BrotherGecko wrote:
The military just burns money and then cries that its starving.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
The lowest bidder things does seem to negatively effect all part of government. My father works for the NPS and the amount of pain he's had to go through to get a new tractor for his works was ridiculous, and the one they did get was one that was a different maker than the rest of the ones they had, so it means that some of the attachments aren't compatible. I mean the purpose of the rule makes sense, but it does get in the way of a lot of things.

 djones520 wrote:
I'm not at all trying to lay blame on Pres. Obama for that, but the trend of cuts that we experienced under his leadership is certainly telling in how thinly we're stretched right now.

1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, "so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment--particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history." The reality, however, is that there are nearly1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror--and polishing the boots of senior military personnel --became Washington’s number-one priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).

As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”

But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives--whether their actual work justifies it or not.

2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries, and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million--per general. That’s not even including their own salaries--which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation--and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In the case of former Army General David Petraeus, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That's led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. In 2012, summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.

In November 2012, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.

Panetta may have been tough--sort of--on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor, Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.

4. Warped sense of reality. After the Petraeus scandal, the million-dollar question was: Did the general who essentially built the world’s most invasive surveillance apparatus really think he could get away with carrying on a secret affair without anyone knowing? Former Secretary of State Gates has floated at least one theory at a press conference in Chicago: “There is something about a sense of entitlement and having great power that skews people’s judgement.”

A handful of retired diplomats and service members have come out in support of Gates’ thesis. Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat who served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, wrote an op-ed in theChicago Tribune explaining how the generals’ perks allow them to exist on a plane removed from ordinary people:

Those with a star are military nobility, no doubt, and those with four are royalty. Flying in luxurious private jets, surrounded by a phalanx of fawning aides who do everything from preparing their meals to pressing their uniform trousers, they are among America's most pampered professionals. Their orders are executed without challenge, their word is fiat. They live in a reality different from the rest of us.

Frank Wuco, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence chief, agrees.

With the senior guys and the flag officers, this is like the new royalty,” he said on his weekly radio show. “We treat them like kings and princes. These general officers in the military, at a certain point, become untouchable... In many cases, they get their own airplanes, their own helicopters. When they walk into a room, everybody comes to attention. In the case of some of them, people are very afraid to speak up or to disagree. Being separated from real life all the time in that way probably leaves them vulnerable (to lapses in moral judgement).

Sounds like a phenomenon that’s happening with another pampered sector of society (hint: Wall Street). Given the epic 2008 financial collapse, do we really want to set our security forces on a similar path of power, deception and deep, crisis-creating delusion?

5. Military golf.Of course, generals and admirals aren’t the only ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed forces. Although lower ranking service members don’t get private jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the ordinary American.

The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.

According to one retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who also just happens to be the senior writer atTravel Golf, the very best military golf course in the U.S. is the Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Blue Course in Colorado Springs, CO.

He writes, “This stunning 7,000-plus yard layout shares the same foothills terrain as does the legendary Broadmoor, just 20 minutes to the south in Colorado Springs. Ponderosa pines, pinon and juniper line the fairways with rolling mounds, ponds and almost tame deer and wild turkey.” (The Department of Defense did come under fire a number of decades ago when it was discovered that the toilet seats at this course cost $400 a pop.)

And the number of golf courses is often undercounted, with controversial courses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Mosul, Iraq, often left off the lists, which makes assessing the total costs difficult.

Yet some courses rack up staggering expenses as they become far more than mere stretches of grass.

According to journalist Nick Turse, “The U.S. Army paid $71,614 [in 2004] to the Arizona Golf Resort -- located in sunny Riyadh, Saudi Arabia... The resort actually boasts an entire entertainment complex, complete with a water-slide-enhanced megapool, gym, bowling alley, horse stables, roller hockey rink, arcade, amphitheater, restaurant, and even a cappuccino bar -- not to mention the golf course and a driving range.”

DoD's Sungnam golf course in the Republic of Korea, meanwhile, is reportedly valued at $26 million.

For non-golfers, the military also maintains a ski lodge and resort in the Bavarian Alps, which opened in 2004 and cost $80 million.

6. “The Army goes rolling along!”Vacation resorts aren’t the only explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also spends $500 million annually on marching bands.

The Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps all maintain their own military bands, which also produce their own magazines and CDs.

The bands are [pun intended] “an instrument of military PR,” according to Al McCree, a retired Air Force service member who owns Altissimo Recordings, a Nashville record label featuring music of the service bands.

The CDs are--by law--distributed for free, but that doesn’t mean the private sector can’t profit off these marching bands. According to the Washington Post article, “The service CDs have also created a private, profitable industry made up of companies that obtain the band recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They then re-press and package them for public sale.”

As if subsidizing the industry of multibillion-dollar arms dealers weren’t enough, the record industry is apparently also leeching off the taxpayer-funded military spending.

7. The Pentagon-to-Lockheed pipeline.While the exorbitant costs of private planes and hundreds of golf courses may seem bad enough, the most costly problem with the entitlement-culture of the military happens aftergenerals retire. Since they’re so used to the luxurious lifestyle, the vast majority of pension-reaping high-ranking officers head into the private defense industry.

According to William Hartung, a defense analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington DC, about 70 percent of recently retired three- and four-star generals went straight to work for industry giants like Lockheed Martin.

“If you don’t go into industry at this point you are the exception,” Hartung said.

This type of government-to-industry pipeline, which he said was comparable to the odious Wall Street-to-Washington revolving door, drives up the prices of weapons and prevents effective oversight of weapon manufacturing companies--all of which ends up costing taxpayers more and more each year.

“I think the overspending on the generals and all their perks is bad enough, but the revolving door and the ability of these people to cut industry a break in exchange for high salaries costs more in the long run,” said Hartung. “This can affect the price of weapons and the whole structure of how we oversee companies. It’s harder to calculate, but certainly in the billions, compared to millions spent on staff per general.”

 djones520 wrote:
So... yeah, sure most of you have seen me bring this topic up before, but we had a new story done recently that highlights some more specific issues, these are obviously close to home for me. We lost 2 pilots last year due to maintenance issues. I'm not at all trying to lay blame on Pres. Obama for that, but the trend of cuts that we experienced under his leadership is certainly telling in how thinly we're stretched right now.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5353522957001/?#sp=show-clips00

 djones520 wrote:
So... yeah, sure most of you have seen me bring this topic up before, but we had a new story done recently that highlights some more specific issues, these are obviously close to home for me. We lost 2 pilots last year due to maintenance issues. I'm not at all trying to lay blame on Pres. Obama for that, but the trend of cuts that we experienced under his leadership is certainly telling in how thinly we're stretched right now.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5353522957001/?#sp=show-clips00

 reds8n wrote:
http://www.alternet.org/economy/7-shocking-ways-military-wastes-our-money-0

1. A whole battalion of generals? The titles “general” or “admiral” sound like they belong to pretty exclusive posts, fit only for the best of the best. This flashy title makes it pretty easy to say, "so what if a few of our military geniuses get the royal treatment--particularly if they are the sole commanders of the most powerful military in human history." The reality, however, is that there are nearly1,000 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces, and each has an entourage that would make a Hollywood star jealous.

According to 2010 Pentagon reports, there are963 generals and admirals in the U.S. armed forces. This number has ballooned by about 100 officers since 9/11 when fighting terror--and polishing the boots of senior military personnel --became Washington’s number-one priority. (In roughly that same time frame, starting in 1998, the Pentagon’s budget also ballooned by more than 50 percent.)

Jack Jacobs, a retired U.S. army colonel and now a military analyst for MSNBC, says the military needs only a third of that number. Many of these generals are “spending time writing plans and defending plans with Congress, and trying to get the money,” he explained. In other words, a large number of these generals are essentially lobbyists for the Pentagon, but they still receive large personal staffs and private jet rides for official paper-pushing military matters.

Dina Rasor, founder of Project on Government Oversight, a watchdog group, explains that this “brass creep” is “fueled by the desire to increase bureaucratic clout or prestige of a particular service, function or region, rather than reflecting the scope and duties of the job itself.”

It’s sort of like how Starbucks titles each of its baristas a “partner” but continues to pay them just over minimum wage (and a caramel macchiato per shift).

As Rasor writes, “the three- and four-star ranks have increased twice as fast as one- and two-star general and flag officers, three times as fast as the increase in all officers and almost ten times as fast as the increase in enlisted personnel. If you imagine it visually, the shape of U.S. military personnel has shifted from looking like a pyramid to beginning to look more like a skyscraper.”

But the skyscraper model doesn’t mean that the armed forces are democratizing. In fact, just the opposite; they’re gaming the system to allow more and more officers to deploy the full power of the U.S. military to aid their personal lives--whether their actual work justifies it or not.

2. The generals’ flotillas. Former Defense Secretary Robert Gates appointed Arnold Punaro, a retired major general in the Marines, to head an independent review of the Pentagon’s budget. Here’s the caution he came up with: “We don’t want the Department of Defense to become a benefits agency that occasionally kills a terrorist.”

So, just how good are these benefits? For the top brass, not bad at all. According to a Washington Post investigation, each top commander has his own C-40 jet, complete with beds on board. Many have chefs who deserve their own four-star restaurants. The generals’ personal staff include drivers, security guards, secretaries, and people to shine their shoes and iron their uniforms. When traveling, they can be accompanied by police motorcades that stretch for blocks. When entertaining, string quartets are available at a snap of the fingers.

A New York Times analysis showed that simply the staff provided to top generals and admirals can top $1 million--per general. That’s not even including their own salaries--which are relatively modest due to congressional legislation--and the free housing, which has been described as “palatial.” On Capitol Hill, these cadres of assistants are called the generals’ “flotillas.”

In the case of former Army General David Petraeus, he didn’t want to give up the perks of being a four-star general in the Army, even after he left the armed forces to be director of the CIA. He apparently trained his assistants to pass him water bottles at timed intervals on his now-infamous 6-minute mile runs. He also liked “fresh, sliced pineapple” before going to bed.

3. Scandals. Despite the seemingly limitless perks of being a general, there is a limit to the military’s (taxpayer-funded) generosity. That's led some senior officers to engage in a little creative accounting. In 2012, summer the (formerly) four-star general William “Kip” Ward was caught using military money to pay for a Bermuda vacation and using military cars and drivers to take his wife on shopping and spa excursions. He traveled with up to 13 staff members, even on non-work trips, billing the State Department for their hotel and travel costs, as well as his family’s stays at luxury hotels.

