Posted on 07/28/2019 9:40:21 AM PDT by centurion316
That a military display on Independence Day proved to be controversial should not be surprising, even if one discounts the partisan tone of much of the criticism. Americans tend not to favor displays of military power, except in the aftermath of successful wars: The Civil War, World War I, World War II, and the 1991 Gulf War were all followed by parades. Military displays nonetheless have the benefit of showing the American people what their investment in national defense has yielded. Contrary to President Donald Trump’s assertion that “our nation is stronger today than it ever was before,” the “Salute to America” looked more like a military antiques road show than a display of a 21st-century military power.
The age of the current force was most apparent in the Army hardware on display on the National Mall. The M-1A2 Abrams tanks and M-2 Bradley infantry combat vehicles parked near the Lincoln Memorial represent a generation of armored vehicles that were designed in the 1970s and procured in large numbers during the 1980s. More than three decades later, they remain, albeit with modification, the mainstay of the U.S. Army and have been used in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The aircraft that flew over the capital echoed the theme of an advanced but aging force. The B-2 Spirit stealth bomber was another product of the Reagan defense buildup. Although it is an impressive aircraft able to evade enemy radar, the U.S. Air Force has fewer than 20 of them—far short of the 132 the Air Force originally envisioned purchasing when the bomber first took flight in 1988, and its successor, the B-21 Raider, has yet to make its first flight. The two F-22 Raptors that flanked it are newer aircraft but, like the B-2, exist in only small numbers.
(Excerpt) Read more at theatlantic.com ...
Gee, is The Atlantic advocating an arms build-up?
It would CERTAINLY be the first time.
After the Kenyanesian Usurpation the Republic created by the Constitution ceased to exist.
BOTH parties cooperated to violate the Constitution.
The invasion sponsored by both parties of fraudulently documented foreigners will soon mean we don’t have a country, so why would we need a military?
The B-21 is getting ready to fly, if not already flying. And according to some tankers that was a M1A3. The original M1A1 has has been upgraded so many times it has little in common with the M1A3.
B-52s are being completely redone with missiles and intel packages that were not even a glimmer in a Scifi writer’s eye in the 1950s and will continue to fly well into the 2030s, while the newer B-1s and B-2s will be retired.
Democrats do not care about national defense as it is a waste in their ‘minds’ nor do they care if some other country controls the US via a superior military as long as they remain in power so they can lead lives of excess, luxury, debauchery and so on.
In the Clinton years M109’s got a fancy new fire control system.. but no money for training anyone to use or maintain it. so the crews went back to the old methods of approximation. They were pretty good at it. But remember, if you buy the troops new toys, don’t forget training, maintaining, and replacement parts.
If our military can’t OR won’t protect our borders they’re useless...
They protect everyone else...
We pay to protect our competitors in Europe & the world - then to add insult to injury we protect every corrupt hellhole in the Middle East. Guess the Pentagon, State Department and Intelligence thugs like getting their butts kissed... by giving away what the American People own...
During the 24 years before President Trump, we had 16 years of Democrat Presidents who saw no political benefit to them or the Democrat Party by spending money on defense, so they didn’t spend money on defense.
The second President Bush spent defense money on buying armored trucks. They were prioritized because that is where we were suffering casualties.
How much should we spend on defense?
“One dollar more than what it costs to keep anyone from attacking us.”
B-52s are being completely redone with missiles and intel packages that were not even a glimmer in a Scifi writer’s eye in the 1950s
When you are fighting the Taliban and the ISIS insurgents you don’t need to best equipment. What we have “in the shed” will do.
It would probably do against the “A” teams of the day. I don’t see us in a land war anywhere but Korea. I think we can handle them.
Why spend a dime on fancy hardware if we’re going to let the country be overrun?
The invasion doesn’t have to be armed to be successful.
That's the way this article turned out, but I think that their intent was to just trash Trump.
