Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: US Military spending

  1. #21
    [QUOTE=TerminatorJet;4235991][B]But yes going to your question who are we going to fight and how do we somehow blame this on Obama?[/B][/QUOTE]

    Can you ever stop being a partisan twat long enough to simply have a civil discussion? Just curious, as I've not mentioned Obama here at all.

    You also havn't answered the question, who is our Millitary preparing and planning to fight? Without agreement on that first, debate on specific weapons platforms is a little pointless.

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

    Not generally, no. There is a reason the UK is abandoning the platform, after all, and that the Marines are the only branch to really embrace the Harrier. if they were as good as you seem to think, why isn't th eNavy looking at them for Carrier work (Sea harrier)? Answer, they're just not that good overall, it's a brilliant piece of UK engineering that compromises all the other combat-aspects of the platform.

    I'm not sure what mission profile they're expected to fill where they would be a superior option to existing aircraft and helicopter platforms. A lack of runways is only a problem if A. your runways are destroyed, B. the Nation you're invading destroys theri own runways (or has none), or C. Helicopters are unavailable or ill sited to the task.

    But again, that all depends on whom we're looking to fight and how. If it's occupation/overthrow work a la Libya/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq, where there is no opposing air power of note, and no meaningful anti-aircraft opposition, then sure, they're probably fine. But so would Hellicopters, and Droens too for that matter, depending on the objective.

    Trust me, I'm not the type to complain that we got a spefici job done cheaper. If the Harrier works, great. Just not a huge fan of what I think is more novelty than top-tier platform.

    Edit: As a side note, it will be very dissapointing if this is the first sign that the F-35 Lighting II SVTOL is as much of a flop as it's sibling, the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 is supposed to fill the same role as the Harrier by 2014, not that far away. if teh Harrier is just a fill-in, great, especially for cheap. If it's a sign the F-35 is a pending failure, wow, what a bad era for U.S. millitary aircraft manufacture.
    Last edited by Warfish; 11-16-2011 at 05:21 PM.

  2. #22
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4235843]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.[/QUOTE]

    Two points. I am an ex artilleryman so there I have you a bit. The U.S. in WWII and since has had the most complete arsenal of artillery. Every possible type for every situation including towed, self propelled, air deployable. Our fire direction systems have always been more sophisticated and accurate.
    Battleships. The Germans were out of this game early, but the Japanese weren 't. Our Iowa class was vastly suoperior to the "Yamato" class even though they had 18" guns, our ships were much faster, more maneuverable and had much more accurate fire control systems.
    Their subs required them to surface to often. Major problem.

  3. #23
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4236456]Two points. I am an ex artilleryman so there I have you a bit.[/quote]

    No question about it.:D The closest I've come to Artillery is playing on one as a kid in the park, and playing video games.

    [QUOTE]The U.S. in WWII and since has had the most complete arsenal of artillery. Every possible type for every situation including towed, self propelled, air deployable. Our fire direction systems have always been more sophisticated and accurate[/QUOTE]

    Aye, probably true when put that way. I was limiting my comment to WWII systems, the ones I know best, where German mobile Artillery was ahead of the game for quite a while. UNlike Tank design, the Germans effectively abandoned ongoing development of mobile artillery, while the U.S. continues on. Still, fromt he reading i've done the U.S. and German systems were comprable thru WWII, and the Soviets (who always liked their big artillery) were certainly competative in that time as well.

    [QUOTE]Battleships. The Germans were out of this game early, but the Japanese weren 't. Our Iowa class was vastly suoperior to the "Yamato" class even though they had 18" guns, our ships were much faster, more maneuverable and had much more accurate fire control systems.[/QUOTE]

    I have to sheepishly admit, I'm not nearly as well read in the Pacific Theatre as I am the European one, but I don't see anything here I could disagree with tbh. American battleships were the pinicle of the form.

    [quote]Their subs required them to surface to often. Major problem.[/QUOTE]

    Indeed, a major weakness, one the were developing away but not in time before War's end. A fair point, given how well the Allies exploited it in fighting them.

  4. #24
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    6,297
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4236035]Can you ever stop being a partisan twat long enough to simply have a civil discussion? Just curious, as I've not mentioned Obama here at all.

    You also havn't answered the question, who is our Millitary preparing and planning to fight? Without agreement on that first, debate on specific weapons platforms is a little pointless.



    Not generally, no. There is a reason the UK is abandoning the platform, after all, and that the Marines are the only branch to really embrace the Harrier. if they were as good as you seem to think, why isn't th eNavy looking at them for Carrier work (Sea harrier)? Answer, they're just not that good overall, it's a brilliant piece of UK engineering that compromises all the other combat-aspects of the platform.

    I'm not sure what mission profile they're expected to fill where they would be a superior option to existing aircraft and helicopter platforms. A lack of runways is only a problem if A. your runways are destroyed, B. the Nation you're invading destroys theri own runways (or has none), or C. Helicopters are unavailable or ill sited to the task.

    But again, that all depends on whom we're looking to fight and how. If it's occupation/overthrow work a la Libya/Syria/Afghanistan/Iraq, where there is no opposing air power of note, and no meaningful anti-aircraft opposition, then sure, they're probably fine. But so would Hellicopters, and Droens too for that matter, depending on the objective.

    Trust me, I'm not the type to complain that we got a spefici job done cheaper. If the Harrier works, great. Just not a huge fan of what I think is more novelty than top-tier platform.

    Edit: As a side note, it will be very dissapointing if this is the first sign that the F-35 Lighting II SVTOL is as much of a flop as it's sibling, the F-22 Raptor. The F-35 is supposed to fill the same role as the Harrier by 2014, not that far away. if teh Harrier is just a fill-in, great, especially for cheap. If it's a sign the F-35 is a pending failure, wow, what a bad era for U.S. millitary aircraft manufacture.[/QUOTE]

    Kind of OT but when I was in the Air Force I was outside in the smoking area and a pilot walked out of a building to a Harrier that was "parked" of the flight line. Got it, fired her up and moved it about 30 feet away and shut it down and got out. Really neat VTOL example. My only guess for why he did it was alternate side parking. Seiously though it made no sense but was still cool to watch. The manuver probably cost us a million.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us