Military Equipment Safe?
June 26, 2006

The chiefs of the Army and Marine Corps will meet with the House Armed Services Committee tomorrow to testify about their strategies to repair and replace military equipment lost or damaged during operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. The military has sustained a high level of readiness in Iraq despite equipment strains, but shortages are beginning to effect non-deployed units and units outside of Iraq.

It may be the duty of the men and women in the military to serve and protect the Unites States’ interests, but it is the duty of the government to ensure that every individual has the best protection available. Without dependable equipment, the United States can not ensure the safety of its military personnel or reliably carry out its military goals.

In April, Lawrence J. Korb, Loren B. Thompson, and Caroline P. Wadhams of the Center for American Progress released a report detailing the following six short-term and five long-term steps that the United States government can take to ensure that the military will fully recover from operations in Iraq and adequately face future challenges:

Short-term Recommendations

- Congress should fully fund the service’s $9 billion request for reset funding in fiscal 2006 and maintain funding until military presence in Iraq significantly decreases.
- Congress should provide additional resources to cover most of the procurement and depot maintenance items contained in the Army’s $7 billion unfunded requirements list for fiscal 2007.
- Once the deployed force departs Iraq, Congress should continue funding reset for at least two years to assure full resolution of all war-related equipment problems.
- The Army should cease deferring recapitalization of aging equipment and request a level of reset funding consistent with fully revitalizing the force for future challenges.
- The Department of Defense should conduct and submit to Congress a comprehensive review of new equipment that will be required for the Army National Guard and Army Reserve to recover fully from Iraq deployments and enable the reserve component to meet future commitments.
- The U.S. Army should fund its reset program through the normal budget process and not through supplementals, as has been the case since the beginning of operations in Iraq.

Long-term Recommendations

- The Army should continue efforts to reorganize its warfighting capabilities around modular, networked brigade combat teams.
- The Army should accelerate the fielding of new situational awareness and communications systems, including the Warfighter Information Network-Tactical that will provide a foundation for the overarching Future Combat System, the Blue Force Tracker and brigade-level unmanned aerial vehicles.
- The Army should produce and fund a comprehensive plan for the continuous enhancement of heavy armored vehicles, such as the Abrams main battle tank and Bradley infantry fighting vehicle.
- The Army should complete replacement of its Cold War truck fleet while beginning development of a successor to the versatile High Mobility Multipurpose Wheeled Vehicle (Humvee).
- The Army should work hard to keep all elements of its aviation modernization program on track, recognizing that timely fielding of new or improved attack, utility, cargo and reconnaissance helicopters are critical to future conventional and counter-insurgency operations.

We urge the House Armed Services Committee tomorrow to remember the stress that combat in Iraq places on military equipment and consider these recommendations for ensuring the safety of military personnel and America’s military objectives.

[Father Christmas]

Ich betreibe Leichenschändung.

Ich hatte mal eine Powerpoint (oder .pdf ?) des Materialamtes der US Streitkräfte. Hier war niedergeschrieben, das Fahrzeuge, im Irak und Afghanistan eingesetzt, bei gleicher Laufleistung 3 oder 4 Mal schneller "altern" als identische Mil Fahrzeuge die in den USA umherfahren.
Hab meine Festplatten gefilzt, aber nichts gefunden.

Hat jemand was zum Thema ?

Danke im voraus.

Gruß.

[Starscream]

Primär stellt sich erstmal die Frage was das USMC in Zukunft fahren wird.
Das EFV musste ja eingestellt werden, und wie lange der Einsatz des AAAV noch Sinn macht...
Bei anderen vom USMC eingesetzten Systemen stellt sich diese Frage natürlich auch.