Billions of dough wasted by both sides of Congress.
Weapons the Pentagon doesnt want but Congress does
Weapons the Pentagon doesnt want but Congress does
Congress won't let them die
- Thread starter WATU2
- Start date
This makes some sense .... outstanding.
The M1 Abrams is not being built. We haven't built any in decades. Instead what we do is something called "SLEP" (service life extension program). This process basically rebuilds and upgrades existing tanks. Good thing to keep active. Oh, and even the EuroWeenies are looking at building a new series of tanks along the lines of the joint "EuroFighter/Typhoon" fighter program. If you don't think tanks will ever be used again, remind me again what those tank looking things that the Russians are using in the Ukraine might happen to be??
The A-10 comments are equally problematic. In theory, the Air Force wants to replace a solid ground attack platform (A-10) with the F-35A (because they have to replace everything with either F-22 or F-35). The F-35 is not designed for ground attack and has limited capabilities at same (limited is in "none"). The Air Force is trying to salvage the F-35 debacle by funneling as much money as they can from other programs to that Golden Albatross. Keeping the A-10 in service is a pretty good way to hedge some bets for another decade.
The Tico's are all about keeping some ship building and fitting capacity in place. From a budget perspective it looks bad but we might have to build and deploy warships someday and we might want to have some capability to do so.
East Coast Missile Shield? No problem here. Imagine how quickly our gun crime problems would drop without Philly, New York and DC? No, we don't need East Coast interceptors for land based missiles coming out of Iran. Yes, we definitely need East Coast interceptors for missiles launched from container ships in the Atlantic by Iran. The Pentagon is willing to cut that money because they can provide similar coverage via our Aegis cruisers and destroyers ..... assuming they aren't deployed elsewhere.
You can have the C-27. That one is all about pork.
Thanks!
The M1 Abrams is not being built. We haven't built any in decades. Instead what we do is something called "SLEP" (service life extension program). This process basically rebuilds and upgrades existing tanks. Good thing to keep active. Oh, and even the EuroWeenies are looking at building a new series of tanks along the lines of the joint "EuroFighter/Typhoon" fighter program. If you don't think tanks will ever be used again, remind me again what those tank looking things that the Russians are using in the Ukraine might happen to be??
The A-10 comments are equally problematic. In theory, the Air Force wants to replace a solid ground attack platform (A-10) with the F-35A (because they have to replace everything with either F-22 or F-35). The F-35 is not designed for ground attack and has limited capabilities at same (limited is in "none"). The Air Force is trying to salvage the F-35 debacle by funneling as much money as they can from other programs to that Golden Albatross. Keeping the A-10 in service is a pretty good way to hedge some bets for another decade.
The Tico's are all about keeping some ship building and fitting capacity in place. From a budget perspective it looks bad but we might have to build and deploy warships someday and we might want to have some capability to do so.
East Coast Missile Shield? No problem here. Imagine how quickly our gun crime problems would drop without Philly, New York and DC? No, we don't need East Coast interceptors for land based missiles coming out of Iran. Yes, we definitely need East Coast interceptors for missiles launched from container ships in the Atlantic by Iran. The Pentagon is willing to cut that money because they can provide similar coverage via our Aegis cruisers and destroyers ..... assuming they aren't deployed elsewhere.
You can have the C-27. That one is all about pork.
Thanks!
All good comments but not sure about SLEP: As for tanks here's what Army said back in January,
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012.
"We don't need the tanks," he said. "Our tank fleet is 21 / 2 years old average now. We're in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
You make a good case for the A-10. The program cost for the F-35 is, as you say, a debacle with a capital D.
As a former Naval officer, I am sympathetic with the needs of the Nav, but that is still a lot of dough and the Navy seems like a lot of dough.
It was interesting for me to hear the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin say at a meeting last year that the Pentagon could cut $40B from its annual budget with no loss of capability. Of course very DoD contractor has spread their jobs out to every state in the nation, so those cuts are always job issues which put local pressures on Congressmen.
Tanks for the memory
Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army's chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012.
"We don't need the tanks," he said. "Our tank fleet is 21 / 2 years old average now. We're in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
You make a good case for the A-10. The program cost for the F-35 is, as you say, a debacle with a capital D.
