US Marines Slim Down IT

The US Marines are moving to using thin clients to slim down IT. It’s either that or less IT with cuts to the budget. The obvious difficulty is maintaining mobile connectivity. The standard techniques for offices are a little shaky in the field of battle or even with deployment globally. I expect the Marines will weigh the cost/benefit of redundant networking versus the cost, weight, security, and manageability of thin clients and make the appropriate adjustments. Even with thick clients, they would lose functionality in case of the network going down. It’s a matter of degree.

About Robert Pogson

I am a retired teacher in Canada. I taught in the subject areas where I have worked for almost forty years: maths, physics, chemistry and computers. I love hunting, fishing, picking berries and mushrooms, too.
This entry was posted in technology. Bookmark the permalink.

20 Responses to US Marines Slim Down IT

  1. Clarence Moon says:

    It should be far easier to find a document showing that Australian Marines are stationed on Australian submarines than finding one saying that they are not, Mr. Oiaohm, but you cannot find one. You cannot even understand that the English word “marine” might have different meanings.

    With my curiosity piqued I came upon this document that does actually prove that you are wrong. For starters, until a year or less ago, Australia did not even have a Marine Corps. Now that one was formed, they are to be stationed on LHDs purchased from the Brits, but only in a couple of years.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australian-marines-to-flex-muscles/story-e6freuzr-1226175648532

    Hence we can say there are no Marines on Australia’s submarines because there are no Marines anywhere other than in a training camp. You are a dipstick, Mr. Oiaohm. Face up to it.

  2. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon sorry find a document that I am wrong.

    You are going to find out that I am right and the Australian MIl has different layout and it is based on the class of ships we are using. USA was also common to use marines in pre nuke class ships even to staff them with marines.

    Basically you are the total ninny here presuming USA and Australian Mil are the same internally. Different classes of ships require different staff configuration.

  3. Clarence Moon says:

    You are pathetic, Mr. Oiaohm. It was obvious to everyone that you have been found out to be a total ninny. Quit squirming, you are just embarrassing yourself further.

  4. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon you don’t understand Australian Mil.

    Australian MTSM may or may not be in a sub. They will be trained as a general Australian mil Marine Technician including hand to hand and weapons usage. Yes they are a Marine Technician first Submariner second.

    “psychological and aptitude tests” have to be passed to become a full-time submariner. Fail that they will just become a Marine Technician for surface ships and if the fail the test for that they will be come a Navy Technician(Yes title of failure locked to land based support only) of course a lot will choose to transfer to army.

    Question is a person a submariner when they have been assigned to a surface ship or are they now a Marine. There are limited number of subs to go round in Australian mil. There is not the divide between Submariners and Surface ship in Australian mil other than that you have to pass the psychological and aptitude tests to be placed in a sub when a spot is open.

    In fact before coming caption of a sub submariner must serve so much time on a surface ship in Australian Mil. Know your enemy of course.

    USA mil you don’t see this cross assignment. If someone is a Submariner in USA fleet they are always assigned to Subs.

    “Manufacture/supply/install components to systems as part of a Fleet Support Unit work team.” This is a key different line to the USA submariner Technicians.

    Fleet Support Unit work include repairs to surface ships and land based gear like navigation beacons.

    Marine Corps we do not have very many. This is a historic reason for this.

    History our landing forces are in fact Army. Recent change in boats is seeing a need for full time marine corps.

    History is also Z-Force. What is the Australian SAS today. They have no questions about transport method. Ship, Sub, Air and Ground are all valid for SAS forces.

    Yes part of SAS in Australia is a requirement to be able to directly control all Navy Vessels. SAS do operate at times as boarding parties that would normally be marines corps and most other mil.

    Next is clearance divers seals are also in Australian mil used for jobs that Marine corps would be doing. This has a cause. Australian boats on average are small this is handy with the reefs around Australia. Lot of USA mil ships cannot go where the Australian ships can due to too deep of draft. Like your Marine Technician maybe Automated weapons officer in the con. If you have more than one Marine Technician on board the spares might be doing boarding party work or deck gun. Again overlapping with a marine corp role.

    So yes they are Marines Clarence Moon. You have been USA mil with a divide between sub and surface ship. USA mil has a clear define of who goes where. Australian mil is far more vague. In fact Australian mil prefers vague makes forces more flexible to deploy.

    Australian submariners require to be normal marines as well.

    Take the case that a sub is damaged for some reason. Yet there is a surface ship that has been captured. Remember diesel subs. Yes scuttling the sub and taking the sea worthy captured ship has to be considered. If the sea worthy captured ship will increase combat strength it will be taken.

