HOT/WET EAGLE

[busdriver]

Yes, 13 well trained shooters can dish out some pain, but enough to have strategic impacts? And ones that require a four hour delivery time versus 12?

[M2]

Yes, 13 well trained shooters can dish out some pain, but enough to have strategic impacts? And ones that require a four hour delivery time versus 12?

Exactly, which is why this is such a ridiculous proposal in the first place. There is no strategic value in 13 or 130 Marines as compared to a well-placed TLAM on the right target, and the development costs only would draw momey away from more critical programs. Someone needs to put the comic books down and wake up to the reality, the US military needs a helluva lot more things than BS like this and floating ideas like this into the press only gives more fodder to those who think defense spending is already outrageous!

Cheers! M2

[Guest L Unit]

Ok, after laughing heartily at this thread, I'll weigh in seriously.

1. Yes, 13 Marines can be a force to be reckoned with, particularly in an ambush/surprise situation.

2. To be in a surprise situation, you need to be stealthy. Being stealthy requires moving slowly and being inserted into the AO outside of sight/sound, and in the case of higher-tech countries, radar.

3. The time it takes for an overland/sea trek to the objective would then be expensive, almost certainly greater than 6 hours. More for challenging terrain like mountains or jungle.

4. The team will need to be extracted at some point. It is highly desirable to have an extraction asset available the entire time boots are on the ground. (My eyebrows would be raised if I was told there was no 'plan B') Therefore the target needs to be in range of these assets, at least in the immediate future after insert.

5. The teams need to be trained on this system, meaning that the HOT EAGLE would have to be used not just when needed, but on a regular basis.

The questions that then arise:

Would, in most cases, a heli-borne assault that puts the troops at the objective immediately be preferential over a stealthy assault, when the assault could be executed at roughly the same total time?

Where is the team going that it cannot get insertion by conventional means, but can get extraction?

What is the COST of the system, development and training/upkeep included, versus conventional methods? I think this question is rhetorical.

The system seems to be a high-tech high-cost solution to capturing Osama. I'd really like to know what uses outside of that goal this would be good for. I think the money would be better spent getting language training for troops, putting them on the ground in Afghanipakistan, meeting the locals and making nice, so they will want to talk about where the bad guys are. The following statement will most likely get me flamed: You do not win a low-tech war with high-tech weaponry. It helps, and it looks good, and fewer people get hurt, but you are not 'winning.'

[pedaler]

Exactly, which is why this is such a ridiculous proposal in the first place. There is no strategic value in 13 or 130 Marines as compared to a well-placed TLAM on the right target, and the development costs only would draw momey away from more critical programs. Someone needs to put the comic books down and wake up to the reality, the US military needs a helluva lot more things than BS like this and floating ideas like this into the press only gives more fodder to those who think defense spending is already outrageous!

Cheers! M2

My thoughts exactly.