As a former Naval officer, I am sympathetic with the needs of the Nav, but that is still a lot of dough and the Navy seems like a lot of dough.
It was interesting for me to hear the former Chairman of Lockheed Martin say at a meeting last year that the Pentagon could cut $40B from its annual budget with no loss of capability. Of course very DoD contractor has spread their jobs out to every state in the nation, so those cuts are always job issues which put local pressures on Congressmen.
Tanks for the memory
Pretty sure on the M1 and SLEP item (although the Army may call it SEP). They upgraded 140 M1A2 to M1A2/SA models in 2009. The last major program was $18 million for roughly 2,000 LRS sensor package upgrades. Before that it was a program called TUSK (all of these intended to improve operations and survivability in urban environments). Not sure what Odierno was talking about, will have to research same. Could be Bradleys, Strikers or who knows what.
They built the M1 (105 mm main gun), M1A1 (125 mm main gun) and M1A2 (125 mm gun and improved targeting systems). They only built about 80 M1A2 tanks before they figure out (thanks to Desert Storm) that our tanks were waaaay better than the stuff being produced by the Soviet Union. After that they just decided to upgrade existing tanks and new manufacturing stopped. Upgrades of M1 tanks to M1A2 configurations started in 1998. Since that time, no new "tanks" have been manufactured for our military. We've made some for other countries (Saudi Arabia, Australia, Egypt come to mind) but all of our investment have been in upgrades from M1 or M1A1 variants to M1A2 with various service life/capability upgrades.
Yup, military spending could be vastly more effective. What you see with the F-22, F-35 and LCS (lovingly known as the "Little Crappy Ship" to some parts of the military) with manufacturing spread out across 40+ states is just the Pentagon playing games with Congress. Not sure about the F-35 but it was so bad with the F-22 that during final assembly a lot of the components had to be hand fitted (file, grinder, etc.) before they would work with the airframe. We spent a ton of money developing the DDX (Zumwalt class destroyer), built the first one and then decided to build more Burke class destroyers because the Zumwalt class was too freakin' big. I could list 20 other weapons systems that were huge wastes of money and time. Big problem. Huge problem.
I can't prove that we need the Tico (Ticonderoga class cruiser) investment but we have no replacement cruiser types in sight. We ditched the CGX program (new cruiser) so either we provide life extension upgrades to the Ticos or we just don't have cruisers. Without cruisers the Aegis fleet defense systems don't work. Without Aegis our carriers are big targets for anything that can shoot a cruise missile (not to mention we aren't building land based interceptors because we have the Ticos while at the same time supposedly trying to ditch the Ticos).
The Navy/Cruiser situation is not as simple as the budget comment in the article indicates. What the article seems to say about the situation vis a vis the Congress, Navy and Cruisers is basically wrong. A good article can be found here that explains what the Navy wants to do as opposed to what the article says.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140710/DEFREG02/307100032/US-Navy-Grilled-Cruiser-Plan
Quick version is that the Navy wants to take 11 of the cruisers out of service, upgrade them and return them to services in a phased plan. They would then do the same for the other 11 (or take them out of service if we have replacements). Cost is probably $6 - $7 billion for all 22 hulls. Congress is questioning the plan and funding for same, not forcing the Navy to keep the cruisers. The Navy does NOT want to get rid of the cruisers but is concerned that our cruiser force will start to wear out by 2020 if we don't undertake some sort of life extension and upgrade program.
If you want carriers that you can deploy, you have to keep a bunch of Aegis cruisers on line (2 or 3 per deployed carrier battle group). We currently have 22 cruisers (Ticos) and 11 carriers (one of which is out of service but kept on the books for political reasons). The carriers are nuclear and can deploy for months. The cruisers are gas turbine so they can't run as long on a deployment. You can resupply the carriers with food, jet fuel and munitions and leave them on station. The rest of the battle groups have to be rotated more frequently due to the maintenance required for the power plants and fuel. In other words, for every 2 cruisers you drop you lose the ability to deploy one carrier. We should be able to deploy 9 carriers in a crisis (one down for refueling which involves cutting the middle out of the ship) so the math dictates a minimum of 18 cruisers assuming none are down for maintenance. More simply put, unless you upgrade the cruisers for millions you lose the use of carriers that cost billions.
