WT Forums

Look at what were are doing here...........We have been reduced to the point where we are deciding what cog of our mililtary triad machine is more important, and one we can do with out. Our country has spent two century's building and honing this machine with the blood of our own countymen.

Are we going to chose the value of Maritime Air Dominace, over Tactical Air Dominance? Are we going to de-emphasize CAS and CSEAR capabilities because arrogance tells us "our pilots won't get shot down" What about our strategic long rifle............We need them all, ICBM's? Missile Defense? and what this argument is all about is what we can do to fiscaly keep them all. Look at whats looming on the horizon, in case nobody has noticed unmanned drones are starting to get more, and more p.r. hype...........There can be a solution out there to keep every apsect of our armed forces battle ready, and euipped as needed. We are only discussiong the tactical avaition end of things, look at what other arguments are raging. Crusader cancelation, Virginia class subs............the need for, the need to get rid of the Los Angeles Class fast attacks..........The OV-22 Osprey.........What about the next generation Bradley, or M1A1 Abrams? What about a repalcement for the venerable M-16...........

Has our military procurement ever been under so much scrutiny at any given time? Even durring the erosion period of post Vietnam, we still managed to procure the F-14, F-15, F-16, F-18, as well as the M-1 and Nimitz class CVN's. The 70's where tough times for the military, morale was low.........But even then we managed to improve.

Lets look at the 1990's...........Can someone name one solid program that has emerged from that decade of decline? The F-22/ATF concept was a cold war prgram..........As was the B-2. That neglect from that decade is no less than high treason. High times means its time to improve, not neglect..........The fat man was dancing, but who was paying the band?

WE have been putting a tremendous emphasis in the weapons we hang on the aircraft, and the systems we place into the aircraft, but what about the aircraft themselves? At the same time, battle doctrines have changed, and continuing to change, I find it remarkable that the cold war weaponry we still operate has managed to stay flexiable with the ever changing times.........A true credit to the people that operate, mantain, and manage in our country's military.

These are exciting times, the decesions we make now will have tremendous consquences, or pay offs later.

If your not having fun, your not doing it right!

Edited by - chadrewsky on Jun 01 2003 2:12 PM

Pretty sound reflections,

I have had the exact same questions on the procurement program comparison between the idealistic 80's and the scaled-down 90's.

I'm mostly and ordnance systems person. They have made alot more head way than aircraft. Think of how many new weapon systems we have operating compared to delivery/aircraft systems. I bet they take a fraction of the R&D coasts, but still...

[quote]

Are we going to chose the value of Maritime Air Dominace, over Tactical Air Dominance? Are we going to de-emphasize CAS and CSEAR capabilities because arrogance tells us "our pilots won't get shot down" What about our strategic long rifle............We need them all, ICBM's? Missile Defense? and what this argument is all about is what we can do to fiscaly keep them all. -----------

First we need an honest test program for all weapons systems. Not this BS testing we used on NMD and Osprey. Throw in a risk reward ratio and actual costs. NMD has been in the works since the late 50s and has cost the taxpayers over 120 billion taxbucks. NMD hasn't worked in a cooked test program. When you put a beacon on the inbound missile, that does suck.

Then we need lessons learned. What has worked in Iraq and Afghan?

Do we really need silo based ICBMs? Boomers are hard to find and work well. Add in some nuke tipped cruise missiles and it's a good MAD combo.

We really need to support the current airframes and vehicles. Too many bucks are spent on BS and not on parts. Older model Hercs are being retired for corrosion. It would be a helluva of a lot cheaper to fix them and avoid buying those pricey J model Hercs, which have less than 30% commonality with other Hercs.

Finally we need to train our troops properly. Plus keep them trained. Training, maintenance, and proper parts supply isn't sexy. Trained hard in peacetime and you lose less troops in combat.

Jack