In November 2012, in the midst of the Petraeus scandal, Defense Secretary Leon Panetta demoted Ward to a three-star lieutenant general and ordered him to pay back $82,000 of the taxpayers’ misused money. The debt shouldn’t be hard to repay; Ward will receive an annual retirement salary of $208,802.

Panetta may have been tough--sort of--on now three-star general Ward, but he’s displayed a complete refusal to reevaluate the bloated ranks of the military generals. Unlike his predecessor, Robert Gates, who has come out publicly against the increasing number of top-ranking officers and tried to reduce their ranks, Panetta has so far refused to review their numbers and has yet to fire a single general or admiral for misconduct. He did, however, order an “ethics training” after the Petraeus scandal.

4. Warped sense of reality. After the Petraeus scandal, the million-dollar question was: Did the general who essentially built the world’s most invasive surveillance apparatus really think he could get away with carrying on a secret affair without anyone knowing? Former Secretary of State Gates has floated at least one theory at a press conference in Chicago: “There is something about a sense of entitlement and having great power that skews people’s judgement.”

A handful of retired diplomats and service members have come out in support of Gates’ thesis. Robert J. Callahan, a retired diplomat who served as U.S. ambassador to Nicaragua, wrote an op-ed in theChicago Tribune explaining how the generals’ perks allow them to exist on a plane removed from ordinary people:

Those with a star are military nobility, no doubt, and those with four are royalty. Flying in luxurious private jets, surrounded by a phalanx of fawning aides who do everything from preparing their meals to pressing their uniform trousers, they are among America's most pampered professionals. Their orders are executed without challenge, their word is fiat. They live in a reality different from the rest of us.

Frank Wuco, a retired U.S. Naval intelligence chief, agrees.

With the senior guys and the flag officers, this is like the new royalty,” he said on his weekly radio show. “We treat them like kings and princes. These general officers in the military, at a certain point, become untouchable... In many cases, they get their own airplanes, their own helicopters. When they walk into a room, everybody comes to attention. In the case of some of them, people are very afraid to speak up or to disagree. Being separated from real life all the time in that way probably leaves them vulnerable (to lapses in moral judgement).

Sounds like a phenomenon that’s happening with another pampered sector of society (hint: Wall Street). Given the epic 2008 financial collapse, do we really want to set our security forces on a similar path of power, deception and deep, crisis-creating delusion?

5. Military golf.Of course, generals and admirals aren’t the only ones who get to enjoy some of perks of being in the U.S. armed forces. Although lower ranking service members don’t get private jets and personal chefs, U.S. taxpayers still spend billions of dollars a year to pay for luxuries that are out of reach for the ordinary American.

The Pentagon, for example, runs a staggering 234 golf courses around the world, at a cost that is undisclosed.

According to one retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Air Force, who also just happens to be the senior writer atTravel Golf, the very best military golf course in the U.S. is the Air Force Academy's Eisenhower Blue Course in Colorado Springs, CO.

He writes, “This stunning 7,000-plus yard layout shares the same foothills terrain as does the legendary Broadmoor, just 20 minutes to the south in Colorado Springs. Ponderosa pines, pinon and juniper line the fairways with rolling mounds, ponds and almost tame deer and wild turkey.” (The Department of Defense did come under fire a number of decades ago when it was discovered that the toilet seats at this course cost $400 a pop.)

And the number of golf courses is often undercounted, with controversial courses in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba and Mosul, Iraq, often left off the lists, which makes assessing the total costs difficult.

Yet some courses rack up staggering expenses as they become far more than mere stretches of grass.

According to journalist Nick Turse, “The U.S. Army paid $71,614 [in 2004] to the Arizona Golf Resort -- located in sunny Riyadh, Saudi Arabia... The resort actually boasts an entire entertainment complex, complete with a water-slide-enhanced megapool, gym, bowling alley, horse stables, roller hockey rink, arcade, amphitheater, restaurant, and even a cappuccino bar -- not to mention the golf course and a driving range.”

DoD's Sungnam golf course in the Republic of Korea, meanwhile, is reportedly valued at $26 million.

For non-golfers, the military also maintains a ski lodge and resort in the Bavarian Alps, which opened in 2004 and cost $80 million.

6. “The Army goes rolling along!”Vacation resorts aren’t the only explicitly non-defense-related expenditures of the Department of Defense. According to a Washington Post investigation, the DoD also spends $500 million annually on marching bands.

The Navy, the Army, the Air Force and the Marine Corps all maintain their own military bands, which also produce their own magazines and CDs.

The bands are [pun intended] “an instrument of military PR,” according to Al McCree, a retired Air Force service member who owns Altissimo Recordings, a Nashville record label featuring music of the service bands.

The CDs are--by law--distributed for free, but that doesn’t mean the private sector can’t profit off these marching bands. According to the Washington Post article, “The service CDs have also created a private, profitable industry made up of companies that obtain the band recordings under the Freedom of Information Act. They then re-press and package them for public sale.”

As if subsidizing the industry of multibillion-dollar arms dealers weren’t enough, the record industry is apparently also leeching off the taxpayer-funded military spending.

7. The Pentagon-to-Lockheed pipeline.While the exorbitant costs of private planes and hundreds of golf courses may seem bad enough, the most costly problem with the entitlement-culture of the military happens aftergenerals retire. Since they’re so used to the luxurious lifestyle, the vast majority of pension-reaping high-ranking officers head into the private defense industry.

According to William Hartung, a defense analyst at the Center for International Policy in Washington DC, about 70 percent of recently retired three- and four-star generals went straight to work for industry giants like Lockheed Martin.

“If you don’t go into industry at this point you are the exception,” Hartung said.

This type of government-to-industry pipeline, which he said was comparable to the odious Wall Street-to-Washington revolving door, drives up the prices of weapons and prevents effective oversight of weapon manufacturing companies--all of which ends up costing taxpayers more and more each year.

“I think the overspending on the generals and all their perks is bad enough, but the revolving door and the ability of these people to cut industry a break in exchange for high salaries costs more in the long run,” said Hartung. “This can affect the price of weapons and the whole structure of how we oversee companies. It’s harder to calculate, but certainly in the billions, compared to millions spent on staff per general.”

Seems to me the army/whatever is run like any other large corporation.

The people on the frontline -- and this is quite possibly an actual frontline as opposed to just a phrase -- get crapped on and less and less whilst those at the top do better and better.

I'm sure those marching bands are tremendous fun , if that's your proverbial cuppa, but do they genuinely serve any purpose in the modern age ?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people highlight the terrible waste of money in the US Military, which is a fair point, but for a long time in US politics or society, nobody seems to ask a very important question anymore:

Why does the USA need such a vast military?

What are our aims? Our Interests? etc etc

That is a national conversation that badly needs to be had.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the whole contractors/mercenary thing was/is quite an issue. One dude I knew finished his contract with the marines and was back in Iraq a month later with his old unit in the same location and operating the same piece of equipment he had when in uniform, but at several multiples his old pay and no longer under military discipline

 redleger wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people highlight the terrible waste of money in the US Military, which is a fair point, but for a long time in US politics or society, nobody seems to ask a very important question anymore:

Why does the USA need such a vast military?

What are our aims? Our Interests? etc etc

That is a national conversation that badly needs to be had.

I agree. We should pull out of NATO, quit helping everyone else police the world, and let them take the brunt of it, then I would have to pay less in taxes. Fair point. Hey UK, wanna get a glove and get in the game?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Yeah, the whole contractors/mercenary thing was/is quite an issue. One dude I knew finished his contract with the marines and was back in Iraq a month later with his old unit in the same location and operating the same piece of equipment he had when in uniform, but at several multiples his old pay and no longer under military discipline

Contracting work out is still cheaper for the govt. The govt has to invest all of the time and money into training to make sure everyone in the service has the skills they need so while the pay is lower the govt investment is higher. That same person can leave when his/her enlistment is up and get hired as a contractor with a much larger salary because they already have the skills needed to do the job. It's cheaper for the govt to hire somebody to fill a slot that is already qualified than it is to spend the time and money to create a new person to do that same job. It's also a lot easier for the military to contract out specific work to civilians than it is to try to fill niche slots through recruitment. It also lets the govt slap a temporary solution over the issue of retention and entering into prolonged conflicts without expanding the military.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I thought Trump was pulling out of NATO anyway?

 BrotherGecko wrote:
I had my supply sargent just throwing cash at anything that moved so that next year we could get more.

 BrotherGecko wrote:

The military just burns money and then cries that its starving.

Units can't do a reset without civilians holding their hands. At my old unit as an E3 I lead the first in house deployment reset in almost a decade. Maintainers don't know the first thing about their jobs and are too used to civilians doing all the work for them. So I don't see it as stretched thin but rather incompetent and over pampered.

KTG17 wrote:

But I do fear that there will be some kind of surprise, where there will be lack of support for some ship or unit that gets jumped, and nearby units wont be able to act in time because the one ship they have in the area isn't ready, or not all of the planes in a squadron are ready. That's my only fear. We'll have sacrificed numbers for some cool looking systems that there just wont be enough of.

 redleger wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people highlight the terrible waste of money in the US Military, which is a fair point, but for a long time in US politics or society, nobody seems to ask a very important question anymore:

Why does the USA need such a vast military?

What are our aims? Our Interests? etc etc

That is a national conversation that badly needs to be had.

I agree. We should pull out of NATO, quit helping everyone else police the world, and let them take the brunt of it, then I would have to pay less in taxes. Fair point. Hey UK, wanna get a glove and get in the game?

 Vaktathi wrote:
The littoral combat ship fiasco blows my mind. Billion dollar coastal cutters with the armament of an Apache...

 redleger wrote:
...many more NCOs...

Most armies are in fact run by their sergeants — the officers are there just to give things a bit of tone and prevent warfare becoming a mere lower-class brawl.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 redleger wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A lot of people highlight the terrible waste of money in the US Military, which is a fair point, but for a long time in US politics or society, nobody seems to ask a very important question anymore:

Why does the USA need such a vast military?

What are our aims? Our Interests? etc etc

That is a national conversation that badly needs to be had.

I agree. We should pull out of NATO, quit helping everyone else police the world, and let them take the brunt of it, then I would have to pay less in taxes. Fair point. Hey UK, wanna get a glove and get in the game?

Thank you for your gratitude for our political and material support for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq which led to doubling the US armed forces budget.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
...many more NCOs...

