If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The New York Times)   Defense Secretary Hagel plans to shrink Army to Pre-WWII level. But wait, there's more. A-10, buh-bye. Hello F-35. U-2, buh-bye. Hello Global Hawks   (nytimes.com) divider line 252
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8428 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (25 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



252 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-24 08:17:14 AM

dittybopper: The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need


Not to mention it doesn't have the weapons capabilities, simplicity, or survivability of the A-10.
 
2014-02-24 08:18:23 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.


well, not so much that dictators will have free reign, it's that they'll have to deal with a chinese or russian police force, not american.

Skail:If the AF doesn't want them, as others have said, give 'em to the Army.  I'm sure the Army would see the value and keep them operating.

Except that the Army isn't allowed to have combat aircraft or they'd be stepping on the AF's toes. It boils down to politics and the AF tend to act like holier than thou dicks when it comes to that, despite being the youngest branch
 
2014-02-24 08:18:32 AM
I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad
 
2014-02-24 08:18:42 AM

dejavoodoo64: DrPainMD: When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.

Ooooh what a shot. You're right though. I use to  wonder what it would be like if Redstone closed and Marshall was all that was left. Huntsville is built around the two and losing the two would destroy North Central Alabama.


So? The important part is bolded/underlined, above.
 
2014-02-24 08:23:27 AM
I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way
 
2014-02-24 08:26:19 AM
U-2 is not needed. However, think about what is happening in the world. Russia getting its groove back, US backing down everywhere. A strong, tough, cheap ground attack aircraft is very much needed.

That being said, Dems are happy to cut the military, but think nothing of trillions of dollars for worthless wealth redistribution schemes and keeping and increasing welfare recipients all the time, not smart economically.

But heh, at least more people can focus on their painting (Pelosi actually said this).
 
2014-02-24 08:26:21 AM
I'm sure the AF won't mind as long as they keep control of the Stargate.
 
2014-02-24 08:26:44 AM

generallyso: The top 20 countries ranked by global military expenditure in 2007, in millions of constant 2005 US dollars:

[i.imgur.com image 590x417]

I think we'll be okay. Just a hunch.


Reminds me of that "Help! We're being oppressed!" pie graph of religions in the USA....
 
2014-02-24 08:27:03 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.


Whatever.
Democratically elected leaders, the President and Congress, sent the Army off to do bad things to bad people.  You did not like some of the politicians and some of the operations.
Noted.
Because God knows, that is a good reason to be incapable of a future combat operation you might approve of.

Let's just ignore hurricane relief, tsunami relief, famine relief, UN peacekeeping, medical assistance, de-mining, immunization programs, construction projects, the diplomatic value of military training, assistance, military-to-military contacts, and a bunch of other stuff no one cares about.  Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do.  We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away.  Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.
 
2014-02-24 08:28:44 AM

vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.


anti-aircraft defenses are easily dismantled. No aircraft in the world will pose a threat to the 4th gen aircraft flown by American pilots. Until there is a true F-22 like enemy plane, with trained pilots, going to stay that way. We really need the F-22 to clear the skies, and regular old timer planes to kill stuff on the ground. I am not a fan of the F-35.
 
2014-02-24 08:30:58 AM

Laobaojun: Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do. We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away. Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.


Well that used to be up to the department of state, until militarists gutted it in favor of defense spending....

But have fun with the "the military is doing God's work" thing, that'll work out great.
 
2014-02-24 08:31:01 AM
I bet we could convert A-10's into drones.
 
2014-02-24 08:31:22 AM

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way


That kind of thinking allowed the North Koreans (with a little help from China) to survive past 1953. The problem with nukes as deterrent is that it only deters nukes, not any lesser incursion.  And if we nuke someone over a lesser incursion, some crazy people think that makes us the bad guy.
 
2014-02-24 08:32:38 AM
The Army drawdown has been planned for years.   Nothing new there.    Savings in manpower will get spent on new toys.   Expensive toys.       The budget for 2016 will probably spend as much as this year, if not more.
 
2014-02-24 08:36:19 AM

spamdog: Laobaojun: Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do. We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away. Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.

Well that used to be up to the department of state, until militarists gutted it in favor of defense spending....

But have fun with the "the military is doing God's work" thing, that'll work out great.


Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries.  The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.
 
2014-02-24 08:36:54 AM

Laobaojun: juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way

That kind of thinking allowed the North Koreans (with a little help from China) to survive past 1953. The problem with nukes as deterrent is that it only deters nukes, not any lesser incursion.  And if we nuke someone over a lesser incursion, some crazy people think that makes us the bad guy.


