Romney campaign slams Biden for 'we don't need more M1 tanks' remark - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38020730]Anyone else thinks this is sorta disturbing? I mean holy shit[/QUOTE] To one person, that's a lot. But you have to realize it's for an entire country's military. A very large country, at that. [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=SKEEA;38020747]Now, I am not taking away from the greatness that is the Air Force's arsenal, but equipping the Army with better stuff and newer, smaller, and faster equipment is more important (in my opinion) because we are the occupying force that moves in. Also, I don't think the general public realizes just how retardedly expensive stuff that the military buys is. Just the other day, I was handling a few bearings worth three thousand dollars apiece. You guys don't even want to know how much the internal equipment in my helicopter's Mast Mounted Sight is. If we weren't forced into contracts with certain civilian companies, things wouldn't cost so much.[/QUOTE] It's because the civilian companies pay the Congressmen where the military doesn't. Maybe you guys should start paying Congress :v:

[QUOTE=l33tkill;38020727]Absolutely! Our shop has worked closely with pilots flying in Afghanistan, and they constantly asks us if we have any alternative solutions to certain AD sites that require stand off munitions. Then we have to put pilots at risk by having them drop standard GBUs, or perform CAS missions just to take something out that would hinder ground force operations. I couldn't stand knowing that my weaponeering package shot our own pilot out of the sky, and I want to prevent that entirely with our standoff capabilities.[/QUOTE] I think a worthy investment would be into better MUMS systems that could help with standoff capabilities. Send the drones in, lase the target, launch something from really far away, target destroyed, call it good. I think better MUMS systems will reshape the way we fight wars.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38020775]I think a worthy investment would be into better MUMS systems that could help with standoff capabilities. Send the drones in, lase the target, launch something from really far away, target destroyed, call it good. I think better MUMS systems will reshape the way we fight wars.[/QUOTE] Even air/ground lazing would be difficult to do. Drones can easily get shot out of the sky with SA sites (depending on the sites capabilities alone), and ground forces would have to get in close to the site (without air support) just to laze the target. Weather would also really play a big factor in lazing as well. Were as pre-packaged solutions that utilize GPS guided bombs would be no problem. HOWEVER if the SAs aren't loaded than drones would be an easy way in. The egress routes would be a little flaky though. It's a good idea though. So we know that the asset would be open for use.

[QUOTE=l33tkill;38020871]Even air/ground lazing would be difficult to do. Drones can easily get shot out of the sky with SA sites (depending on the sites capabilities alone), and ground forces would have to get in close to the site (without air support) just to laze the target. Weather would also really play a big factor in lazing as well. Were as pre-packaged solutions that utilize GPS guided bombs would be no problem. HOWEVER if the SAs aren't loaded than drones would be an easy way in. The egress routes would be a little flaky though. It's a good idea though. So we know that the asset would be open for use.[/QUOTE] We have been using the L2MUMS that is installed in our helicopters with drones out here with impunity. The worst SA sites that we have encountered out here have been angry men with Kalishnikovs, and one dishka. They didn't manage to do anything. The drones that we are using in conjunction with our helicopters double our operational rate and create an extremely effective combo. If congress would put more money towards drones, who knows what we will be capable of doing with them. Air Force, Army, I don't care. The drones we have are very great force multipliers that are really worthy of being looked into. Who knows, perhaps we could even make a drone that launches standoff munitions of its own.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38020602]It's true, isn't it? Oh wait Obama wants to make it so gay people can marry that automatically absolves him of all the murder he has committed and all the wealth he has stolen.[/QUOTE] it has more to do with the "both sides suck" thinking leads to voter apathy, which then makes things worse Also it lets the GOP get away with things like, well what is always posted here on FP, yet GOP candidates still win stuff easily CAUSE REMEMBER THEY ARE JUST AS BAD