As Terry Pratchett said:

Most armies are in fact run by their sergeants — the officers are there just to give things a bit of tone and prevent warfare becoming a mere lower-class brawl.

 redleger wrote:
Honestly I met more Australians in Afghanistan than I did Brits.

 Henry wrote:

 redleger wrote:
Honestly I met more Australians in Afghanistan than I did Brits.

That may be because the Australian commitment was relatively so much smaller that they relied heavily upon the infrastructure created by others and so you would have more interaction with them. The Brits meanwhile were having fun in Helmand where you wouldn't have seen them unless you had cause to go there.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Contracting work out is still cheaper for the govt. The govt has to invest all of the time and money into training to make sure everyone in the service has the skills they need so while the pay is lower the govt investment is higher. That same person can leave when his/her enlistment is up and get hired as a contractor with a much larger salary because they already have the skills needed to do the job. It's cheaper for the govt to hire somebody to fill a slot that is already qualified than it is to spend the time and money to create a new person to do that same job. It's also a lot easier for the military to contract out specific work to civilians than it is to try to fill niche slots through recruitment. It also lets the govt slap a temporary solution over the issue of retention and entering into prolonged conflicts without expanding the military.

We're always going to have a fethed up wasteful military budget because the budget is controlled by Congress and it's always politically expedient to spend money so Congress will make sure budget decisions also benefit themselves regardless of the impact on the military.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 redleger wrote:
...many more NCOs...

As Terry Pratchett said:

Most armies are in fact run by their sergeants — the officers are there just to give things a bit of tone and prevent warfare becoming a mere lower-class brawl.

 Frazzled wrote:
The other item of note is the new battlefields. Cyberwarfare will be key in future engagements. Indeed why we aren't wasting ISIL messaging and PR capability is inconceivable.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The other item of note is the new battlefields. Cyberwarfare will be key in future engagements. Indeed why we aren't wasting ISIL messaging and PR capability is inconceivable.

Because sometimes it is a lot more useful to listen in on people rather than shut them up.

If you're trying to gather intelligence you set up a wiretap rather than cutting the phone line.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The other item of note is the new battlefields. Cyberwarfare will be key in future engagements. Indeed why we aren't wasting ISIL messaging and PR capability is inconceivable.

Because sometimes it is a lot more useful to listen in on people rather than shut them up.

If you're trying to gather intelligence you set up a wiretap rather than cutting the phone line.

That... and it's almost impossible to stop them from using the internet.

 Frazzled wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The other item of note is the new battlefields. Cyberwarfare will be key in future engagements. Indeed why we aren't wasting ISIL messaging and PR capability is inconceivable.

Because sometimes it is a lot more useful to listen in on people rather than shut them up.

If you're trying to gather intelligence you set up a wiretap rather than cutting the phone line.

That... and it's almost impossible to stop them from using the internet.

Why is it almost impossible? Thats my point. The future wars will have a strong cyber component. This should be extremely do-able.

 reds8n wrote:
... You can't even get your own President off twitter so it's a bit much to etc etc etc

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just chiming in here.
I think the major issue for the US military is the massive costs of its equipment. Especially the newer stuff.
The Russian military can get the cutting-edge 4th generation Armata tank for about half the money the US needs to spend to get an Abrams, which is just an updated version of an old tank that has been around since the 70's. And it is not just tanks or Russia, the same holds true for the costs of most American military equipment vs the equivalent equipment of all of its major rivals.
Not only do these high costs mean that the US could have had a much larger, more powerful army for the massive amount of money it spends on defense, it also means that the potential of the US to engage in any large-scale attrition based conflict is severely limited (the costs would cripple the economy). In short, American equipment and development of new equipment costs more than absolutely necessary.

At the root of the problem I think is the fact that the factories that produce equipment for the US military are all private companies (that are out to make as big a profit as possible). Russia or China meanwhile have state-owned factories that can produce the same for a fraction of the cost (because they do not need to make a profit on it).
Ergo, the US needs to nationalise the defense industry. Initially that would require a load of money, but on the long term it could result in either a drastic decrease in military spending (with no reduction in capacity) or a major increase in capacity if military spending remains on the same level.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'd be just fine with it myself. Cut out the middle man.

 CptJake wrote:
Nationalizing production, besides being unconstitutional is just fething asinine. Many defense firms produce all kinds of stuff for non-govermental clients. For example, Boeing makes more than fighters, Oshkosh makes more than trucks for the Army. Those companies share resources (both engineering/design services and manufacturing capacity as well as admin services).

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ergo, the US needs to nationalize the defense industry.

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ergo, the US needs to nationalize the defense industry.

No thank you. Privatization, while expensive, is far more innovating, just the same as it is for commercial goods.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Nationalizing production, besides being unconstitutional is just fething asinine. Many defense firms produce all kinds of stuff for non-govermental clients. For example, Boeing makes more than fighters, Oshkosh makes more than trucks for the Army. Those companies share resources (both engineering/design services and manufacturing capacity as well as admin services).

Spin them off. I'll handle the M&A.

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just chiming in here.
I think the major issue for the US military is the massive costs of its equipment. Especially the newer stuff.
The Russian military can get the cutting-edge 4th generation Armata tank for about half the money the US needs to spend to get an Abrams, which is just an updated version of an old tank that has been around since the 70's. And it is not just tanks or Russia, the same holds true for the costs of most American military equipment vs the equivalent equipment of all of its major rivals.
Not only do these high costs mean that the US could have had a much larger, more powerful army for the massive amount of money it spends on defense, it also means that the potential of the US to engage in any large-scale attrition based conflict is severely limited (the costs would cripple the economy). In short, American equipment and development of new equipment costs more than absolutely necessary.

At the root of the problem I think is the fact that the factories that produce equipment for the US military are all private companies (that are out to make as big a profit as possible). Russia or China meanwhile have state-owned factories that can produce the same for a fraction of the cost (because they do not need to make a profit on it).
Ergo, the US needs to nationalise the defense industry. Initially that would require a load of money, but on the long term it could result in either a drastic decrease in military spending (with no reduction in capacity) or a major increase in capacity if military spending remains on the same level.

 CptJake wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
Nationalizing production, besides being unconstitutional is just fething asinine. Many defense firms produce all kinds of stuff for non-govermental clients. For example, Boeing makes more than fighters, Oshkosh makes more than trucks for the Army. Those companies share resources (both engineering/design services and manufacturing capacity as well as admin services).

Spin them off. I'll handle the M&A.

Again, just stupid. For it to be even somewhat efficient you must assume the gov't keeps using the full capacity (buys more and more and more and more). Otherwise the taxpayer is paying to maintain unneeded capacity.

Fraz, I thought you were against Gov't over reach and abuse. Now you want them to privatize industries? Is Chavez your new role model?

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Just chiming in here.
I think the major issue for the US military is the massive costs of its equipment. Especially the newer stuff.
The Russian military can get the cutting-edge 4th generation Armata tank for about half the money the US needs to spend to get an Abrams, which is just an updated version of an old tank that has been around since the 70's. And it is not just tanks or Russia, the same holds true for the costs of most American military equipment vs the equivalent equipment of all of its major rivals.
Not only do these high costs mean that the US could have had a much larger, more powerful army for the massive amount of money it spends on defense, it also means that the potential of the US to engage in any large-scale attrition based conflict is severely limited (the costs would cripple the economy). In short, American equipment and development of new equipment costs more than absolutely necessary.

At the root of the problem I think is the fact that the factories that produce equipment for the US military are all private companies (that are out to make as big a profit as possible). Russia or China meanwhile have state-owned factories that can produce the same for a fraction of the cost (because they do not need to make a profit on it).
Ergo, the US needs to nationalise the defense industry. Initially that would require a load of money, but on the long term it could result in either a drastic decrease in military spending (with no reduction in capacity) or a major increase in capacity if military spending remains on the same level.

hrm, its not quite that simple. For a lot of these things, the US bears the burden of the first mover, doing the initial research and design of new technologies that are then replicated by others at a much lower pricetage after the initial expense of R&D and proof of concept is done by the US. The US is willing to bear that as they have exclusive use of such technologies for some time, but this is also very expensive. "Stealth" aircraft and the Atomic Bomb are perfect examples.

Likewise, with regards to the Armata and Abrams, a new Abrams hull hasnt been built in twenty years or more, any "new" Abrams is a hull that has been stripped down and rebuilt.

The Armata doesnt seem to have any major decisive advantage over other MBT's aside from small crew size (which can be as much a detriment as a boon) that isnt on development or already deployed for tanks like Abrams or LEO2, and the Armata's production volume thus far is only about a hundred units, and Russia does not appear to have the funds to buy lots more Armatas.

Ultimately, much like small arms, tanks are something of a plateaued technology for the time being, with small incremental improvements possible but little or no major capability advantages able to be capitalized on.

Russian and Chinese labor costs for research and production are also a whole lot lower, and when accounting for Purchasing Power Parity (the difference in purchasing power between economies as reflected by differences in costs as opposed to raw currency) as a result, the Armata's ~$3.7million pricetag comes out to be closer to ~$10million in US terms, a bit above the newest Abrams versions.


That said, yes, there are absolutely corruption and profit seeking issues with the US defense establishment. They're hardly the only ones though.

Likewise, Russia has been privatizing some of their industries. Kalashnikov Concern remains 51% state owned, but 49% privately owned and is privately managed in a for-profit operation.

 sebster wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Contracting work out is still cheaper for the govt. The govt has to invest all of the time and money into training to make sure everyone in the service has the skills they need so while the pay is lower the govt investment is higher. That same person can leave when his/her enlistment is up and get hired as a contractor with a much larger salary because they already have the skills needed to do the job. It's cheaper for the govt to hire somebody to fill a slot that is already qualified than it is to spend the time and money to create a new person to do that same job. It's also a lot easier for the military to contract out specific work to civilians than it is to try to fill niche slots through recruitment. It also lets the govt slap a temporary solution over the issue of retention and entering into prolonged conflicts without expanding the military.

It is true that paying someone you've already trained as a contractor can be cheaper than hiring a new recruit and training him up. However, what you're missing is that what's even cheaper is training that soldier up and retaining him is even cheaper still.

While retention has always been an issue, it's mostly been due to people getting sick of the life, wanting to spend more time at home with their families and things like that. People who want to remain in an active role haven't been a tought retain for the army, because they're the only game in town, unless soldiers were happy to go work for a shady mining company keeping assets safe from disaffected locals or other fairly unappealing kinds of work.

