As many have already mentioned here, it's not so much the size of the military budget that bothers me, as it is what they're spending that enormous amount of money on.
If a majority of our future military engagements are going to be policing actions and/or fighting guerrilla insurgents, wouldn't it make much more sense to invest a very large portion of that R/D funding into a head-to-toe combat armor system?
Those links lack pictures of soldiers in Robo-Cop armor.:v:
The problem with trying to look at what the future missions are going to be is that you have to consider the overall mission statements of, for instance, the Air Force, which is to maintain global air superiority until Jesus comes back. So things like the Fs 22 and 35 come in handy, especially the 35 with it's joint force capabilities (it's nice to have a new VTOL to replace the Harrier).
Fine. I aim to please...
Judas on
Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver.
Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- General Ferdinand Foch
It would be nice if we eliminated the Air Force. :P
Tox says a bunch of stuff about clothes that proves we need gays openly in the military if only to make our uniforms sensible - that is, his ideas weren't great, but if we could get Adm. Carson Kressly involved, it'd be workable.
Yuck. Look, as if things weren't bad enough, you've got everybody wearing berets now? Nosirriebob, hats exist for one purpose only, and that is to keep the sun out of my eyes.
I'd be all right with one unified armed service with separate branches in theory, but did it save the Canadians a sled full of money? Plus, it would never never happen. Not until we get Star Fleet.
It would be nice if we eliminated the Air Force. :P
Tox says a bunch of stuff about clothes that proves we need gays openly in the military if only to make our uniforms sensible - that is, his ideas weren't great, but if we could get Adm. Carson Kressly involved, it'd be workable.
Yuck. Look, as if things weren't bad enough, you've got everybody wearing berets now? Nosirriebob, hats exist for one purpose only, and that is to keep the sun out of my eyes.
I'd be all right with one unified armed service with separate branches in theory, but did it save the Canadians a sled full of money? Plus, it would never never happen. Not until we get Star Fleet.
The real problem becomes promotions. For example In the Air force Generals are primarily fighter jocks, there's some hope with our new chief the fighter mafia will be broken up. You might think who cares, but what happens when a fighter pilot is put in charge of say a space base he knows nothing about, bad things. Hell that's why the Air Force was broken off from the army in the first place, Flyers were seeing no career advancement.
Mishra on
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for the night. Set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett
We need to recombine them while not putting all 'career paths' under one blanket. Branch rivalry is stupid. It's even stupider that we have 3 seperate branches that deal with water-based combat. And two that have planes as a mainstream method of attack.
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
We need to recombine them while not putting all 'career paths' under one blanket. Branch rivalry is stupid. It's even stupider that we have 3 seperate branches that deal with water-based combat. And two that have planes as a mainstream method of attack.
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
army: we need airsupport
AF: ok, how about this
army: you guys suck at this, we'll do it ourselves.
army: we need to be able to do amphibious assaults
marines: screw you, thats our job
army: screw you right back, we'll do it ourselves
airforce: we need mobile landing strips in order to give our planes greater range
Navy: ok, we'll build a boat for you but you have to follow our rules
airforce: screw that, go find your own planes
Navy: fine we'll do it ourselves
not really, but it illustrates why rivalry happens.
The US military budget is so large for a few reasons:
1. So that the US military can do its job to protect the US. The US is a big country and is also #1 on the hit list of terrorists.
2. The US needs to be able to support its allies such as South Korea.
3. The US needs to be able to fight in more than one conflict since our enemies are not just within one country or region.
4. The US is also involved in peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia.
5. Other countries' military budgets are smaller so the US military has to contribute more for multinational operations such as the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia or the conflict in Afghanistan.
Personally, I support the concept of having a big military budget because I want to make sure our troops have the best equipment in order for them to do their job and because of security reasons. Now I understand that there is excessive spending going on in the military as well as other government-run operations (the federal government lacks fiscal responsibility) and I do believe we need to fix it but we are still going to need a big budget for the armed forces.
We need to recombine them while not putting all 'career paths' under one blanket. Branch rivalry is stupid. It's even stupider that we have 3 seperate branches that deal with water-based combat. And two that have planes as a mainstream method of attack.
