Here’s the problem that this country faces when it comes to major hardware like the Abrams, Virginia/Seawolf class submarines and next generation fighter aircraft.
I can see how the army does not need more tanks. We’re not likely to face a battle of Kursk type exchange where we take heavy losses. I am not sure of the future of the MBT as a platform and I’m unaware of any plans to upgrade/replace the M1A2 with a new MBT. So, do you let our nation’s ability to produce an MBT go the way of making buggie whips? Or do you keep the lines open and the skills intact that are otherwise perishable. It’s a tough choice.
Same is true of our submarine programs.
The most confusing to me is that the air force does want more F-22’s and they canned it. Meanwhile the Europeans, Chinese and Russians are forging ahead with programs to equal it and we stopped making them. This one, to me, is unforgivable. Unless, of course, we have a program of hypersonic drones designed for air to air combat in which case I fully agree that manned fighters are obsolete.
We have exactly one tank manufacturing plant. There is no commercial counterpart. Unless we want to import tanks from another country, we have to make them there.
If we shut it down, then it would have to be completely started back up again. The Congress has correctly decided that the costs of buying a few tanks now to keep it open would be lower than the costs of shutting it down, mothballing it, and then reopening it.
The tanks will eventually be sold as the Army gets a new tank. South Korea retired their last M-47 in 2007. M-48s are still serving in Israel, Lebanon, Morroco, Thailand, and Republic of China, M-60s are still serving in many countries.
Uncle Fester???
While our most valuable weaponis pour men at arms, the hardware is equally important and all so much harder to spin up if there is a dirth....
The M1 Abrams is still the premier land combat weapon save the dog-faced Soldier or the baggy pants Marine.
We need, no we require these tanks. To sell the tools to feed the bureaucrats and chair sitters that work the civilian side of the DOD is foolhardy and stupid.
Trim the fat but keep the punch.
I know my comments won’t be taken well by many. However, when the chips are down, and a GI is facing a tank, he really will wish he had one supporting him, trust me. I know.
When you want to push deep and fast, and keep what you take, THE M1 WORKS RATHER WELL.
As the US learned early in OIF (research the 11th AHR deep attack in April 03), air assets are fine for attriting the enemy, but they really don’t hold ground (being nice), nor are they necessarily effective.
Not to mention all the “Solar Farms” being installed everywhere on military posts.....what is the status of THAT program? Or the “sensitivity training” classes that apparently include distributing lists saying Evangelical Christians and Catholics are “extremist groups....?”
Why is NOBODY reporting on this????
Every 5 years, I see far too many political types (liberals and conservatives included) and even professional military men stating that, “Oh, based on the the contingency operations we are doing RIGHT AT THIS MOMENT, such and such a weapons platform is obsolete.”
Whatever company builds the chassis, there will always be a need for a system that can move fast over land and deliver massive amounts of firepower. While particular models become obsolete, the concept never does.
Horses and bayonets are still useful in certain situations. The same is true of tanks. Much of the current dismissive attitude towards tanks comes from the fact that we have been *too* hesitant to deploy them in supposedly “low-intensity” situations over the past 20 years.
But if you ask a grunt, they may talk trash on tankers generally, but those who have gone into combat alongside the tanks well understand how they can be useful.
The worries about man portable weapons systems are warranted, but there have been man portable weapons systems capable of killing tanks for over 50 years (albeit with varying degrees of effectiveness). In part for this reason, tankers will also admit that they are better off working next to dismounts (cavalry scouts or infantrymen). With better situational awareness, the dismounts can also recon ahead of tanks and provide fire to keep the bad guys’ heads down.
I suspect the Abrams is still a legit platform against potential foes like China. But even if the Abrams itself is or becomes obsolete, the need for something with similar capabilities will not go away.