Who cares about appearances to others?  As long as we have as huge a stockpile of nukes as we do, we can afford to sprinkle a couple of them about to minimize those lesser incursions.  We don't have to be like North Korea- we can keep our domestic policies just as they are now- but we promise absolute annihilation to anyone who tries to hurt us.  Global isolationism.  The deterrent also works both ways.  It deters anyone from attacking, but also deters us from using our military as glibly as we have over the past 60 years.
 
2014-02-24 08:37:32 AM

Laobaojun: HotWingConspiracy: Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.

Whatever.


Poignant.


Democratically elected leaders, the President and Congress, sent the Army off to do bad things to bad people.  You did not like some of the politicians and some of the operations.
Noted.


I made no value judgement, I just said they had little to do with defense.

Because God knows, that is a good reason to be incapable of a future combat operation you might approve of.

Yeah man, this is it, the end of the military.

Let's just ignore hurricane relief, tsunami relief, famine relief, UN peacekeeping, medical assistance, de-mining, immunization programs, construction projects, the diplomatic value of military training, assistance, military-to-military contacts, and a bunch of other stuff no one cares about.  Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do.  We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away.  Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.

How much medical assistance do we deliver via A-10s and U2s?
 
2014-02-24 08:38:12 AM
If the commanche was built I would say the Airforce would not need the A-10 anymore. The commanche would of been a stealthy recon helicopter that would of excelled in CAS roles for ground troops. Problem with the A-10 is age isn't doing it a favor, the battlefield is shifting as it always does.
Were not going to fight hundreds of tanks like the Gulf War showed us. However, anyone like Iran with hundreds of tanks in reserve is going to pose a serious problem for the F-35. It simply does not carry the weapon load to perform a long enduranced CAS let alone the fuel.

The F-35 is designed to replace a few aircrafts in the inventory, the A-10 simply isn't one of them. The Commanche and Apache could of been readily available for CAS support which would work closer along the troops rather then the Airforce.

I can see unmanned drones doing the CAS role now, with the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons enough to perform a variety of missions. Not sure how these aircrafts perform in CAS roles, but it can be tested.

The F-22 was never needed, we could continue to upgrade the aging F-16 and F-15's with newer packages of radar/avionics and it still is better then 90% of the worlds fleet of aircrafts.

This reminds me of Vietnam where they said the "Gun" on fighter planes was not needed, missiles were the future - except for a small vietnam airforce that kicked our ass.
 
2014-02-24 08:38:51 AM

jso2897: vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.

The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


There was some scuttlebutt about the F-35 perhaps being the last manned combat aircraft, but it is a minority view and no one is putting money on it. Aviators, as imperfect a blue-on-blue machine as they are, are still necessary.
 
2014-02-24 08:39:12 AM

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.


The problem may be that drones have crept further into the close air support role, lessening the need for a dedicated aircraft.  The F-35 (which is already replacing the F-16) takes what's left of the ground pounding job.

I'd also love to see a new generation of A-10's, but the cost of reopening a factory to make them isn't justified when you've got reapers-a-plenty to go around.
 
2014-02-24 08:39:15 AM

Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!


Bring back? Did they ever leave?
 
2014-02-24 08:40:12 AM

Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries. The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.


How much gay porn do you have, exactly?
 
2014-02-24 08:40:23 AM

Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad


Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.
 
2014-02-24 08:42:59 AM
it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.
 
2014-02-24 08:43:38 AM

HotWingConspiracy: How much medical assistance do we deliver via A-10s and U2s?


Pretty sure U2 performed at Live Aid.
 
2014-02-24 08:44:21 AM

Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?


yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.
 
2014-02-24 08:45:04 AM
When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  When you have a very expensive hammer that requires constant expensive upkeep and is laying unused, you start looking for nails that don't need hammering...and if you can't find any, you start making your own.

I have no doubt that returning to a pre-war military will reduce the number of conflicts the US enters into and lower US and foreign casualties, costs, and hatred significantly.

Poor gazillion dollar defense contractors will just have to get used to it.
 
2014-02-24 08:46:22 AM

Hobodeluxe: Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?

yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.


You may have heard of it. It's a little old place where they can get together.
 
2014-02-24 08:48:57 AM

vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.


that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.
 
2014-02-24 08:48:58 AM

Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.


And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.
 
2014-02-24 08:49:52 AM

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


pfft. let me guess, you sleep with your gun beside the bed at night too?
 
2014-02-24 08:50:16 AM

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?
 
2014-02-24 08:50:49 AM

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.


They just envision using drones for CAS. No pilot, carries missiles, and they have some other neat toys to help. The Navy (in particular) has been testing testing some fun things CIWS can do if you let it target more than missiles and change the ammo.
 
2014-02-24 08:55:08 AM

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?


Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.
 