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
Keep in mind that a branch cannot always depend on another branch to perform a certain task for it. For example: in WW2, the US military needed to launch an amphibious assault at Normandy and while amphibious assaults are the Marine Corp's task, the Marine Corp was preoccupied with the Pacific conflict so the Army had to do it. As for the have 3 separate branches that deal with water-based combat, what happens when the Army needs to launch an amphibious assault from a lake that's far away from the coast (I assume you were talking about the Army, Marine Corp, and Navy even though the Marine Corp is technically part of the Navy)? The primary task of the Marine Corp is to conduct amphibious assaults but inland combat is the primary task of the Army so the Army has to be able to launch some amphibious assaults in the event that it has to them from lakes or rivers.
The US military budget is so large for a few reasons:
1. So that the US military can do its job to protect the US. The US is a big country and is also #1 on the hit list of terrorists.
2. The US needs to be able to support its allies such as South Korea.
3. The US needs to be able to fight in more than one conflict since our enemies are not just within one country or region.
4. The US is also involved in peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia.
5. Other countries' military budgets are smaller so the US military has to contribute more for multinational operations such as the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia or the conflict in Afghanistan.
Personally, I support the concept of having a big military budget because I want to make sure our troops have the best equipment in order for them to do their job and because of security reasons. Now I understand that there is excessive spending going on in the military as well as other government-run operations (the federal government lacks fiscal responsibility) and I do believe we need to fix it but we are still going to need a big budget for the armed forces.
Honestly, I think our allies should stop relying on us to protect and support them. I'm all for doing it when they need it most, like during natural disasters or attacks, but I don't think they need our constant presence there. If I was in charge, I'd reposition our bases, I'd leave south korea and japan, but I'd move a lot of the European ones. Now that I have a pretty reliable post in Iraq and Kuwait, I'd prop up those bases to accommodate more forces which would extend my reach into a lot of the middle east. I'd forge new deals with friendly countries to put bases closer to the front.
Saying the USA is a big country and thus needs protection seems kind of silly honestly. You know how hard it literally is for someone to send a coordinated attack to the USA? They'd have to cross the pacific or atlantic, or go through either mexico or canada. Canada is great because they remain pretty neutral on a lot of things, except for matters like north american security. Mexico?......well that's almost a part of USA and we'd probably see the attack coming when they cross the atlantic.
Fear of terrorism? In the USA, the chances of you being harmed in a terrorist attack is pretty low. I hate to say that because I know someone will bring up 9-11, but come on, really? Statistically speaking, an event at that magnitude is pretty rare. Besides, the military deals little with that actively stateside, though I imagine our presence at some base in the states helps to mediate an attack. If anything, it's the other departments/bureaus/agencies who protect the USA.
I honestly believe for all the time lines we want enforced in Iraq, we should do so in our other peace-keeping operations. Get in, get the job done, get out. The military isn't there to nation build, the military is there to blow crap up.
There should honestly be a mobilized force of police, firefighters, judges, lawyers, and engineers to train the populace if we want to play the nation building game.
The US military budget is so large for a few reasons:
1. So that the US military can do its job to protect the US. The US is a big country and is also #1 on the hit list of terrorists.
2. The US needs to be able to support its allies such as South Korea.
3. The US needs to be able to fight in more than one conflict since our enemies are not just within one country or region.
4. The US is also involved in peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia.
5. Other countries' military budgets are smaller so the US military has to contribute more for multinational operations such as the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia or the conflict in Afghanistan.
Personally, I support the concept of having a big military budget because I want to make sure our troops have the best equipment in order for them to do their job and because of security reasons. Now I understand that there is excessive spending going on in the military as well as other government-run operations (the federal government lacks fiscal responsibility) and I do believe we need to fix it but we are still going to need a big budget for the armed forces.
Honestly, I think our allies should stop relying on us to protect and support them. I'm all for doing it when they need it most, like during natural disasters or attacks, but I don't think they need our constant presence there. If I was in charge, I'd reposition our bases, I'd leave south korea and japan, but I'd move a lot of the European ones. Now that I have a pretty reliable post in Iraq and Kuwait, I'd prop up those bases to accommodate more forces which would extend my reach into a lot of the middle east. I'd forge new deals with friendly countries to put bases closer to the front.
Saying the USA is a big country and thus needs protection seems kind of silly honestly. You know how hard it literally is for someone to send a coordinated attack to the USA? They'd have to cross the pacific or atlantic, or go through either mexico or canada. Canada is great because they remain pretty neutral on a lot of things, except for matters like north american security. Mexico?......well that's almost a part of USA and we'd probably see the attack coming when they cross the atlantic.
