US Congress wants to spend $3 billion building tanks the Army doesn't want and won't use
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=ewitwins;37988834]Jesus fucking Christ.
We could have the worlds largest Air Force at a moments notice, and knock every other plane in the world out of the sky if we wanted to. That's an absolutely fucking [b]INSANE[/b] notion, and the fact that Congress wants to shell out by buying more tanks in one round than most of NATO combined is just disturbing, to say the least. We are literally the best/most-armed nation in the world, with not the budget, the money, nor the population to support it.
It's top-heavy, with too much equipment for too small a fighting force, with no tangible enemy to fight against, and with not enough money to keep it rolling. This is a fucking recipe for disaster, and Romney wants to increase the budget of the military? It's a fucking recipe for disaster.
[editline]10th October 2012[/editline]
Easily done. I'll bet you that the military has (similar to Russia) massive fuel storages with the capacity to put most (if not all) of those birds in the air.
With pilots, during WWII we would chunk out an entire squadron or eight of pilots in a few weeks.[/QUOTE]
It's insane really. This is, what I believe, a major hidden factor which gets America into wars. We can count ourselves lucky that you're still a democratic nation. If the US was ran by a dictator, you probably would've invaded your half of the world map by now.
Does that mean that I'll be able to buy tanks in surplus stores?
Sweet!
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37989103]the notion that the [B]US Army[/B] would field a Soviet piece of equipment for anything other than adversary training is just too absurd not to be a joke.[/QUOTE]
British Army. And I've seen people claim some pretty absurd stuff.
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;37989436]British Army. And I've seen people claim some pretty absurd stuff.[/QUOTE]
I said "we" in the original post, and I'm American, so I was referring to the US Army in my original post.
The US Army has bought Mi-8s to blend in better in Afghanistan xP
Lets just say to hell with not militarizing space, and reboot [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Horizon]Project Horizon[/url].
The sad part is that defense dollars are the worst way to spend taxpayer money if jobs are the point.
One, you're paying for something that's of no productive use. By that I mean if you have to actually use that tank for its intended purpose, this means you have sent troops into combat. This means you are spending massive amounts of money fighting somewhere= it's all a drain of money with nothing to show for it at the end.
If you spent that money on, for example, upgrading infrastructure you'd still create jobs AND have the benefits of upgraded infrastructure for the next however many years.
For once, Ron Paul was actually right at this. You have the same recipe that broke the Soviet economy. A massive army with a permanent war economy.
[QUOTE=imptastick;37988590]Can you imagine what it would be like if we were ever invaded and we rolled them all out as well as scrambling all our planes that we have in storage.
[img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/add160490e7e9ec11bfc67ef96094ce5fb38d9e5.jpg[/img]
It is insane how many military vehicles we have ready to go at a moments notice.[/QUOTE]
Not that impressive unless you have the sufficient amount of skilled pilots to ran ALL OF THEM. It'll be like the Marianas Turkey Shoot.
[QUOTE=redhaven;37989514]For once, Ron Paul was actually right at this. You have the same recipe that broke the Soviet economy. A massive army with a permanent war economy.[/QUOTE]
And look at what happened with that: Soviet armaments have spilled all across the globe after the Soviet Union fell apart. African warlords, Middle-Eastern militia and other questionable groups have been profiting of this for the past decades.
[QUOTE=imptastick;37988590]Can you imagine what it would be like if we were ever invaded and we rolled them all out as well as scrambling all our planes that we have in storage.
[img]http://images.yuku.com/image/jpeg/add160490e7e9ec11bfc67ef96094ce5fb38d9e5.jpg[/img]
It is insane how many military vehicles we have ready to go at a moments notice.[/QUOTE]
The aircraft in the aircraft graveyard are basically mummified.
Yeah they can be returned to service, but there is some work involved in making them ready for flight again.
All of their fluids have been replaced with the aircraft equivalent of embalming fluid and almost all of the avionics have been stripped out and would need to be replaced. Basically anything remotely sensitive from a tech standpoint is removed. I don't actually know what happens to the stripped avionics. I assume they are stockpiled, but they may be destroyed due to storage difficulties. It would likely be a several year process at least to get all those aircraft back into operation.
