OT, however, ....What we need are more unemployed debt ridden pukes with Law Degrees!

(03-02-2015 03:30 PM)Thirty6BelowZero Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.

Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

More rubbish. Good gracious man, what the heck is wrong with you?

Oh that's an easy one.. He's a liberal.. He lives/lived in Orlando or just went to Mickey Mouse U... And I assume he doesn't believe in God or an afterlife, so he's a miserable soul.

(03-02-2015 03:51 PM)gdunn Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 03:30 PM)Thirty6BelowZero Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 11:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(03-01-2015 10:05 AM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  Without strong conventional forces, the US and western nations could be forced to use nuclear weapons. I don't think any of the current nuclear powers, including Russia would use nukes unless their back is against the wall. Best way to get backed into a position where nukes are the only option downsize and degrade the military. The world population is growing you can't fight a conventional war against a large conventional military if you don't have that yourself.

Oh good lord this is wrong in so many ways.

Large conventional armies aren't needed for war anymore, they are still needed for occupation, but to act like we need to have millions in our standing army to defend our nation sort of ignores the reality of our technology and modern warfare. You're just buying the propaganda.

More rubbish. Good gracious man, what the heck is wrong with you?

Oh that's an easy one.. He's a liberal.. He lives/lived in Orlando or just went to Mickey Mouse U... And I assume he doesn't believe in God or an afterlife, so he's a miserable soul.

I've gathered that today. He brings a whole lot of emptiness to the table.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the next 15 years you will have to recapitalize the Strategic Forces. This means:
New ballistic missile submarine
New SLBM
New USAF Bomber (been Black since 2003, R&D complete)
New Cruise Missile for USAF Bomber
New Silo Based USAF ICBM to replace the Minuteman III's that date back to the late 60's

Because of Procurement screw ups, quality defects, the conventional forces are 40% over Budget and IOC is delayed an average of 3 years on every major weapons system.

Instead of improvements on existing systems, the Big 3 Defense Contractors sell you a pie in the sky system that won't work on Day 1.

The F-35 won't be fully mission capable until 2021. The Ford won't be able to launch combat loaded aircraft until 2018. The DDG-1000 is a Pier Ornament because it's software keeps crashing.

Owl is right. We DCommed the perfectly fine Spruance Class Destroyers to fund the DDG-51 which lacks a anti ship missile with more than a 75 mile range.

The Bad Guys have stuff that outranges our weapons by 50%. Good luck getting a Battle Group past the first island chain.

Let's stop paying for sex change surgeries for prison inmates and use that money to rebuild the military.

(03-02-2015 09:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the next 15 years you will have to recapitalize the Strategic Forces. This means:
New ballistic missile submarine
New SLBM
New USAF Bomber (been Black since 2003, R&D complete)
New Cruise Missile for USAF Bomber
New Silo Based USAF ICBM to replace the Minuteman III's that date back to the late 60's

The Air Force can restart to B1-B program to deal with the bomber issue. Let's be honest, if the US needs interior penetration to conduct land attacks against a near peer, sending manned aircraft becomes the very definition of insanity.

The nuclear issue I think is quite dire not only for the price of the equipment that you mentioned but in general because of the overall irrelevancy the US with which the US military treats the nuclear triad. If you are looking for a frightening read, pick up Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. The malfeasance is quite frankly terrifying. This clip captures a snippet of the problems.






Personally, I think we should scrap the entire nuclear arms branch. The US is never going to actually use them ever again.

Quote:Because of Procurement screw ups, quality defects, the conventional forces are 40% over Budget and IOC is delayed an average of 3 years on every major weapons system.

Instead of improvements on existing systems, the Big 3 Defense Contractors sell you a pie in the sky system that won't work on Day 1.

Agreed.

Quote: The F-35 won't be fully mission capable until 2021. The Ford won't be able to launch combat loaded aircraft until 2018. The DDG-1000 is a Pier Ornament because it's software keeps crashing.

If LockMart was forced to only build the F-35A, the Air Force would have their F16 replacement.

Quote:Owl is right. We DCommed the perfectly fine Spruance Class Destroyers to fund the DDG-51 which lacks a anti ship missile with more than a 75 mile range.

Those DD's were scrapped because they were manpower intensive yet lacks the SPY compatibility to make it worthwhile to keep in service. And the Spruance used the same anti-ship missile that CG's and DDG's use, the Harpoon. I think the US isn't interested in creating a new ASM because it is putting all its eggs in the railgun basket.

Quote:The Bad Guys have stuff that outranges our weapons by 50%. Good luck getting a Battle Group past the first island chain.

The question really is does anyone in the Pentagon have the imagination to change course and ensure that if we fight a near peer we don't have to lose scores of people before realizing that we are doing it wrong.

(03-01-2015 06:51 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  As long as the USAF keeps procuring garbage like the F-35 nothing will change.