2014-02-24 08:56:05 AM

inglixthemad: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.

They just envision using drones for CAS. No pilot, carries missiles, and they have some other neat toys to help. The Navy (in particular) has been testing testing some fun things CIWS can do if you let it target more than missiles and change the ammo.


one thing that would be cool is using quadcopters for recon and to paint targets for artillery and other ordinance. they could spot the target and light it up or feed telemetry back to the delivery system in real time for some very accurate shooting.
 
2014-02-24 08:56:36 AM

Hobodeluxe: vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.

that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.


LOL I hope that's not an implication you'll get Americans off their hoverounds parked in front of Fox News to run outside with poorly spelled and overtly racist signs.
 
2014-02-24 08:57:35 AM

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.


I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.
 
2014-02-24 08:57:58 AM

whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.


YEah, I hope it doesn't get cut.  It can do so many things, and ones that the opposition gets to see up close and personally.  I'm not 100% sure what they mean by not being able to dogfight.  Is that a knock against its inability to go supersonic?  I would think being able to out-corner a fighter would have some advantages?
 
2014-02-24 08:58:19 AM
The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons


The global hawk can't carry weapons.
 
2014-02-24 08:58:32 AM

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it.


I do, that's why you're such an embarrassment. You know I have to actually explain why people like you exist when I travel? It's farking tedious.

 Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.

Yes, clearly the adults in the room need to speculate about being invaded by Canada because we're discontinuing some aircraft. That's a very important adult conversation.
 
2014-02-24 08:58:54 AM

Crotchrocket Slim: Hobodeluxe: vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.

that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.

LOL I hope that's not an implication you'll get Americans off their hoverounds parked in front of Fox News to run outside with poorly spelled and overtly racist signs.


there will have to be a sharp decline in bread and circuses I will admit but it could happen.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:06 AM
All these people in love with the A-10 and for what? It's really good at blowing away farmers on the side of the mountains? The A-10 has no place in the pacific pivot strategy. The lack of range and limited role would truly be a waste in such a vast AOR. Apaches and predators can easily handle the CAS role on its own. And if you are going again ya country that has capable air defense, you are going to need range and speed.

As for giving the A-10 to the army like that would be some capable feat. So in light of shrinking the army's ground force (which you know..the reason it exists), you magically want to shiat out money for the Army to train and equip it's own pilots and maintainers, construct and maintain its own airfields, construct, man and equip their own ATC towers, build hangers and air operations centers JUST because you like the BBBRRRTT and you've seen it do very well at killing a bunch of guys armed with AKs and absolutely no anti air.

Sounds smart guys.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:24 AM

jso2897: The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


With good reason:  If we no longer have "skin in the game", then going to war, even if just from the air, is that much easier to sell.

We (the US public in genergal) don't really care about the people we're shooting at.  We never have. But we *DO* care about our own military men, and if don't have to put them in any danger at all in a military action, then what you've done is made a military that can sustain a bunch of material losses without losing people, which will make bombing brown people all the more palatable to the American public.

Now, I come from a military family.  This is my familial military background:

Me:  US Army.
Younger Brother:  USMC.
Youngest Brother:  US Army
Father: US Army
Father-in-law:  US Air Force
Stepfather-in-law:  US Navy
Maternal Grandfather:  US Army
Paternal Grandfather: Civilian worker at Frankford Arsenal

So as you can see, all the males in my family for the last three generations have been either in the military, or in military-like jobs like at an arsenal or in the Air Force.

And from my perspective, the military is something that should only be used when necessary, and taking US lives off the table makes it more likely that the public can be convinced to go along with whatever military adventure comes down the pike.

So yeah, I'd like to keep pilots in the cockpits of combat aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:52 AM

Hobodeluxe: one thing that would be cool is using quadcopters for recon and to paint targets for artillery and other ordinance.


Paint them for other pieces of legislation enacted by a municipal authority?
 
2014-02-24 09:02:41 AM
Keep the A-10, the rest is OK.
 
2014-02-24 09:03:46 AM

Hobodeluxe: I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.


Wait, do you mean the stupid recent shoot-em-up Red Dawn, or the classic 1984 anti-war film Red Dawn?
 
2014-02-24 09:04:39 AM
I'm OK with this and they need to up the funding for the injured troops that paid the price for the US.
 
2014-02-24 09:04:42 AM

RoxtarRyan: Hobodeluxe: Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?

yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.

You may have heard of it. It's a little old place where they can get together.


yeah, but the tin roof is rusted.
 
2014-02-24 09:04:53 AM
My next pet is going to be named Peave.
 
2014-02-24 09:06:24 AM

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


Hey buddy, don't go revealing all our cunning plans.
 
Displayed 50 of 252 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report