The cruisers have other uses and deploy frequently without carriers. The fleet air defense system is based on the Aegis cruiser. While two destroyers can partner up and shoot at incoming missiles or aircraft, if you want effective air defense you need an Aegis cruiser to run the show. The cruisers have the bulk of the processing power to identify, categorize and prioritize incoming threats and distribute defensive fire to same. Without the cruisers the other ships can and will engage a single target with multiple interceptors which wastes very expensive missiles. The cruisers also have more powerful radars that extend the range of the air defense systems beyond what the destroyers can provide on their own. So even without carriers to cover the cruisers have a big role to play in anti-missile and air defense operations. NKs or Chinese start testing missiles, we deploy a Tico and a couple of destroyers.
Hope that covers it in enough detail.
Thanks!
They built the M1 (105 mm main gun), M1A1 (125 mm main gun) and M1A2 (125 mm gun and improved targeting systems). They only built about 80 M1A2 tanks before they figure out (thanks to Desert Storm) that our tanks were waaaay better than the stuff being produced by the Soviet Union. After that they just decided to upgrade existing tanks and new manufacturing stopped. Upgrades of M1 tanks to M1A2 configurations started in 1998. Since that time, no new "tanks" have been manufactured for our military. We've made some for other countries (Saudi Arabia, Australia, Egypt come to mind) but all of our investment have been in upgrades from M1 or M1A1 variants to M1A2 with various service life/capability upgrades.
Yup, military spending could be vastly more effective. What you see with the F-22, F-35 and LCS (lovingly known as the "Little Crappy Ship" to some parts of the military) with manufacturing spread out across 40+ states is just the Pentagon playing games with Congress. Not sure about the F-35 but it was so bad with the F-22 that during final assembly a lot of the components had to be hand fitted (file, grinder, etc.) before they would work with the airframe. We spent a ton of money developing the DDX (Zumwalt class destroyer), built the first one and then decided to build more Burke class destroyers because the Zumwalt class was too freakin' big. I could list 20 other weapons systems that were huge wastes of money and time. Big problem. Huge problem.
I can't prove that we need the Tico (Ticonderoga class cruiser) investment but we have no replacement cruiser types in sight. We ditched the CGX program (new cruiser) so either we provide life extension upgrades to the Ticos or we just don't have cruisers. Without cruisers the Aegis fleet defense systems don't work. Without Aegis our carriers are big targets for anything that can shoot a cruise missile (not to mention we aren't building land based interceptors because we have the Ticos while at the same time supposedly trying to ditch the Ticos).
The Navy/Cruiser situation is not as simple as the budget comment in the article indicates. What the article seems to say about the situation vis a vis the Congress, Navy and Cruisers is basically wrong. A good article can be found here that explains what the Navy wants to do as opposed to what the article says.
http://www.defensenews.com/article/20140710/DEFREG02/307100032/US-Navy-Grilled-Cruiser-Plan
Quick version is that the Navy wants to take 11 of the cruisers out of service, upgrade them and return them to services in a phased plan. They would then do the same for the other 11 (or take them out of service if we have replacements). Cost is probably $6 - $7 billion for all 22 hulls. Congress is questioning the plan and funding for same, not forcing the Navy to keep the cruisers. The Navy does NOT want to get rid of the cruisers but is concerned that our cruiser force will start to wear out by 2020 if we don't undertake some sort of life extension and upgrade program.
If you want carriers that you can deploy, you have to keep a bunch of Aegis cruisers on line (2 or 3 per deployed carrier battle group). We currently have 22 cruisers (Ticos) and 11 carriers (one of which is out of service but kept on the books for political reasons). The carriers are nuclear and can deploy for months. The cruisers are gas turbine so they can't run as long on a deployment. You can resupply the carriers with food, jet fuel and munitions and leave them on station. The rest of the battle groups have to be rotated more frequently due to the maintenance required for the power plants and fuel. In other words, for every 2 cruisers you drop you lose the ability to deploy one carrier. We should be able to deploy 9 carriers in a crisis (one down for refueling which involves cutting the middle out of the ship) so the math dictates a minimum of 18 cruisers assuming none are down for maintenance. More simply put, unless you upgrade the cruisers for millions you lose the use of carriers that cost billions.
