Striker: I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1989-1995, so I know quite well what the Clinton administration did to the armed forces during that time. True, Clinton and his cabinet screwed with the military pretty good, but you have to remember that Congress wields a lot of control over the armed services as well. Why? Simple: Congress controls the funding. That alone gives Capitol Hill a way to force the President to do whatever it wants/doesn't want (up to a point; there is a system of checks and balances in place, after all). Many (if not most) of the changes to the armed forces (and a good many more proposals that, fortunately or not, never became reality) came from members of congress, and it was just as likely for Republicans to sponsor or support those changes as Democrats or independents. Believe me, Congress is just as much at fault for screwing over our men and women in uniform as any President.
On the website: Yeah, it does suck.:p If the DON would put as much effort into revamping the main [I]public[/I] website as they have some of the other Navy websites, it'd be a helluva lot better.
I have to agree with JohnD on the current state of the armed forces. Sure, Bush has increased some things, such as funding, but a good deal of that funding is [I]not[/I] being spent where it's needed the most. Too much emphasis is being placed (in my opinion) on new "gee-whiz-bang" hardware and ideas and little or none on properly supporting and maintaining existing equipment and on the personnel who operate and maintain that equipment. Sure, there's always a need for new hardware, but you also have to take care of what's already there (and the people who take care of it; I'm one of those guys, so I understand that part [I]very[/I] well).
while i believe that a missle defense system is a great idea in theory has it ever worked the way it was supposed to? it would be nice to see my cousin with two kids doing his second tour in iraq and and 3 over seas tour in 3 years get a pay raise and have his pension secured.
and while i am not the biggest clinton fan at all its really hard to put the blame all on him or congress. We cant forget that the cold war was over, their seemed very little reason to keep our military forces that big. No one could forsee the current climate but since we are now there we do need more troops, they need better pay and they need our support when they come home and when they are deployed, it isnt that hard to make a care package, and it means a lot to them.
JohnD: USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), July 1991- October 3, 1995 (the day I left active duty).
R.T.: It wasn't just the downsizing [I]per se[/I] that was/is such a big issue (not by a long shot); part of the problem was that both Congress and the White house were busy screwing around with pay and benefits for military personnel and their families (among many other "quality of life" issues that neither the Clinton administration and Congress couldn't just help FUBARing) and the fact that too little money was being spent to provide spare parts and other resources to operate and maintain existing equipment.
I didn't have any issues with the downsizing process as originally planned; there was a lot of old, obsolescent, expensive to operate (and maintain) hardware and a number of surplus military facilities that we needed to get rid of (and did, at least as far as equipment was concerned) and there was certainly a need to streamline the way the armed forces operated. Unfortunately, too many people who came into office after the original downsizing plans were laid out decided that those plans "didn't go far enough".
striker, your numbers are right on, but they should be put into perspective. Not all of the branches of the millitary have the same amount of members.
For example, at its highest strength (ww2) the USMC has but 500k members, while even now the USArmy has well over 700k.
total active duty numbers today
USArmy - 850k
USMC - 174k
USN - 380k
USAF - 300k
if we take into account that these numbers have held relativly stable over the last 10 years (Of which I can tell you when I entered the Marines in 1997 that was the number of active duty Marines) then we see that there was about:
Throughout the late 1990's when most of the services had an attrician(% difference of members retiring/leaving with those enlisting/reinlisting) rate of about -7% the Marines were able to make their quotas and keep their force about the same. The other services had a real problem with it. That is part of the problem here.
You can see that the Navy and the Airforce took the biggest hits, and this is why we are having the current problem we are in.
Another item to consider: are those numbers the [U]total[/U] amount of personnel available (i.e., active, reserve, and National Guard) or do they just include active duty personnel? Bear in mind that a lot of the workload has shifted from the "active" side over to the Guard and reserves over the past several years. Also consider the fact that some tasks are now handled by civilian contractors.
