Yes, you've made it clear that you think the world is full of "second rate" humans not worthy of our protection in the past.Originally Posted by Molon Labe
|
|
08-10-2011, 12:08 PM
Yes, you've made it clear that you think the world is full of "second rate" humans not worthy of our protection in the past.
08-10-2011, 01:14 PM
wat? Second rate? How do you get that? I guess you can take it that way if you wish. I prefer in actually practicing good old conservative individualism and fiscal responsibility. You know...where people quit relying on handouts and are responsible for their OWN security and not on the backs of the American taxpayer and soldiers, sailors and airmen. I guess if that means I think they are second rate...then guilty as charged. If you want to help a foreign country...donate to a charity. My country is in bad enough shape and American's come first. I won't apolgize for that.Yes, you've made it clear that you think the world is full of "second rate" humans not worthy of our protection in the past.
Funny how some are all rah rah for rugged individualism domestically for the domestic dole....., but can't see the hypocrisy in it globally.
08-10-2011, 01:31 PM
I dont think our carriers can fit through there?
08-10-2011, 02:38 PM
Looks like if the improvements are made by 2014, then the current Enterprise will be able to transit the canal.
"The new lock chambers will be 1,400 ft (426.72 m) long, by 180 ft (54.86 m) wide, and 60 ft (18.29 m) deep." - Wiki
Enterprise:
Length: 1,123 ft (342 m)[3][4]
Beam: 132.8 ft (40.5 m) (waterline)
257.2 ft (78.4 m) (extreme)
Draft: 39 ft (12 m) - Wiki
08-10-2011, 03:09 PM
Too bad right around that time the Enterprise will be decommissioned for the new USS Ford to take its place, correct me if i am wrong but I think either 2013 or 2015 it will be decommissioned.
And do you think even if our carriers could fit through the canal the Chi-coms will allow us to use it to oppose them?
Last edited by Bailey; 08-10-2011 at 03:38 PM.
08-10-2011, 04:24 PM
In order to be lethal, you have to be able to project power against your enemies' centers of gravity, which means that you have to be capable of offensive operations. A strictly defensive force is an impotent force, as the various other NATO powers regularly demonstrate when they are put in the position of having to fight someone. We've needed an offensive capability since the Barbary Pirate Wars, and we will continue to need one as long as we trade with or travel through the rest of the world.
08-10-2011, 04:45 PM
A good analogy would be medieval siege warfare. If you are a lord, and you have a keep and a garrison, you are pretty well defended. The upkeep costs of the garrison are tiny, and the keep is paid for. Then you are attacked by a force who is capable of force projection. Their force can't get into the keep because of your walls manned by the garrison, but the defensive garrison isn't enough to the break the siege. You become isolated by the surrounding offensive army, and you can no longer trade. Eventually, your garrison is going to starve and break down, and then you'll lose the castle. That will happen unless you have a friend with an army capable of force projection who can come and break that siege.
The United States is that friend who can come and break the siege. The downside is a standing, superior and mobile army like that is way too expensive for us. I'm don't believe in dissolving our military power down into something like a glorified National Guard (i.e. making it a garrison force). However, I also don't believe that the DoD needs to get as big a check every year as they do. Most of our vessels, aircraft, and all manner of equipment is old, and still the best in the world. Do we need the JSF, the F-35 and the F-22's? Can't we figure out a way to upgrade the F-22's? How about upgrade the Enterprise instead of decomm it? Those are the types of things we should be doing with our military.
Like the JDAM program! That has got to be on of the best uses of resources our military has ever put together, it allowed us to use 99% of old, dumb bombs designed for carpet bombing, and with a few turns of a ratchet, create a laser or GPS smart bomb out of them, at a cost of about $2K per bomb.
08-10-2011, 04:51 PM
There is always a point at which upgrades cost more money then getting the new deal.
Our current airframes are getting there. It's not that our aircraft aren't still top notch. It's that the bodies are getting old. The F-15's have faced several groundings over the last decade because of that. It's cost prohibitive to build a whole new fleet of them.
Then we have the human cost to take into account. Russian and China are developing aircraft that are as good, if not better then the F-15. While our training may be better, is the life of those pilots worth the money saved putting them in "equal" aircraft?
08-10-2011, 04:58 PM
My sister's new husband is in the Air Force, and we just had a long conversation about this. He's not too happy that the F-22 got scratched over the F-35. We spent a whole lot of money on just a few F-22's, then a whole lot of money on the F-35's and it all ended pretty stupidly. We would have been better off to retrofit the F-22's with some of the new technologies of the F-35's. That way, the Air Force would have had something new in quantity, rather than still have to fly F-15/16's because they don't have enough F-22's and aren't getting F-35's. It's kind of like Milton Friedman's statements on mandatory air bags and other safety precautions. Sure, these safety precautions save lives, but they increase the cost of the car so much that people keep their old cars as long as possible because they can't afford the new car. So all the touted safety benefits are simply theoretical at that point.
The military cannot keep demanding that the taxpayers give them more and more new stuff, because the taxpayers just don't have that kind of money any more.
For example, upgrades to the U.S.S. Enterprise might cost more than a new U.S. aircraft carrier, true. However, there isn't a country on the planet that has a Navy with a ship that can take on the U.S.S. Enterprise in it's current state. So why not keep it manned, and put it in a group supporing a new aircraft carrier? Or convert it to a big ass LHB and give it to the Marines like the Navy does with all it's old things?
I mean, we can still probably get a few more decades of service out of this investment, instead of just parking the thing. This way, the Marines won't need a new LHB, or a new cruiser won't be needed to be built to be put into a fleet support group or whatever. Hell, they should give this thing to the USMC just to test and advance seabasing theories.
Last edited by malloc; 08-10-2011 at 05:39 PM.
08-10-2011, 09:06 PM
Silly time here: I wish I could see the faces of some unfriendly folks when they see a US flag on an aircraft that zoom in, hovers, deflects anti-aircraft missiles, and fires particle weapons. Everything else seems just like another rehash of same-old same-old.
Back to serious. Some DOD guy said not too long ago, "Anyone can build a missile, it's the guidance systems which set us apart. We can send a missile through the open door of a building without scraping the door jams." That's pretty cool, not Star Trek, but pretty cool.
| « Previous Thread | Next Thread » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