That isn't to say it is unimpressive that we have that capability, but it isn't quite a clear cut ordeal. :eng101:
[QUOTE=smurfy;37986298]I'm worried that when gunfox finds this thread we are all going to be sons of bitches[/QUOTE]
Still curious about this.
[QUOTE=Megafan;37987144]That sounds pretty Orwellian, perpetual war economy and all that.[/QUOTE]
Sea forts beat the shit out of tanks any day.
How about instead we spend that on umm
...medicine... education and... science.
[QUOTE=Nikota;37986299]Ah yes. Because we can obviously use tanks in mountain warfare.[/QUOTE]
yes
because that's obviously ALL there is in that area
mountains
nothing but mountains
and that's it, nothing more. Oh, and sand. Sand and mountains. Also Sand people. That's it though.
[QUOTE=ScottyWired;37988077]Why do you think tanks have treads and not wheels?[/QUOTE]
Tanks are easy and open targets in mountains and have an extremely limited field of view and can only aim their main cannon so high. It's the same reason why they aren't used in Urban warfare unless they're light tanks or APC's/IFV's. You can be taken out from anywhere and not be able to respond to the threat because they can easily disperse.
You want to fight a war in the mountains? Use infantry and helicopters.
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=J!NX;37989849]How about instead we spend that on umm
...medicine... education and... science.
yes
because that's obviously ALL there is in that area
mountains
nothing but mountains
and that's it, nothing more. Oh, and sand. Sand and mountains. Also Sand people. That's it though.[/QUOTE]
Afghanistan isn't a desert and is mainly green and mountainous. If you were implying war with Iran, id laugh at you. That won't happen unless they start shit in the waters, and even then, it will be a naval war like last time.
[QUOTE=GunFox;37989717]
Still curious about this.[/QUOTE]
Isn't obvious? You've found this thread, and we are, as a consequence, now all sons of bitches.
[QUOTE=Nikota;37989875]Tanks are easy and open targets in mountains and have an extremely limited field of view and can only aim their main cannon so high. It's the same reason why they aren't used in Urban warfare unless they're light tanks or APC's/IFV's. You can be taken out from anywhere and not be able to respond to the threat because they can easily disperse.
You want to fight a war in the mountains? Use infantry and helicopters.
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
Afghanistan isn't a desert and is mainly green and mountainous. If you were implying war with Iran, id laugh at you. That won't happen unless they start shit in the waters, and even then, it will be a naval war like last time.[/QUOTE]
there has to be a fair bit of good areas they [I]could [/I]use a tank
$3b worth of tank though holy fuck are these people insane
it would be interesting to note why Congress is pushing for these tanks...
we have to cut spending big bird is destroying this country
*adds 2000 tanks to amazon.com shopping cart*
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;37990184]it would be interesting to note why Congress is pushing for these tanks...[/QUOTE]
because they're war obsessed mongoloids who know a large portion of their constituents are utter morons who think putting money into the military is good no matter what
[QUOTE=Kopimi;37990191]
*adds 2000 tanks to amazon.com shopping cart*[/QUOTE]
Oh what I would do to be able to do that.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;37989465]Lets just say to hell with not militarizing space, and reboot [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Horizon]Project Horizon[/url].[/QUOTE]
claymores on the moon?
astronauts and cosmonauts having a firefight on the moon is like something straight out of Moonraker minus the lasers.
It sounds just like a 'let's make our warpenis bigger', which is a silly reason when there are so many other issues facing the US.
We know about your warpenis and how impressive it is stop being such a show off about it
[QUOTE=Van-man;37986255]Can't wait for them to be sold at a military surplus auction.