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38020976]We have been using the L2MUMS that is installed in our helicopters with drones out here with impunity. The worst SA sites that we have encountered out here have been angry men with Kalishnikovs, and one dishka. They didn't manage to do anything. The drones that we are using in conjunction with our helicopters double our operational rate and create an extremely effective combo. If congress would put more money towards drones, who knows what we will be capable of doing with them. Air Force, Army, I don't care. The drones we have are very great force multipliers that are really worthy of being looked into. Who knows, perhaps we could even make a drone that launches standoff munitions of its own.[/QUOTE] Ah, sorry for the confusion...I was talking about possible future operations. No doubt in my mind the RPAs have done a swell job in the current conflict. The OPs floor always has something up their sleeve when it comes down to building packages. In reality though the Air Force and Navy seriously need a good boost in standoff munitions. Even if it were to be integrated on an RPA, then we would need a spot on reason for it to use that platform rather than a bomber/jet. For this conflict, yes that would be a useful integration. For future conflicts..hell no.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38020730]Anyone else thinks this is sorta disturbing? I mean holy shit[/QUOTE] I don't. I see stuff like that on a daily basis. Trust me, it is nothing special. We have a motto in the Army, "Train as we fight." Those vehicles are either on the way to get repaired, or they are being moved to a training site. Nothing really out of the ordinary.

[QUOTE=SKEEA;38021122]I don't. I see stuff like that on a daily basis. Trust me, it is nothing special. We have a motto in the Army, "Train as we fight." Those vehicles are either on the way to get repaired, or they are being moved to a training site. Nothing really out of the ordinary.[/QUOTE] He means on the sense that American feel the need to manufacture so many machines dedicated to war.

[QUOTE=The Baconator;38021017]it has more to do with the "both sides suck" thinking leads to voter apathy, which then makes things worse[/quote] If there is voter apathy, it is because the system itself causes people to become disillusioned with voting, not because some particular type of thinking simply causes it to pervade. [quote]Also it lets the GOP get away with things like, well what is always posted here on FP, yet GOP candidates still win stuff easily CAUSE REMEMBER THEY ARE JUST AS BAD[/QUOTE] By holding the GOP accountable, you are letting the Democrats get away with their crimes against humanity. Should we really choose between two murderers? Should we really say that Obama is better than Romney even though he also supports killing, detaining, and oppressing people around the world? Should we say that Obama is better because he supports superficial issues like gay marriage and abortion; issues constructed simply to divide people along lines other than class war or continued failed wars and policies around the world. Why shouldn't we say fuck it? Why should we, through our vote, support murder and enslavement?

[QUOTE=Canary;38019534][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PTfF6wmqcU[/media][/QUOTE] I've seen this video before, but it didn't hit me until now how many fucking M2A2s were on that train. Good god, I bet the US wouldn't even give a fuck if you stole a few of them.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;38021324]If there is voter apathy, it is because the system itself causes people to become disillusioned with voting, not because some particular type of thinking simply causes it to pervade.[/QUOTE] Holy shit, this is like the third time you've said it in a thread. Low voter turnout causes extremists to get into power, which sets a precedent. Hence the current situation. You're failing the system, not the other way around.

It's like feeding a dying fat guy who tries to lose weight more hamburgers.

Why is the US government so intent on forcing money into the military budget? Money that it doesn't even need, is this some kind of plan to spend enough money so that Obama can't allocate it elsewhere?

Bribing is legal and we call it lobbying.

[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/5a/U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg/800px-U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2010.svg.png[/img] Great god that's a lot of money.

[QUOTE=Ray-The-Sun;38024231]Holy shit, this is like the third time you've said it in a thread. Low voter turnout causes extremists to get into power, which sets a precedent. Hence the current situation. You're failing the system, not the other way around.[/QUOTE] No, not really. Extremists already get into power because voting simply doesn't matter much. You get to choose between two corporate sponsored choices. You would have a point if our system wasn't rigged to begin with.

[QUOTE=Dr. Gestapo;38020730]Anyone else thinks this is sorta disturbing? I mean holy shit[/QUOTE] You'll notice none of them have the cannons on the turret. If I remember correctly this was a shipment getting upgraded to latest build spec. Hell, they're in woodland camoflauge, which is pretty much unused nowadays. Only national guard vehicles and the like have it anymore. [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=ZombieDawgs;38021200]He means on the sense that American feel the need to manufacture so many machines dedicated to war.[/QUOTE] We also build them to sell to most every country that isn't former USSR or in Africa, too... [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] Russia takes care of those ones.

[QUOTE=AlphaX10;38019579]yeah we might as well be selling the stripped-down ones to Israel.[/QUOTE] they have the merkava

Oh look, one of my state senators (up for reelection, in fact), is for the tank budget boosts. And in my current opinion (read: assuming the Republican candidate won't align with my views), I was going to vote for him, too. I probably still will, but that doesn't mean he's not getting a strongly worded letter about this.

