US Military spending
 

Refurbishing older proven systems seems like a wise use of the Pentagon’s budget.

IMHO


U.S. To Buy Decommissioned British Harrier Jets.

defensenews.com/

Army’s Restored Combat Choppers Fly Like New

www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/

To be fair, isn't continuous innovation in weapons systems part of the reason we became THE Superpower?

Let's not lose the edge but this isn't a terrible idea.

I'd counter that we are the superpower because we are the world’s richest nation and have the world’s 3rd highest population. Wealthy and numerous is tough to beat, especially when you throw in the Atlantic and Pacific oceans as natural boundaries.

After WWI we were the world’s most powerful nation and we had the world’s 15 largest military.

Why do we have any Conventional Millitary?

I've been told by our resident smartest poster than a War is an absolute impossabillity. We will never face a threat of Conventional War ever again, I've been assured.

As long as we have say, 10 nukes or so, we're 100% immune.

So....why have ANY millitry at all?

So you're saying the military can't be more efficient? Or is this a needless thread derailer to call out somebody? (not sure whom, but I might make a guess).... time and again, the budget option has been shown to be quite competitive with the fancy gadget in the field... simplicity can be a virtue... Russian tanks vs. Tigers in WWII and the enormous popularity of the Kalashnikov come to mind immediately.

No.

The military should be privatized because the free market rainbows, unicorns lollipops and such. :P

No, thats not what I'm saying.

I'm saying I've been told that we don't NEED a conventional millitary at all. And that if we keep one, it must be cut drasticly. Thats what I've been told, rather aggressively here at JI.

Personally, I think the millitary could be vastly more efficient. Same as the rest of Government (funny how rare the call for Govt. efficientcy is from liberal-minded folks when discussing anything but the Millitary).

A comment on the need or non-need of a conventional millitary ion a thread about spending on the conventional millitary is a derail?

Funny how some of yall think.

Such as?

The AK-47 would attest.

So why do we use the more expensive M-16 then? Why not buy ultra-cheap surplus AK-47's for our Troops?

Remind me, what was the kill/loss ratio fo Russian Tanks vs. German Tanks on the Eastern Front?

Russia did not win due to "cheaper but equally good" tanks. Russia won because it could build and man 100 tanks for every one the Germans could field, and Stalin was happy to lose all 100 tanks (and 500 men) if they killed the 1 German tank and 5 German Soldiers. German technology was teh only thing that kept Germany competative against numerical superiority for as long as they were.

Horribad example is bad.

There may be limited engagement wars. Our military needs to be nimble. We have moved in that direction.
Couple points. The Germans had hardly any Tiger tanks in WWII. It is a fallacy that they had many. It was slow and prone to mechanical problems. The U.S. 50 times as many Sherman's as Tigers. Shermans and Russian tanks with superior speed could swarm and overwhelm.

AK47 vs. M16. I have used both in combat (the AK47 as an experiment). The Ak is simpler to clean. The M16 is lighter and with a smaller round allows the soldier to carry much more ammunition. It is more accurate at shorter ranges. And most important - it has much greater KILLING power. The muzzle velocity of the M16 is so great it creates terrible wounds.
As far as other weapons systems: Always liked the Cobra. Better in anti personnel situations than the Apache. No way the Harrier replaces the F18 - different role. F18 is three times as fast. Harrier is close support. F35 replaces F18.
Some military projects are boondoggles. But we still need all branches and need to modernize from time to time.

Well, here' s a quick excerpt from the formidable Wikipedia. Looks to me like the T-34 was a success vs. the German Panzers:

During the Operation Barbarossa, the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, it was discovered that the SovietT-34 tank outclassed the Panzer III and IV. Its sloped armour could defeat most German weapons, and its 76.2 mm gun could penetrate the armour of all German tanks. This forced the Germans to improve their existing models. The Panzer III, which was intended to be the main medium tank, was upgraded to a longer, higher-velocity 50 mm gun.
Thus the Panzer IV, originally intended to be a support tank, became the de facto main medium tank re-armed with a long-barrelled, high velocity 75 mm gun to counter the T-34. The Germans also started to develop newer heavier tanks. This included the Panzer V Panther, which was intended to be the new main German battle tank. The Panther tank was a compromise of various requirements. While sharing essentially the same engine as the Tiger I tank, it had better frontal armor, better gun penetration, was lighter overall and thus faster, and could handle rough terrain better than the Tigers. The tradeoff was weaker side armor; the Panther proved to be deadly in open country and shooting from long range, but vulnerable to close-quarters combat. The Germans also started to develop a new series of very heavy tanks.
The first one was the Tiger, which outclassed all its opponents in terms of firepower and armor when it was put into operational use. Being obsessed with very heavy and mighty tanks, Hitler ordered even heavier and stronger tanks to be produced, which led to the development of the heavy Tiger II, which replaced the Tiger I late in the war. Its powerful gun and very heavy armor made it superior to every Allied or Soviet tank in a head-to-head confrontation, but the underpowered engine and the enormous fuel consumption limited its use in maneuver warfare.
The T-34, however, effectively made all German tanks produced to that date obsolete. In fact, at its height the T-34 was deemed so successful, and so capable in every role, that production of all other tanks except the IS-2 was stopped to allow all available resources to be used exclusively for this tank. The T-34 forced the Germans to adopt new, heavier designs such as the Panther and Tiger, which in turn forced upgrades to the Soviet, United States and British tank fleets. Perhaps more significantly to the ultimate course of the war, the move to more complex and expensive German tank designs overwhelmed the already critically strained German tank-production capability, reducing the numbers of tanks available to German forces and thus helping to force Germany to surrender the initiative in the war to the Allies.
Re the AK-47 (Kalshnikov):
The main advantages of the Kalashnikov rifle are its simple design, fairly compact size and adaptation to mass production. It is inexpensive to manufacture, and easy to clean and maintain. Its ruggedness and reliability are legendary.[26][27] The AK-47 was initially designed for ease of operation and repair by glove-wearing Soviet soldiers in Arctic conditions. The large gas piston, generous clearances between moving parts, and tapered cartridge case design allow the gun to endure large amounts of foreign matter and fouling without failing to cycle. This reliability comes at the cost of accuracy, as the looser tolerances do not allow for precision and consistency. Reflecting Soviet infantry doctrine of its time, the rifle is meant to be part of massed infantry fire, not long range engagements. The average service life of an AK-47 is 20 to 40 years depending on the conditions to which it has been exposed.[8]

