US Congress wants to spend $3 billion building tanks the Army doesn't want and won't use
120 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Nikota;37986299]Ah yes. Because we can obviously use tanks in mountain warfare.[/QUOTE]
Haven't you played Armored Kill?
[editline]10th October 2012[/editline]
[QUOTE=Pie108;37991289]I have the weirdest deja vu right now; I'm pretty sure this happened a year or two back.[/QUOTE]
A couple years ago it happened with the USMC. They used the money saved to upgrade their already existing stock for a fraction of the cost.
[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.
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]
Not to mention the vast majority of those likely aren't even close to being airworthy.
[QUOTE=megafat;37987133]Even the military is sick of the government over funding it.[/QUOTE]
DARPA's been telling the government that it pays them too much money for years, gub'ment don't listen to them. Granted DARPA cranks out some fucking cool shit, but seriously.
What's actually more disgusting is the way the military spends money. Got a brother-in-law in the air-force, and that's literally his job: Spend money. Spend ALL the money. EVERY dime has to be spent or you'll get less money next year.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37989463]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[/QUOTE]
Isn't the Mi-8 thing more to do with the fact that American choppers do not work in certain very mountainous regions of Afghanistan.
[QUOTE=Jsm;37991989]Isn't the Mi-8 thing more to do with the fact that American choppers do not work in certain very mountainous regions of Afghanistan.[/QUOTE]
Blackhawks and UH-1Y's have significantly greater service ceilings than the Mi-8 and likely sport significantly smaller cross sections with which to be affected by the unusual wind conditions of mountains.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37990412]maybe the machine guns will be removed but there's nothing a civilian can't own on a tank[/QUOTE]
The armor is most likely classified and thus not something for the public eye, and I doubt even the US military would like a private person to own a tank with a fully operational turret & related electrical system.
[QUOTE=Van-man;37992564]The armor is most likely classified and thus not something for the public eye, and I doubt even the US military would like a private person to own a tank with a fully operational turret & related electrical system.[/QUOTE]
no not at all I could go out and buy the same tanks they're buying if I had the cash to do so
the armor and weapon systems are not only not classified but all the information on it is publicly available online
Shit, we have a surplus of 2,000 M1 Abrams just collecting dust in a desert somewhere and you mean to tell me I [I]can't[/I] buy one?
God damnit.
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;37990412]maybe the machine guns will be removed but there's nothing a civilian can't own on a tank[/QUOTE]
Wasn't someone not allowed to use his custom wheelchair because it had caterpillar tracks or something to classify it as a tank?
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;37992791]Wasn't someone not allowed to use his custom wheelchair because it had caterpillar tracks or something to classify it as a tank?[/QUOTE]
"But his hopes have been stopped in their tracks by the DVLA who say the Tank Chair cannot be categorised as an invalid buggy as it is 22cm(8.6in) too wide and more than 100kg(15.7st) too heavy for use on public land."
[url]http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1347133/Disabled-man-banned-using-road-tank-wheelchair-killjoy-DVLA-chiefs.html[/url]
Stupid fucking ruling but that doesn't mean you can't own tanks.
Also, he can drive it on private land legally.
Aaand as far as I can tell this dude's in the UK.
[QUOTE=d00msdaydan;37992791]Wasn't someone not allowed to use his custom wheelchair because it had caterpillar tracks or something to classify it as a tank?[/QUOTE]
no, he wasn't allowed to drive it on the road. it's perfectly legal, just not street legal
[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]
Fuck it, I agree.
If the militarization of space gets us up there faster, than so be it. We'll have guns in space eventually what with personal defense and the threat of rival companies, so just do it. I'm tired of waiting, and I think I'd be safe in saying that we all are.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37987814]or we could put that focus onto promising areas of armor development like electric armor.[/QUOTE]
You mean like reactive armour using non-Newtonian fluids? Or do you mean some sort of point-defence system based around electrical arcs?