Fear of terrorism? In the USA, the chances of you being harmed in a terrorist attack is pretty low. I hate to say that because I know someone will bring up 9-11, but come on, really? Statistically speaking, an event at that magnitude is pretty rare. Besides, the military deals little with that actively stateside, though I imagine our presence at some base in the states helps to mediate an attack. If anything, it's the other departments/bureaus/agencies who protect the USA.
I honestly believe for all the time lines we want enforced in Iraq, we should do so in our other peace-keeping operations. Get in, get the job done, get out. The military isn't there to nation build, the military is there to blow crap up.
There should honestly be a mobilized force of police, firefighters, judges, lawyers, and engineers to train the populace if we want to play the nation building game.
The military can actually help with nation building since it can help train a new military for the country it just fought in to prevent the new government of the nation from being toppled by supporters of the old regime. As for police, firefighters, judges, lawyers, and engineers, the military actually does have much of those since there are military police corp, engineering corp, and even firefighters and some lawyers within the military but I understand the military cannot handle every part of nation building.
As for terrorism, its true that we have other agencies to help protect the US but we still need to fight terrorists overseas to help prevent them from coordinating attacks against the US.
As for our allies, one of the ways we support them is by sending our troops to help them out with training their own troops so that they can stand on their own feet if attacked. US troops sometimes train alongside foreign troops when overseas. It would be great if our allies didn't have any reliance on us though.
unknownsome1 on
0
jungleroomxIt's never too many graves, it's always not enough shovelsRegistered Userregular
We need to recombine them while not putting all 'career paths' under one blanket. Branch rivalry is stupid. It's even stupider that we have 3 seperate branches that deal with water-based combat. And two that have planes as a mainstream method of attack.
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
Branch rivalry has also spawned different uniforms. The purpose of the cammies is to provide protection and blend in with the surrounding environment, and I tought it would be in the best interests of the soldiers and marines to wear the best possible uniform. Of course, I'm an idiot, and our uniforms are completely different.
I don't mind the ACU's, I just wish they'd do away with the velcro and the shitty "universal" color scheme. It's universal, all right. It blends into nothing.
It would be nice if we eliminated the Air Force. :P
Tox says a bunch of stuff about clothes that proves we need gays openly in the military if only to make our uniforms sensible - that is, his ideas weren't great, but if we could get Adm. Carson Kressly involved, it'd be workable.
Yuck. Look, as if things weren't bad enough, you've got everybody wearing berets now? Nosirriebob, hats exist for one purpose only, and that is to keep the sun out of my eyes.
I'd be all right with one unified armed service with separate branches in theory, but did it save the Canadians a sled full of money? Plus, it would never never happen. Not until we get Star Fleet.
The Beret would become a dress headpiece, only. Everyone in the Army already wears berets. This way, you'd still have them, but only for formal events. I like the beret because of the flashy shiny pin you get to put on it, which is different from group to group, because it's a DUI.
The pilot problem someone else mentioned is easy. You do what the Army does: All pilots are Warrant officers. This allows pilots to be specialized, non-enlisted, and very experienced, without true command authority. I think in the Army a CW3 can be a company commander, or something, but that wouldn't really be the case.
As for terrorism, its true that we have other agencies to help protect the US but we still need to fight terrorists overseas to help prevent them from coordinating attacks against the US.
I'm sure you don't mean to be, but I think this is a misleading statement.
I mean, using drones to hit high ranking AQ on the Pakistan border isn't the kind of engagement that's really driving up the military budget. Most of the ways that we fight terrorism don't involve the priciest parts of our military capabilities.
5. Other countries' military budgets are smaller...
That's the same as saying our military's budget is bigger because it's bigger.
Personally, I support the concept of having a big military budget because I want to make sure our troops have the best equipment in order for them to do their job and because of security reasons. Now I understand that there is excessive spending going on in the military as well as other government-run operations (the federal government lacks fiscal responsibility) and I do believe we need to fix it but we are still going to need a big budget for the armed forces.
I want the highest troop to troop dollar ratio in the world for our military. Right now, we've got that by the fuckton. I'm not talking about troop to dollar, I'm talking about the ratio of troops to money spent directly on troops for personal equipment, services, and support. Not counting any money for vehicles, R&D, or any of that stuff.
Since we've already got the highest troop to troop-dollar ratio, I think we need to re-evaluate the military spending and the programs in the military. Let's make sure the money is working as efficiently as the troops it's spent on. Then, let's take a better look at vehicles. Let's make sure that the force fleet is up to snuff, and is what the military needs, and the troops want. Then let's talk about R&D money. Of course, it might be easier to start with the R&D money, and that's probably a bigger pile of cash, anyway, but either way.
man, AF SEER is being left at home sans chauffeur/cook/maid. Survive!