    Diesel subs don’t have the scuttling problem nuke powered are.

    Since in case of issue they may be required to give up there sub and take something else. Yes why is critical that they can also control and maintain surface ships.

    This is basically alien logic to you Clarence Moon so I have to be lieing. Problem here Clarence I am not. There are marines in Australian Subs. Because Australian Submariners have to accept the fact that they may have to scuttle there sub and take a surface ship instead. So how are you going to take a surface ship in operational order if you don’t know how to fight.

    Yes torpedos kinda don’t help you if you need the fuel out the ship or the ship itself. Problem about being in nuke class subs you forget diesel subs need to at times savage for fuel. No marines on board to a diesel class sub can equal being stranded without fuel or food. Being able to take surface ship makes them harder to capture when bad things happen to supply ships.

    Clarence Moon that is the problem nuke and diesel subs are crewed differently. Must be due to the operational differences between the two power plants. Diesel must have marines. Nuke marines are mostly waste of space.

    Nuke class ship also does not need to break surface to get air like a diesel need to. So can have a larger thermal signature.

  5. Clarence Moon wrote, Nixie tubes.

    There may only be a few of us here old enough to know what those were. They were used on photocopiers until about the 1980s and on numeric readouts of instruments and control panels until about the same time. It’s amazing what contortions people went through to create man-machine interfaces.

  6. Clarence Moon says:

    Back in my Navy days, Mr. Pogson, I was actually on board one SSBN for a short sea trial and I am pretty certain that the amount of power consumption, heat, and noise from a modern laptop would go totally unnoticed among the other power usages and heat/noise generators present.

    Today their power supply is much the same and merely replacing the CIC CRTs with LCDs would cover every sailors laptop, iPad, and iPhone needs. Getting rid of Nixie tubes would be frosting on the cake!

    And there wasn’t a Marine within a mile of the boat.

  7. Clarence Moon wrote, “it is ludicrous to suggest that thin client usage by the Marine Corps is materially affected by the (presumed)need to ration electrical power on a submarine.”

    It is not. Everyone, everywhere needs to be concerned about power consumption, heat, noise, etc. I expect on a submarine, the compact size of a thin client would no doubt be advantageous and CD drives never used might be a huge waste of space. Military vehicles of large size tend to use rack-mounted electronics and the more can be put into a rack the better.

  8. Clarence Moon says:

    I do not see what it is that annoys you, Mr. Pogson. Certainly you cannot have any real interest in whether or not there are US Marines on Navy submarines or not. I do agree that the USMC and USN are focused on getting their assigned missions accomplished quickly and successfully and are staffed by the most dedicated people in the world.

    I also think that it is ludicrous to suggest that thin client usage by the Marine Corps is materially affected by the (presumed)need to ration electrical power on a submarine. There is neither a shortage of power or any Marines to use it on a submarine.

  9. God, you are annoying, Clarence.

    “In 1834, the Marines came under the Department of the Navy.[31] Historically, the United States Navy has had a unique relationship with the United States Marine Corps (USMC), partly because they both specialize in seaborne operations. Together the Navy and Marine Corps form the Department of the Navy and report to the Secretary of the Navy. However, the USMC is considered to be a distinct, separate service branch with its own uniformed service chief – the Commandant of the Marine Corps (CMC), a four star general.”

    The USMC and the US Navy will do whatever is necessary to get the job done. They are not limited by Clarence’s imagination.

  10. Clarence Moon says:

    I am talking of the present day, Mr. Pogson. That should be crystal clear from the context. Possibly the success with USMC amphibious forces delivered via submarines in WWII may have been part of the motivation for Navy SEAL forces today, but SEALs are what we use for that purpose, not US Marines.

    Submarine operations are necessarily clandestine and the physical problems with getting a submarine near a beach and then transferring troops to some sort of landing craft conveyance are too massive to support such a mission. Getting them back is equally problematic.

  11. Clarence Moon wrote, “There are no US Marines on US submarines”.

    Nonsense. US Marines have a long history of being delivered to the fight by the US Navy.

    In particular, they went ashore by various means including delivery near the coast being attacked by submarines. see United States Marine Corps Amphibious Reconnaissance Battalion

  12. Clarence Moon says:

    I had talked to a marine here that is also a submariner.

    There are no US Marines on US submarines, Mr. Oiaohm. There are even fewer Australian Marines on Australian submarines. You are a liar.

