Senate Bill Shorts Gear for Troops

The day a slow plane that turns into a slow helicopter changes the way America fights is the day the world ends.

In a "high intensity" war it'd be shot out of the sky so fast they'd never replace the losses. It's only marginal use is in low intensity wars.

You may be ahead, in tech, but as can be seen my events in Iraq, afghansitan etc etc tech helps, but doesn't win wars by itself.

~:smoking:

Well, you are from Ireland. I guess it stands to reason you wouldn't understand a US problem.

Yeah I am really confused and cannot understand , since when did Cheney become a liberal ?
But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq.
Well excuse my ignorance , but isn't this funding about the current low intensity Iraq war ?
Also didn't the pentagon decide that low intensity is what they have to gear up for now , as they realised that their old 4;2;1;1 plans were crap .

I know exactly what the Osprey costs, has cost and I have a pretty good idea about how much it costs. I think that it's worth the money given the capabilities of the Osprey.

well DA perhaps you should have had a job in government or the defense contractors , as they seriously screwed up on costs didn't they .
And you still avoid the topic .... does this funding allocation belong in this bill ?
But since you don't want to address that , then....And the CH-53J doesn't exist, you're thinking about the MH-53J Pave Low, which is a night infiltrator that has less range than the Osprey, which reduces its capabilities in terms of Special Forces insertion.

You do notice that I omited the prefix entirely ? Perhaps not :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:
So capability then . A night infiltrator with more range , but less troop and cargo capacity , less room for for electronic gadgetry , less firepower , less adaptability , less potential for armour upgrade , no vehicle capability(this bill stops the vehicles for the Osprey) , oh and finally less of them , so for a few extra miles you now have a lot less than half of the existing capacity .
Or you will have when the things are finally built , delivered , taken into service and all the crews trained , the latter should be fun as the top test pilots are finding it a bit of a handfull to adapt to .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Much like the Abrams, the Raptor, the F-35, etc. etc.

---

I agree on the Raptor, nice plane, but the F-35 still has some years to become operational and the Abrams is a pretty old tank, which, AFAIK is not as good as the newest Leopard, Leclerc and the likes.

According to MRD, the Osprey ios also capable of feeding the entire world with a shart.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Divinus Arma

According to MRD, the Osprey ios also capable of feeding the entire world with a shart.

---

MRD for president!:2thumbsup: :laugh4:

you're getting pretty far our ahead yourself. the osprey doesn't doesnt "give us an edge" or anything else. all the osprey does right now is crash and kill people, and cost a lot of money that could be better spent, at this time, on worn out equipment for ground soldiers. it hasn't done anything beyond that.

this is an opinion based on facts, not on "well one day we could..." there are more economical methods of developing tech than this sort of system.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

The Osprey is a tool that advances our level of technology. It gives us an edge over the rest of the world. Much like the Abrams, the Raptor, the F-35, etc. etc.

But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq. It has become taboo to prepare for the eventuality of a real war with a great power, and so there is undue hampering and criticism of military projects.

Say what you will about the corporations who make weapons, but I say "thanks" to 'em, for keeping our military top-notch in terms of technology, and way ahead of the rest of the world for the last decade or two.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

You may be ahead, in tech, but as can be seen my events in Iraq, afghansitan etc etc tech helps, but doesn't win wars by itself.

---

We are not at war with Iraq or Afghanistan, but the terrorists operating in those countries. The US, in large part to our superior tech and training are arguably the best there is at conventional war. However we, just like many others thru history, suck at occupation situations.

IMO our high tech level is one of the reasons we have been as successful against an unfamiliar enemy. Even the little lite tech things that we forget about (night goggles, GPS, MRE’s, and medical treatments available in the field) make a huge difference in causality rates.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

But people bitch about the cost. Then they try and say we'll never need those weapons again, that we'll only ever fight "low-intensity" wars like Iraq. It has become taboo to prepare for the eventuality of a real war with a great power, and so there is undue hampering and criticism of military projects.

Say what you will about the corporations who make weapons, but I say "thanks" to 'em, for keeping our military top-notch in terms of technology, and way ahead of the rest of the world for the last decade or two.

---

The problem is that the military-industrial complex is pretty much a public company. Now, you like private companies and the efficiency they have compared to the public sector don't you ? This is what's lacking in the US right now. They should be threated like private companies, that don't get payed if they don't deliver. Right now they're mostly a way of redistributing the wealth, while EU governments have tons of people working directly for the state, the US government just gives the military companies a lot of money so they can create jobs for Americans.

Not that this is necessarily a bad thing, but it ain't what they claim you're paying for now is it ?