Fuckin' A. Somebody nailed it straight away. I'm still bitter about top Air Force brass going on Fox and begging for dozens more F-35s.

(03-03-2015 08:31 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 09:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  This is just the tip of the iceberg.

In the next 15 years you will have to recapitalize the Strategic Forces. This means:
New ballistic missile submarine
New SLBM
New USAF Bomber (been Black since 2003, R&D complete)
New Cruise Missile for USAF Bomber
New Silo Based USAF ICBM to replace the Minuteman III's that date back to the late 60's

The Air Force can restart to B1-B program to deal with the bomber issue. Let's be honest, if the US needs interior penetration to conduct land attacks against a near peer, sending manned aircraft becomes the very definition of insanity.

The nuclear issue I think is quite dire not only for the price of the equipment that you mentioned but in general because of the overall irrelevancy the US with which the US military treats the nuclear triad. If you are looking for a frightening read, pick up Command and Control by Eric Schlosser. The malfeasance is quite frankly terrifying. This clip captures a snippet of the problems.






Personally, I think we should scrap the entire nuclear arms branch. The US is never going to actually use them ever again.

Quote:Because of Procurement screw ups, quality defects, the conventional forces are 40% over Budget and IOC is delayed an average of 3 years on every major weapons system.

Instead of improvements on existing systems, the Big 3 Defense Contractors sell you a pie in the sky system that won't work on Day 1.

Agreed.

Quote: The F-35 won't be fully mission capable until 2021. The Ford won't be able to launch combat loaded aircraft until 2018. The DDG-1000 is a Pier Ornament because it's software keeps crashing.

If LockMart was forced to only build the F-35A, the Air Force would have their F16 replacement.

Quote:Owl is right. We DCommed the perfectly fine Spruance Class Destroyers to fund the DDG-51 which lacks a anti ship missile with more than a 75 mile range.

Those DD's were scrapped because they were manpower intensive yet lacks the SPY compatibility to make it worthwhile to keep in service. And the Spruance used the same anti-ship missile that CG's and DDG's use, the Harpoon. I think the US isn't interested in creating a new ASM because it is putting all its eggs in the railgun basket.

Quote:The Bad Guys have stuff that outranges our weapons by 50%. Good luck getting a Battle Group past the first island chain.

The question really is does anyone in the Pentagon have the imagination to change course and ensure that if we fight a near peer we don't have to lose scores of people before realizing that we are doing it wrong.

Primary concern is a ASM that outranges the PLAN. Development Test of Tomahawk Block IV Land Attack (1000 mile range) with guidance modified to hit a moving surface target was encouraging, but you need the LRASM deployed as soon as possible. Forget the supersonic version, deploy something reliable with a 400-500 mile range.

In terms of a future initial engagement with a near peer, I anticipate it won't be favorable for the USN. The Chinese Cyber Capabilities might be underestimated.

(03-02-2015 09:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Owl is right. We DCommed the perfectly fine Spruance Class Destroyers to fund the DDG-51 which lacks a anti ship missile with more than a 75 mile range.

I was referring more to the LCS than the DDG-51. The DDG-51 has some good capabilities, you just don't need all those capabilities doing pirate patrol in the IO. Spruance is as good or better for that.

LCS on the other hand is good for virtually nothing. Can't do ASW because it's too noisy for sonar. Has a popgun that won't stay stable enough to shoot at speed. MCM module might work someday, but then again it might not, and why tie down this platform doing MCM?

(03-03-2015 09:30 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Primary concern is a ASM that outranges the PLAN. Development Test of Tomahawk Block IV Land Attack (1000 mile range) with guidance modified to hit a moving surface target was encouraging, but you need the LRASM deployed as soon as possible. Forget the supersonic version, deploy something reliable with a 400-500 mile range.

In terms of a future initial engagement with a near peer, I anticipate it won't be favorable for the USN. The Chinese Cyber Capabilities might be underestimated.

IMO, the TLAM trials are an example of the Navy creating a kludge to fill the weaknesses of the Harpoon instead of developing a new weapon. I know why they did it, because of the compatibility with the VLS and Aegis systems. Similar work has been done using the SM-2 for ASM purposes as well. They both suffer from the same problem; that of time loss from transitioning from a vertical launch position to a horizontal attack flight. Honestly I wish the Navy would bring back Armored Box Launchers.

(03-03-2015 09:39 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-02-2015 09:06 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  Owl is right. We DCommed the perfectly fine Spruance Class Destroyers to fund the DDG-51 which lacks a anti ship missile with more than a 75 mile range.

I was referring more to the LCS than the DDG-51. The DDG-51 has some good capabilities, you just don't need all those capabilities doing pirate patrol in the IO. Spruance is as good or better for that.

LCS on the other hand is good for virtually nothing. Can't do ASW because it's too noisy for sonar. Has a popgun that won't stay stable enough to shoot at speed. MCM module might work someday, but then again it might not, and why tie down this platform doing MCM?