    Your sorry effort to find some sort of justification for your BS only highlights your obvious lack of knowledge about military structures. An MSTM is a Aussie Navy rating, not a term for an Aussie Marine embarked on a sub. Note the words:

    The MTSM sailor is responsible for the operation and maintenance of various machinery and associated systems throughout the ship including, but not limited to:

    This person could have been a sonarman or a radioman or a quartermaster or a helmsman or many other ratings rather than being a marine tech. Your continued confusion of being able to google with being educated is becoming legendary.

  13. jack h says:

    wow, I guess times are tough for everyone.
    You know how much it costs to have military bases in 150-175 countries around the world?
    Empires aint cheap my friend and them Win licenses add up.
    Throw in the 40-45 countries bombed since WW2 and double that amount that were overthrown and its really expensive work keeping all this tech running smoothly for world domination.
    Wait till the next war du jour kicks in (the planned one in Syria seems to have hit an impasse and isnt moving as swiftly as the last one) in Iran and with the buildup in the pacific to antagonize the Chinese, there will be plenty of tech job openings over the next decade.

    War is great business and war is great for tech.
    Just dont bore me with your false moralities that you need to tell yourself to be able to kill someone on your bosses orders.

  14. oiaohm says:

    Clarence Moon really for all the mistakes you make you have no rights to throw stones either.

    I did admit I forgot. Yes the problem was I had talked to a marine here that is also a submariner. So yes I forgot they are different. I forgot that Australia has been very warped with who are marine personal.

    Of course as normal you did not research. You knew I was Australian.

    You asked a question I answered now you insult me. I admitted what I forgot what else do you want.

    And I am not kidding about some weapons that can be sub fired required x86 software to configure them.

    You call it tripe.
    http://www.defencejobs.gov.au/global/templates/jobPdf.aspx?jobArea=navy&jobTag=MarineTechnicianSubmariner&entryTypeId=11

    That is a Marine and Submariner job in one.

    Yes Australian Mil has a different layout to USA one.

    So pull you stupid moron head in Clarence Moon.

  15. Clarence Moon says:

    I forgot…

    Typical of your rants, Mr. Oiaohm. It is fairly clear that you do not forget at all. Rather you fail to investigate and make up stories out of thin air that you then have to try to rescue with some audacious tripe as you have posted here.

  16. oiaohm says:

    Clarence due to the fact not everyone is cut out to be in a diesel based submarine. The two dolphins and a crown badge of a submariner can be found on almost anyone who can take it.

    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/australian-marines-to-flex-muscles/story-e6freuzr-1226175648532

    Most existing Australian marines being a marine is a side duty to being SAS or some other combat role. Only recently are there going to be units of Marine only.

    I forgot the USA had them in decanted units so you don’t find them doing second duty as submariner.

    Clarence Moon stupidly enough some of the USA weapon control software requires x86 that are design to fire from sub. What happens when you have a nuke reactor as power source you can get wasteful.

  17. Clarence Moon says:

    Are there lots of Marines on Aussie subs, Mr. Oiaohm? Last time I checked, there were exactly none on SSN’s in the US Navy. In any case, it is very hard to get a good signal, even from 3G, on those vessels during a “silent run”. They probably hardly ever use their PC’s in that environment, so the power issue is moot.

  18. oiaohm says:

    I can tell you all where this thin client tech fits particularly.

    Subs. Power usage in a sub non nuke like Australia runs is critical it effects how long you silent run.

    Even a nuclear sub the more power you are using the louder the reactor is. So the more detectable you are.(nuclear subs cannot fully silent run because they cannot turn off reactor)

    Power usage in subs is kinda critical.

  19. Clarence Moon says:

    I doubt that the jarheads are going to go far on their own, Mr. Pogson. The DoD money is all going to NGEN following the path set by the contentious NCMI installation from Electronic Data Systems 6 or so years ago. Clients may be thick or clients may be thin in that new environment, but they are certainly going to be expensive.

  20. dougman says:

    Re: someone literally unplugged the network cable….an action that did little to advance the cause of thin client computing.

    Unplugged CAT5/6 cables will effect anything: server, desktop, laptop, terminal, etc.

    I once had this problem at an office, I resorted to conduit (cut cables), locking Ethernet plugs (unplugging), crazy glue (unplugging) and hidden video cameras.

    Re: turning to thin clients, the service could increase network security by putting all software on remote servers instead of desktop hard drives.

    Correct, everything is centralized, more secure and no one can just plug in any infected thumb-drive, in turn infecting the network.

    Saving costs and time for additional terminals is far cheaper, then purchasing additional computers to manage.

Leave a Reply