We currently have nearly ten thousand M1 variants in service, and two thousand more sitting in a giant parking lot because we don't have any uses for them. How would temporarily shutting down production threaten national security, exactly? We have enough in storage to satisfy demand for the next decade.

[QUOTE=Paradox621;38027015]We currently have nearly ten thousand M1 variants in service, and two thousand more sitting in a giant parking lot because we don't have any uses for them. How would temporarily shutting down production threaten national security, exactly? We have enough in storage to satisfy demand for the next decade.[/QUOTE] They calculated that it would cost more if we shut down production and had to start it up again in a few months when the Soviets invade than if we just kept going. It's just like when you're driving, it uses more fuel to slow down, stop and get moving again than to just run straight through a red light. Trust me, these guys know what they're talking about.

[QUOTE=Ridge;38025437]You'll notice none of them have the cannons on the turret. If I remember correctly this was a shipment getting upgraded to latest build spec. Hell, they're in woodland camoflauge, which is pretty much unused nowadays. Only national guard vehicles and the like have it anymore. [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] We also build them to sell to most every country that isn't former USSR or in Africa, too... [editline]13th October 2012[/editline] Russia takes care of those ones.[/QUOTE] Seriously though. That many and you'll defend it? That. Many?

[QUOTE=W0w00t;38019489]I'd like to see romneys ass[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Ridge;38025437]You'll notice none of them have the cannons on the turret. If I remember correctly this was a shipment getting upgraded to latest build spec. [B]Hell, they're in woodland camoflauge, which is pretty much unused nowadays. Only national guard vehicles and the like have it anymore.[/B][/QUOTE] When US AFVs are brought in for upgrades/maintenance/etc. they are supposed to be repainted in woodland, having been hastily painted tan for the Gulf War.

[QUOTE=Devodiere;38027109]in a few months when the Soviets invade... Trust me...[/QUOTE]Umm, no.

We have 8,000~ M1 Abrams Tanks in service. We good, the Abrams isn't even that amazing of a tank compared to it's NATO peers anyway. which is beside the point because they are essentially redundant in the current scheme of warfare we find ourselves fighting, Biden's right we need more IFVs.

[QUOTE=goon165;38028900]We have 8,000~ M1 Abrams Tanks in service. We good, the Abrams isn't even that amazing of a tank compared to it's NATO peers anyway.[/QUOTE] It is well armed, heavily armored, and mechanically reliable. She eats fuel like it is a joke, but will also run off virtually any flammable substance. So in a pinch you can steal gas from local vehicles or captured enemy hardware. You can also run your tank off the same fuel you run the scout helicopters that are attached to the advancing tank division. Just like the A-10 was designed around its cannon, the Abrams was designed with this turbine engine in mind. It isn't some wonder tank, but it is a fine vehicle on par with other NATO tanks.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38028958]It is well armed, heavily armored, and mechanically reliable. She eats fuel like it is a joke, but will also run off virtually any flammable substance. So in a pinch you can steal gas from local vehicles or captured enemy hardware. You can also run your tank off the same fuel you run the scout helicopters that are attached to the advancing tank division. Just like the A-10 was designed around its cannon, the Abrams was designed with this turbine engine in mind. It isn't some wonder tank, but it is a fine vehicle on par with other NATO tanks.[/QUOTE] Right, it isn't bad by any stretch, but there really isn't a reason to start pumping them out like Shermans.

[QUOTE=goon165;38029026]Right, it isn't bad by any stretch, but there really isn't a reason to start pumping them out like Shermans.[/QUOTE] Oh yeah definitely. We have way more than we could possibly use.

[QUOTE=GunFox;38028958]It is well armed, heavily armored, and mechanically reliable. She eats fuel like it is a joke, but will also run off virtually any flammable substance. So in a pinch you can steal gas from local vehicles or captured enemy hardware. You can also run your tank off the same fuel you run the scout helicopters that are attached to the advancing tank division. Just like the A-10 was designed around its cannon, the Abrams was designed with this turbine engine in mind. It isn't some wonder tank, but it is a fine vehicle on par with other NATO tanks.[/QUOTE] Pretty much EVERYTHING in the Army runs on JP-8 though.