Also, in the case of the Navy, most of the resupply work (underway replenishment, hauling supplies to and from overseas bases/locations, etc.) is now taken care of by the Maritime Sealift Command, a DOD agency which uses ships manned by mostly civilian crews (each vessel has a small number of Navy communications personnel on board) to haul various types of cargoes and supplies for the armed forces. Several Navy cargo ships have been transferred to the MSC and it's likely that the remainder (mostly AOEs which travel with carrier battle groups) will go to MSC within a decade or so.
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story (or even part of it); You also have to look at what is being done with those numbers. Much of the trouble the U.S. armed froces are now having in many areas is the result of poor planning and of politics getting in the way of common sense. (Sound familiar?) Adding more personnel might ease the workload for those who are already serving, but it won't solve the poor decisionmaking of those who are in charge.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]JohnD: USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), July 1991- October 3, 1995 (the day I left active duty).[/B][/QUOTE]
Not a bad ship, eh? If things weren't classified, I'd ask a few questions about the ship.
[QUOTE][B]R.T.: It wasn't just the downsizing [I]per se[/I] that was/is such a big issue (not by a long shot); part of the problem was that both Congress and the White house were busy screwing around with pay and benefits for military personnel and their families (among many other "quality of life" issues that neither the Clinton administration and Congress couldn't just help FUBARing) and the fact that too little money was being spent to provide spare parts and other resources to operate and maintain existing equipment.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. If I remember correctly, training budgets for Navy pilots were cut, too.
[QUOTE][B]I didn't have any issues with the downsizing process as originally planned; there was a lot of old, obsolescent, expensive to operate (and maintain) hardware and a number of surplus military facilities that we needed to get rid of (and did, at least as far as equipment was concerned) and there was certainly a need to streamline the way the armed forces operated. Unfortunately, too many people who came into office after the original downsizing plans were laid out decided that those plans "didn't go far enough". [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. There were too many subs and surface ships cut from the Navy (along with the equivalent for the other branches), too. I remember reading a number of recent articles about the Administration wanting to cut the sub fleet from 50 to 30-37. The sub fleet is stretched thin as it is.
Plus, where's the replacement for the F-14? I doubt the F-18 (even the E/F models) has the legs to serve as an interceptor as well as the Tomcat.
JohnD: Ask away. There isn't too much about the "Gold Eagle" that is/was classified, and most of that has likely changed since I was on board.
The training budgets weren't just cut, they were damn near [I]eliminated[/I]. Any training flights that were not deployment-related were all but cancelled; even then there was barely enough money available.
The F-18 E/F Super Hornet does indeed have the "legs" (range and weapons system capability); that was the main reason for developing the Super Hornet in the first place. What it does lack, however, is a missile like the Phoenix. Granted, there's no need to worry about the Soviets or the Russians attacking our carrier battle groups with Backfire or Bear bombers loaded with long-range antiship missiles; China is developing that capability, however, and it will be necessary to have something which can counter that threat. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest in developing such a missile for the F-18 E/F.
I never did understand the Navy's reason to stop arming their airplanes with the AIM-54 Phoenix missile. It's the Navy's ONLY long-range air-to-air missile.
I don't know what they were thinking. I'd rather engage the enemy at 100 miles than 30-50 miles. The further away the better! ;)
On another note...that damn thing is half-million dollars a pop. :eek: Damn, isn't there a way to make these things cheaper??
Look at the British Armed Forces, we are being slaughtered. Blair want's to spread the forces wider and wider. We're already in Iraq, Afghanistan, and god knows how many detachments abroad and what does Labour want to do? Cut the forces even more. After the Berlin Wall came down the forces were cut drasitically and I think those cuts were too much, but look at this article.
Granted, the Type 42's are getting on a bit and will eventually be replaced, but some of the other cuts are inexcusable.
RAF Leuchars, the northernmost Fighter Interceptor base in the UK is at risk, HMS Gannet on the west coast of Scotland who serve as ASW duties with secondary but much appreciated SAR duties have already been cut from 10 helicopters to 2, and that is at risk.
