US Military Hardware, The best? Options

[*kryogenix*]

I think so. Although I think some countries may have some equipment that is better (Israel comes to mind immediately), as a whole, our military-industrial complex is a force to be reckoned with.

It's funny though, cause unless I'm getting things wrong, it seems like we're still stuck fighting the Cold War. I don't think things like the F/A-22 and more cruise missiles should be made. I don't see the arguement for the F/A-22, if they wanted an untouchable fighter, the USAF would have chosen the YF-23, it seems unnecessary to spend $120 million on something that performs marginally better than the F-15. Speaking of which, in order to get the F/A-22, the airforce tried to make it seem like we were in need of a better fighter by staging a mock battle with the Indian Airforce. The Indians won, and the airforce used it as evidence to support the need for the F/A-22. Of course, the fight was rigged. The F-15's were outnumbered, were not able to use AWACS and had dumbed down technology. Now onto the subject of cruise missiles. They're pretty nifty because you can hit the enemy from thousands of miles away. I think it would be better if we went back to shore bombarding guns and battleships. Although we'd have to get closer to the shore in order to use them, shells are cheaper to produce and guns can deliver more ordnance than cruise missiles. They can also be reloaded at sea, unlike missiles.

So I guess the questions are

1) Do we have the best military?
2) Do you believe that there are kickbacks and pet projects in the military?

[sadolakced acid]

in terms of technology, our military is the best, although barely in some cases.

in terms of amount of technology, our military is the best.

in terms of people- our military isn't that great.

in terms of new ideas- our military isn't that great.

and i certainly do believe there are kickbacks and pet projects in the military. there are also personal favors and coverups.

[MFDOOM]

Question to you brainchildren (Kryogenix, Acid, Mipadi); how much of our military's technology is developed by Japan?

[*kryogenix*]

in terms of technology, our military is the best, although barely in some cases.

in terms of amount of technology, our military is the best.

in terms of people- our military isn't that great.

in terms of new ideas- our military isn't that great.

and i certainly do believe there are kickbacks and pet projects in the military.  there are also personal favors and coverups.

I'm not sure if I agree about the new ideas part. We're working on a hypersonic bomber, mechanized suits for infantry and an anti-ballistic missile system. In fact, some of our new ideas may be too creative (like the gay bomb).

Question to you brainchildren (Kryogenix, Acid, Mipadi); how much of our military's technology is developed by Japan?

As far as I know, most of our technology is made by American defense contractors. Names like McDonnel Douglas, Lockheed Martin, Northrupp Grumman, Vought, Raytheon. Maybe we import little things (I think our soldiers use some Panasonic field computers, and I wouldn't be surprised if some of the small electronics and computer chips in our weapons were made in Japan), but I think we use American manufactured weapons for the most part, if not exclusively.

Actually, Japan imports our weapons. They have a destroyer based on our AEGIS system and they operate F-15's.

[sadolakced acid]

japan's pretty good at adapting new technology right now, but at creating new things?

and james, as far as those new ideas, they seem to be more of improvements on existing techonogly. Although, that's not what i was specifically mentioning.

our troops have good equipment. but it's all just improvements on WWI style weaponry.

our military is very ready to pwn people at WWIII, if it's anything like WWI or WWII. but it's not going to be.

and that is why we lack new ideas.

[Shahin]

in terms of people- our military isn't that great.

Explain that. It doesn't matter if little infantryman Jim Bob was a 4.0 student in high school. Soldiers in the U.S. Military have the best training of any fighting force in the world. Sure we've got our bread and butter units, but most of our combat forces are better trained and equipped than any of our adversary's or allies.

Enlisted servicemen/women do not even reach the rank of 2nd Liuetenant (sp?). We don't have high-school dropouts leading our troops and making battle plans.

Every army has their mishaps, embarrasments even. Most notably the Abu Grahib (damn, sp?) prison scandal was the United State's Army's biggest embarresment (Sigh, sp, along with that other one up there?) in recent years. The entire army was unjustly tainted for the actions of a few.

I think it would be better if we went back to shore bombarding guns and battleships. Although we'd have to get closer to the shore in order to use them, shells are cheaper to produce and guns can deliver more ordnance than cruise missiles. They can also be reloaded at sea, unlike missiles.

So I guess the questions are

1) Do we have the best military?
2) Do you believe that there are kickbacks and pet projects in the military?

I don't know if that would be the best route to go. Accuracy is a major issue in today's world. Everytime a baby gets found in a pile of rubble, the media creams its pants with front-page stories of the inadequecies of todays military and how it's full of baby killing hicks from Alabama or high school dropouts from California. Battleships are way to innacurate; unless the target is completely military, civilian structures are bound to get hit and bam, sudden media bonanza.