The AF runs SERE I thought, so all SERE is AF. Have you been through it? From what I here it isn't exactly easy. Someone I went through basic with went to be a SERE instructor and washed out. This guy was about 220 pounds, all muscle and he couldn't do it so just from that I know they do not fuck around with the instructors.
SERE has service schools hosted by all three branches. It was established by the USAF. The UK also has their own SERE analog... called SERE.
SERE has multiple levels, so someone saying "I did SERE" doesn't mean shit. SERE Level A is now CBT and consists of them telling you, "hey, try not to get captured, and if you're captured, don't say shit". SERE Level B is more of a seminar, but also ultimately CBT w/ instructor. SERE Level C is the one where people run around in the woods.
Shit, you, the reader, can do SERE right at your desk if your Google Fu is strong.
I think the F-35 is supposed to do close air support, as it is replacing the F-16 and A-10.
I'll believe it when I see one come back to base with no hydraulics, missing sections of wing, and down to one engine... and a pilot without a scratch on her.
man, AF SEER is being left at home sans chauffeur/cook/maid. Survive!
The AF runs SERE I thought, so all SERE is AF. Have you been through it? From what I here it isn't exactly easy. Someone I went through basic with went to be a SERE instructor and washed out. This guy was about 220 pounds, all muscle and he couldn't do it so just from that I know they do not fuck around with the instructors.
SERE has service schools hosted by all three branches. It was established by the USAF. The UK also has their own SERE analog... called SERE.
SERE has multiple levels, so someone saying "I did SERE" doesn't mean shit. SERE Level A is now CBT and consists of them telling you, "hey, try not to get captured, and if you're captured, don't say shit". SERE Level B is more of a seminar, but also ultimately CBT w/ instructor. SERE Level C is the one where people run around in the woods.
Shit, you, the reader, can do SERE right at your desk if your Google Fu is strong.
I think the F-35 is supposed to do close air support, as it is replacing the F-16 and A-10.
I'll believe it when I see one come back to base with no hydraulics, missing sections of wing, and down to one engine... and a pilot without a scratch on her.
The A-10 is damn near immortal as far as planes go. I heard a story (possibly an urban legend) of a pilot who took a SAM through the wing, and flew it back to base. Those things are fuckawesome.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Better not be. It is a shining example designing something to spec and having it not just work in real combat situations, but work incredibly well. I really don't see how it would be replaced by the F-35.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Better not be. It is a shining example designing something to spec and having it not just work in real combat situations, but work incredibly well. I really don't see how it would be replaced by the F-35.
It won't be replaced by any jet fighter. That's just never going to work. Flying. Tank.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter It's actually useful.
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter It's actually useful.
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter It's actually useful.
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
not to mention that it came from the army.
Oh, yeah, and because the company that made them doesn't really exist any more. It was a Fairchild product. Fairchild is now owned by M7 Aerospace.
Fun Fact: The A-10 was the first aircraft to have it's forward landing gear redesigned off-center, to make room for The Gun. This gun is apparently so awesome they only saw fit to give it enough ammo for about seventeen seconds of contiguous fire.
I posted this link earlier in the thread. Unfortunately the F-35 is considered to be the eventual replacement for the A-10. Link.
Fun bits:
Despite pressures within and without, the Air Force has also not backed off its requirement for 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10.
Gen. Ronald E. Keys, head of Air Combat Command, told defense reporters in Washington [...] The Air Force will “probably, at least, take down two F-16s or A-10s per Lightning that comes on.â€
So not only do they want to replace it with the F-35. They want to take down at least two A-10 for every one F-35 replacement. Now, if you are in the shit abroad and radio in for close air support, what do you want showing up:
I posted this link earlier in the thread. Unfortunately the F-35 is considered to be the eventual replacement for the A-10. Link.
Fun bits:
Despite pressures within and without, the Air Force has also not backed off its requirement for 1,763 F-35s to replace the F-16 and A-10.
Gen. Ronald E. Keys, head of Air Combat Command, told defense reporters in Washington [...] The Air Force will “probably, at least, take down two F-16s or A-10s per Lightning that comes on.”
So not only do they want to replace it with the F-35. They want to take down at least two A-10 for every one F-35 replacement. Now, if you are in the shit abroad and radio in for close air support, what do you want showing up:
Fun Fact: The A-10 was the first aircraft to have it's forward landing gear redesigned off-center, to make room for The Gun. This gun is apparently so awesome they only saw fit to give it enough ammo for about seventeen seconds of contiguous fire.