That was until the army started using private contractors at which point trained, experienced soldiers could finish their service and then go work for a contractor who then worked for the army. Effectively the army put itself in a deal where it spent a pile of money training up soldiers, and then saw the soldiers leave and charge the army for their value as trained soldiers, effectively the army was being charged for the value the army itself added to the soldier.

 Vaktathi wrote:
and Russia does not appear to have the funds to buy lots more Armatas.

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ergo, the US needs to nationalize the defense industry.

No thank you. Privatization, while expensive, is far more innovating, just the same as it is for commercial goods.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
Ergo, the US needs to nationalize the defense industry.

No thank you. Privatization, while expensive, is far more innovating, just the same as it is for commercial goods.

Not really. If you give a government R&D department and a private R&D firm a brief which says "Build us an on-board computer which can navigate to the moon using only 64kb of RAM and with a maximum weight of Xkg" they're both going to have to innovate.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Plus for the market=innovation to even make sense we would have to actually see innovation in the defense market. However, defense contractors are often not even in competition. Its why GPS technology in the military is way behind and why I saw some equipment that cost the government 100k+ per unit, have less technology and ability than if I used my smart phone. Defense contractors see the US Government as an easy meal. The US military has to buy what is offered and if one company says it will take one contract and another says it will take the other, neither company is actually competing. Its like the cable market in the US, which is almost completely non-competitive.

 Frazzled wrote:

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Plus for the market=innovation to even make sense we would have to actually see innovation in the defense market. However, defense contractors are often not even in competition. Its why GPS technology in the military is way behind and why I saw some equipment that cost the government 100k+ per unit, have less technology and ability than if I used my smart phone. Defense contractors see the US Government as an easy meal. The US military has to buy what is offered and if one company says it will take one contract and another says it will take the other, neither company is actually competing. Its like the cable market in the US, which is almost completely non-competitive.

If they actually applied the Sherman Act the shockwaves would have a tectonic impact upon the industry.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
But your military doesn't care about what goods the "market" wants. It knows what it wants, it is the market.

 BrotherGecko wrote:
Plus for the market=innovation to even make sense we would have to actually see innovation in the defense market. However, defense contractors are often not even in competition. Its why GPS technology in the military is way behind and why I saw some equipment that cost the government 100k+ per unit, have less technology and ability than if I used my smart phone. Defense contractors see the US Government as an easy meal. The US military has to buy what is offered and if one company says it will take one contract and another says it will take the other, neither company is actually competing. Its like the cable market in the US, which is almost completely non-competitive.

 Frazzled wrote:
And then you have stupidity like the new pistol fiasco.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And then you have stupidity like the new pistol fiasco.

What's happening?

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And then you have stupidity like the new pistol fiasco.

What's happening?

They put out a bid to replace the M9. It was several thousand pages long, with an estimated cost of more than $10mm. Only a few companies submitted bids because the documentation was so onerous. One of them (Glock ) is now suing. They ended up with a SIG because its "modular" but the cost will be more than just getting different types. It took YEARS.

Or they could have done like a major police department, threw out a request for X number, and X number of replacement parts, had a trial and been done with it.
Or even better just call up Glock, off $x.xx for 200,000 GLock 19s, with delilvery of X a year and call it for an early lunch.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
And then you have stupidity like the new pistol fiasco.

What's happening?

They put out a bid to replace the M9. It was several thousand pages long, with an estimated cost of more than $10mm. Only a few companies submitted bids because the documentation was so onerous. One of them (Glock ) is now suing. They ended up with a SIG because its "modular" but the cost will be more than just getting different types. It took YEARS.

Or they could have done like a major police department, threw out a request for X number, and X number of replacement parts, had a trial and been done with it.
Or even better just call up Glock, off $x.xx for 200,000 GLock 19s, with delilvery of X a year and call it for an early lunch.

 CptJake wrote:
Nationalizing production, besides being unconstitutional is just fething asinine. Many defense firms produce all kinds of stuff for non-govermental clients. For example, Boeing makes more than fighters, Oshkosh makes more than trucks for the Army. Those companies share resources (both engineering/design services and manufacturing capacity as well as admin services).

 Vaktathi wrote:
Russian and Chinese labor costs for research and production are also a whole lot lower, and when accounting for Purchasing Power Parity (the difference in purchasing power between economies as reflected by differences in costs as opposed to raw currency) as a result, the Armata's ~$3.7million pricetag comes out to be closer to ~$10million in US terms, a bit above the newest Abrams versions.


That said, yes, there are absolutely corruption and profit seeking issues with the US defense establishment. They're hardly the only ones though.

Likewise, Russia has been privatizing some of their industries. Kalashnikov Concern remains 51% state owned, but 49% privately owned and is privately managed in a for-profit operation.

The United States needs a new high-endurance dedicated fleet-defense/air-superiority fighter for its Navy and a new close-air-support warplane to fight alongside the venerable A-10. But our most critical need is an effective air-superiority fighter for our Air Force that provides genuine airpower at a price we can afford. The Air Force’s F-22 Raptor is too expensive to procure and spends too much time on the ground undergoing maintenance. The F-35 is a jack-of-all-trades, master-of-none strike fighter that spends too much time on the tarmac and costs far too much to support over its service life. But all is not lost. With a small, disciplined, vendor-independent fighter-design team led by actual fighter pilots, the U.S. could begin production of a new world-class fighter in large numbers in nine years or less.

Embodying the spirit of the P-51 Mustang, the best and most important fighter of the Second World War, the F-45 Mustang II, our new air-superiority fighter, will cost less than the newest version of the multi-role F-16 Viper. Because the fighter that powers up its big, powerful radar first turns itself into a great big target in the modern battlespace (by emitting lots of heat and radar waves), our new air-superiority fighter will focus on achieving first-shot dominance via passive sensors, a smaller infrared signature, and practicing electromagnetic-emission control (EMCON). To speed development and save on cost, this single-engine fighter will be built using the best of existing vetted technology. Because of superior aerodynamics, i.e., because it won’t be crippled by a large front-facing radar and stealth-shaping requirements, its range will be superior to our current fighters. And it will have a truly useful supercruise capability. Most importantly, unlike the F-22 or the F-35, which are capable of flying only a single sortie (mission) every two or three days, the F-45 will be capable of two to three sorties per day for many months at a time. Since the rule of thumb is that you buy fighters by the pound, our 21st-century Mustang will be light, lean, and lethal.

On top of their greatly reduced cost, smaller fighters are better in a dogfight. And because they have smaller visual signatures and smaller infrared heat signatures, they are harder to see and hit at both WVR (within visual range) and BVR (beyond visual range) ranges. Lighter and leaner warplanes also cost less to maintain. Thankfully, we still have a stable of fighters that, with some care and upgrades, will allow us to maintain our edge in air power for the next ten to twelve years. However, we can’t afford another failed program like the F-35, or even the more mixed record of the F-22. Yes, the F-22’s metrics are impressive. But no matter what your thrust-to-weight ratio is, or what your sustained-turning rate is, or how x-band radar-stealthy a warplane is, you aren’t a good fighter if, like the F-22, you are struggling to fly once every two or three days. Effective air power comes from planes that are actually flying — not from expensive, high-tech sitting ducks on the tarmac that are being constantly maintained and repaired.

The U.S. military seems to have forgotten that the greater part of a fighter’s effectiveness derives from the experience and training of the pilot. More pithily, Colonel John Boyd, far and away the most influential practitioner and theorist of aerial combat, puts it this way: “A real fighter pilot has always had the attitude: They give us sh** to fly, and we win anyhow.” Happily, it has been decades since our pilots have been in a shooting war with enemy pilots who had a snowball’s chance against any of our fighters.

A 1992 Air Power Journal article concludes that the opponents we faced in Desert Storm were “unable to fight” and “unwilling to fight.” Iraqi pilots who had been chosen for political connections rather than talent were literally flying their planes into the ground. Things were even more lopsided during Operation Iraqi Freedom, when over 1,800 coalition aircraft completely dominated the air space with no air-to-air combat of any significance. But the downside of being so utterly dominant is that you get used to pervasive no-risk coverage by support planes such as airborne-refueling tankers and Airborne Warning and Control System planes (AWACS).

When facing competent opponents, things will be different. Indeed, a doctrinal priority for both the Chinese and the Russians is to take out such support planes immediately; indeed, they have been developing weapons and tactics such as the very-long-range (250 mile) S-400 Triumf/SA-21 anti-air-support missile to do just that. Decades of facing outnumbered, poorly trained opponents flying poorly maintained planes is terrible preparation for going up against peer opponents — who, in any particular theater, may outnumber us and will have the support of their own AWACS and support planes.

THE FIVE PRINCIPLES OF AMERICAN FIGHTER DESIGN

Because American air power has not been tested in combat against peer competitors for over 40 years, in a designing a proper replacement for the F-35, Principle No. 1 going forward is: Any lessons we think we have learned during this period of utter airpower dominance needs to be viewed extremely skeptically. Concluding that our successes were primarily due to our technological superiority does not hold water. A more balanced, historically mindful interpretation of our dominance in the Middle East is offered by Steven Biddle, who in his excellent, must-read book, Military Power: Explaining Victory and Defeat in Modern Battle, builds the overwhelming case that it was superior leadership, superior training, and superior tactics, augmented by technological superiority, that led to the perfect storm of military dominance that we experienced in the Gulf Wars.

A nice summary of Biddle’s views can be found in an International Security Paper, in which Biddle writes:

Similarly, arguments that modernization spending should be protected at the expense of training and readiness accounts overestimates the military value of technology per se, and underestimates the role of skill in determining the effects that any given technology will produce. . . . It would be a mistake to pay for faster modernization by accepting a less skilled military.

Speaking on the importance of training in general, Lieutenant Colonel Tom “Chuck” Norris, a retired USAF pilot with over 3,000 hours of flight time, observed: “Ten to 15 hours per month is enough to maintain familiarity with your aircraft, but not enough to maintain proficiency.” Our fighter programs attract the best of the best, but without enough training we are incurring undue risk for our really good people. And yet, the unreliability of fighters like the F-22 and F-35 ensures that our pilots struggle to get ten to twelve hours per month of actual in-air flight training (stick-time).

Consequently, the F-45 must be reliable enough to ensure that our pilots tap into the tremendous multiplicative effect that superior training and tactics brings to the battlespace. Further, giving our pilots the time to train to tactics will equip them to overcome any technological edge a peer competitor might temporarily hold.