Striker: The Phoenix is also a very BIG missile; the F-14 is about the only U.S. aircraft still in service that can carry and launch it. It certainly is possible to develop and field a smaller, less expensive missile with the same (or improved) capabilities; it's just not a priority with the "big thinkers" in Washington.
Mundane: Don't use too wide a brush; not all Americans support the use of war to solve all problems (real or perceived); I sure as hell don't.
Anla'shok: Now you know what the U.S. armed forces have been going through since the end of the Cold War. IIRC, Labour has been pulling the same crap since the 1960's (cancellation of the TSR 2 tactical bomber project and the P.1154, which was the original - and supersonic - Harrier; elimination of the remaining "true" aircraft carriers and the refusal to fund the construction of new ones). It's fortunate that Labour wasn't able to cause more damage; otherwise, there probably wouldn't be a Defence Ministry left.
Infantry, the building block of any army, whether you're from third world Asscrackistan to the technologically advanced USA is being cut. The British Army, for its size is one of the widest deployed armies in the world, and infantry is being cut!!!!
And what's in the news today? That Blair may put British troops out in Sudan. We're already using TA troops in Iraq, we're undermanned.
with even more budget cuts for the millitary now bush is on a cuba rampage and also says that Iran had something to do with 9/11. Were fucked now, if he gets re-elected his "path to end terrorism" (like its possible) will put us in a war on our own hemisphere. fucking nut.
Hes also said now that if someone tries to nuke us that we have plenty of nukes pointed at them. This loony puppet is going to send us into nuclear war.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by SpiritOne [/i]
[B]Hes also said now that if someone tries to nuke us that we have plenty of nukes pointed at them. This loony puppet is going to send us into nuclear war. [/B][/QUOTE]
To be fair to Bush (for once) hasn't it pretty much been standard procedure for the US for some decades now that if they were nuked by someone, they would retaliate in kind. Anything less being perceived as a sign of weakness. Now I might be wrong in that, but I've heard that this was the SOP.
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Yes, MAD has been pretty much a needed policy by all nuclear powers to at least attempt to stop the world being fucked over. But there's also the concept of nuclear disarmament, which the US is supposed to be contributing to. Going on about how you have plenty of nukes isn't a good thing to say when you're supposed to be disarming.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]JohnD: Ask away. There isn't too much about the "Gold Eagle" that is/was classified, and most of that has likely changed since I was on board.[/B][/QUOTE]
The questions I'd like to ask, however, aren't ones I can ask without losing my security clearance, since I'm working on a few projects, including this:
[QUOTE][B]The training budgets weren't just cut, they were damn near [I]eliminated[/I]. Any training flights that were not deployment-related were all but cancelled; even then there was barely enough money available.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. It doesn't exactly help pilots and their crews if they aren't put through enough training.
[QUOTE][B]The F-18 E/F Super Hornet does indeed have the "legs" (range and weapons system capability); that was the main reason for developing the Super Hornet in the first place. What it does lack, however, is a missile like the Phoenix. Granted, there's no need to worry about the Soviets or the Russians attacking our carrier battle groups with Backfire or Bear bombers loaded with long-range antiship missiles; China is developing that capability, however, and it will be necessary to have something which can counter that threat. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest in developing such a missile for the F-18 E/F. [/B][/QUOTE]
China also has Russian-sold Moskit cruise missiles, which we really have no effective defense against.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Mundane [/i]
[B]oh, so they need money? Maybe stop fighting wars then, and use the money on equipment instead? Fighting wars isnt the only solution, though the americans tend to believe it sometimes. Someone should get their priorities right...... [/B][/QUOTE]
Quite the generalities you're trying to push, there. How do you actually know what the Americans tend to believe?