That's OK, when during every one of those seconds it's spitting out 65 :!: of these:
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter It's actually useful.
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
not to mention that it came from the army.
Oh, yeah, and because the company that made them doesn't really exist any more. It was a Fairchild product. Fairchild is now owned by M7 Aerospace.
Fun Fact: The A-10 was the first aircraft to have it's forward landing gear redesigned off-center, to make room for The Gun. This gun is apparently so awesome they only saw fit to give it enough ammo for about seventeen seconds of contiguous fire.
I get so drowned in wikipedia whenever I start looking up military tech.
The A-10 won't be replaced for awhile as current stock is still going through upgrading to C version. EDIT: supposedly finishes upgrade program in 2011....
I will murder people in the Air Force if they take away the single greatest CAS plane they have.
Random A-10 things:
"The A-10 has integrally machined skin panels. Because the stringers are integral with the skin there are no join or seal problems. These panels, fabricated using computer controlled machining, reduce the time and hence the cost of production. Combat experience has shown that this type of panel is more resistant. The skin is not load-bearing, so damaged skin sections can be easily replaced in the field, with makeshift materials if necessary."
"The Thunderbolt II can be serviced and operated from bases with limited facilities near battle areas. An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases. The aircraft is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment. Operating from a forward area is both useful for close air support and necessary due to the A-10's relatively low cruise and top speeds."
"The A-10 is exceptionally hardy. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off."
Fun Fact: The A-10 was the first aircraft to have it's forward landing gear redesigned off-center, to make room for The Gun. This gun is apparently so awesome they only saw fit to give it enough ammo for about seventeen seconds of contiguous fire.
That's OK, when during every one of those seconds it's spitting out 65 :!: of these:
So not only do they want to replace it with the F-35. They want to take down at least two A-10 for every one F-35 replacement. Now, if you are in the shit abroad and radio in for close air support, what do you want showing up:
a) Two A-10.
b) One F-35.
Final answer?
Trick question, the two A-10's would already be loitering over the battlefield due to their high endurance and low ground speed.
I always find it mind boggling how the Air Force seems to hate the most fuckawesome plane in existence. It is like they want to be laughed at.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
If I were a weapon designer, I'd build a UAV around that gun.
And you would win.
Actually, I think the problem would be that current UAVs probably don't have the mass or the thrust to support that baby just quite yet.
edit: I was right. The GAU-8 has 45kN of recoil force. The RQ-4 Global Hawk only has 31.4kN of thrust. Can't find much other info just quite yet, but I'll wager good money that's why they haven't done it yet.
We need to recombine them while not putting all 'career paths' under one blanket. Branch rivalry is stupid. It's even stupider that we have 3 seperate branches that deal with water-based combat. And two that have planes as a mainstream method of attack.
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
Branch rivalry has also spawned different uniforms. The purpose of the cammies is to provide protection and blend in with the surrounding environment, and I tought it would be in the best interests of the soldiers and marines to wear the best possible uniform. Of course, I'm an idiot, and our uniforms are completely different.
I don't mind the ACU's, I just wish they'd do away with the velcro and the shitty "universal" color scheme. It's universal, all right. It blends into nothing.
They go well with paisley
Mishra on
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for the night. Set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett
I always find it mind boggling how the Air Force seems to hate the most fuckawesome plane in existence. It is like they want to be laughed at.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
We're not going anywhere. No other service has refueling capability, long range bombing capability or space capability. People just get their prejudices or don't think things through all the way. Like the suggestion to remove our Korean and Japanese bases. Do that, even if North Korea doesn't level Seoul, and kiss Taiwan's ass goodbye.
Why does the Air force hate the A-10 cause fighter jocks are in charge. What do fighter jocks want Air to Air fighters. The changing of the Chief of Staff was a huge step at breaking this myopic culture.
Mishra on
"Give a man a fire, he's warm for the night. Set a man on fire he's warm for the rest of his life."
-Terry Pratchett
0
deowolfis allowed to do that.Traffic.Registered Userregular
If I were a weapon designer, I'd build a UAV around that gun.
And you would win.
Actually, I think the problem would be that current UAVs probably don't have the mass or the thrust to support that baby just quite yet.
edit: I was right. The GAU-8 has 45kN of recoil force. The RQ-4 Global Hawk only has 31.4kN of thrust. Can't find much other info just quite yet, but I'll wager good money that's why they haven't done it yet.