Therefore, Principle No. 2 is: Our next fighter must be of sufficiently reliability to support minimal-sustained-training rates of 30 hours per month of flight time indefinitely, with a surge-training capability of over 40 hours per month to enable our pilots to progress past proficiency to mastery. Only at these high levels of training can our pilots gain the all-important proficiency in the many-on-many air battles that will prove decisive in our struggle for air-power dominance in the future.

Principle No. 3 is tightly coupled with Principle No. 2: Our new air-superiority fighters must be able to fly multiple sorties per day indefinitely. A high sortie-generation rate is the most important single measure of a fighter’s effectiveness. As has been the case for last 30 years, the U.S. can get away with a low sortie-generation-rate fighter when we are the ones dictating when, where, and how we will engage our opponents. However, when going up against peer competitors capable of forcing the fight and taking the initiative, low-reliability/low-sortie fighters will be a huge liability and their lack of real airpower will be fatally exposed on multiple levels. An effective air force needs fighters with high sortie-generation rates to produce genuine airpower while simultaneously supporting high training rates. That we have let our vendor-controlled procurement system siphon away hundreds of billions of dollars and decades of development time to produce fighters such as the F-22 and the F-35 that have zero chance of flying one combat sortie per day while supporting effective training rates is simply scandalous.

During the Cold War, the U.S. maintained a significant technological advantage over countries such as China and the Soviet Union. However, we also invested in fielding large numbers of fighters and ships. Both our Navy and our air forces were much larger and more powerful at that time than they are today. And with 25 to 30 hours per month of in-air training, our pilots maintained much higher average levels of proficiency. That was then, this is now. Today, we find ourselves without the numbers to maintain the same kind of global presence we could maintain in the ’80s and early ’90s. And as our numbers have dwindled, so has the large technological edge we once held. An example of technological parity can be found in Russia’s extremely advanced air-to-air missiles and the powerful radar-jamming technology deployed on its latest fighters, such as the SU-35S Super Flanker. The new Russian fighters also feature stealth-piercing Infrared Search and Track (IRST) capabilities.

Given that any new fighters will be around for the next 30 years or even longer, any fighter program designed around the assumption that we can regain and maintain an overwhelming technological advantage would be foolish and reckless. U.S. designers must also presume that during long periods of low-intensity conflicts, advanced technology will end up proliferating one way or another.

So, Principle No. 4 is: In designing a new fighter we must — as has been the case for most of history — assume rough technological parity. The next principle is the logical extension of Principles No.1 and No. 4 and simply recognizes that there is absolutely, positively no such thing as an invulnerable airplane. Anyone talking about the invulnerability of any fighter or cloud of fighters should be disqualified from being involved in fighter design.

Accordingly, Principle No. 5 is: We must build enough fighters to absorb casualties in a fight against a peer opponent and yet still prevail. In short, as has been the case throughout military history, numbers matter.

LEAVE THE ‘INSPECTOR GADGET’ IDEAS IN THE MOVIES

But enough with meta design principles. Let’s move forward by assuming we get the right team of vendor-independent folks in place to do the detailed conceptual-design work and to oversee a defense-contracting process requiring a true competitive fly-off. Rather than embracing their inner Inspector Gadget, as was the case with the F-35’s designers, this team should look to legendary fighter designer William Bushnell Stout for inspiration. Stout’s motto for fighter design — “Simplicate and Add Lightness” — will inform the entire process. This will be the exact opposite of what Lockheed Martin did with the F-35 and F-22: adding complexity and heaviness — and, not incidentally, tremendous cost and unreliability.

First and foremost, our new fighter must be affordable enough, both in terms of initial-acquisition cost and support costs, that we can afford to buy and support it in numbers that matter (over 1,000 fighters). As a point of reference, we will use Sweden’s impressive $61 million, 15,000-lb., multi-role Saab Gripen JAS 39C as an example of a modern, world-class fighter that costs about one-third to one-fifth as much to fly per hour as does the F-35A.

Since our F-45 Mustang II will not be saddled with the cost and complexity associated with the Gripen’s air-to-ground attack capabilities or a large heat-generating radar, it can both weigh less and cost less. The target weight and cost for the F-45 Mustang will be 11,750 lbs. and $48 million, respectively. This price may seem unfeasibly low — but only because, like the proverbial frog in the pot, over the decades we have become accustomed to ridiculously overpriced weapons systems. To keep down costs and improve agility, our modern Mustang will be a single-engine warplane. Of course, the F-45 will have all the air-to-air capabilities that the Gripen features in addition to what the F-35 is supposed to sport, including sensor fusion, networked sensors, helmet-cued missile launching, and lock-on-after-launch missiles.

But, critically, its design team will avoid the Inspector Gadget–obsessed fighter-design mindset that gave us the F-35’sfirst-generation Distributed Aperture System (DAS). The DAS was hyped as boosting a pilot’s situational awareness by providing a 360-degree spherical view. The reality is quite different: The DAS generates a green-and-black picture at far less resolution than the human eye. Given its relatively poor 2D resolution, it’s not surprising that Major John Wilson, an F-35 test pilot, told an interviewer that if he were ever involved in a dogfight, “I’ll use my eyes, because I need to see things with my own eyes to judge aspect, distance closure, and other details that you can’t get using a 2D camera.” Major Wilson went on to characterize the DAS as a system of “limited utility.” Other analysis tells us that the DAS provides nothing that other less expensive systems provide. Therefore, going forward, before a decision is made to implement new technology fleetwide, new systems such as the DAS, with no demonstrated real-world battlefield utility, should be extensively tried out on test planes and then rolled out on a limited basis to production fighters in order to validate that they actually deliver essential combat power commensurate with their cost and weight. Not doing so is acquisition malpractice. In lieu of the complex and costly DAS, our Mustang will incorporate a bubble canopy that will provide truly useable situational awareness such as that found on our F-16s, F-18s, F-15s, F-22s, and, of course, the WWII P-51D Mustang, but which is sadly lacking on the F-35 strike fighter.

Rather than being built around the terribly risky idea of achieving air dominance through blasting the battlespace with kilowatts of electromagnetic energy in clever ways, our F-45 will achieve dominance via passive sensors and superior tactics enabled by superior training. Our fighter-design team will adhere to this ancient mantra: “When operating in a world of increasingly powerful digital-signal processing, anti-radiation, lock-on-after-launch missiles, infrared missiles, and high-sensitivity triangulating-microwave receivers, he who fires up his heat-generating, high-powered, low-probability-of-intercept, active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar first, loses!” Our F-45 Mustang II will be a modern-day disciple of Sun Tzu!

Right behind high training and sortie-generation rates in importance will be our fighter’s effective combat range and endurance. This may surprise some folks, but the importance of range cannot be overestimated. When you take a fighter capable of a high sortie-generation rate and add exceptional endurance, you end up maximizing the number of fighters in the air protecting our troops from the enemy’s airpower. This ensures that our own close-air-support aircraft, such as the A-10, can partner with our ground forces in defeating enemy ground forces. What we need is fighters in the sky, not on the ground. Therefore, our F-45 will be able to spend four to five times as much time in the air as an F-35 or F-22.

Additionally, range and endurance becomes even more important when your airborne-refueling tankers must stay far away from the battlespace to avoid being shot down — as will be the case when facing a peer competitor such as Russia or China. Another important capability is tactically useful supercruise capable of the following: a) achieving and maintaining speeds over Mach 1 without having to use the fighter’s afterburner while carrying a full load of missiles; b) maintaining supersonic speeds for at least 20 minutes after having flown 350 nautical miles (402 miles); and c) engaging in combat and still getting home with acceptable fuel reserves. By greatly extending how much time our fighters can spend at speeds significantly faster than our opponents, genuine supercruise will enable our pilots to gain position and surprise (bounce) to fire that all-important, high-probability first shot. It will also make it harder for an opponent to surprise our pilots. And when engaged in beyond-visual-range combat, supercruise can impart extra energy to our missiles, giving them a big boost in range.

Along with the capabilities outlined above, our F-45s will carry a combination of up to six BVR or WVR missiles and will have an effective gun for aerial combat. Its primary sensors will be state-of-the-art passive sensors such as infrared search-and-track (IRST), radar-warning systems, as well as 360 degrees of missile-warning coverage and wing-embedded conformal sensors capable of detecting enemy radar, infrared, and other electromagnetic emissions. Its secondary, complementary sensor will be a light, compact radar that will be used situationally. The upshot here is that its passive-sensor technology will allow it to get the drop on fighters foolish enough to try to use their radar to locate it.

WHAT ABOUT STEALTH?

So far, we’ve discussed supercruise and the importance of range and endurance metrics. But What About Stealth! We Gotta Have Radar Stealth! Actually, no we don’t. The reason why is that contrary to the irresponsible, overhyped portrayal of stealth, the limited x-band radar-focused stealthiness of planes such as the F-35 and F-22 exacts a huge penalty. So-called stealth planes have much higher initial-acquisition costs and higher maintenance costs, carry fewer weapons by weight, have less range, and take a hit in overall aerodynamic performance.

With all these design penalties accounted for, however, stealth might be worth it — if it worked as advertised, but it doesn’t. Even as you read this, China, Russia, and many other countries have the ability to detect the F-35 — and even the F-22 — from hundreds of miles away. In fact, the radars used during the Battle of Britain could have tracked both the F-22 and the F-35 at ranges approaching 100 miles. While UHF/VHF radars may or may not be accurate enough on their own to guide missiles directly into “stealth” planes, they are plenty accurate enough to direct anti-stealth/ IRST–equipped fighters to intercept stealth fighters as well as cue up anti-stealth radars that can launch surface-to-air missiles at our so-called stealth fighters. Anti-stealth developments such as quantum radar are far outpacing any possible advances we will see in stealthy platforms.

Moreover, advances in infrared-detection technology such as Quantum Well Imaging Photodetectors (QWIP) completely ignore efforts to make planes harder to see on radar. So, while the F-45 will have a small radar signature similar to that of Sweden’s Gripen, it makes no sense for it to incur the huge radar-stealth penalty given that it will be around for the next 30 to 40 years.