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]IIRC, Labour has been pulling the same crap since the 1960's (cancellation of the TSR 2 tactical bomber project and the P.1154, which was the original - and supersonic - Harrier; elimination of the remaining "true" aircraft carriers and the refusal to fund the construction of new ones). It's fortunate that Labour wasn't able to cause more damage; otherwise, there probably wouldn't be a Defence Ministry left. [/B][/QUOTE]
It goes deeper and more serious than that. The UK has lost a some of their ability to construct attack and ballistic missile subs. This has gotten bad enough that they need assistance from foreign contractors on the Astute program. The US could get to that point soon, if we aren't careful.
JohnD: I think I've got a pretty good idea what those questions would be...
I'd forgotten about the Moskit; you'd just about need a ship-based version of the ABL (or the Sea Lite system that the Navy had started to develop) to kill the damn thing.
I knew about the submarine issue; I could've also mentioned the untimely demise of the British strategic bomber force. Getting rid of the Vulcan was a major mistake, IMHO; it might not have had the payload capacity of the BUFF, but it could still carry more than the Tornado and had a much lower radar cross-section to boot, plus it was far better suited for the low-altitude penetrator role than the out-of-the-box B52s. (It also looked pretty damn cool, too.:) )
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by An ex-Squid [/i]
[B]JohnD: I think I've got a pretty good idea what those questions would be...[/QUOTE][/B]
On some fronts, probably yes :)
[QUOTE][B]I'd forgotten about the Moskit; you'd just about need a ship-based version of the ABL (or the Sea Lite system that the Navy had started to develop) to kill the damn thing. [/QUOTE][/B]
The ship-based version of the ABL probably wouldn't hit it, since the thing (if I remember correctly) is a Mach 2.2 to 3 (depending on the part of its attack profile the thing is in) missile with a range of 120 to 250 km (in the 3M80E version), a 320 kg warhead, and runs part of its mission as a sea-skimmer. It was designed to beat the Aegis/SM-2 combination, and with the only 20-30 second reaction time it gives the target, it's a nasty SOB.
[QUOTE][B]I knew about the submarine issue; I could've also mentioned the untimely demise of the British strategic bomber force. Getting rid of the Vulcan was a major mistake, IMHO; it might not have had the payload capacity of the BUFF, but it could still carry more than the Tornado and had a much lower radar cross-section to boot, plus it was far better suited for the low-altitude penetrator role than the out-of-the-box B52s. (It also looked pretty damn cool, too.:) ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. The U.S. is also helping out with the Collins Class sub:
IMO, I wish the UK would have maintained more of its ship design capabilities. I'd love to see what the Royal Navy would have, if the cutbacks weren't felt so hard.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by JohnD [/i]
[B][/B]
The ship-based version of the ABL probably wouldn't hit it, since the thing (if I remember correctly) is a Mach 2.2 to 3 (depending on the part of its attack profile the thing is in) missile with a range of 120 to 250 km (in the 3M80E version), a 320 kg warhead, and runs part of its mission as a sea-skimmer. It was designed to beat the Aegis/SM-2 combination, and with the only 20-30 second reaction time it gives the target, it's a nasty SOB.
[/QUOTE]
That's why I really wish the Navy had developed a Phoenix follow-on for use with the Super Hornet; the easiest way to stop an anti-ship missile is to destroy the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch.
[QUOTE]IMO, I wish the UK would have maintained more of its ship design capabilities. I'd love to see what the Royal Navy would have, if the cutbacks weren't felt so hard.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It's ridiculous that the very same nation which designed and built the world's first successful aircraft carrier has to rely on outside help to develop its latest submarines.:(
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Yes, MAD has been pretty much a needed policy by all nuclear powers to at least attempt to stop the world being fucked over. But there's also the concept of nuclear disarmament, which the US is supposed to be contributing to. Going on about how you have plenty of nukes isn't a good thing to say when you're supposed to be disarming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nuclear Disarming to Americans is, "Everone Disarm, Except us".
[QUOTE]oh, so they need money? Maybe stop fighting wars then, and use the money on equipment instead?