The A-10 is a magical piece of machinery and is not being replaced by anything.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter It's actually useful.
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
not to mention that it came from the army.
The Army would be happy to take them over from the USAF, but the AF won't let them have anything with fixed wings.
I always find it mind boggling how the Air Force seems to hate the most fuckawesome plane in existence. It is like they want to be laughed at.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
We're not going anywhere. No other service has refueling capability, long range bombing capability or space capability. People just get their prejudices or don't think things through all the way. Like the suggestion to remove our Korean and Japanese bases. Do that, even if North Korea doesn't level Seoul, and kiss Taiwan's ass goodbye.
Why does the Air force hate the A-10 cause fighter jocks are in charge. What do fighter jocks want Air to Air fighters. The changing of the Chief of Staff was a huge step at breaking this myopic culture.
The latter two capabilities go to the Navy, the first one gets split between the Navy and the Army. The point is not to simply eliminate the AF without making any changes to the other services.
Posts
Fine. I aim to please...
Situation excellent. I am attacking.
- General Ferdinand Foch
Better.
Yuck. Look, as if things weren't bad enough, you've got everybody wearing berets now? Nosirriebob, hats exist for one purpose only, and that is to keep the sun out of my eyes.
I'd be all right with one unified armed service with separate branches in theory, but did it save the Canadians a sled full of money? Plus, it would never never happen. Not until we get Star Fleet.
The real problem becomes promotions. For example In the Air force Generals are primarily fighter jocks, there's some hope with our new chief the fighter mafia will be broken up. You might think who cares, but what happens when a fighter pilot is put in charge of say a space base he knows nothing about, bad things. Hell that's why the Air Force was broken off from the army in the first place, Flyers were seeing no career advancement.
-Terry Pratchett
edit: for example the people that run a carrier would be a Navy platoon or whatever and the jet pilots are considered an air corps detachment (i'm just throwing around military terms here)
army: we need airsupport
AF: ok, how about this
army: you guys suck at this, we'll do it ourselves.
army: we need to be able to do amphibious assaults
marines: screw you, thats our job
army: screw you right back, we'll do it ourselves
airforce: we need mobile landing strips in order to give our planes greater range
Navy: ok, we'll build a boat for you but you have to follow our rules
airforce: screw that, go find your own planes
Navy: fine we'll do it ourselves
1. So that the US military can do its job to protect the US. The US is a big country and is also #1 on the hit list of terrorists.
2. The US needs to be able to support its allies such as South Korea.
3. The US needs to be able to fight in more than one conflict since our enemies are not just within one country or region.
4. The US is also involved in peacekeeping operations in places like Bosnia.
5. Other countries' military budgets are smaller so the US military has to contribute more for multinational operations such as the peacekeeping operations in Bosnia or the conflict in Afghanistan.
Personally, I support the concept of having a big military budget because I want to make sure our troops have the best equipment in order for them to do their job and because of security reasons. Now I understand that there is excessive spending going on in the military as well as other government-run operations (the federal government lacks fiscal responsibility) and I do believe we need to fix it but we are still going to need a big budget for the armed forces.
Keep in mind that a branch cannot always depend on another branch to perform a certain task for it. For example: in WW2, the US military needed to launch an amphibious assault at Normandy and while amphibious assaults are the Marine Corp's task, the Marine Corp was preoccupied with the Pacific conflict so the Army had to do it. As for the have 3 separate branches that deal with water-based combat, what happens when the Army needs to launch an amphibious assault from a lake that's far away from the coast (I assume you were talking about the Army, Marine Corp, and Navy even though the Marine Corp is technically part of the Navy)? The primary task of the Marine Corp is to conduct amphibious assaults but inland combat is the primary task of the Army so the Army has to be able to launch some amphibious assaults in the event that it has to them from lakes or rivers.
Honestly, I think our allies should stop relying on us to protect and support them. I'm all for doing it when they need it most, like during natural disasters or attacks, but I don't think they need our constant presence there. If I was in charge, I'd reposition our bases, I'd leave south korea and japan, but I'd move a lot of the European ones. Now that I have a pretty reliable post in Iraq and Kuwait, I'd prop up those bases to accommodate more forces which would extend my reach into a lot of the middle east. I'd forge new deals with friendly countries to put bases closer to the front.
Saying the USA is a big country and thus needs protection seems kind of silly honestly. You know how hard it literally is for someone to send a coordinated attack to the USA? They'd have to cross the pacific or atlantic, or go through either mexico or canada. Canada is great because they remain pretty neutral on a lot of things, except for matters like north american security. Mexico?......well that's almost a part of USA and we'd probably see the attack coming when they cross the atlantic.