BUILDING THE F-45 IS DOABLE — IF OUR LEADERS HAVE THE COURAGE TO ACT

The F-45’s airframe will benefit from the cost decreases we have seen over the last 20 years for high-end, high-strength-to-weight composites, allowing its designers to add lightness and the ability to carry more fuel. It will have a small infrared signature, a small visual signature, and, while not technically being a radar-stealthy plane, it will have a smaller radar signature than an F-16. It will have will have excellent range, endurance, and agility. And it will cost less to support than F-16 Vipers or even a Saab Gripen.

Shrewdly integrating only pre-existing, mature, best-of-breed components will create a plane greater than the sum of its parts. Critically, it will be reliable enough to execute multiple sorties per day, while enabling our pilots to get the all-important 30 hours of stick-time per month that they need and deserve. The F-45 will be a blast to fly. And because our pilots will finally be able to get back to doing what they signed up to do and love to do — fly — our pilot-retention rate will see dramatic improvements.

Critics might say that the above table makes the F-45 look like some kind of fantastical super-plane, but it most certainly is not. The key here is that a well-designed, modern fighter such as the F-45 built for a reasonable price stands out like a sore thumb when compared to planes that fly as infrequently as the F-35 and the F-22. The bottom line here is that for the hundreds of billions we have spent — and are set to spend — on our current fighter programs, we are getting criminally little airpower from our tarmac-class fighters.

Building a plane like the F-45 is imminently doable, but right now with both our military and Congress dominated by defense vendors, producing a cost-effective plane is politically difficult, to say the least. That needs to change. It’s time to start putting the needs of our taxpayers, our pilots, and our nation’s security ahead of the wants of defense contractors and their future senior executives.

 whembly wrote:
This is an interesting article about this topic...
When replacing the failed F-35, the U.S. should focus on building large numbers of a reliable, lightweight fighter design.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

 sebster wrote:

 whembly wrote:
This is an interesting article about this topic...
When replacing the failed F-35, the U.S. should focus on building large numbers of a reliable, lightweight fighter design.

It is a good article, and it does a good job of fleshing out the argument for a plane designed with considerations other than chasing the absolute bleeding edge of capability. However, it is really a sales pitch, and because it's a sales pitch which starts with one false argument to hide it's own sales pitch.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

No, it doesn't. Or, well, in a very shallow way it does I suppose. The market can give you an indication of what people are willing to pay for, but that doesn't actually give you a picture of what people want, only what they want that is also within their means. As an extreme example, people being unable to buy food does not mean there is not a demand for food, it means that providing food to people at that price level is not profitable. The demand is there, but we'd never know it from the market, because the market is only one indicator of demand, not the absolute arbiter of what people want or not.

You really shouldn't be building a moral system based on capitalism, because capitalism is inherently amoral.

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

You're probably thinking of the Super Tacanos we're buying for the Afghans. They're meant to replace some very old Russian attack copters the Afghans current use. The Tacanos have already been flown in combat by the Afghans (last year if I remember correctly).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it was never the $20 tent being targeted, it was the gak bag inside it, and I don't think we dropped any $100k bombs to do so.

In 2008, the U.S. Navy began testing the Super Tucano at the behest of the U.S. Special Operations Command for its potential use to support special warfare operations,[78] giving it the official U.S. designation A-29B.[79]
In 2009, the Super Tucano was offered in a U.S. Air Force competition for 100 counterinsurgency aircraft.[80] On 12 April 2010, Brazil signed a defensive pact that opened negotiations for the acquisition of 200 Super Tucanos by the U.S.[81] On 16 November 2011, the AT-6 was excluded from the LAS Program, effectively selecting the Super Tucano. According to GAO: "the Air Force concluded that HBDC had not adequately corrected deficiencies in its proposal... that multiple deficiencies and significant weaknesses found in HBDC’s proposal make it technically unacceptable and results in unacceptable mission capability risk". Hawker Beechcraft's protest against its exclusion was dismissed.[82][83] However, the contract award was disputed and a stop-work was issued in January 2012.[84]

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

You're probably thinking of the Super Tacanos we're buying for the Afghans. They're meant to replace some very old Russian attack copters the Afghans current use. The Tacanos have already been flown in combat by the Afghans (last year if I remember correctly).




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And it was never the $20 tent being targeted, it was the gak bag inside it, and I don't think we dropped any $100k bombs to do so.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Then of course P320 they ended up going with has far less data and tested durability & experience of the Glock. The P320 probably is a perfectly fine pistol, but the apparent testing standards given the goals were...strange.

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

Because that one meme about using a billion dollar plane to drop a 100,000 $ bomb on a $20 tent rings still somewhat true, and I could see the benefits of easily maintained, cheap durable planes for CAS missions where serious AA tech is not a concern. A prop plane with a few rocket pods, 20mm cannons and some bombs in the mix is just as dangerous to infantry and light vehicles as it was 70 years ago.

Take a skyraider, fit the controls to a drone operator and there you go. Or old school, just upgrade the avionics and there you go. A reliable proven platform with massive load bearing capability, that can loiter over the battle field for hours.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas_A-1_Skyraider

KTG17 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Manned fighters are so 20th century.

I don't think drones are ready to replace manned fighters yet.

Besides, what do you do when you can't communicate with the drone? I think there is always going to be the need to have a vehicle with a human in it.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

I've seen some weird things happen when a Hellfire hits. A truck full of insurgents was struck, the missile nailed the engine block. All 8 guys inside the truck got out, without a scratch. At the same time, I've seen a guy get hit with one, and thrown 30 feet into the air, doing cartwheels.

In terms of a middle ground though the Hellfire is as good as it gets, right now. I'm sure they're in the works for cheaper things, but as I said, precision is expensive. There are plenty of cheaper dummy bombs out there, but once you put the guidance system on them, then factor in that only a handful of air frames can carry them, counter to the the relative universality of the Hellfire... We use it as our primary strike munition for a reason. It's the best tool.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

 Frazzled wrote:

 djones520 wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

djones520 wrote:Standard munition used in a strike is a Hellfire. It costs about 100K per missile.

I've seen them used to destroy HME (home made explosive) facilities, strikes to kill a single guy, or even strikes to kill 10 guys (that was a fun one). They're an incredibly accurate weapon, and their collateral damage ring is pretty small. The price tag may seem large, but the precision strike capability doesn't come cheap. I mean sure, we could always go back to Vietnam era carpet bombing, indiscriminate killing of civilians, etc...

Not that the Hellfire is an example of government waste per se, but this seems like a bit of false dilemma - perhaps there is some middle ground between dropping $100k of ordnance to kill a single person or materiel, and carpet bombing and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

As a side note, I saw something interesting about a week ago - insurgents killed in a car that didn't have a typical collateral-damage-inflicting blast pattern - the windows weren't even blown out, but the top of the car looked like someone had dropped an anvil on it. Supposition is that it was a AGM like the Hellfire but without a warhead.

I've seen some weird things happen when a Hellfire hits. A truck full of insurgents was struck, the missile nailed the engine block. All 8 guys inside the truck got out, without a scratch. At the same time, I've seen a guy get hit with one, and thrown 30 feet into the air, doing cartwheels.

In terms of a middle ground though the Hellfire is as good as it gets, right now. I'm sure they're in the works for cheaper things, but as I said, precision is expensive. There are plenty of cheaper dummy bombs out there, but once you put the guidance system on them, then factor in that only a handful of air frames can carry them, counter to the the relative universality of the Hellfire... We use it as our primary strike munition for a reason. It's the best tool.

How is it compared to a JDAM for the same target?

 skyth wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Because the Spitfire exists

But really it was due to the Mustang being a bit late to the party (1944 I think) whereas the workhorses throughout, had been the bf109, fw 190, the aforementioned spitfire and the hurricane, Vought F4U corsair played a big role before the hellcat was introduced in the Pacific (another 1944 plane).

That's before we get onto the fun stuff like bombers and torpedo planes

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

The B-25 Would have words with that

KTG17 wrote:


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


They are going to innovate with that one specific task, but the market place determines which goods consumers really want

No it doesn't. It determines what people can afford.

WHAT?!?!

I don't know what capitalism is like in Sweden, but yes the market place does determine which goods people want.

No, it doesn't. Or, well, in a very shallow way it does I suppose. The market can give you an indication of what people are willing to pay for, but that doesn't actually give you a picture of what people want, only what they want that is also within their means. As an extreme example, people being unable to buy food does not mean there is not a demand for food, it means that providing food to people at that price level is not profitable. The demand is there, but we'd never know it from the market, because the market is only one indicator of demand, not the absolute arbiter of what people want or not.

You really shouldn't be building a moral system based on capitalism, because capitalism is inherently amoral.

If I produce an item, that no one wants, no one is going to buy it. That itself allows the market to remove unwanted goods. In Communism, there was a ton of waste as factories produced too many goods that no one wanted or became obsolete, but were stuck to the 5 year plan set by the higher powers. Allowing me to create a good and offering to the market, will determine whether the market has any demand for that good. The level of demand sets the price. Those unwanted goods get flushed out and new ones enter it.

BTW I would rather be in a capitalist society than any other. I've been to 32 countries too, so I have seen a few systems.

 Ouze wrote:

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Not to mention calling the Mustang the "most important fighter" of the Second World War.

Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

Most important fighter is arguable. The most important bomber was the B-29, hands down. Indeed it was the most important bomber in all of history, and remains so.

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

Well yea, but lets be real B-29s outclassed anything in WWII were actually used in two wars, and were the only plane that could drop The Bomb.
(I like the LIberator myself...)

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:
Well, they didnt surrender after just B-29's and A-bombs either, it also took a soviet invasion on Manchuria obliterating the bulk of their best remaining troops in just a couple of weeks between the bombs, the cutoff of their last hope of a negotiated peace (which the Japanese were attempting to engage in) with the Soviets as an intermediary, conventional firebombings that killed more than the A-Bombs did, the immediate threat of starvation, the complete annihilation of the Japanese merchant fleet and almost all production and transportation infrastructure, and the complete lack of industrial supply of inputs. The B29 and the A-Bombs were cherry's on the top of a very large sundae

Well yea, but lets be real B-29s outclassed anything in WWII were actually used in two wars, and were the only plane that could drop The Bomb.
(I like the LIberator myself...)

Funny story, my grandfather actually helped design the Liberator, and the PBY Catalina (had to bail out of one too on a test flight) while at Consolidated

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

No. It started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
Lest we forget, the reason the Mustang had a greater range was due to the additional fuel tank, which only ended up there because the engine they ended up using was heavier than the one that it was meant to use.

That engine of course was the Rolls Royce Merlin.

