Comments on: GOP Girds For Tough QDR Fight

By: Wharf Rat

Wharf Rat — Mon, 01 Feb 2010 03:32:23 +0000

Jeff: When we deployed 5 carriers during Operation Iraqi Freedom, it was because we had 12 carriers. We had a carrier in a 3 year overhaul, we had carriers in training and workups, we had carriers returning from deployment, and still were able to field 5 carriers at once. That’s huge.

During the first gulf war, we deployed 6 carriers, when we had 15.

Also — despite smart weapons, the worlds oceans don’t get any smaller, it still takes time to transit when deploying, and the simple fact is if one got it, or two, it takes 5 years to build another.

I support 15 carriers, not 12. Additionally, carriers likely have prevented more conflicts than they’ve engaged in because they exist. When a carrier arives on station, it gets noticed.

As long as the USA exists, our very existance will be threatened. That’s why we need the military that we have.

To top it off,Gates made a huge mistake not building a force of up to 400 F-22’s. Now that production has occured, the cost per aircraft are approaching the F-35.

By: William C.

William C. — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:16:02 +0000

Truly those are principles every American should agree on.

Yet as Don shows even when this is so clear, the leftists think they know a better way by wanting to turn our country into a godless, self-loathing, defenseless, nanny-state.

By: William C.

William C. — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 23:12:12 +0000

The Republicans scream when everybody disagrees with them? The Democrats immediately cry racism or sexism and resort to insults whenever somebody doesn’t share their “politically correct” views.

Reagan built up some debt but that money was well spent modernizing our armed forces and we paid that money back. Today with Barack we are spending a far greater sum on wasted “stimulus” plans and bribes! Reagan didn’t invade Iraq and Afghanistan for your information.

The reasons the Democrats are criticized for being weak on defense is because they usually are weak on defense. They kill off countless projects, cut funding, and pay no attention to military needs while wasting money everywhere else. Some Republicans are just as bad, but at least some like Reagan provided the funding needed.

By: Ron

Ron — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 21:14:42 +0000

“It is not unAmerican to disagree with authority or share our opinions”. Yet, the Republicans scream everytime someone disagrees with them. Preachers preached that Nixon was appointed by God to be President back in ’72 when people disagreed with him expanding the war. Republicans went crazy when anyone disagreed with Shrub and Cheney about the need to attack Iraq. Republicans constantly criticize Democrats about being “weak on defense”. Look what Republican policies have gotten us since Reagan doubled the national debt by going for a 600-ship Navy, the invasion of Grenada, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan. Are we any safer? Hell, no.

By: DoDGuy

DoDGuy — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 18:49:47 +0000

Is the Northrop human resources system they are going to end called DIMHRS?

By: Don

Don — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:24:03 +0000

Speak for yourself about God. He might not be everybody’s answer to their problems, and I don’t need you to tell me how to live my life.

By: Don Shirley

Don Shirley — Thu, 28 Jan 2010 01:19:23 +0000

As a thirty year vet who raised a family under the military health care system, I take exception to this comment. My wife of 50 years and I (and my three children, all born in military hospitals) have been supported by the military heath care system all of our adult lives. We have received excellent health care, at least equivalent to the care we received during the short time when it was not available and we relied on the local medical community. One civilian cardiologist, upon examining my wife for a recurring problem, told her that she was suffering from “congestive heart failure and had maybe two years to live”. After visiting a military hospital soon after, the doctor there told her that she had a thyroid problem. That was twelve years ago. I don’t know what Tim’s personal problems might be, but for my family and I, military health care has been more than adequate.

By: William C.

William C. — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 21:56:30 +0000

An ideology filter? Oh yes because I am clearly typing out of Dick Cheney’s underground lair. He must approve it all after all.

Why are you under the impression that I want children or veterans to starve? Of course not. But I don’t want people to be able to live off welfare either. And I certainly want the defense industry to deliver their products on time and on budget.

Yet you are failing to look at the problems on the government end, instead choosing to incessantly attack companies like Lockheed, Northrop, and other. Yet we don’t see any alternatives to the programs you want to cancel. Truth is we need the F-35, and there are now no serious alternatives. F-22 production was cut too early, upgraded F-16s don’t have the range or technology, and upgraded F-15s are costlier than the F-35 is expected to be.

By: mike j

mike j — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:38:03 +0000

Maybe I was being too dry for you. I’m very sorry.