Fear of terrorism? In the USA, the chances of you being harmed in a terrorist attack is pretty low. I hate to say that because I know someone will bring up 9-11, but come on, really? Statistically speaking, an event at that magnitude is pretty rare. Besides, the military deals little with that actively stateside, though I imagine our presence at some base in the states helps to mediate an attack. If anything, it's the other departments/bureaus/agencies who protect the USA.
I honestly believe for all the time lines we want enforced in Iraq, we should do so in our other peace-keeping operations. Get in, get the job done, get out. The military isn't there to nation build, the military is there to blow crap up.
There should honestly be a mobilized force of police, firefighters, judges, lawyers, and engineers to train the populace if we want to play the nation building game.
The military can actually help with nation building since it can help train a new military for the country it just fought in to prevent the new government of the nation from being toppled by supporters of the old regime. As for police, firefighters, judges, lawyers, and engineers, the military actually does have much of those since there are military police corp, engineering corp, and even firefighters and some lawyers within the military but I understand the military cannot handle every part of nation building.
As for terrorism, its true that we have other agencies to help protect the US but we still need to fight terrorists overseas to help prevent them from coordinating attacks against the US.
As for our allies, one of the ways we support them is by sending our troops to help them out with training their own troops so that they can stand on their own feet if attacked. US troops sometimes train alongside foreign troops when overseas. It would be great if our allies didn't have any reliance on us though.
Branch rivalry has also spawned different uniforms. The purpose of the cammies is to provide protection and blend in with the surrounding environment, and I tought it would be in the best interests of the soldiers and marines to wear the best possible uniform. Of course, I'm an idiot, and our uniforms are completely different.
I don't mind the ACU's, I just wish they'd do away with the velcro and the shitty "universal" color scheme. It's universal, all right. It blends into nothing.
The Beret would become a dress headpiece, only. Everyone in the Army already wears berets. This way, you'd still have them, but only for formal events. I like the beret because of the flashy shiny pin you get to put on it, which is different from group to group, because it's a DUI.
The pilot problem someone else mentioned is easy. You do what the Army does: All pilots are Warrant officers. This allows pilots to be specialized, non-enlisted, and very experienced, without true command authority. I think in the Army a CW3 can be a company commander, or something, but that wouldn't really be the case.
I'm sure you don't mean to be, but I think this is a misleading statement.
I mean, using drones to hit high ranking AQ on the Pakistan border isn't the kind of engagement that's really driving up the military budget. Most of the ways that we fight terrorism don't involve the priciest parts of our military capabilities.
That's the same as saying our military's budget is bigger because it's bigger.
I want the highest troop to troop dollar ratio in the world for our military. Right now, we've got that by the fuckton. I'm not talking about troop to dollar, I'm talking about the ratio of troops to money spent directly on troops for personal equipment, services, and support. Not counting any money for vehicles, R&D, or any of that stuff.
Since we've already got the highest troop to troop-dollar ratio, I think we need to re-evaluate the military spending and the programs in the military. Let's make sure the money is working as efficiently as the troops it's spent on. Then, let's take a better look at vehicles. Let's make sure that the force fleet is up to snuff, and is what the military needs, and the troops want. Then let's talk about R&D money. Of course, it might be easier to start with the R&D money, and that's probably a bigger pile of cash, anyway, but either way.
SERE has multiple levels, so someone saying "I did SERE" doesn't mean shit. SERE Level A is now CBT and consists of them telling you, "hey, try not to get captured, and if you're captured, don't say shit". SERE Level B is more of a seminar, but also ultimately CBT w/ instructor. SERE Level C is the one where people run around in the woods.
Shit, you, the reader, can do SERE right at your desk if your Google Fu is strong.
I'll believe it when I see one come back to base with no hydraulics, missing sections of wing, and down to one engine... and a pilot without a scratch on her.
The A-10 is damn near immortal as far as planes go. I heard a story (possibly an urban legend) of a pilot who took a SAM through the wing, and flew it back to base. Those things are fuckawesome.
Better not be. It is a shining example designing something to spec and having it not just work in real combat situations, but work incredibly well. I really don't see how it would be replaced by the F-35.
It won't be replaced by any jet fighter. That's just never going to work. Flying. Tank.