The cruisers have other uses and deploy frequently without carriers. The fleet air defense system is based on the Aegis cruiser. While two destroyers can partner up and shoot at incoming missiles or aircraft, if you want effective air defense you need an Aegis cruiser to run the show. The cruisers have the bulk of the processing power to identify, categorize and prioritize incoming threats and distribute defensive fire to same. Without the cruisers the other ships can and will engage a single target with multiple interceptors which wastes very expensive missiles. The cruisers also have more powerful radars that extend the range of the air defense systems beyond what the destroyers can provide on their own. So even without carriers to cover the cruisers have a big role to play in anti-missile and air defense operations. NKs or Chinese start testing missiles, we deploy a Tico and a couple of destroyers.
Hope that covers it in enough detail.
Thanks!
Thank for the Navy detail. I stopped reading the Proceedings or really keeping up decades ago.
To change the subject, it surprises me that the B-52 airframe is scheduled for about an 80 year life. The idea that the USAF is still using a 60 year old aircraft is surprising.
This post was edited on 9/4 1:06 PM by WATU2
To change the subject, it surprises me that the B-52 airframe is scheduled for about an 80 year life. The idea that the USAF is still using a 60 year old aircraft is surprising.
This post was edited on 9/4 1:06 PM by WATU2
You are most welcome. I wish the people who wrote these articles would do a bit more background research instead of just making blanket statements. Yeah, and some days I still believe in the Easter Bunny.
B-52. Some systems are just good. Some systems just cost too much to replace in quantity. B-52 is some of both. Since we can effectively suppress or hack most Soviet anti air systems plus gain air superiority, the B-52 is a great bomb or cruise missile truck. I've seem some upgrade options that include things like carbon fiber wings and radar absorbing coatings that could keep it going into 2050 or beyond. B-1 never had the bomb load and B-2 is just too freaking expensive for large scale bombing campaigns (the B-2 was going to replace the B-52 until it got to $1.2 billion per copy). Biggest problem we have is that every new weapon system (plane, ship, AFV, whatever) has such a huge wish list of capabilities that we can't afford to build 'em.
Russians still have the Bear (TU-95) turboprop as their main strategic bomber and missile shooter. That airframe is 60 years old. The Badger (TU-16) jet bomber is not very reliable, still in service and over 50 years old. They have the same problems we do vis a vis the B-52 as they try to replace the Bears. The Backfire (TU-22) ended up with an on-board payload about equal to an F-111 (and looked just like 'em so a lot of people thought they stole the design) so they strap missiles to it and call it a strategic bomber ... which reduces range and speed while increasing radar cross section. The Blackjacks (TU-160) have a lot in common with our B-1 line but they could only build 30 - 40 of them so they are a weapon of last resort.
Undoubtedly have posted this before but .......... Biggest problem the Russians have was a decision to steal and recycle aircraft designs instead of investing in their own work. Truly odd since they had good rocket and propulsion scientists (thanks to the Germans). They stole designs, reversed engineered them and built aircraft. Mig-15 was a Kurt Tank (Nazi Germany) design with a stolen Rolls Royce engine. Bear was a follow on to a reverse engineered B-29 that was "interred" during WW2. Mig-25 was a stolen Avro Arrow without the materials, weapons or avionics. Mig-29 and SU-27 took a lot from the XF-17 failed light weight fighter entry (which became the F-18). Original heat seeking air to air missile was based on a Gen 1 Sidewinder that literally got stuck in the tail pipe of a Mig during a dust up with Taiwan (NATO designations Atoll and Archer). Over time, they just couldn't reverse engineer the subsystems due to gaps in materials, manufacturing and electronic components. They are trying to recover but have lots and lots of issues with aircraft and missiles (which trickle down to the Chinese since they buy Russian stuff and then steal that technology).