Fighting wars isnt the only solution, though the americans tend to believe it sometimes. Someone should get their priorities right....[/QUOTE]
I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D
[QUOTE]But still, the money could have been used on so much good things....like going to the space
[/QUOTE]
I just got it..... Lets put some oil on mars, Make up some alien threat.... And they we will be going to space:D
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. I'm sure Britain and France would be real rich right now if they didn't fight any wars last century... Sometimes not fighting isn't an acceptable option.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Captain,Simmonds [/i]
[B]I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D[/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you win, in which case the boosted economy in an efficiently fought war will allow for long-term benefits down the road. Note that this does not apply to wars of attrition or one in which a war-time economy is not properly enstated.
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Biggles [/i]
[B]Yeah. I'm sure Britain and France would be real rich right now if they didn't fight any wars last century... Sometimes not fighting isn't an acceptable option. [/B][/QUOTE]
Or in any other century, for that matter...
Anla'Shok: You're actually expecting Simmonds to say something constructive here?:p :D
Comments
On the website: Yeah, it does suck.:p If the DON would put as much effort into revamping the main [I]public[/I] website as they have some of the other Navy websites, it'd be a helluva lot better.
I have to agree with JohnD on the current state of the armed forces. Sure, Bush has increased some things, such as funding, but a good deal of that funding is [I]not[/I] being spent where it's needed the most. Too much emphasis is being placed (in my opinion) on new "gee-whiz-bang" hardware and ideas and little or none on properly supporting and maintaining existing equipment and on the personnel who operate and maintain that equipment. Sure, there's always a need for new hardware, but you also have to take care of what's already there (and the people who take care of it; I'm one of those guys, so I understand that part [I]very[/I] well).
[B]Striker: I was on active duty in the U.S. Navy from 1989-1995[/B][/QUOTE]
Which ships did you serve onboard?
and while i am not the biggest clinton fan at all its really hard to put the blame all on him or congress. We cant forget that the cold war was over, their seemed very little reason to keep our military forces that big. No one could forsee the current climate but since we are now there we do need more troops, they need better pay and they need our support when they come home and when they are deployed, it isnt that hard to make a care package, and it means a lot to them.
R.T.: It wasn't just the downsizing [I]per se[/I] that was/is such a big issue (not by a long shot); part of the problem was that both Congress and the White house were busy screwing around with pay and benefits for military personnel and their families (among many other "quality of life" issues that neither the Clinton administration and Congress couldn't just help FUBARing) and the fact that too little money was being spent to provide spare parts and other resources to operate and maintain existing equipment.
I didn't have any issues with the downsizing process as originally planned; there was a lot of old, obsolescent, expensive to operate (and maintain) hardware and a number of surplus military facilities that we needed to get rid of (and did, at least as far as equipment was concerned) and there was certainly a need to streamline the way the armed forces operated. Unfortunately, too many people who came into office after the original downsizing plans were laid out decided that those plans "didn't go far enough".
For example, at its highest strength (ww2) the USMC has but 500k members, while even now the USArmy has well over 700k.
total active duty numbers today
USArmy - 850k
USMC - 174k
USN - 380k
USAF - 300k
if we take into account that these numbers have held relativly stable over the last 10 years (Of which I can tell you when I entered the Marines in 1997 that was the number of active duty Marines) then we see that there was about:
USArmy - 1 million
USMC - 185k
USN - 525k
USAF - 450k
rough estimate of 1992-3 force post DS1.
so we are looking at a reduction of about
USArmy - (-15%)
USMC - (-5%)
USN - (-27%)
USAF - (-34%)
Throughout the late 1990's when most of the services had an attrician(% difference of members retiring/leaving with those enlisting/reinlisting) rate of about -7% the Marines were able to make their quotas and keep their force about the same. The other services had a real problem with it. That is part of the problem here.
You can see that the Navy and the Airforce took the biggest hits, and this is why we are having the current problem we are in.