Only because combat performance has been of a super human level. The Airforce top-brass has always been dead set against the A-10 because A) it's not a high altitude air superiority fighter
It was scheduled to be retired in the early nineties and replaced by F-16s (I think) and only it's truly superlative perofrmance in the gulf War won it a reprieve.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
not to mention that it came from the army.
Oh, yeah, and because the company that made them doesn't really exist any more. It was a Fairchild product. Fairchild is now owned by M7 Aerospace.
Fun Fact: The A-10 was the first aircraft to have it's forward landing gear redesigned off-center, to make room for The Gun. This gun is apparently so awesome they only saw fit to give it enough ammo for about seventeen seconds of contiguous fire.
Fun bits:
So not only do they want to replace it with the F-35. They want to take down at least two A-10 for every one F-35 replacement. Now, if you are in the shit abroad and radio in for close air support, what do you want showing up:
a) Two A-10.
b) One F-35.
Final answer?
The. Gun. The GAU-8 Avenger eats tanks.
Fucking eats them.
Like, with ketchup and shit.
That's OK, when during every one of those seconds it's spitting out 65 :!: of these:
EDIT: Fixed Picture. Thanks Tox.
I get so drowned in wikipedia whenever I start looking up military tech.
The A-10 won't be replaced for awhile as current stock is still going through upgrading to C version. EDIT: supposedly finishes upgrade program in 2011....
I will murder people in the Air Force if they take away the single greatest CAS plane they have.
Random A-10 things:
"The Thunderbolt II can be serviced and operated from bases with limited facilities near battle areas. An unusual feature is that many of the aircraft's parts are interchangeable between the left and right sides, including the engines, main landing gear, and vertical stabilizers. The sturdy landing gear, low-pressure tires and large, straight wings allow operation from short rough strips even with a heavy ordnance load, allowing the aircraft to operate from damaged airbases. The aircraft is designed to be refueled, rearmed, and serviced with minimal equipment. Operating from a forward area is both useful for close air support and necessary due to the A-10's relatively low cruise and top speeds."
"The A-10 is exceptionally hardy. Its strong airframe can survive direct hits from armor-piercing and high-explosive projectiles up to 23 mm. The aircraft has triple redundancy in its flight systems, with mechanical systems to back up double-redundant hydraulic systems. This permits pilots to fly and land when hydraulic power or part of a wing is lost. Flight without hydraulic power uses the manual reversion flight control system; this engages automatically for pitch and yaw control, and under pilot control (manual reversion switch) for roll control. In manual reversion mode, the A-10 is sufficiently controllable under favorable conditions to return to base and land, though control forces are much higher than normal. The aircraft is designed to fly with one engine, one tail, one elevator and half a wing torn off."
Pistol/Rifle ammunition:
9mm, .40S&W, .45ACP, 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 7.62x54R
30 mm ammunition size (being loaded into apache in this picture):
The. Gun.
Trick question, the two A-10's would already be loitering over the battlefield due to their high endurance and low ground speed.
I made a game, it has penguins in it. It's pay what you like on Gumroad.
Currently Ebaying Nothing at all but I might do in the future.
If I were a weapon designer, I'd build a UAV around that gun.
I've also seen the Eliminate the Chair Force movement before, from service members I view as credible, so its probably not a bad idea. They suck up huge amounts of resources focusing on a role that is not all that important in modern warfare and for which they are already vastly over-equiped for. And they still manage to shoot friendlies and lose aircraft even despite all this money.
And you would win.
Actually, I think the problem would be that current UAVs probably don't have the mass or the thrust to support that baby just quite yet.
edit: I was right. The GAU-8 has 45kN of recoil force. The RQ-4 Global Hawk only has 31.4kN of thrust. Can't find much other info just quite yet, but I'll wager good money that's why they haven't done it yet.
They go well with paisley
-Terry Pratchett
We're not going anywhere. No other service has refueling capability, long range bombing capability or space capability. People just get their prejudices or don't think things through all the way. Like the suggestion to remove our Korean and Japanese bases. Do that, even if North Korea doesn't level Seoul, and kiss Taiwan's ass goodbye.
Why does the Air force hate the A-10 cause fighter jocks are in charge. What do fighter jocks want Air to Air fighters. The changing of the Chief of Staff was a huge step at breaking this myopic culture.
-Terry Pratchett
Mount it backwards, use it as a turbo.
The latter two capabilities go to the Navy, the first one gets split between the Navy and the Army. The point is not to simply eliminate the AF without making any changes to the other services.
(I'm pretty sure at least. I know carriers carry tankers.)
That's why the budget's so large.