I do, however, recognize the advantages. Shellings often devastate enemy positions and even if there are survivors, they are often dazed and the amount of confusion a shelling creates is good to advance troops under. Modern combat simply requires a high level of precision, even if it costs an obscene amount of cash to attain that precision. I think it is rediculous the amount of money the army spends on things like the F-22 Raptor, but if it gives our servicemen and women a better chance at defeating the enemy and coming home alive, I'm all for it. I may be a little biased because I am joining the military myself, but that's my views.

And yes, we have the best military. I'll respond to question two later in an edit, im feeling like going now. :D

[*kryogenix*]

japan's pretty good at adapting new technology right now, but at creating new things?

and james, as far as those new ideas, they seem to be more of improvements on existing techonogly.    Although, that's not what i was specifically mentioning.

our troops have good equipment.  but it's all just improvements on WWI style weaponry.

our military is very ready to pwn people at WWIII, if it's anything like WWI or WWII.  but it's not going to be.

and that is why we lack new ideas.

Yeah, I agree. That's what I've been alluding to in my posts. We're still stuck with the mentality that wars are going to be like they were in the past. We need something that can fight even though there aren't any front lines. That's why I think the Merkava is better than the Abrams, and why I don't think the F/A-22 is a good investment., this is a problem with the weapons that we're building today; we're still stuck with the previous mentality that there will be front lines and that civilians won't be mixed in with the enemy.


About saying it's just an improvement... pretty much everything is an improvement from the rock. We started off by hitting each other with rocks, then we sharpened those rocks, then we started throwing those rocks, then we put those rocks in cylinders and propelled them with gunpowder.

The hypersonic bomber is different from anything ever made before. I don't think we've had anti ballistic missile systems before (or anything that could do anything more than just detect the ballistic missile launch).

Explain that. It doesn't matter if little infantryman Jim Bob was a 4.0 student in high school. Soldiers in the U.S. Military have the best training of any fighting force in the world. Sure we've got our bread and butter units, but most of our combat forces are better trained and equipped than any of our adversary's or allies.

It doesn't matter if the Jim Bob's of our military can take out 3 enemy guys for each Jim Bob that dies when the enemy has 5 times as many people as us. We need as many advantages as we can get for combined arms tactics and force multipliers to work out.

I don't know if that would be the best route to go. Accuracy is a major issue in today's world. Everytime a baby gets found in a pile of rubble, the media creams its pants with front-page stories of the inadequecies of todays military and how it's full of baby killing hicks from Alabama or high school dropouts from California. Battleships are way to innacurate; unless the target is completely military, civilian structures are bound to get hit and bam, sudden media bonanza.

That arguement would work if we weren't developing low yield nuclear warheads for use against bunkers. Battleships do more than just blow stuff up. The enemy pisses its pants when they see something that big. The Vietcong would not negotiate unless battleships were out of range from them. They're very useful for gunboat diplomacy.

[*mipadi*]

I don't think we've had anti ballistic missile systems before

I disagree. We've had things that were incapable of shooting down incoming missiles since the beginning of civilization.

Out of curiosity, you've mentioned that weapons such as the F-22 and other ones that aren't good at discerning targets from civilian (i.e. lack capabilities in urban combat) aren't a good investment; what would you suggest the military invest in?

[*kryogenix*]

I disagree. We've had things that were incapable of shooting down incoming missiles since the beginning of civilization.

You mean capable?

[*mipadi*]

You mean capable?

Since when have we actually shot down an ICBM missile in a test that wasn't rigged?

[*kryogenix*]

Out of curiosity, you've mentioned that weapons such as the F-22 and other ones that aren't good at discerning targets from civilian (i.e. lack capabilities in urban combat) aren't a good investment; what would you suggest the military invest in?

More remote controlled things. Drones that can hover over an area for very long periods of time. Or 1.0 of this thing:



Except with the ability to shrug off small arms fire, instead of being able to carry more crap on your back. The guy wearing it can draw fire without getting injured. (I dunno about this though, I sure wouldn't want to be the guy wearing the suit.)

Point defense systems for vehicles. The Russians have one and China is working on one. Why can't we have one?

A new MBT that's like the Merkava, since it pretty much was designed to deal with militants and insurgents.

We could also use better logistics, cause this is useful even when there isn't a war (deliver aid to disaster victims).