Also, in the case of the Navy, most of the resupply work (underway replenishment, hauling supplies to and from overseas bases/locations, etc.) is now taken care of by the Maritime Sealift Command, a DOD agency which uses ships manned by mostly civilian crews (each vessel has a small number of Navy communications personnel on board) to haul various types of cargoes and supplies for the armed forces. Several Navy cargo ships have been transferred to the MSC and it's likely that the remainder (mostly AOEs which travel with carrier battle groups) will go to MSC within a decade or so.
Numbers alone don't tell the whole story (or even part of it); You also have to look at what is being done with those numbers. Much of the trouble the U.S. armed froces are now having in many areas is the result of poor planning and of politics getting in the way of common sense. (Sound familiar?) Adding more personnel might ease the workload for those who are already serving, but it won't solve the poor decisionmaking of those who are in charge.
[B]JohnD: USS Carl Vinson (CVN 70), July 1991- October 3, 1995 (the day I left active duty).[/B][/QUOTE]
Not a bad ship, eh? If things weren't classified, I'd ask a few questions about the ship.
[QUOTE][B]R.T.: It wasn't just the downsizing [I]per se[/I] that was/is such a big issue (not by a long shot); part of the problem was that both Congress and the White house were busy screwing around with pay and benefits for military personnel and their families (among many other "quality of life" issues that neither the Clinton administration and Congress couldn't just help FUBARing) and the fact that too little money was being spent to provide spare parts and other resources to operate and maintain existing equipment.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. If I remember correctly, training budgets for Navy pilots were cut, too.
[QUOTE][B]I didn't have any issues with the downsizing process as originally planned; there was a lot of old, obsolescent, expensive to operate (and maintain) hardware and a number of surplus military facilities that we needed to get rid of (and did, at least as far as equipment was concerned) and there was certainly a need to streamline the way the armed forces operated. Unfortunately, too many people who came into office after the original downsizing plans were laid out decided that those plans "didn't go far enough". [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. There were too many subs and surface ships cut from the Navy (along with the equivalent for the other branches), too. I remember reading a number of recent articles about the Administration wanting to cut the sub fleet from 50 to 30-37. The sub fleet is stretched thin as it is.
Plus, where's the replacement for the F-14? I doubt the F-18 (even the E/F models) has the legs to serve as an interceptor as well as the Tomcat.
The training budgets weren't just cut, they were damn near [I]eliminated[/I]. Any training flights that were not deployment-related were all but cancelled; even then there was barely enough money available.
The F-18 E/F Super Hornet does indeed have the "legs" (range and weapons system capability); that was the main reason for developing the Super Hornet in the first place. What it does lack, however, is a missile like the Phoenix. Granted, there's no need to worry about the Soviets or the Russians attacking our carrier battle groups with Backfire or Bear bombers loaded with long-range antiship missiles; China is developing that capability, however, and it will be necessary to have something which can counter that threat. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest in developing such a missile for the F-18 E/F.
I don't know what they were thinking. I'd rather engage the enemy at 100 miles than 30-50 miles. The further away the better! ;)
On another note...that damn thing is half-million dollars a pop. :eek: Damn, isn't there a way to make these things cheaper??
Fighting wars isnt the only solution, though the americans tend to believe it sometimes. Someone should get their priorities right......
[url]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3912283.stm[/url]
Granted, the Type 42's are getting on a bit and will eventually be replaced, but some of the other cuts are inexcusable.
RAF Leuchars, the northernmost Fighter Interceptor base in the UK is at risk, HMS Gannet on the west coast of Scotland who serve as ASW duties with secondary but much appreciated SAR duties have already been cut from 10 helicopters to 2, and that is at risk.
Mundane: Don't use too wide a brush; not all Americans support the use of war to solve all problems (real or perceived); I sure as hell don't.
Anla'shok: Now you know what the U.S. armed forces have been going through since the end of the Cold War. IIRC, Labour has been pulling the same crap since the 1960's (cancellation of the TSR 2 tactical bomber project and the P.1154, which was the original - and supersonic - Harrier; elimination of the remaining "true" aircraft carriers and the refusal to fund the construction of new ones). It's fortunate that Labour wasn't able to cause more damage; otherwise, there probably wouldn't be a Defence Ministry left.