With the weapons system and excessive armor removed ofc.[/QUOTE]
maybe the machine guns will be removed but there's nothing a civilian can't own on a tank
Ok guys a few things. First, we don't have any tanks in Afghanistan. The Marines still might have ten or so, but those were brought here in '10 and I am not sure they are here anymore. They just are not suited for the type of combat we find ourselves in now. Second, congress really needs to fucking listen to General Odierno and the honorable Leon Panetta. They know how to run this shit. Congress bitches about military spending, and when those two come up with some really really good ideas on how to cut it, congress denies it because they are bought off by the companies or have stupid ass petty side contracts that they don't want to give up. Now it has gotten to the point where my service is facing a 120,000 Soldier cut because congress can't stop bitching about petty shit. I get issued so much useless shit it is crazy, and it makes me mad that congress would much rather cut personnel than give up on their useless tank production, or cancel the fucking stupid F-35 project that has been blowing its budget and not delivering. Fuck congress. They don't know how the military works. I think it should be a requirement for those dealing with the military budget to have prior military service, that way they would know how the fuck the military ACTUALLY works.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37990858]Ok guys a few things. First, we don't have any tanks in Afghanistan. The Marines still might have ten or so, but those were brought here in '10 and I am not sure they are here anymore. They just are not suited for the type of combat we find ourselves in now. Second, congress really needs to fucking listen to General Odierno and the honorable Leon Panetta. They know how to run this shit. Congress bitches about military spending, and when those two come up with some really really good ideas on how to cut it, congress denies it because they are bought off by the companies or have stupid ass petty side contracts that they don't want to give up. Now it has gotten to the point where my service is facing a 120,000 Soldier cut because congress can't stop bitching about petty shit. I get issued so much useless shit it is crazy, and it makes me mad that congress would much rather cut personnel than give up on their useless tank production, or [B]cancel the fucking stupid F-35 project that has been blowing its budget and not delivering[/B]. Fuck congress. They don't know how the military works. I think it should be a requirement for those dealing with the military budget to have prior military service, that way they would know how the fuck the military ACTUALLY works.[/QUOTE]
If we're going to waste as much money as we're doing in the military, I'd personally like some of it to be spent on cool stuff like this.
[QUOTE=Mike42012;37991059]If we're going to waste as much money as we're doing in the military, I'd personally like some of it to be spent on cool stuff like this.[/QUOTE]
Except the F-35 is too big, too expensive, too complicated, and not efficient enough to be cool or useful.
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=GunFox;37989717]The aircraft in the aircraft graveyard are basically mummified.
Yeah they can be returned to service, but there is some work involved in making them ready for flight again.
All of their fluids have been replaced with the aircraft equivalent of embalming fluid and almost all of the avionics have been stripped out and would need to be replaced. Basically anything remotely sensitive from a tech standpoint is removed. I don't actually know what happens to the stripped avionics. I assume they are stockpiled, but they may be destroyed due to storage difficulties. It would likely be a several year process at least to get all those aircraft back into operation.
That isn't to say it is unimpressive that we have that capability, but it isn't quite a clear cut ordeal. :eng101:
[/QUOTE]
I know for a fact a lot of the parts are stripped off of F-14's then destroyed completely. Iran still has a few of our tomcats, but are missing a few vital parts to fly, so we make double-y sure that we destroy those parts when we decommission or store F-14's. It would take a few weeks of work to get that graveyard flying again.
This isn't about a war boner, it's about war production companies paying congress to make sure they stay relevant. Congress doesn't care about our war readiness level as long as it meets the minimums suggested by the military, they care about their next generous campaign donation from General Dynamics.
[QUOTE=teh pirate;37991240]This isn't about a war boner, it's about war production companies paying congress to make sure they stay relevant. Congress doesn't care about our war readiness level as long as it meets the minimums suggested by the military, they care about their next generous campaign donation from General Dynamics.[/QUOTE]
that sounds suspiciously like corruption
They should give the tanks to the Marines. I'm pretty sure we're still using M1's and not M1A2's.
I have the weirdest deja vu right now; I'm pretty sure this happened a year or two back.
Well... I don't mind taking a few of those tanks off your hands if you don't want them...
[QUOTE=UncleJimmema;37991284]They should give the tanks to the Marines. I'm pretty sure we're still using M1's and not M1A2's.[/QUOTE]
M1's with the L7 105mm? Not a chance. M1A1HC.
[QUOTE=Maloof?;37991272]that sounds suspiciously like corruption[/QUOTE]
Too bad "campaign donations" are perfectly legal in this country.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.