For defence against aggressors, it's a sound idea, and if they become affordable and reliable it'd reduce casualties, though if both sides had power armour like that it'd mean they'd need to use more bullets, assuming that said "electric armour" works amazingly with helmets.
Also, having tangible forcefields (free-floating protective hexagons galore!) or high-power anti-missile lasers would probably be worthy areas of defence research, but beyond that we probably don't need any more new weapons. We should stop fighting for long enough to create reliable brain-in-a-jar tech and remote-controlled androids; THEN we can start fighting again, preferably in internationally-sanctioned arenas.
[QUOTE=ironman17;37995421]You mean like reactive armour using non-Newtonian fluids? Or do you mean some sort of point-defence system based around electrical arcs?
For defence against aggressors, it's a sound idea, and if they become affordable and reliable it'd reduce casualties, though if both sides had power armour like that it'd mean they'd need to use more bullets, assuming that said "electric armour" works amazingly with helmets.
Also, having tangible forcefields (free-floating protective hexagons galore!) or high-power anti-missile lasers would probably be worthy areas of defence research, but beyond that we probably don't need any more new weapons. We should stop fighting for long enough to create reliable brain-in-a-jar tech and remote-controlled androids; THEN we can start fighting again, preferably in internationally-sanctioned arenas.[/QUOTE]
2 electrified plates, a penetrating projective completes the circuit and is vaporized into plasma
Give the 3 billion to NASA :(
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37989463]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[/QUOTE]
Can you cite this? The closest thing I can think of to that would be the Army buying them to give the ANA, since they would be more familiar with that platform than anything Western.
Did the same thing with Iraq. Bought Russian helicopters and aircraft for them to get their military up and running again.
We don't operate any Mi-8's, seriously. We have our own stuff. Trust me, I work on an active flight line, and while there are Mi-8s stationed here, they are from a private corporation that does most of the sling loading operations. Our stuff works just fine, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Kiowas, and Apaches. We don't field any Russian aircraft whatsoever.
[QUOTE=Ridge;37995484]Can you cite this? The closest thing I can think of to that would be the Army buying them to give the ANA, since they would be more familiar with that platform than anything Western.
Did the same thing with Iraq. Bought Russian helicopters and aircraft for them to get their military up and running again.[/QUOTE]
[URL]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/18/AR2010061805630_pf.html[/URL]
[quote]In addition, the U.S. Special Operations Command would like to buy a few Mi-17s of its own, so that special forces carrying out clandestine missions could cloak the fact that they are American.
"We would like to have some to blend in and do things," said a senior U.S. military official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the clandestine program. "But the Russians know this. Russia has a small monopoly on Mi-17s. They are now exorbitantly priced."[/quote]
sorry, it was a "plan"
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37995544]We don't operate any Mi-8's, seriously. We have our own stuff. Trust me, I work on an active flight line, and while there are Mi-8s stationed here, they are from a private corporation that does most of the sling loading operations. Our stuff works just fine, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Kiowas, and Apaches. We don't field any Russian aircraft whatsoever.[/QUOTE]
it would be more hush hush than that... you don't see the super special H-6s I'm guessing, unless you work alongside SOAR.
Recycle the tanks and build parks and lovely buildings to people in need.
[QUOTE=Chekko;37995582]Recycle the tanks and build parks and lovely buildings to people in need.[/QUOTE]
we could put the tanks in the parks as memorials for that soviet feeling.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37995559]
it would be more hush hush than that... you don't see the super special H-6s I'm guessing, unless you work alongside SOAR.[/QUOTE]
I have friends in the SOAR, trust me. I know of stuff they do that would blow your mind, but I can't speak of any of it. I know how the SOAR operates. I have even seen the Virginia Boys operating around here with their special aircraft. The SOAR pretty much exclusively operates with MH-60L's, MH-6's, MH-47G's, DAP Equipped MH-60's, and AH-6's. The Russian aircraft we have are more for training purposes.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37995628]I have friends in the SOAR, trust me. I know of stuff they do that would blow your mind, but I can't speak of any of it. I know how the SOAR operates. I have even seen the Virginia Boys operating around here with their special aircraft. The SOAR pretty much exclusively operates with MH-60L's, MH-6's, MH-47G's, DAP Equipped MH-60's, and AH-6's. The Russian aircraft we have are more for training purposes.[/QUOTE]
see... that's why I put a disclaimer at the end of my statements
that doesn't mean they're not trying to acquire Mi-17s, like stated in the article they probably would have if the russians didn't inflate the price of the aircraft.
