As we discovered in Iraq, an effective counterinsurgency strategy requires a significant number of infantry maneuvering about the battlefield on foot, as opposed to hunkered down in their vehicles. Although the forthcoming All-Terrain Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle (in keeping with the Star Wars theme, AT-MRAP) might have its use in a number of areas, nothing will be able to replace the effectiveness of the infantryman patrolling on the ground. Indeed, during the Iraq War, the use of dismounted patrols as opposed to the "commute to work" philosophy which dominated American strategy during the early half of the Iraq War seems to have contributed, at least in part, to the decrease in violence.
No matter how far we advance in manufacturing technology, we increasingly seem to load our infantrymen down with more and more weight. In Afghanistan, where NATO troops are conducting dismounted patrols over steep, rocky mountains, a simple patrol requires immense physical effort, particularly at the higher altitudes, where the air is thin. Surely, a vehicle like the BigDog would be of use in Afghanistan to carry the bulkiest portions of combat equipment.
But leave it to the US Marines—always short of money and coming up with new ways to stretch their dollars—to come up with a much cheaper alternative to the BigDog, using mules as pack animals, just as the Taliban do. It may not be as sexy as the new BigDog, and they may be temperamenta at times, but they have gotten the job done for centuries. While the BigDog represents incredible technology which will undoubtedly be used in a number of different applications--military and civil--did we really need a mega-expensive walker to carry a few rucksacks when a mule would have done just as well?
The terrain in Afghanistan brings up a number of interesting issues. In order to get off the mega-FOBs and patrol the countryside, troops will need some sort of ground transportation. HMMWVs and MRAPs are, as of now, somewhat restricted in the terrain of Afghanistan. With foot marches being slow and tiring, why not outfit a good number of our troops with Four-Wheeled All-Terrain Vehicles? ATVs have been used in small numbers by the US military for quite some time. They would provide a level of mobility that our troops currently do not possess, and they would certainly not be as expensive as the million-dollar-a-pop MRAP, and considerably more mobile. In fact, an earlier SWJ article which laid out the capabilities of the now-cancelled Future Combat System included a description of a vehicle which was dubbed the "M-5 Tactical Segway" (based on an off-road four-wheeled Segway variant). I will be the first to admit that this project suffers from poor advertising (The words "Tactical Segway" give me the image of a platoon full of socially awkward losers whirring down the street on the two-wheel variant). However, a four-wheeled vehicle certainly looks as if it has many supporters within the military establishment.
Focus question for the SWJ crowd: What sorts of transportation systems would you want to see in Afghanistan?
Comments
Follow-up, courtesy of Jules Crittenden, who talks about some further aspects of robot technology:
http://www.julescrittenden.com/2009/07/15/bad-idea/
A Maryland company under contract to the Pentagon is working on a steam-powered robot that would fuel itself by gobbling up whatever organic material it can find -- grass, wood, old furniture, even dead bodies.
Robotic Technology Inc.s Energetically Autonomous Tactical Robot -- thats right, "EATR" -- "can find, ingest, and extract energy from biomass in the environment (and other organically-based energy sources), as well as use conventional and alternative fuels (such as gasoline, heavy fuel, kerosene, diesel, propane, coal, cooking oil, and solar) when suitable," reads the companys Web site.
That "biomass" and "other organically-based energy sources" wouldnt necessarily be limited to plant material -- animal and human corpses contain plenty of energy, and theyd be plentiful in a war zone.
...
The advantages to the military are that the robot would be extremely flexible in fuel sources and could roam on its own for months, even years, without having to be refueled or serviced.
Upon the EATR platform, the Pentagon could build all sorts of things -- a transport, an ambulance, a communications center, even a mobile gunship.
Sparrow:
I'm probably stealing the moderators' thunder, but by all means, you are invited to comment.
Please keep your reply related to the topic at hand. We certainly encourage disagreement, and we think that any healthy organization thrives on hearing divergent opinions. However, we ask that all discussion be kept civil, and with no bashing of each other.
The promise of this technology isn't logistics: it's offense. Hot LZ? No problem: parachute a platoon of these bastards in there and clear it out. Placing an OP you know will be over-run in the first minutes of an attack? Want zero-manpower fire support for SOF?
This kind of technology is what we'll need. We're years out still, of course, but I think it will look more like this than the remote control car concept that Metal Storm et al. are testing.
I am bit confused by the wonder expressed here by those discovering the virtues of the common mule. When I trained at the Marine Corps Mountain Warfare Training Center, mule packing, care, and maintenance was very much part of the syllabus. I realize this was a few years ago (not so many I hope!) but please don't tell me MCMWTC no longer has the mule unit?! And for all of those with extended backcountry time in the Sierra Nevada or similar, mules should be familiar team members.