See, now you are putting in conditions and limitations to your original "cheaper as good as expensive on the battlefield" point.

First, the T-34 was not materially cheaper than the older Panzer III, or even the early variants of the IV, and the Panzer III was an outdated design by the time the T-34 hit the Battlefield. The III and IV were both produced as early as 1935, the T-34 only started production in 1940, a huge gap of time given the advancements in war tech of that era.

Even the Panzer IV was of an older designe ethic, pre-sloped Armor design. The T-34's tech equivalenet was the Panther an Tiger tanks, which were superior weapon platforms, at much increased cost, and worse (in terms of performance) reduced reliabillity.

But my argument stands, "cheaper = same performance" is not accurate when using WWII Tank Warfare as your example. German Tanks were routinely more expensive than their same-period Allies equivalents, and of vastly better individual performance (not equipment reliabillity tho).

The primary cause of the Allied tank victories was not equivalent technology design or cost. It was pure numbers. Between the massive economies of the U.S. and the massive workforce (forced labor) of the Soviets, the Germans were outproduced hundreds, even thousands, to one, and the Germans faces severe limitations on materials and fuels and the like. The T-34 has over 80,000 produced. The Tiger I, Pather I, Panzer IV and Panzer III combined, for example, only ~22,000 or so.

On equal footing, German Tanks defeated Allied Tanks almost all the way down the line, althogugh all credit to the T-34, it was a great design and proved teh sloped-armor concept quite well, forcing German counter-development (unlike the lol-worth U.S. Sherman). On the unequal footing of economic scale and manpower, the Germans still held out for a long time, but numbers (in some battles as high as 20-1) eventually did what numbers always do, they won.

At the end of WWII U.S. tanks were superior to anything the Germans had. Faster, more firepower, reliable.
Aircraft - yes the Germans developed a jet fighter but had few and were only so so. We developed waves of sophisticated fighters. They still used the ME109. Same with the Japanese - still had the Zero while we rolled out many new models. It's a balance of new tech plus quantity.
It has always been tech plus numbers and always will be.
But it all needs to be controlled. Too many lobbyista at the Pentagon. And with Congressmen looking for campaign money.

With respect, that is a very RayRay-esque homer view of U.S. Millitary equipment IMO.

The U.S. fighting soldier was as good as they came, their equipment....well, you're the pro, but your opinion does nto agree with any of the History I've read on the subject over the years, and I've read alot.

In any event, when we open the "History Debate" forum, I will surely be enjoy reading it.:D

the smartest poster?? (aw shucks)

I never said all war was impossible and I also never said conventional war was never going to happen. It will happen but not on the scale we are building for..

What I said was 1) War with China is highly unlikely. They are a huge economic partner (who will payback their debt/buy their crap) and 2) we could get a little smaller. we don't need to have a Navy 15x larger than the next biggest Navy. It can be 10x bigger and our dominance would be the same. We don't need 14 aircraft carriers etc. We don't need the Marines, Air Force and Navy all have their own specialty fighter jets. (for dogfights that aren't gonna happen)

Whoa now. I'm not claiming to be George Patton's grandson here but what do you take issue with?
The Pershig tank at the end of WWII was better than the Tiger. Our aircraft were the best in the world. Our artillery was the best. Our subs were the best. Our aircraft carriers were the best - plus we had 100 of them. Even our battleships graded out better than the Japanese.
The M1 rifle was outstanding. Actually, Patton attributed it to be the deciding factor in Europe.
No country had anywhere near the different pieces of military equipmment as the U.S. An astounding number of items designed to provide safety to our men as well as killing enemies.
Our men handling sophisticated equipment were outstanding. Our regular Army troops were good- better than Germans? For the record though, our special forces types were very inferior to British commandos and in fact spent a great deal of times learning from the Brits in this area. Plus we wound up having lots of this type soldier and now have way more than any country ( Rangers, Special Forces, Seals, Delta Force etc.).