Unless you care to tell me that the person interviewed was simply bullshitting as part of a disinformation campaign to a gullible reporter.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37995637]see... that's why I put a disclaimer at the end of my statements
that doesn't mean they're not trying to acquire Mi-17s, like stated in the article they probably would have if the russians didn't inflate the price of the aircraft.[/QUOTE]
The SOAR pretty much have no desire to acquire Russian junk. We do amazing things with the airframes we have. However, I would not put it past the Virginia Boys to mess around with them a little.
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
Nice edit. Anyways, I can laughingly say that anything military related that appears on the news can pretty much be dismissed. I have seen enough bullshit from the news to last a lifetime. Do you honestly expect someone in Tier 2 Spec Ops to publicly reveal something about something secret?
[editline]11th October 2012[/editline]
Also, Tier 2 Spec Ops can pretty much buy anything they want. Price is NO object to them.
The only thing the US Military has to do with Russian aircraft on a non spec ops level, is just buying it for "Allies".
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37995663]The SOAR pretty much have no desire to acquire Russian junk. We do amazing things with the airframes we have. However, I would not put it past the Virginia Boys to mess around with them a little.
Nice edit. Anyways, I can laughingly say that anything military related that appears on the news can pretty much be dismissed. I have seen enough bullshit from the news to last a lifetime. [B]Do you honestly expect someone in Tier 2 Spec Ops to publicly reveal something about something secret?[/B]
Also, Tier 2 Spec Ops can pretty much buy anything they want. Price is NO object to them.[/QUOTE]
perhaps considering how much Tier 1 people leak
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37997415]perhaps considering how much Tier 1 people leak[/QUOTE]
Tiers are merely different funding levels. What I am getting at is that in regards to news media, anything we tell them is pretty much hooey. We give them a vague idea of stuff, but never anything super concrete. Did you know about the stealthhawks that the VA boys had? Neither did I, until one crashed in the Bin Laden raid.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37997604]Tiers are merely different funding levels. What I am getting at is that in regards to news media, anything we tell them is pretty much hooey. We give them a vague idea of stuff, but never anything super concrete. Did you know about the stealthhawks that the VA boys had? Neither did I, until one crashed in the Bin Laden raid.[/QUOTE]
Officers often have political agendas and reveal "secret" information to further them.
Other people within special operations often also leak information for personal gain.
pretending that news media's perception of special ops is absolute hooey is just as silly as saying the military is leak proof
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37997665]Officers often have political agendas and reveal "secret" information to further them.
Other people within special operations often also leak information for personal gain.
pretending that news media's perception of special ops is absolute hooey is just as silly as saying the military is leak proof[/QUOTE]
The media's perception of Spec Ops IS absolute bullshit though. I know this from first hand experience. Neither the media, nor the general public have any idea what actually being in a Spec Ops unit is like, or how they operate, or even where they are in the world right now. Now, the military isn't leak proof, but your view on how things work is screwed. Sure, officers are more political than enlisted , but it is part of the environment you are in. However, if any of them ever revealed secret information, then their commission would be revoked faster than you can say "Bradly Manning". I have never seen an officer ever reveal secret information to further their own cause due to the fact that revealing classified information will not be able to help them in any way other than if they really wanted to get out of the military fast. Also, people in Spec Ops don't "often" leak information. From what I have observed them doing as well as knowing their mindset and how they operate, they don't give a shit about notoriety. The quieter the better. Secrecy is their shield, their safety net. I know of stuff they've done and places they are at that would make you fall out of your chair in surprise, but you all aren't cleared for that kind of information.
