the military
Is our military well-structured and formulated? Are the weapons the soldiers are carrying, the training they get, the planes they fly and the tanks they drive right for the job and capable of helping the US win the wars we fight now?
For all the flak Rumsfeld took I was impressed by his desire to see the big picture and to retool some elements of the US arsenal. I thought the Crusader artillery system was a massively overweight boondoggle, and the space-age new do everything OICW (something like that) an absurdity.
I do wonder about how the US spends a truly astonishing amount of money on some weapons systems. The US is fighting an insurgency using (for the most part) WWI-era weapons with $75,000 JDAMS and $100,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. I watched a clip on youtube of a bunch of soldiers shooting a Javelin at an insurgent crouching behind a car. The rocket blew the car and insurgent all to pieces, but the taxpayer inside me wondered about a $29 M203 round.
And, it should be noted that all the money being spent on these incredibly complex weapons is not being spent on body armor, salaries, and other things that the troops often clamor for.
Is the US being smart in how it spends its military dollars? What should all the money go to? Are Boeing, Lockheed, and the like--and Congress, eager to support in-district projects--driving weapon procurement more that the needs of the American soldier?
For all the flak Rumsfeld took I was impressed by his desire to see the big picture and to retool some elements of the US arsenal. I thought the Crusader artillery system was a massively overweight boondoggle, and the space-age new do everything OICW (something like that) an absurdity.
I do wonder about how the US spends a truly astonishing amount of money on some weapons systems. The US is fighting an insurgency using (for the most part) WWI-era weapons with $75,000 JDAMS and $100,000 Javelin anti-tank missiles. I watched a clip on youtube of a bunch of soldiers shooting a Javelin at an insurgent crouching behind a car. The rocket blew the car and insurgent all to pieces, but the taxpayer inside me wondered about a $29 M203 round.
And, it should be noted that all the money being spent on these incredibly complex weapons is not being spent on body armor, salaries, and other things that the troops often clamor for.
Is the US being smart in how it spends its military dollars? What should all the money go to? Are Boeing, Lockheed, and the like--and Congress, eager to support in-district projects--driving weapon procurement more that the needs of the American soldier?
0
-
I sure agree with you.
F22s and F35s respond to a challenge that does not exist.
D.0 -
Just thought I might chime in regarding the comments with respect to F-22s and F-35s. First off, our current missions are putting significant strains on our resources (witness the reactivation to sea duty of F-18s that were assigned to shore duty -- our newest planes had enough carrier landings that we had to bring back older planes with fewer cat-shots and recoveries). Secondly, there are enemy planes that exist that could pose significant challenge to F-15s and F-16s (i.e., SU-37) provided they be utilized in great enough numbers to surmount our forces (not likely in immediate future). However, finally, and possibly one of the most significant points, air platforms must last a very long time. If many of the fighter aircraft in service today were cars, they would be classics due to their age. What this means is that each new evolution of aircraft must be significantly better than the last to ensure it can adequately fulfill its role for many years to come. Some would even argue that the F-35 only has capabilities in roughly the same class as the F-16 (and thus is not evolutionary enough).
I know this is something of a tangent, but I wanted to clarify as I have a vested interest in this subject. Best to all.
cox34970 -
quote:Originally posted by Doug Wilson
I sure agree with you.
F22s and F35s respond to a challenge that does not exist.
D.
On the flip side, the F15 and F16 weapon systems are getting old and wearing out, along with the planes themselves. The Air Force especially has been putting off modernization for the past 20-25 years because of the cost of modern equipment. Why do you think the B-52 is still flying, because it gets the job done and it's operating cost is lower than the cost of replacing the entire system, including retraining personnel.0 -
cox - I'm curious about what your vested interest is ??
Doug0 -
We will never have the -22 and -35 in sufficient numbers, because of their cost.
The near future of air warfare will be defined by RPVs.
Doug0 -
Doug,
While UAVs are increasing in use and may eventually become the rule rather than the exception, there is no current replacement even remotely as qualified as the on-scene United States Military pilot. My vested interest is that I head off to flight school (U.S. Naval Aviator) in three months.
As far as not having sufficient numbers of these aircraft, we will have them due to their capabilities and complementary nature to current platforms fielded. Although orders have definately decreased (witness F-22), their capabilities allow them to take on a much larger enemy force per aircraft. Regarding their complentary nature, these F-35s (one I'm more interested in) will replace legacy hornets and complement Super Hornets on the future decks of Naval Aviation. They will not fully replace the figher force. Best to all.
cox34970 -
...Man this "topic" is jumping all over the place ...BUT I'd like to add my $0.02!
1. Does the U.S. govt spend lots on money on weapon systems? ...YES! Partly because it is the U.S. govt and that's the way they do things! AND they don't care how they get their money!
2. Are these weapons systems good? ...Depends, you'd have to ask the people using them, I suspect alot of them are ...but I "KNOW" some of them are not!
3. Is it good financial sense using a $7,000 missile to take out one soldier shoot at you with an AK? ...Depends again, if your an accountant probably not. IF you're the poor slob being shot at, I can guarantee too it's OK to do! (Been there!)I'm a Vet ...3 years was enough for me!!!
Actually I think the problem is not the weaponry, it's the tactics! Using "soldiers" as "policemen" is poor practice! Kind of like using a tank as an ice cream truck! Soldiers should go in flatten and kill anything that looks like "the enemy" ...not sit on the "bulleye" an wait for something to come there way! You want someone to blame, look at how we got there! My $0.02 any way.
PS .SKS was first issued to troops in 1944!
http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/sks.html0 -
quote:Originally posted by 11echo
Actually I think the problem is not the weaponry, it's the tactics! Using "soldiers" as "policemen" is poor practice! Kind of like using a tank as an ice cream truck! Soldiers should go in flatten and kill anything that looks like "the enemy" ...not sit on the "bulleye" an wait for something to come there way! You want someone to blame, look at how we got there! My $0.02 any way.
PS .SKS was first issued to troops in 1944!
http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/sks.html
I agree with much of what you say, but the problem is not at the tactical level. I'd put it at the operational or even strategic level. Down at the tactical level, our Marines and soldiers are the best there is, with the best equipment (mostly) in the world. It's operational and strategic goals that are handicapping us on the ground. It's politicians who want us to go to "war" without offending anybody.0 -
" quote:Originally posted by 11echo
Actually I think the problem is not the weaponry, it's the tactics! Using "soldiers" as "policemen" is poor practice! Kind of like using a tank as an ice cream truck! Soldiers should go in flatten and kill anything that looks like "the enemy" ...not sit on the "bulleye" an wait for something to come there way! You want someone to blame, look at how we got there! My $0.02 any way.
PS .SKS was first issued to troops in 1944!
http://www.sff.net/people/sanders/sks.html
I agree with much of what you say, but the problem is not at the tactical level. I'd put it at the operational or even strategic level. Down at the tactical level, our Marines and soldiers are the best there is, with the best equipment (mostly) in the world. It's operational and strategic goals that are handicapping us on the ground. It's politicians who want us to go to "war" without offending anybody."
Shades of the past - 1966 to 1973.
Congratulations on the new job cce !!
Perfect Daughter Deanna is considering Annapolis after her HS graduation, but only wants to go if she can be a Naval Fighter Pilot, and she needs a height waiver. She is only 5' tall.
Doug0
Please sign in to leave a comment.
Comments
39 comments