If the Navy is going to have to build the LCS, first I would give the contract to Austral ( f*ck LockMart). and Secondly I would use the for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC. I think it's imperative that the Navy work with the Coast Guard and merge the next buys for cost savings. If the Navy would be willing to buy 50 variants of the Nat'l Security Cutter, the USCG could piggyback on that order with another 20-25 units to get the price down to $400 million/unit.

(03-04-2015 08:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC.

Except it's not worth a damn in either of those missions and it's way too big and expensive to be tied to either role. Something a quarter of the size and cost can do either mission better.

What it's really good at is going 40 knots. What it's really bad at is doing anything useful at that speed--or any other speed.

(03-04-2015 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC.

Except it's not worth a damn in either of those missions and it's way too big and expensive to be tied to either role. Something a quarter of the size and cost can do either mission better.

What it's really good at is going 40 knots. What it's really bad at is doing anything useful at that speed--or any other speed.

No doubt, but it appears as though the program can't be killed. I'd rather LCS be used for roles that it might have a chance of doing (PC and MCM) over it being placed in a mission it absolutely has no chance of completing (FFG)

I work for the Air Force. There is some truth to it, but probably a little blown out of proportion.

(03-04-2015 08:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC.

Except it's not worth a damn in either of those missions and it's way too big and expensive to be tied to either role. Something a quarter of the size and cost can do either mission better.
What it's really good at is going 40 knots. What it's really bad at is doing anything useful at that speed--or any other speed.

No doubt, but it appears as though the program can't be killed. I'd rather LCS be used for roles that it might have a chance of doing (PC and MCM) over it being placed in a mission it absolutely has no chance of completing (FFG)

The LCS doesn't even have a chance of doing MCM right. Plus use in that role totally excludes the one thing--speed--that it does well. And there's a big reason why MCM ships are small. A mine goes off, it blows away. You put an LCS down with a mine, and there's a real possibility that you block a channel.

In either the MCM or PC role, you're using a $600-700 million ship to do a job that a $150-200 million ship can do better.

(03-04-2015 09:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC.

Except it's not worth a damn in either of those missions and it's way too big and expensive to be tied to either role. Something a quarter of the size and cost can do either mission better.
What it's really good at is going 40 knots. What it's really bad at is doing anything useful at that speed--or any other speed.

No doubt, but it appears as though the program can't be killed. I'd rather LCS be used for roles that it might have a chance of doing (PC and MCM) over it being placed in a mission it absolutely has no chance of completing (FFG)

The LCS doesn't even have a chance of doing MCM right. Plus use in that role totally excludes the one thing--speed--that it does well. And there's a big reason why MCM ships are small. A mine goes off, it blows away. You put an LCS down with a mine, and there's a real possibility that you block a channel.

In either the MCM or PC role, you're using a $600-700 million ship to do a job that a $150-200 million ship can do better.

You find me a US shipyard that will build a class in that price range and its a deal. And while the LCS is big, from my POV it would be more of a staging platform for underwater drones and helos to do most of the clearing work.

(03-04-2015 09:50 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 09:20 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:57 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:37 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(03-04-2015 08:20 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  for MCM and to replace the Cyclones as the new PC.

Except it's not worth a damn in either of those missions and it's way too big and expensive to be tied to either role. Something a quarter of the size and cost can do either mission better.
What it's really good at is going 40 knots. What it's really bad at is doing anything useful at that speed--or any other speed.

No doubt, but it appears as though the program can't be killed. I'd rather LCS be used for roles that it might have a chance of doing (PC and MCM) over it being placed in a mission it absolutely has no chance of completing (FFG)

The LCS doesn't even have a chance of doing MCM right. Plus use in that role totally excludes the one thing--speed--that it does well. And there's a big reason why MCM ships are small. A mine goes off, it blows away. You put an LCS down with a mine, and there's a real possibility that you block a channel.
In either the MCM or PC role, you're using a $600-700 million ship to do a job that a $150-200 million ship can do better.

You find me a US shipyard that will build a class in that price range and its a deal. And while the LCS is big, from my POV it would be more of a staging platform for underwater drones and helos to do most of the clearing work.

But making it a drone platform still puts it in harm's way standing still or moving slowly, with no real way to defend itself.

By the time the admirals and defense contractors get through with it, you can't build a box of matches for $200 million. But US shipyards are turning out ships in that price range, so it can be done. Just need competition instead of sole sourcing, and on small enough ships you can get that.

(03-04-2015 09:16 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  I work for the Air Force. There is some truth to it, but probably a little blown out of proportion.

My concerns for the Air Force stems from the fact that the top brass clearly only care about one mission: combat air. They are cancelling the C-17 line and if they could would send the A-10 to the scrap heap. I just have a hard to seeing any evolution in the flying service's thinking other than 'speed if life'