And what's in the news today? That Blair may put British troops out in Sudan. We're already using TA troops in Iraq, we're undermanned.
But still, the money could have been used on so much good things....like going to the space :)
Hes also said now that if someone tries to nuke us that we have plenty of nukes pointed at them. This loony puppet is going to send us into nuclear war.
[B]Hes also said now that if someone tries to nuke us that we have plenty of nukes pointed at them. This loony puppet is going to send us into nuclear war. [/B][/QUOTE]
To be fair to Bush (for once) hasn't it pretty much been standard procedure for the US for some decades now that if they were nuked by someone, they would retaliate in kind. Anything less being perceived as a sign of weakness. Now I might be wrong in that, but I've heard that this was the SOP.
[B]JohnD: Ask away. There isn't too much about the "Gold Eagle" that is/was classified, and most of that has likely changed since I was on board.[/B][/QUOTE]
The questions I'd like to ask, however, aren't ones I can ask without losing my security clearance, since I'm working on a few projects, including this:
[url]http://www.pcnet.com/~jdutka/USSVirginia1.jpg[/url]
and this:
[url]http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/cvx.htm[/url]
[QUOTE][B]The training budgets weren't just cut, they were damn near [I]eliminated[/I]. Any training flights that were not deployment-related were all but cancelled; even then there was barely enough money available.[/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. It doesn't exactly help pilots and their crews if they aren't put through enough training.
[QUOTE][B]The F-18 E/F Super Hornet does indeed have the "legs" (range and weapons system capability); that was the main reason for developing the Super Hornet in the first place. What it does lack, however, is a missile like the Phoenix. Granted, there's no need to worry about the Soviets or the Russians attacking our carrier battle groups with Backfire or Bear bombers loaded with long-range antiship missiles; China is developing that capability, however, and it will be necessary to have something which can counter that threat. Unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be any interest in developing such a missile for the F-18 E/F. [/B][/QUOTE]
China also has Russian-sold Moskit cruise missiles, which we really have no effective defense against.
[B]oh, so they need money? Maybe stop fighting wars then, and use the money on equipment instead? Fighting wars isnt the only solution, though the americans tend to believe it sometimes. Someone should get their priorities right...... [/B][/QUOTE]
Quite the generalities you're trying to push, there. How do you actually know what the Americans tend to believe?
[B]IIRC, Labour has been pulling the same crap since the 1960's (cancellation of the TSR 2 tactical bomber project and the P.1154, which was the original - and supersonic - Harrier; elimination of the remaining "true" aircraft carriers and the refusal to fund the construction of new ones). It's fortunate that Labour wasn't able to cause more damage; otherwise, there probably wouldn't be a Defence Ministry left. [/B][/QUOTE]
It goes deeper and more serious than that. The UK has lost a some of their ability to construct attack and ballistic missile subs. This has gotten bad enough that they need assistance from foreign contractors on the Astute program. The US could get to that point soon, if we aren't careful.
I'd forgotten about the Moskit; you'd just about need a ship-based version of the ABL (or the Sea Lite system that the Navy had started to develop) to kill the damn thing.
I knew about the submarine issue; I could've also mentioned the untimely demise of the British strategic bomber force. Getting rid of the Vulcan was a major mistake, IMHO; it might not have had the payload capacity of the BUFF, but it could still carry more than the Tornado and had a much lower radar cross-section to boot, plus it was far better suited for the low-altitude penetrator role than the out-of-the-box B52s. (It also looked pretty damn cool, too.:) )
[B]JohnD: I think I've got a pretty good idea what those questions would be...[/QUOTE][/B]
On some fronts, probably yes :)
[QUOTE][B]I'd forgotten about the Moskit; you'd just about need a ship-based version of the ABL (or the Sea Lite system that the Navy had started to develop) to kill the damn thing. [/QUOTE][/B]
The ship-based version of the ABL probably wouldn't hit it, since the thing (if I remember correctly) is a Mach 2.2 to 3 (depending on the part of its attack profile the thing is in) missile with a range of 120 to 250 km (in the 3M80E version), a 320 kg warhead, and runs part of its mission as a sea-skimmer. It was designed to beat the Aegis/SM-2 combination, and with the only 20-30 second reaction time it gives the target, it's a nasty SOB.