The “new” weapon systems discussed in the article had very long lead times. As a practical matter, the choices a President has for immediately impacting the inventory are few. This President inherited multiple disasters in acquisition. His inclination is to simplify. But, among the many missions of the Department of Defense, are to fight both existential wars against comparable or near comparable opponents (in which numbers is paramount), as well as wars of choice against second and lower-class opponents (in which reducing casualties is paramount).
President Trump jaw-boned down the price per plane of the F-35. Also, we are already working on its replacement. As a result, I stopped criticizing that program.
Regarding the USN Gerald Ford class aircraft carrier, I am halfway thinking Trump is going to order its electric catapult to be ripped out.
Regarding the USN Zumwalt class “destroyer,” I doubt we’ll see any more than the three produced or in production. It is such an embarrassment. The Navy has “re-purposed” the thing.
Regarding the Littoral (Non-)Combat Ship. Like the Zumwalt, the Navy has re-purposed whatever you want to call this thing. It’s too vulnerable to be placed in a high-intensity environment. I guess that makes it a minesweeper costing 7 times the cost of the minesweepers it’s to replace.
Regarding the M-1 tanks and M-2 fighting vehicles: the M-1s have been upgraded several times, e.g., reactive armor. I doubt that it will have the tank-on-tank advantage it enjoyed during the Persian Gulf War or the invasion of Iraq, but it still is an awesome monster. It has a shortcoming in being as heavy as it is, so it’s not easy, at the strategic level, to deploy.
The M-2 fighting vehicle is also quite large and its anti-tank missile system might not be effective against tanks with reactive armor. The big problem with replacing the M-2 is nobody has come up with something that does the job the M-2 does, without also being big; and, smaller or lighter armored vehicles don’t have its capabilities.
I’m open-minded about a true light tank or a platform such as the Stryker, but I haven’t been convinced our inventories of M-1s and M-2s have to be replaced by “new” just because those armored vehicles are “old.”
The article did note the shift to unmanned drones and electronic warfare. Such things may make what we currently think of conventional weapon systems obsolete. Yet, how do incorporate such things into a parade or a static display?
The Atlantic rag is just spewing talking points and regurgitating narrative.
I believe I read they want to re-engine them, but the money is lacking - need 8 engines for the power they provide - 4 engines and they become obsolete and useless instantly because the plane is designed for 8. To go with 4 they would also lose redundancy as well as stability and power.
MAX 8
The M-1 Tank can still destroy every armored vehicle on the battlefield. The ergonomics and fire control systems cannot be matched by our adversaries, and our training is an order of magnitude better than the rest of the world.
As for the M2, it destroyed T-54, T-59, T-61, and T-72 tanks with ease, most of them by lobbing 25mm HE into the Engine Decks. All of those tanks are self propelled super torches. The Bradley 25mm cannon are being replaced with a 30mm cannon with more room to grow. Again, they can take out tanks, because tank crews in the Middle East and in Russia aren’t up to snuff.
My preference would be to get a new engine for the M-1, the current one is a fuel hog and it costs to transport all that POL into theater. Then use that engine on a lighter vehicle to power electrical generators for directed energy weapons to take care of incoming artillery, mortars, airplanes, and drones, etc.
Despite what the mostly uninformed Atlantic has to say we maintain the most powerful military ever to be assembled and there are no Nations either singly or in any conceivable combination of joined forces which has even a prayer of winning a conflict of any type, be it a conventional one or nuclear against this Country.
When the B-52 was developed, it required eight engines of that vintage to make it fly. And the eight provided far more thrust than the 707 at that time.
Over the next 20 years, engine evolution was slow and jet fuel cost the Air Force a few pennies per gallon. Up until the OPEC fuel embargo of 1973, it was far more economical to simply pump lots of fuel through old engines.
Another problem would be how to fit the bigger, more powerful engines under the flex wings which would require a complete refitting of the cockpit avionics which begins to cover the cost of just redesigning a new aircraft between wing changes and follow on needs. Plus the size of the B-52H fleet has to be held to 76, the maximum permitted by US-Russia arms control agreements which becomes an issue.
rwood
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.