Posted on 12/20/2014 3:29:05 AM PST by iowamark
Tanks for responding, Gaffer. I won’t argue at all with the wasteful process and inflated prices we end up paying for the M1’s. Countries buy tanks for the same reason just about everyone on Free Republic owns guns: in the hope that they will never be needed. In this sense, I hope their purchase is a total waste of money. You do have a very good point on how they are used. Specifically, will they be donated/given/ sold to someone who may turn them against us? Most likely, we will have a new President making those foreign policy decisions before they hit the field. Whoever our new Commander in Chief is, he should have a strong capability to defend our nation.
“I don’t know if they need these tanks or not”
Tank strength continues to be the primary symbol of power for any modern land army.
http://www.globalfirepower.com/armor-tanks-total.asp
How do you provide meet or exceed the needs for existing and future tank models by shutting down the only continuing source of maintenance parts and future tanks design production?
Thank you. I’m not against discussions about whys and wherefores at all. We can disagree - that’s what this country is supposed to be about.
I know I share your wish for a competent President. Regrettably, I think it is a Herculean task ahead of us to remove the stain of his tenure, though.
The Army should ask Congress to buy them A-10s.
Seriously,if they shut down the tank plant in Lima and layoff all the workers,what would it cost to restart the place?And how long would it take to restart?
About the time the ChiCom expeditionary force is off loading in occupied California, the plant should just about be ready to go.
Today's modern, cheap, plentiful and easy to use air-to-ground missiles and shoulder-fired rockets make an Abrams tank as disposable as a Toyota pickup.
Here's the NATO FGM 148 Javelin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qHL7jET8Gc
And the equally effective Russian Kornet, just one of several ATGMs in their arsenal:
Tell that to the US boots on the ground in Iraq right now.
On the aeronautical side, the Air Force has been dealing with this for years - decades and longer. They’re called Air Force Plants. Government owned plants that allow contractors to use their facilities to produce airplanes.
Dobbins ARB Marietta (AF Plant 6 is one).....there’s another that used to be General Dynamics contracted in DFW... there are likely others.;
Government maintains the facilities, fixtures, jigs, requires fully documented data and the facilities to use, if they need them.
I am not for some get well plan for some plan in some Congressman’s district solely for jobs. If I were for that, I’d say pump that $120 million into the tank rehab facilities in Anniston....they’d be better stewards of that money.
Oh, NO... they couldn't do THAT... /s
1500 horsepower. There are diesels out there for other tanks such as the Leopard II.
Excellent point. Were General Mixon the Chairman, the priorities would be entirely different. Right now combat readiness is not a priority, social experimentation is.
Oddly enough, while the current edition of the Abrams Main Battle Tank is superb as a MBT, there is a need to “think outside the box” for future tanks.
To show how diverse this can be, the Russians designed heavy armored helicopters that were sometimes called “flying tanks”. And carrying light tanks with a detachable robotic helicopter engine is not unreasonable, for instance landing a group of light tanks on a mountain top to provide extensive fire support for an area.
Other tanks, especially for use by the USMC, could be designed to be fully amphibious, something difficult to achieve. While some have been made, they have never been entirely satisfactory.
There is also the need for a Medium tank designed for urban combat. It needs to be very fireproof.
But this is why DARPA gets the big bucks.
This is not pork, congress is actually being wiser here than our military which is under political pressure to make drastic cuts. If the military shuts down the Abrams production line it would take years to start it back up. So, if we got into a serious conflict with a major power like Russia or China or even into a protracted war with a smaller power like North Korea we would be in trouble if the tank production line was not running to replace our losses.
I’m biased....because I was once an M1A1 Tanker.
But we need a tank. And its a strange situation - after the first Gulf War, it is hard to imagine another nation challenging the US in tank warfare....so our tanks may not be used anymore. But to not have them is an invitation to be challenged by another nation.
As far as complaints abouts its size, range, capabities go....more and more other tanks of the world are becoming like the M1. Iow it is not completely outdated yet....and frankly any improvement to a lighter vehicle is not financially in the cards. That wood take billions to develop. This $120 million....more will be spent on Barry’s vacations next year.
Relying on airpower works if we only bomb third world countries but that approach is dead in the water if we fight someone like Russia or China that actually has a modern air force and air defense systems.
Last costs reported in 2013 for an Abrahams was about 7.3M....$120 million here this day is a spit in the bucket.
I call that jobs and buyoff - not sustainment.
“Relying on airpower works if we only bomb third world countries but that approach is dead in the water if we fight someone like Russia or China that actually has a modern air force and air defense systems.”
In my opinion, the Pentagon has transitioned to a position where the only potential opponents are third world countries. I don’t believe we have many tanks positioned in Europe anymore as they were all moved to the middle east for the Gulf wars. Many were given to countries there by Obama. I don’t know how many are left. I worked for GD supporting those tanks and Strykers. I was laid off with approximately 8,000 others.
About Air power, both shoulder based and land based anti air systems are much more sophisticated than they were just a few years ago. Israel is not flying over Syria because of this. Syria rebuilt their reactor, which is protected by a Russian system said to be effective even against low flying F-16’s.
Having said that, the Abrams is vulnerable from the back to the newer shoulder fired anti-tank rockets produced by
China and Iran.
Our technological advantage has been lost largely due to Clinton and Bernie Schwartz of Loral. The rest was given away by Obama. We should think long and hard about where we send our forces these days. Obama is not the CIN I’d choose.
Land can be held with smaller, faster, more agile (and cheaper) fighting vehicles.
“What we REALLY NEED is a whole bunch of new MEDIUM TANKS... They would most likely be cheaper, too.”
That sounds good, and you may be right, but when the medium tanks start getting chewed up by the weapons that would bounce off the heavies, the press/public will have a fit.
When the shooting starts, everyone wants to be in the Tiger, not the Sherman.
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.