But again this is all down to national bias and what you want the plane for

The best plane of course is the de Havilland Mosquito.

As Göring himself said about the Mosquito

"In 1940 I could at least fly as far as Glasgow in most of my aircraft, but not now! It makes me furious when I see the Mosquito. I turn green and yellow with envy. The British, who can afford aluminium better than we can, knock together a beautiful wooden aircraft that every piano factory over there is building, and they give it a speed which they have now increased yet again. What do you make of that? There is nothing the British do not have. They have the geniuses and we have the nincompoops. After the war is over I'm going to buy a British radio set – then at least I'll own something that has always worked."

The Il-2 aircraft played a crucial role on the Eastern Front. Joseph Stalin paid the Il-2 a great tribute in his own inimitable manner: when a particular production factory fell behind on its deliveries, Stalin sent an angrily worded cable to the factory manager, stating "They are as essential to the Red Army as air and bread."[6] "I demand more machines. This is my final warning!"[7]

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:

 djones520 wrote:
I'd argue the Mustang all day long. Our bombers could not have penetrated Europe the way they did without the Mustang. Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support. Argue which bomber is better all you want, without the Mustang they'd have been slaughtered.

Without Britain's aircraft there likely would not have been any US bombers in the Euro theater at all, and either a Nazi or Soviet Europe in the end.

Why?

WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

No. It started in 1937.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War

If we're playing silly buggers, Frazz, then it began in 1936 when Joe Louis beat Max Schmelling.

The Second Sino-Japanese war is related to the greater worldwide conflict, it is not generally considered the starting point.

 skyth wrote:
The IL-2 is not a fighter, but rather a ground attack plane. Yes, it is very good at what it does. Fighters are more geared towards air superiority.

 djones520 wrote:
Britain's aircraft just couldn't provide the necessary support.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In the Pacific the F6F Hellcat was the carrier fighter aircraft responsible for the most kills for the US.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

 Frazzled wrote:

 skyth wrote:
The IL-2 is not a fighter, but rather a ground attack plane. Yes, it is very good at what it does. Fighters are more geared towards air superiority.

Exactly but someone mentioned the Mosquito, so we saw a hole and flew through it.

 Frazzled wrote:
Any plane thats big enough to launch an AA missile or drop a guided bomb on an airfield, is a fighter.

 Ouze wrote:
Would one of you explain briefly why is this not true? I don't know almost anything about WW2 aviation.

 sebster wrote:
The Yak aircraft were made in huge numbers and served reasonably well, and were an important part of winning the war, but the argument against is that they only served reasonably well, and you maybe have to get in to a lot of detail about exactly which Yak you mean.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

 feeder wrote:
WW2 started in 1939, not 1941.

 djones520 wrote:
Saying the air frame itself was the reason the Battle of Britain was won is a little disingenuous. Granted, the Spitfire is an amazing fighter, and it played a huge roll. I'd argue that the Dowding System was the more important factor in Britain's victory though. Being able to track German aircraft, and ensure the defending pilots knew where to fly was what won the battle. British pilots could have been flying F-22's, but if they didn't know where the German's were, they couldn't have stopped them.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Britain just never invested in long ranged fighters, other than putting the contract out to North American to make them one. Supermarine had modified and tested a MkIX that was capable of flying to Berlin and back with modifications that could be done on existing aircraft, but it wasn't pursued.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The Yak aircraft were made in huge numbers and served reasonably well, and were an important part of winning the war, but the argument against is that they only served reasonably well, and you maybe have to get in to a lot of detail about exactly which Yak you mean.

From my understanding the combat Yaks (1, 3 and 9) were all developed from each other, so you could lump them together the same way you lump together Spitfire Marks or the 109 series. Afterall, the Spitfire that flew in the Battle of Britain topped out at around 350mph with a 27L engine, very different aircraft to the late war Spits that reached 450mph with a 37L engine.

20 million dead Chinese and they're so forgotten people don't even count 1937 as the start of fighting...

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.[7][Note 2] This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.[9] Postwar, the Hellcat was phased out of front line service but remained in service as late as 1954 as a night fighter.

 sebster wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
Britain just never invested in long ranged fighters, other than putting the contract out to North American to make them one. Supermarine had modified and tested a MkIX that was capable of flying to Berlin and back with modifications that could be done on existing aircraft, but it wasn't pursued.

The British were flying at night. So it would have needed to be not just a long range escort, but also a night fighter. Did anyone have those? I kind of suspect the most kills such an escort would have got would have come from crashing in to their own bombers.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Mozzyfuzzy wrote:
My only guesstimate would be the preference the USN had for the Hellcat over the Corsair, and so flew from carriers more, whereas the Corsair seems to fly from land more.

With how the Naval side of the Pacific progressed, that's probably why.

Interesting note per Wiki:
Hellcats were credited with destroying a total of 5,223 enemy aircraft while in service with the U.S. Navy, U.S. Marine Corps and the Royal Navy Fleet Air Arm.[7][Note 2] This was more than any other Allied naval aircraft.[9] Postwar, the Hellcat was phased out of front line service but remained in service as late as 1954 as a night fighter.

Statistically the Corsair was a better aircraft, but as noted, the Navy preferred the Hellcat initially as it was better for landings. The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem. Later in the war the Navy started using corsairs heavily as well once that was fixed.

Interestingly in the plans for the leadup to Downfall, Nimitz planned to sortie the carrier fleets to Japanese waters, armed only with fighters. The plan was to draw out enemy aircraft and curb stomp them with the Blue Blanket.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In the Pacific the F6F Hellcat was the carrier fighter aircraft responsible for the most kills for the US.

Care to put up a source for that?? Literally all of the reading I've done echoes other users here: that it was the F4U series that holds the most kills, and one of the best kill:loss ratios in aviation history, on top of being one of the top 3 most beautiful aircraft ever to see the skies.

 Frazzled wrote:
In WWII most US fighters were fighter/bombers.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem.

Fun fact, the Corsair was the last prop driven aircraft to see combat action in the world, as it was used in 1969 by both Honduras and El Salvador in the "Football War"

 Frazzled wrote:

Fun fact, the Corsair was the last prop driven aircraft to see combat action in the world, as it was used in 1969 by both Honduras and El Salvador in the "Football War"

I knew Latin America took soccer seriously, but using aircraft to score goals...wow...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The Corsair initially had problems with its wheel struts on landing...which could be a problem.

Initially it was a prop balance issue. Something to do with weight distribution caused the bird to want to turn of its own accord on landing, which is a big problem on a boat. The initial attempts to fix it were an air scoop on one side and, because it was designed with 3 blades on the prop, someone decided to make one of those blades longer than the other 2. Later variants entered the war with a 4-blade prop and further balance improvements.

 Witzkatz wrote:
It has been a while, but there was some serious considerations by a few people in the military loop to get a few small, cheap, durable propeller engine attack planes, roughly fulfilling the same role as the A-10 Thunderbolt, especially for low-intensity conflicts with a great divide in tech levels. Has anybody else heard more about that?

KTG17 wrote:
It seems for fighting the Taliban something like that would be fine, but then again, a lot of WWII fighters were shot down in strafing runs by small arms and machine guns too. I can just see a plane being shot down, and people asking "what the hell is the US military using WWII fighters for?!?"

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Starting off, the idea that you understand an entire system because you've been in a country is pretty naïve. I've seen a moose, that doesn't mean I understand it. Capitalism is insane as a moral system because without regulation it creates incentives to lie, cheat, bully and fraud your way to profit. It's perfectly fine on a theoretical level for understanding how markets work, but not even the US bases its morals or ethics on capitalism, because that'd be completely insane. Externalities would blow such a system to pieces instantly.

Further, you're missing my point; I'm not saying that the market doesn't serve as an indicator of whether people want something or not, I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live, which is patently absurd. Your reply didn't even reply to my point, but rather pointed out that the market reduces waste, which wasn't even what we were discussing in the first place.

I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Because without the Spitfire and Hurricane maintaining aerial supremacy over the UK, the Germans could have invaded the UK and then you would have nowhere to base your aircraft, unless you plan on flying them all the way over the Atlantic ocean and back again.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
It seems for fighting the Taliban something like that would be fine, but then again, a lot of WWII fighters were shot down in strafing runs by small arms and machine guns too. I can just see a plane being shot down, and people asking "what the hell is the US military using WWII fighters for?!?"

If you were designing a plane purely for ground attack it wouldn't be tremendously difficult to make it resilient against small arms. WW2 fighters that were designed for dogfighting but thrust in to the role of ground attack had to remain as light as possible so they could still dogfight and had delicate exposed cooling systems and whatnot.

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

Armament

Guns: 4 × 20 mm (0.79 in) AN/M3 autocannon
Hardpoints: 15 external hardpoints with a capacity of 8,000 lb (3,600 kg) and provisions to carry combinations of:
Other: bombs, torpedoes, mine dispensers, unguided rockets, and gun pods.[24]

 CptJake wrote:

 Witzkatz wrote:

Well I agree, and then we'd end up with another A-10 (which I support), but a small prop plane can only carry so much. So there is going to be sacrifice, and we're focusing on cost here.

I think the P-47 Thunderbolt was able to carry 2x1000lbs and one 500lbs bomb, together with an assortment of HVAR rockets, where today you could probably use rocket pods with much more ammunition in them, in addition to 8x M2 machine guns. I'm pretty sure the A-10 can carry more, but if the task is to deal with infantry, trucks/technicals and sandbag emplacements, I'm not sure you NEED much more - especially when you might be able to get 2 or 3 or more planes like that for the price of one A-10, and probably a whole damn squadron for the price of a F22.

Small prop planes like the Super Tacanos we bought for Afghanistan have very limited flight legs and ability to stay overhead. Even if you build them with inflight refueling capability you incur a huge tanker cost to keep them in the air or to fly them from one theater to another. Planes like the F22 or F35, when coupled with tanker support, have global reach. That decreases in theater basing costs (securing airfields/getting fuel, parts and munitions into theater/required ramp space and so on). Makes their utility very limited, even if they are cheaper you STILL need to spend the money on the power projection capabilities afforded by the more costly jets.

KTG17 wrote:

I'm saying it's completely crazy to act as though the market was the only such indicator. By your logic, a person who needs a heart transplant to live but can't afford it doesn't really want to live

Where the hell did this come from? Who said anything like this and where?

 CptJake wrote:
Frazz, you missed the point. No one is trying to give the Afghans F-22s.