Actually the number of fighters our military has has been shrinking and will be further reduced. There will be dogfight in the future - guaranteed.
The AF F16 is coming to the end in the near future. The AF F15 will be following the Navy F14 shortly to oblivion. The F18 like the 16 has a couple years. The F35 replaces everything. The Harrier has nothing to do with the above - it is close air support - totally outmatched by other major country's fighters. The F17 is just a stealth light bomber.
Streamlining has occured. Army and Marines now use the same tanks and personnel carriers. The Marines have the Osprey aircraft for troop delivery. The Army uses helicopters. Same rifles, same sidearms, same grenades, same artillery. Becoming more efficient. Doesn't happen overnight - nor should it.

Ha! :D No, I was being respectful of your service, service I did not have.

Of course it was. Sort of.

The M26 Pershing Heavy Tank entered service in Feb. of 1945, with the full weight of technological and battlefield experience of the War behind it's design. It was indeed a very good tank, and lived on to serve in Korea. However, it's service in WWII was very limited, and exclusively at the end when Germany was all but defeated.

The Tiger I entered service in 1942, and was an older generation fo Tank design technology. By the time it saw action vs. the Pershing, it was outdated.

A more apt comparison would be the M26 vs. the Tiger Ausf. B, the Tiger II or "King Tiger", which entered service in 1944, and was based on a similar level of experience and tech. as the M26 was. The Tiger II was almost undefeatable on the battlefield, and most losses were due to mehcnical breakdown or running out of gas, not combat damage.

With that said, the Germans were clearly a year+ ahead of the U.S. in design, but the Pershing was a very good tank, no doubt about it. it was just too late.


Agreed. German mismanagement fo the Luftwaffe (Goering) led to all the fancy and utterly useless to the War effort tech. advances, but few truly good planes after the ME109 was outshined. U.S. Air Power wasn't cheaper or simpler than German Air design tho, which was the original argument if you recall.

I would disagree with both. The Hummel > Priest, and the German Artillery was vastly superior. As was their submarines all the way through the War.

Anything naval beyond Subs, the U.S. was better. But Germany was not a sea power per se, and never even really tried in the Carrier segment.

Debatable. Also debatable as to improtance, with air power (and the U.S. being int he lead in Carrier design and sea-based air power) had clearly put the Battleship in the background in direct naval conflict. Thos ebig guns sure did help in coastal bombardment tho.

Agreed. So was the Mouser tho, and costs were not terribly different if I recall.

Agreed. Our abillity to win was based not only on keeping up technologicly in WWII, but out vastly superior economy and production.

Debatable.

Agreed, but we hadn't exactly put a lot of effort into it yet. Same goes for our codebreakers and e-intel staff, who was weaker than both the British and Polish-in-Exile guys.

Agreed, what we lacked at the end of WWII we quickly cought up and surpassed most others around.

If you were to only worry about your own back yard and maybe offer some help to the UN, then your armed forces would be way to big as it currently sits.

Problem is you are worried about whats happening in everyone elses backyard.

Thats a very expensive hobby.

The Harrier is actually one of the most useful fighter jets around due to the fact that it is a "jump jet" that can take off vertically thus not needing an actual airfield to take off from.

Just because a weapons system is old doesn't mean it's bad. The .50 cal machine gun has been in service since WWI yet it's saved thousands of soldiers' and marine's lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and killed thousands more bad guys. The .240B machine gun is nothing more than a pimped out version of the M60 that has been in use since Vietnam and was actually an updated version of a machine gun used by the Germans in WWII.

Old stuff works especially in war.

Indeed. Usefulness all depends on whom you're fighting, and what they're flying/firing at you.

The Harrier gives up alot of air-to-air capabillity for it's takeoff/landing flexabillity. As long as it's protected by other aircraft, and works (generally) in an Air-to-ground mission profile, it's probably fine all things considered. Of course, we have existing (and expensive) rotary-aircraft for that work I thought.

It's a post-WWI design, but the point stands. The Browning has yet to be surpassed in-total by more modern designs.

Like I said, all depends on whom and what you're up against. A WWII Machine Gun may get it done, a WWII Aircraft, not so much.

The question has to be asked first and foremost.....who are we expecting and planning for a possible conventional War with? Thats who you have to defeat equipment and training wise.

So....who is that, exactly?

You really don't have an appreciation for the Harrier and the forward projection capabilities it provides.

The only rotary aircraft I've seen that is capable of landing and takeoff without an actual airfield is the Osprey and it's 1) a piece of crap and 2) used mostly for transport.

C-130's and other rotary fixed wing aircraft need an airfield. Harriers don't which is an enormous advantage. As far as air-to-air capabilities with our pilots who are the best in the world besides the Israelis they match up pretty well with MIGs which is the presumed adversary. They would be more than capable of providing fire support to ground forces.

Kiowa Warriors are actually a fine attack helicopter the main problem is not enough armor to defend the pilots.

But yes going to your question who are we going to fight and how do we somehow blame this on Obama?