[sadolakced acid]

Since when have we actually shot down an ICBM missile in a test that wasn't rigged?

when we used a nuclear warhead.
if the entire sky has a nuclear blast in it, you're going to hit a missile.
problem is, the NIMBY mentatlity with nuclear stuff.


what else new could we have? how about an automated grenade laucher that will put a grenade into whatever window a gunshot is isolated to come from, and can be mounted on a humvee?

what about ditch the humvee? have two man a-t-v like things, with a 50 cal. on the back? kinda like the military dune buggies, except for urban environments?

static defenses can always be overcome. and armored vehicles in an urban enviroment are basically static.

helicotors need to be rethought too. they're pretty good for something like vietnam, but for an urban environment? helicoptors need to be able to fend off RPGs and get in and out quickly.

heard of the flying car? why is that civilian? mount a 50 cal or two on that, and i'll bet you it'd pwn the air over the streets as a gunship.

why do we need tanks? we don't need tanks. we don't even need humvees. have you ever tried to turn around aregular car on a regular street? yea, takes you at least 30 sec. 30 in a tight space, enough to lob a grenade.

the specifications for humvees? be able to fit through european tunnels and bridges.

wonderfully usefull in tight streets, don't you think?

i dunno, maybe they are. but i think the military needs a new vehicle that focuses on tight turning radius, quick acceleration, and ease of manuverability.

our military is a military for plains and forests. not cities. and they're not changing.

and why does our light calvary ride into battle in 2+ ton vechicles?

two guys on a motorcycle, the back guy with a gun. that's what i'd call light calvary.

[*mipadi*]

when we used a nuclear warhead.
if the entire sky has a nuclear blast in it, you're going to hit a missile.
problem is, the NIMBY mentatlity with nuclear stuff.

When did we test an anti-ICBM with above-ground nuclear missiles?

[*kryogenix*]

When did we test an anti-ICBM with above-ground nuclear missiles?

I think we modified some Nike-Zeus missiles, let me check.

[edit]

Yep. Nike Zeus A had a W-31 warhead, and Nike Zeus B had a W-50 Thermonuclear warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus#Nike_Zeus

[*mipadi*]

I think we modified some Nike-Zeus missiles, let me check.

[edit]

Yep. Nike Zeus A had a W-31 warhead, and Nike Zeus B had a W-50 Thermonuclear warhead.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nike_Zeus#Nike_Zeus

Were any tests actually performed, though? I thought it was just theoretical.

(Never mind. There was a successful test in 1962.)

[Shahin]

It doesn't matter if the Jim Bob's of our military can take out 3 enemy guys for each Jim Bob that dies when the enemy has 5 times as many people as us. We need as many advantages as we can get for combined arms tactics and force multipliers to work out.

That arguement would work if we weren't developing low yield nuclear warheads for use against bunkers. Battleships do more than just blow stuff up. The enemy pisses its pants when they see something that big. The Vietcong would not negotiate unless battleships were out of range from them. They're very useful for gunboat diplomacy.

Listen, I don't think you get it. In recent years, our military has been vastly outnumbered by enemy forces and still completed objectives with great success. We have the advantages we need to counteract numerical superiority. Our ground forces work in good enough cohesion with sea, and air forces that we can effectively suppress large numbers of enemy forces. America's battles today are not fought against a high-tech, conventional army. Rather, they are fought against (mostly) disorganized bands of enemies. I'm not saying they aren't organized at the upper echelons, but the level at which our troops communicate makes a squad the equal of an opposing platoon or more.

Before you argue with me about your battleship point, read the rest of my post.

[sadolakced acid]

organization sucks.

the military did a wargame against one of thier old retired generals. The general didn't have any technology. he iddn't have any wireless communication. therefore, he had to let the bottom troops be disorganized. the US had troops being actively commanded and organized. guess who won?

that's right, the retired general guy.

[*kryogenix*]

Listen, I don't think you get it. In recent years, our military has been vastly outnumbered by enemy forces and still completed objectives with great success. We have the advantages we need to counteract numerical superiority. Our ground forces work in good enough cohesion with sea, and air forces that we can effectively suppress large numbers of enemy forces. America's battles today are not fought against a high-tech, conventional army. Rather, they are fought against (mostly) disorganized bands of enemies. I'm not saying they aren't organized at the upper echelons, but the level at which our troops communicate makes a squad the equal of an opposing platoon or more.

Before you argue with me about your battleship point, read the rest of my post.

I don't think you're getting me.

We lost Vietnam. If you go by military statistics, then we won. But no one gives a crap about military statistics.

Iraq is a mini Vietnam war (and I stress mini, Iraq will have to last many more years before it comes close to being comparable to Vietnam). I wouldn't doubt it if we're scoring a 100:1 kills to deaths ratio. But which side seems to be losing it's spirit?

There will pretty much be no end to the suicide bombers and insurgents unless we make it not worth their while to blow themselves up. They can't become martyrs if they don't take any of us with them.

I don't see where you're going with the battleships arguement. Battleships will be used for shore bombardment and artillery strikes against hardened targets. Accurate missiles are great, I'm not arguing against that. But why make cruise misisles that have a huge potential for collateral damage?

[sadolakced acid]

because at a million dollars a pop, it gives your friends hardworking americans in the defense industry a nice cushy job.

[*kryogenix*]

Also, does anyone find it odd that Lockheed Martin won both the JSF AND the 5th generation fighter contract? Or am I just sore that the YF-23 lost?