So why the mechanical mule? The goal is unmanned autonomous resupply of patrol bases and outposts. Someone can program a route and destination into the mechanical mule. With a real mule, not too likely.
Meanwhile, the JPADS GPS guided parachute system is already in service.
In "Marines Do It Again," Starbuck seems to want to shower praise on the Marines over any new ideas they may have come up with.
He says the Marines are always short on money, well which service isn't? If the Marines sold just on FA-18 Super Hornet jet they could fund many more grunts and their equipment. The Marines use the "doing more with less" tag very effectively. Actually the Marines try to be so many things at once, that it cannot do them very well without mass support by the other services. Just getting the 4,000 Marines inland in Afghanistan took a hughe effort by the Navy, Air Force and Army.
It's interesting that the Marines are praising the mule in warfare operations. Unlike the Marine mascot, the English Bulldog which is used just for show and is basically a worthless animal, the Army's mascot, the mule, while not pretty to look at, has a pratical funtion on the battlefield.
The Army mule has been used many times going back to WWII with Army Rangers using them to carry ammo, supplies, and wounded in Burma. During OEF, U.S. Army SF Soldiers used them in combination with horses to help the Northern Alliance defeat the Taliban.
The fact that 4,000 Marines landed in Afghanistan, and immediately initiated their usual mass press coverage of the event showing how well they are doing is typical. When Marines let a number of enemy fighters slip through their fingers (they were dressed as women) the Marines immediately blamed the policy of no civilian deaths to justify their mistake, yet they knew the policy before they landed in the A.O. and should have used women Marines to check these people before they let them go. Marines tend to want to blame other services for their own mistakes.
Carl and Intel are correct. While I applaud the efforts to increase DoD innovation, I fear that for every increase in perceived effeciencies there is a ten-fold increase in the military-industrial complex.
Besides, what am I supposed to do with a motorized pack mule when it stops working half way up a mountain? I suppose command would want me to recover it and fill out tons of paperwork followed by the appropriate powerpoint slides.
Have you ever lost a Raven?
If a real mule or donkey lays down from exhaustion, we simply put it out of its misery and drive on.
v/r
Major Mike Few
Carl's comment is great. The BigDog seems pretty ridiculous. We could probably buy a mule for every infantry squad in Afghanistan and feed it for a year for well under the price of one BigDog. How does the BigDog work in the rain? Can it make a water crossing? How many batteries does it require? How heavy are they? How are they charged? Who's trained to do maintenance on it? Will he or she have to accompany the BigDog on missions? I really love the stealthy buzzing sound it makes, too.
Honestly, all these tactical considerations aside, the reason I really don't like the BigDog is because it's way too freaky looking. I'll probably have nightmares about it.
<a href="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=7510">The Unsung Hero Donkey</a> and <a href="http://council.smallwarsjournal.com/showthread.php?t=1995">Special Forces Use of Pack Animals</a> theads at Small Wars Council. Also see <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/ch07.pdf">Chapter VII Mounted Detachments</a> of the <a href="http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/swm/index.htm">Small Wars Manual</a>.
Our Marines are relying on cheap foreign pack animals, locally acquired? I for one am outraged that the DoD has ignored the growing shortfall, forcing troops in the field to turn to "hillbilly mules".
I've put together a consortium involving various DoD/Ag Dept contractors and lobbyists well connected (cousin's husband, etc) to several influential members of the House to mass produce these new "mules" for the military. (Carl's comment sounds suspiciously like our existing literature. Have you by chance been in Johnstown, Pa. lately, Carl?) Estimates are preliminary at this time, but we're thinking unit cost in the low six figures, depending on order size and bells and whistles desired.
By bells and whistles, I mean actual bells and actual whistles. Anyhow, ground floor opportunity. Will keep you all posted.
Oh, anyone aware of a U.S. manufacturer of wicker baskets? "American made" is going to be a big selling point here. (Mailing address in West Virginia a plus.)
Animal transport will never make it big unless it is sold in the correct way.
It should be described as an advanced bio-mechanical logistical support system. The adaptive system can learn from experience and is equipped with a voice recognition capability and highly capable stabilization system. It can be fairly described as a system of advanced system. It is self duplicating and is powered by organic material that is easily obtained in the field. It requires very little in the way of industrial infrastructure and there are few if any hazardous materials generated during its operation. This is of course, in keeping with the "greening" of our operations.
The comments about "tactical segways" reminded me of these pictures: http://www.light-links.net/2008/07/chinas-segway-swat-team.html
Pete Milkowski's comments on the article "Marines Do It Again." quickly deviate from topic and criticize the Marine mascot, the support from the other services to get into Afghanistan, even the media coverage. Is seems as if Mr. Milkowski's comments would apply ro any article of the Marines regardless of topic.