[QUOTE=SKEEA;37997850]The media's perception of Spec Ops IS absolute bullshit though. I know this from first hand experience. Neither the media, nor the general public have any idea what actually being in a Spec Ops unit is like, or how they operate, or even where they are in the world right now. Now, the military isn't leak proof, but your view on how things work is screwed. Sure, officers are more political than enlisted , but it is part of the environment you are in. However, if any of them ever revealed secret information, then their commission would be revoked faster than you can say "Bradly Manning". I have never seen an officer ever reveal secret information to further their own cause due to the fact that revealing classified information will not be able to help them in any way other than if they really wanted to get out of the military fast. Also, people in Spec Ops don't "often" leak information. From what I have observed them doing as well as knowing their mindset and how they operate, they don't give a shit about notoriety. The quieter the better. Secrecy is their shield, their safety net. I know of stuff they've done and places they are at that would make you fall out of your chair in surprise, but you all aren't cleared for that kind of information.[/QUOTE]
Arguing about the media is a bit silly because it all depends on what your definition of the media.
Let's focus on the topic of leaks, shall we.
[quote] Now, the military isn't leak proof, but your view on how things work is screwed. Sure, officers are more political than enlisted , but it is part of the environment you are in. [B]However, if any of them ever revealed secret information, then their commission would be revoked faster than you can say "Bradly Manning".[/B][/quote]
again, you're in the military
there's different levels of secrecy. What I was talking about was [B]procurement[/B] which isn't secret at all for the vast majority of the military. Procurement is often subjected to congressional oversight and auditing from government offices like the GAO. Yes, procurement is a lot better hidden for special operations units.
However officers will give their opinions on procurement, to further their political means.
We're not talking about actual leaks of secret information like methods used by troops, troop positions, etc.
[quote]Also, people in Spec Ops don't "often" leak information. From what I have observed them doing as well as knowing their mindset and how they operate, they don't give a shit about notoriety.[/quote]
I'm not implying that they do it often I'm just saying it happens often enough that it isn't negligible, and I'll contest your point of them not giving a shit about notoriety.
You have enough people coming out of the SAS and writing books about it for the regular soldiers to joke that there are classes about "book writing" in SAS selection.
You have similar cases with the Navy Seals.
[QUOTE=trotskygrad;37998036]Arguing about the media is a bit silly because it all depends on what your definition of the media.
Let's focus on the topic of leaks, shall we.
again, you're in the military
there's different levels of secrecy. What I was talking about was [B]procurement[/B] which isn't secret at all for the vast majority of the military. Procurement is often subjected to congressional oversight and auditing from government offices like the GAO. Yes, procurement is a lot better hidden for special operations units.
However officers will give their opinions on procurement, to further their political means.
We're not talking about actual leaks of secret information like methods used by troops, troop positions, etc.
I'm not implying that they do it often I'm just saying it happens often enough that it isn't negligible, and I'll contest your point of them not giving a shit about notoriety.
You have enough people coming out of the SAS and writing books about it for the regular soldiers to joke that there are classes about "book writing" in SAS selection.
You have similar cases with the Navy Seals.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, procurement information is available because the general public does have an interest in where their tax dollars are going. I thought you meant for the more super high speed programs that the Army has. Anyways, the thing about the book writing is that they do it about PAST events. The notoriety thing only comes into play when they are actively doing an operation. They don't care to have their name out before they do something, which blows the operation. In fact, a lot of times they don't really want credit for an operation to begin with. Seal teams are more well known, so they actually take credit for things that other special forces detachments do as a way of throwing people off the trail. Do you really think that Saddam was randomly found by a couple random soldiers? Hardly. We could go around and around all day, but I am tired and need sleep before work tomorrow, so I am punching out.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.