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:32:38 +0000

The MARINES have always survived as a mostly self reliant unit in the field. Granted there are times when they are engaged in large scale operations, but most of the times they are self sufficient small unit’s and very capable. They are nowhere near the mindset of the army and every marine unit is trained in insurgency fighting and have been for a long time now. A lot of this comes from thier cross training with the SEALS over the years where they have seen how effective small units can be and have adapted to that type of warfare as part of thier training. Unfortunately the ARMY sticks to the manual which makes them easy to contemplate because you can get a copy of it off the net and realize how they are going to react to your attack which allows you to set up a secondary attack before they even counter attack you.

By: R2D2

R2D2 — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 18:13:13 +0000

You might be mistaken in your strategy in regards to Leadership. When you say Obama needs a Republican SecDef, you should recall that Gates is a hold over from the Bush Administration, further, the most recent appointment to the Secretary of the Army went to an ® which is John McChugh, former ranking member on the House Armed Services. One more point, associating canceling the F-22 with being weak on defense is a fairly week argument. As we all know that the F-22 has never actually served in OEF or OIF, and adding 20 more F-22’s would not even begin to stem the Chinese, should they ever be a threat.____One point to note, when the term “weak on Defense” is thrown around. When the administration decides to cut programs that are over budget and irrellivent to the current threat, they are considered weak on Defense. However, I have to recall the 3rd reich’s military technology. They had much better tanks than the U.S., much more sophistacted, and as it turns out, we emulated a lot of the advances in technology discovered by the Germans. However, the thing that destroyed the panzer was the sheer numbers of less advanced tanks, that could be rapidly produced, and deployed.

By: John King

John King — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 17:59:20 +0000

I like your thinking, but let me posture you this QDR-like question. I believe the Army and Marine Corps are actually too big for the roles they now have, mainly because of the large tail-to-tooth ratios. This is not the large force-on-force WW2 style battles the Pentagon dreams about, but the search-and-destroy, small groups versus smaller groups of insurgents more typical of a new, long term era in national security. And should we radically shift resources from big ships and jet fighters to more individually-centered comabt power?

By: Jeff Fisher

Jeff Fisher — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:34:40 +0000

Agreed. The larger question here is do we want the Corps to be another Army with armor and heavy vehicles. That doesn’t make sense to me. The Marine Corps has a viable role as our ready to fight now force, and that ability requires it to be a light infantry. We take objectives; we don’t hold objectives. If we need more forces for long term commitments we should expand the Army and keep the Corps focused on ready now requirements. Comment?

By: BOOMER

BOOMER — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 15:04:46 +0000

I think the Corps has come to this same conclusion. They have actualy taken a look at and had some prototypes built on the new jeep 4 door models, full roll cages, heavy duty engine –trans and suspension. can carry twice the vehicles in aircraft, light weight and fast. They are also looking at lightening the AMTRACKS with composites to make them faster. so they know one vehicle wont fit all bills.

By: John King

John King — Tue, 26 Jan 2010 14:32:54 +0000

Jeff,

True. Storming the beach is one problem. Shore transport another. I agree that the current USMC single solution is not very effective. But it’s the same problem with the HMMWV, which was never intended to be a combat vehicle.

By: Jeff Fisher

Jeff Fisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 22:15:57 +0000

John,

I am a Marine and I believe strongly that we don’t need the EFV. There are far better ways to get ashore, and once ashore I can’t envision the EFV being a decent APC.

By: Jeff Fisher

Jeff Fisher — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:51:56 +0000

I think you meant to say the Russians aren’t really a threat anymore… and I agree. Park ‘em (the bombers) on the off chance we may need them some day, but I can’t see a need for carpet bombing anymore. Especially when precision bombing puts the fear of God into almost anyone.

By: John King

John King — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:48:52 +0000

Jeff,
(3) Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, where to use? Plenty of water out there and plenty of places to use it. But the real question here is should be “how many do we need?” Given that the older amphibious landing craft need replacement at some point in their lives, we should consider whether we need to reoutfit every Navy amphibious assualt ship with a set of new EFVs? Outfitting all of them says we are going to fight a world war. If we are only to fight occasionally, we don’t need as many (maybe only two-thirds to half as many). We took six months staging to invade Iraq the first time, which was plenty of time to marshall all the amphibs we needed for an over-the-beach assault that never took place. Point is that our acquisition strategies should reflect some reality.

By: John King

John King — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:41:38 +0000

I meant “and the Russians aren’t really a threat any more.”

By: John King

John King — Mon, 25 Jan 2010 21:40:39 +0000

Jeff,
(2) New strategic bomber, where to use? Good question. But from a requirements versus usage persepctive, the question out to be “if we don’t really use them to counter a current threat” — and the Russians are really a threat any more — “why don’t we just park the ones we have and conserve their remaining operational life?” If we want to replace them because thay are worn out, just build more of the same (and save the R&D bucks), since no one is out there who can afford to build anything to beat what we currently have.