The point is Tacanos don't fill a role the US Air Force really needs filled. We have rotary wing aircraft that fill the role for the most part, and our fixed wing we use in that role are also suited for roles small prop planes like the Tacano cannot fill. Just because small prop planes are cheaper, does not make them a Must Buy for the US*


*We DO have small prop planes we use in several roles, my wife used to fly some for the Army. We don't use them for ground attack.

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

 Blackie wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

 Blackie wrote:

KTG17 wrote:


At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

 Blackie wrote:


Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

 CptJake wrote:
Small prop planes like the Super Tacanos we bought for Afghanistan have very limited flight legs and ability to stay overhead.

 Frazzled wrote:
Um...(not in exact order)

Korea: draw
Panama-win
Vietnam-loss
Serbia-win
Iraq I-win (out of Kuwait)
Iraq II - win (Hussein regime literally hanged)
Afghan - win (Al Qaeda smashed, heads of AQ dead)
Libya - win. (dictator dead)

You may disagree with the war, the after effect of the war, or causes, but we're really good at kicking the crap out of dictators when we want to.

 whembly wrote:


That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

 whembly wrote:


?? And?

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

KTG17 wrote:

At the end of the day, the US is the world's superpower in fiance, in economics, in science, in food production, in health, militarily, and just about every other sector. Its success, and the economic environment I am in, has allowed me to be successful and live the American dream as well. I would hate to be in any other.

 feeder wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

Yeah, no. Soviet Russia crushed the Nazis. We just made sure Hitler couldn't completley turn his back, shortening the war.

I mean, victory in Europe was a 3 legged table, comprising the USA, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviets, but the Soviets did most of the killing (and dying).

 Blackie wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Um...(not in exact order)

Korea: draw
Panama-win
Vietnam-loss
Serbia-win
Iraq I-win (out of Kuwait)
Iraq II - win (Hussein regime literally hanged)
Afghan - win (Al Qaeda smashed, heads of AQ dead)
Libya - win. (dictator dead)

You may disagree with the war, the after effect of the war, or causes, but we're really good at kicking the crap out of dictators when we want to.

Having killed a leader is not a win. In Iraq there's ISIS now, and USA never controlled anything there after their "wins", same as libya which is currently lacking a real government, in afghanistan the USA achieved nothing but killing a leader and yet the talibans are still there despite the USA have always had the power to annihilate them, how can you say these wars were won? WW2 was a really USA victory and actually the USA are controlling the majority of europe, including my country.

Not sure about the balcanic regions either.

Killing a leader is not a win, it's only a tool of propaganda which hides the fact that a lot of guys were killed with no reason.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


That has nothing to do with the quality of healthcare. It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

If a significant percentage of US citizens can't have access to the real super advanced healtcare or healthy food means that the USA are a not wealthy nation, but only the richest citizens are part of a wealthy nation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:


?? And?

And some other nations compete with USA about economic power and resources in general, if they're not superior.

And some other nations compete with USA about economic power and resources in general, if they're not superior.

 feeder wrote:

 Blackie wrote:
[ ...WW2 was a really USA victory...

Yeah, no. Soviet Russia crushed the Nazis. We just made sure Hitler couldn't completley turn his back, shortening the war.

I mean, victory in Europe was a 3 legged table, comprising the USA, the British Commonwealth, and the Soviets, but the Soviets did most of the killing (and dying).

 Blackie wrote:
While I've always been a huge fan of the USA (with the exception of their most popular sports) some statements here are not exactly true.

Health? If you think about medical devices and related science sure, but a significant amount of US population is obese. In europe there's not a single nation with the same percentage of obesity, but we can say the same about any other civilized country. And a lot of US citizen don't have access to the part of healtcare that is really efficient, only those ones that can afford it

Military? I wouldn't underestimate russia and china. And the USA lost every single war since decades. In afghanistan the talibans are stronger and control more territories than in 2001.

We can also argue about finance and economics, as many US industries are bought by arabs and chinese.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
America isn't the world's leader in food production, not even close. You are top dog on chicken, beef, turkey, maize, cow's milk and soybean.
China's got you beat on pork, sheep, goat, duck and every vegetables but soybean, Russia owns the cereal game.

I'd like to know according to which piss-poor rating system the US ranks as a world superpower in health. You are solidly entrenched in the lower ranks of modern western countries, in this category.

America hasn't been great for a long while, and it sure doesn't look on it's way to greatness again.

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

 whembly wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

KTG17 wrote:

1) Health: Yes, we have the best health services in the world. Obese has to do with the amount of food available, which is plentiful.

You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

You're conflating how your healthcare industry works to the US model. Don't do that.

My kidney recipient buddy was 25 yo when she got her transplant. Just out of college, in debt obviously and no job. Guess what? The state's medicaid covered her treatment.

KTG17 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:
You really don't, because access to health services is so bad. Any health service which results in people having to declare bankruptcy because they couldn't pay for treatment which was needed to keep themselves alive cannot be the best in the world.

They are the best in the world, you just have to pay for them. And I know, not everyone can pay for the best treatment available.

...

She was in the hospital the whole time I was there so we went to visit her, and I was appalled at the hospital. Now, say what you want about India, but this wasn't far off from most hospitals around the world. Those of us living in western countries are very fortunate.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Actually it correlates to the fact that, despite being a wealthy nation, many of your people do not have access to nutritional food at affordable prices and so have to instead eat junk.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 whembly wrote:
It correllates to the fact that, as a wealthy nation, we have access to cheap, fattening foods.

Actually it correlates to the fact that, despite being a wealthy nation, many of your people do not have access to nutritional food at affordable prices and so have to instead eat junk.

Just to add a bit more here: we the US have higher infant mortality rates than something like 27 other countries... and these are sterling bastions of stability like Greece and the Czech Republic. We have thousands of people each year facing bankruptcy over medical bills, we have among the highest drug costs in the world (I would argue here that we basically subsidize the rest of the world here)

We definitely don't lead the world in education any longer.

But hey, we do lead the world in incarceration rates and military budgets.

 whembly wrote:

The infant mortality rate comparison is a misconception as every country counts them differently.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 whembly wrote:

The infant mortality rate comparison is a misconception as every country counts them differently.

The CDC article I read earlier, was published in 2014 using 2010 statistics had additional charts showing that when they eliminated certain categories of infant deaths (in order to get everyone on the same exact data plane) we were still significantly higher.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well I noted it anyway...

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
The British were flying at night. So it would have needed to be not just a long range escort, but also a night fighter. Did anyone have those? I kind of suspect the most kills such an escort would have got would have come from crashing in to their own bombers.

 Scrabb wrote:
@blackie,

Which of your previous statements am I misunderstanding?

You've always been a huge fan of the United States.

You don't think the United States has the largest economy.

You think the United States is controlling the majority of Europe, including your country (I assume Italy by the flag).

 A Town Called Malus wrote:


If not everyone can access it then it is not the best. Period.

Case in point: India is one of the health tourism capitals because westerners can travel to it, get into a private hospital and have procedures carried out faster and cheaper than using private medical services at home. But that obviously does not make India's health service better than the health services of countries like the UK or France or Germany, because huge parts of India's population cannot access those services as they are behind a pay wall.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

We definitely don't lead the world in education any longer. But hey, we do lead the world in incarceration rates and military budgets.

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

 techsoldaten wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

A lot of US women go to India for fertilization treatments. The cost here is $20k+. The cost there is often under $2k.

There are a number of other procedures that might make someone want to go abroad, especially plastic surgery. A friend of friend did this after he found out his insurance would not cover reconstructive surgery after a bad motorcycle crash.

Now, the hospitals people from the US visit are not the same as the ones the locals go to. Important to realize.

KTG17 wrote:

 techsoldaten wrote:

KTG17 wrote:
BTW, as having been in an Indian hospital (as mentioned in my earlier post), I wouldn't set foot in one for even a sprain. You will have to show me a link or something showing people are flocking to India from western countries for medical procedures before I believe this.

A lot of US women go to India for fertilization treatments. The cost here is $20k+. The cost there is often under $2k.

There are a number of other procedures that might make someone want to go abroad, especially plastic surgery. A friend of friend did this after he found out his insurance would not cover reconstructive surgery after a bad motorcycle crash.

Now, the hospitals people from the US visit are not the same as the ones the locals go to. Important to realize.

There may be some, but I doubt its really a lot. You have to get a host of shots before traveling to India in my company, although I am sure a random person could skip that. Can't drink the water, you are rolling the dice eating the food, cost of travel, hotels, etc. The same could be argued about going to Mexico for plastic surgery. Just because the procedure is cheaper doesn't mean its better.

I am willing to argue you get what you pay for too.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

It is currently worth $3billion and is growing. It is very dependent on the hospital. Your local hospital in Delhi is not going to be up to the standard of a specialised hospital in Channai.

KTG17 wrote:
Okay 3 billion is going to sound like a lot, but medical tourism brings in 30 billion in the US.

KTG17 wrote:


If everyone has access to a hospital that can only offer bandaids, then no, those health services suck.

This would be like saying a Ferrari is not a better car than a fiat, because not everyone can afford the Ferrari.

KTG17 wrote:
Okay but in our example, everyone does have access to the Ferrari to some degree. Some may get to test drive, some lease it, some buy it. If you are in need of an emergency, few hospitals can deny you. Now your ability to pay for extended service could impact your treatment, but I don't see anyway around that. SOMEONE has to pay for it. If it isn't the person getting the treatment, then its the tax payer. And that my friend, is a whole other argument.

Doctors don't want empty offices and empty hospitals either. They need to make their money too. If people didn't have access to health care, it wouldn't be a 155 billion dollar industry. People wouldn't be using it, or be going elsewhere.

If I needed some special medical treatment, the first place i would look is in the US. I would never consider going abroad unless it was for some experimental treatment not offered in the US.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

If your point is that the bigger health market = the best health services, then I guess i know from which piss-poor ranking system you pulled those stats out ; your rectum.
It's as if you were somehow deluded that doctor's aren't in the top brackets of income even up here in Canada!

You realize that health tourism is an absolutely dumb metric to use when assessing a public healthcare system that is mostly restricted to its citizenry... right?

 Blackie wrote:
About that I think it's impossible to evaluate that as common citizens don't know anything about the real military assets that russia and china have. Maybe even the intelligence isn't completely aware of the rivals' strenght. But I think there would never be a war that involves those three countries, the US can only fear some islamic lonewolf in their country or the actions of a crazy dictatorship like the north korea's leader.