Comments on: The Pentagon Goes Shopping, Clips Wrong Coupons

By: Joseph

Joseph — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 17:12:09 +0000

Another consideration is the advancement of technology in general. So much of the technology that we enjoy in civilian life today stems from military R&D a generation earlier. Modern aviation technology, satellite technology, communications technology, the internet – all of these have significant roots in military development.

If we impeded military development, we will impeded the next generation of technology. We will also lose the skills necessary to develop future generations of technology.

By: Willy

Willy — Tue, 14 Apr 2009 03:43:09 +0000

James,

You are an idiot. We need the best weapons on earth to maintain our role as the superpower. China and Russia are both working hard to catch up. We don’t need to make it easy for them. Also need the best fighters and anti-missile / anti-sat systems to fight the alien invaders when they arrive in the near future.

Need best, most powerful weapons. Stay on-top. Stay alive.

By: submandave

submandave — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 15:43:26 +0000

ajacksonian: The RFC problem with Naval consttruction is, as you said, a huge issue. However, as with many large capital projects, designing and building a ship is a decade-long prospect. It is impossible to anticipate technological and system improvements that may come to bear in the interim. One way we have, in the past, tried to deal with this was by building to spec and then bundling upgrades into a post-delivery shipyard period (the name for this escapes me). While a second period to rip out and replace antiquated equipment that had just been installed does seem wrong, with the RFC issue it actually is cheaper. We can also take a page from dear ole Rummy’s book and understand the “known unknowns” that await us. In fact, I believe this is being practiced in a sort of phased design process, where portions and systems of the ship are intentionally left unfinished to allow future design after basic infrastructure and hull construction is near complete.

Dave: re your comment about the utility of lower tech air platforms in theater, Many would be surprised to learn that one of the most requested platforms in CENTCOM are the old USN sub-hunting Maritime Partol Aircraft (MARPAT) P-3. They load them up with Hellfires and Mavericks, stick them up inthe air and let them use their high resolution RADAR and imagery systems to surveil. With 10-12 hr dwell time they just hang around up there until they’re needed, something no fast-mover can do.

By: James

James — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:46:41 +0000

Worth commenting, remember vietnam? the pentagon gave us guns that didnt even work, so are we dumb enough to make that mistake again and let them do whatever they want under the assumption that its for our own good??? they even tried to cover it up by telling people on the ground not to report that it was the gun that jammed, not the soldier that didnt clean it, the gun!!! well prepare to see more of that if you want to put your faith into the pentagon, who mind you, answers to no one, atleast back then. I find it hard to believe Republicans who are so anti government can be on the side of the pentagon, thats quite a step backword from the typical points they try to make, and honestly just another of the hundreds of contradictions i keep seeing and hearing.

By: James

James — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 13:38:16 +0000

This is long overdue, anyone with any knowledge of military matters knows that air superiority is the biggest must have in todays world. When it comes to missle defense problem is, none of you seem to have ANYYYY knowledge of our past missle systems and how they are all failures….ALL of them!!! they dont even work people, you were lied to over and over again, its a fact, its history, look it up, stop being so dumb. This is a long time coming and way overdue, what doesnt work, cut it. We dont need a raptor when people are still flying vietnam era migs. Sorry. This wouldnt make us less safe as long as we are still maintaining the technology and remain in control of the sky. Anything else said about this is media hype, most likely going to be let loose by Fox news and their know nothing crew. So check yourself before you wreck yourself on stuff like this.

By: Dave

Dave — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:48:11 +0000

We need MORE F-22s. We can do with FEWER F-35s.

Reason is that air dominance is vital. Best we simply overhwelm anybody and everybody who might entertain notions of making the skies unfriendly.

F-35 ground support capabilites are needed against advanced foes, with advance anti-aircraft capabilities and hardened fortifications.

In places like Afghanistan, a turboprop version of the A1 Skyraider would be best. That is because it can stay ip there on patrol (and taking UAV-like pictures) for 8 hours at a stretch and still be able to answer any last-moment calls.

These later could be built tout suite and for a little bit of nothing.

It is that F22 that we need the most.

By: typos_R_us

typos_R_us — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:33:56 +0000

“Ditching the F-22 to get moving on the F-35 is a prudent move. Reducing the explosion in Pentagon spending is necessary and Obama’s plan appears to do a very good job of setting priorities.”

Clueless. That makes about as much sense as having Tiger Woods ditch his driver to use a cricket bat. After all, they both are made to hit balls, right?
The F-22 and the F-35 are designed and built for two different missions. Might as well have the F-35 take over for the aerial tankers too.
It wouldn’t surprise me to find out that Gates doesn’t understand the difference between the F-22 and the F-35. He was a ground pounder and it either has wings or it doesn’t.

The single most critical weapon in the US arsenal is the F-22. Without air superiority, the other stuff isn’t very effective. The F-15 is getting long in the tooth. It still rules the sky because of the pilots flying it. 500 F-22’s means the USA has military superiority for the next 40 to 50 years. In two more generations, we will have some sort of world state, in which conventional warfare is useless, or the planet will be a crispy glow in dark radioactive ball. In either case, the F-22 will be the last air superiority fighter.
I expect this latest market crash to move the multinationals to get rid of governments. A corporate state isn’t going to allow politicians to screw things up like the ones we have now are doing. But that is sorta a different topic.

By: typos_R_us

typos_R_us — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 03:13:25 +0000

Gates needs to be fired. Never hiring him would have been better, but Bush needed somebody to throw to the wolves and Rummy was the best choice. Gates is not and never has been a conservative. He has been a yes-man for his entire career, which is why the politicos like him.
The cure for the military procurement process is to nationalize Lockheed. That way the Air Force can get it’s F-22 for areasonable cost, 10 tpo 20 mill per and bunches of F-35’s. It will be shot across the bows to the MIC, which Ike warned us about many years ago.
The young socialista that voted the alleged Hawaiian into office are about to learn some of life’s harder facts. To bad the rest of us have to suffer along with them. Although if Conservatives had stayed true to their principals and not let the RINO’s take over the party, we wouldn’t be in this mess.

By: Jeff Weimer

Jeff Weimer — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:05:51 +0000

Larry, I think we are on the same page.

By: Oscar the Grump

Oscar the Grump — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 00:13:59 +0000

We are being outclassed on so many battlefield systems that it is embarassing. Now we are throwing away the technological edge we had. I don’t understand this need to make the USA commit suicide. What is really behind all this?