[QUOTE][B]I knew about the submarine issue; I could've also mentioned the untimely demise of the British strategic bomber force. Getting rid of the Vulcan was a major mistake, IMHO; it might not have had the payload capacity of the BUFF, but it could still carry more than the Tornado and had a much lower radar cross-section to boot, plus it was far better suited for the low-altitude penetrator role than the out-of-the-box B52s. (It also looked pretty damn cool, too.:) ) [/B][/QUOTE]
Ayup. The U.S. is also helping out with the Collins Class sub:
[url]http://www.gdeb.com/news/2002archives.html#10-07-02[/url]
IMO, I wish the UK would have maintained more of its ship design capabilities. I'd love to see what the Royal Navy would have, if the cutbacks weren't felt so hard.
[B][/B]
The ship-based version of the ABL probably wouldn't hit it, since the thing (if I remember correctly) is a Mach 2.2 to 3 (depending on the part of its attack profile the thing is in) missile with a range of 120 to 250 km (in the 3M80E version), a 320 kg warhead, and runs part of its mission as a sea-skimmer. It was designed to beat the Aegis/SM-2 combination, and with the only 20-30 second reaction time it gives the target, it's a nasty SOB.
[/QUOTE]
That's why I really wish the Navy had developed a Phoenix follow-on for use with the Super Hornet; the easiest way to stop an anti-ship missile is to destroy the launch platform [I]before[/I] it can launch.
[QUOTE]IMO, I wish the UK would have maintained more of its ship design capabilities. I'd love to see what the Royal Navy would have, if the cutbacks weren't felt so hard.[/QUOTE]
Agreed. It's ridiculous that the very same nation which designed and built the world's first successful aircraft carrier has to rely on outside help to develop its latest submarines.:(
[B]Yes, MAD has been pretty much a needed policy by all nuclear powers to at least attempt to stop the world being fucked over. But there's also the concept of nuclear disarmament, which the US is supposed to be contributing to. Going on about how you have plenty of nukes isn't a good thing to say when you're supposed to be disarming. [/B][/QUOTE]
Nuclear Disarming to Americans is, "Everone Disarm, Except us".
[QUOTE]oh, so they need money? Maybe stop fighting wars then, and use the money on equipment instead?
Fighting wars isnt the only solution, though the americans tend to believe it sometimes. Someone should get their priorities right....[/QUOTE]
I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D
[QUOTE]But still, the money could have been used on so much good things....like going to the space
[/QUOTE]
I just got it..... Lets put some oil on mars, Make up some alien threat.... And they we will be going to space:D
[B]I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D[/B][/QUOTE]
Yeah. I'm sure Britain and France would be real rich right now if they didn't fight any wars last century... Sometimes not fighting isn't an acceptable option.
[B]I was going to say the same thing... Not fighting wars is a money saver:D[/B][/QUOTE]
Unless you win, in which case the boosted economy in an efficiently fought war will allow for long-term benefits down the road. Note that this does not apply to wars of attrition or one in which a war-time economy is not properly enstated.
[B]Simmonds, no offense, but do you have something constructive to say here? [/B][/QUOTE]
Nope.....
[B]Yeah. I'm sure Britain and France would be real rich right now if they didn't fight any wars last century... Sometimes not fighting isn't an acceptable option. [/B][/QUOTE]
Or in any other century, for that matter...
Anla'Shok: You're actually expecting Simmonds to say something constructive here?:p :D