Enjoy the weekend and thanks!
B-52. Some systems are just good. Some systems just cost too much to replace in quantity. B-52 is some of both. Since we can effectively suppress or hack most Soviet anti air systems plus gain air superiority, the B-52 is a great bomb or cruise missile truck. I've seem some upgrade options that include things like carbon fiber wings and radar absorbing coatings that could keep it going into 2050 or beyond. B-1 never had the bomb load and B-2 is just too freaking expensive for large scale bombing campaigns (the B-2 was going to replace the B-52 until it got to $1.2 billion per copy). Biggest problem we have is that every new weapon system (plane, ship, AFV, whatever) has such a huge wish list of capabilities that we can't afford to build 'em.
Russians still have the Bear (TU-95) turboprop as their main strategic bomber and missile shooter. That airframe is 60 years old. The Badger (TU-16) jet bomber is not very reliable, still in service and over 50 years old. They have the same problems we do vis a vis the B-52 as they try to replace the Bears. The Backfire (TU-22) ended up with an on-board payload about equal to an F-111 (and looked just like 'em so a lot of people thought they stole the design) so they strap missiles to it and call it a strategic bomber ... which reduces range and speed while increasing radar cross section. The Blackjacks (TU-160) have a lot in common with our B-1 line but they could only build 30 - 40 of them so they are a weapon of last resort.
Undoubtedly have posted this before but .......... Biggest problem the Russians have was a decision to steal and recycle aircraft designs instead of investing in their own work. Truly odd since they had good rocket and propulsion scientists (thanks to the Germans). They stole designs, reversed engineered them and built aircraft. Mig-15 was a Kurt Tank (Nazi Germany) design with a stolen Rolls Royce engine. Bear was a follow on to a reverse engineered B-29 that was "interred" during WW2. Mig-25 was a stolen Avro Arrow without the materials, weapons or avionics. Mig-29 and SU-27 took a lot from the XF-17 failed light weight fighter entry (which became the F-18). Original heat seeking air to air missile was based on a Gen 1 Sidewinder that literally got stuck in the tail pipe of a Mig during a dust up with Taiwan (NATO designations Atoll and Archer). Over time, they just couldn't reverse engineer the subsystems due to gaps in materials, manufacturing and electronic components. They are trying to recover but have lots and lots of issues with aircraft and missiles (which trickle down to the Chinese since they buy Russian stuff and then steal that technology).
Enjoy the weekend and thanks!
Nope. Nothing really changed in Naval planning for a ground war in Europe from the Vietnam era forward. The Soviets couldn't make NavAir work and their subs (through the Alpha class) sucked so they built up a force of land based bombers to shoot tons of missiles and called it Naval Aviation. We countered with real time raid warning out of Iceland, Aegis and F-14/Phoenix missiles. Their missiles got faster and they added some SSGNs (submarines that shoot cruise missiles) but that was about it.
Don't know if you participated in any of the REFORGER exercises but those were always fun, especially when you got to the scenarios where France bails and you are trying to make contested landings in German ports to unload armored divisions. That part never seemed to work very well.
Thanks!
This post was edited on 9/5 2:06 PM by old_goat_23
Don't know if you participated in any of the REFORGER exercises but those were always fun, especially when you got to the scenarios where France bails and you are trying to make contested landings in German ports to unload armored divisions. That part never seemed to work very well.
Thanks!
This post was edited on 9/5 2:06 PM by old_goat_23
Vietnam Era combat zone with the Navy? Outstanding! Were you NavAir, Corpsman, MRF or UDT/SEAL? Have a great friend who was MRF and got out as a Vice Admiral. Tons of friends who were NavAir.
Thanks!
Thanks!
FRAM-1s?? Heck, you may have gotten one of the destroyers my dad served on in WW2. He volunteered for Submarines but got ASW because .... yeah, it's the Navy.
Thanks!
Thanks!
Interesting. I wish had known that when I lived in Orange County, TX. The Orleck, I see now. We went to the Battleship Texas in Houston, but that was pretty much vintage WWI used in WWII. Next time I go back...if I do...I want to check it out. Glad to hear of WATU's service.
Similar threads
