- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:53 pm to Jbird
Posted on 1/25/14 at 3:53 pm to Jbird
quote:
Fighter school house combined with foreign school house, other than the Instructor Pilots there is really no capability at a base with a shite ton of F-16 D models which aren't used in combat.
Oh great, we got a pilot up in hurrr. Lol. Whats up jbird?
1
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:00 pm to MrCarton
Carton how you doing? Speaking of Luke I just spent three days golfing down their. 
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:04 pm to bigblake
quote:
How many planes did we shoot down in Iraq
We wiped out the Iraqi AF. There came a point where Saddam gave all of his flyable jets to Iran rather than have us shoot them down. It got so bad for them that when Iraqi pilots would be flying CAP (combat air patrol to protect a certain location) the Iraqis would flee when they saw us coming, then return after we'd bombed. It was a death sentence to strap on an Iraqi jet and face Americans.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:06 pm to son of arlo
quote:
Go Navy and all that stuff, but in Iraq they were basically cheerleaders in air superiority. Huzzahs for the grunts and jarheads, but if you ain't got air superiority then you're screwed.
I'm a navy guy and all that, but in today's world the Air Force can handle the task of Air Superiority missions in most of the world. I think the navy needs to be larger for it's current mission, but I don't think we need more Aircraft carriers then the current 10 to accomplish that mission. We certainly didn't need that 9 billion dollar destroyer we just launched (with two sister ships to follow). Complete waste of funding.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:08 pm to son of arlo
quote:
There came a point where Saddam gave all of his flyable jets to Iran rather than have us shoot them down. It got so bad for them that when Iraqi pilots would be flying CAP (combat air patrol to protect a certain location) the Iraqis would flee when they saw us coming, then return after we'd bombed. It was a death sentence to strap on an Iraqi jet and face Americans.
Yeah, that's what happens when you piss stomp a 3rd world country.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:12 pm to son of arlo
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:53 am
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:13 pm to bigblake
quote:Let me ask you which you would prefer. We use something called SEAD suppression of enemy air defenses. We take down the radar via Tomahawks and F117s. We then kill the communications. After that what we have is a Command centric Russian model of control, which means these dumb frickers do nothing without orders from above. So we have them blind and unable to communicate they can't make any moves with aircraft and pilots that rely on GCI ground control intercept, but see they have no fricking GCI ability because it is dead. Well after that you take down as many aircraft as you can while they hide in there little tactical aircraft bunkers. So what they have left runs to Iran and they basically give the aircraft away.
How many planes did we shoot down in Iraq
Or would you prefer to send aircraft into a battle space in which you haven't taken down their capabilities simply to pad a shootdown number?
The question that really needs to be asked is which Air Forces are more lethal.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:14 pm to asurob1
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:53 am
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:15 pm to asurob1
quote:
Yeah, that's what happens when you piss stomp a 3rd world country.
At the time, they were the 4th largest mechanized military force in the world, but you have a point in you're own perverted way. The Iraqis had plenty of numbers to defend their 3rd world country, but those numbers weren't quality, weren't motivated, and weren't well trained.
How much does it cost to win a war? I'd rather overspend a bit and win rather than suffer the consequences.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:16 pm to Jbird
(no message)
This post was edited on 1/27/14 at 12:53 am
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:20 pm to asurob1
quote:Probably a true statement but what the Navy brings to the Air Forces is a lethal mobile runway that the USAF and ground based forces may or may not have. See it's easy to say close all these bases, but when a Iraq or any other number of conflicts arise I need Landstuhl Medical Center and I need Ramstein AB to move cargo and troops into theater. I need a refueling base to get C-17s from Ramstein into Iraq and Afghanistan, I need these very same bases and air craft to Medivac wounded back to a world class medical center. I don't have that capability by simply slashing and burning in the name of saving dough. Well unless you want to go back to pre WW2 isolationism.
I'm a navy guy and all that, but in today's world the Air Force can handle the task of Air Superiority missions in most of the world
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:21 pm to Jbird
quote:
Carton how you doing? Speaking of Luke I just spent three days golfing down their
Sounds like a good time. I have been keeping busy
A little too busy if you asked me. Which they didn't haha.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:21 pm to son of arlo
quote:
Fallujah was a pretty bad place, but do people really think Army units couldn't/didnt operate within those areas? Of course they did. The same could be said of similar situations in Afghanistan. The Marines essentially had the same responsibility as the rest of the ground forces. The fact that we had too much ground and not enough troops for the strategy was the prime reason they had such heavy involvement to begin with. Once again, this is no slight on the Marines. Those guys lay the wood.
Well here is the thing about Fallujah.
The Marine Corps first took over the city in Operation Vigilant Resolve. 1st MEF had gotten the mission from a turnover from Army distinction in that province, and within 2 days of getting the order of attack upon Fallujah... We had the city surrounded. After a good amount of warfare, we had gained control of the city. Turned the governing of it over to the Army, which is as what is intended by our roles.
We act as a shock force, go in, drive the enemy out of an area, and then the Army comes in and fortifies it.
After turning the city over to the Army and moving on to the next mission, less than 6 months later the Taliban had taken it over once again. That's when the Marine Corps, and once again 1st MEF, launched Operation Phantom Fury. Which was to correct a mistake the Army had made. Again, successful, and without going too crazy into details, we recently lost control of Fallujah again (thanks Army).
So, yes, there were soldiers in both operations. However, both operations that were successful in taking Fallujah were Marine Corps-led and were Marine Corps driven with the amount of boots on ground. The Army fricked Fallujah up, even after we had taken the city over for them again.
A lot of you are saying that the Marine Corps lost our mission in terms of what we're intended to be. We haven't. Our amphibious operations training still goes on as it always has, despite fighting in a terrain that doesn't allow for it (Which is ultimately the reason why our roles seem to the public to have changed). It isn't about gaining more funding, it's about doing what we have to for the overall mission, which is ultimately what we're all there for.
Yes, the Army can do it, but without a Marine Corps mindset, they're clearly not effective as a shock-force. And they won't ever be. It's a completely different type of person to be a Marine as it is to be in any other branch, and it's not a Marine here sitting tooting his own horn. It's just the truth. If you get rid of the Marine Corps, with all of the tradition and the legacy behind it, you get rid of the most effective shock force (potentially overall fighting force) in the world. And in the first conflict without a Marine Corps, I'd guarantee the nation would be wanting it back.
Not to mention, the capabilities of the Corps will always be quicker than the Army, and we maintain more of a presence around the world than the Army does.
Getting rid of the Marine Corps, at least to a Marine, seems like the most idiotic thing we can do to our nation's defenses, no matter how much money it'd save (ultimately, would hardly put a dent into the budget). The Army could never handle the job we have in the same manner that we do.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:22 pm to bigblake
quote:Expand on this please.
An Air Force that spends 20 trillion in planes is more lethal than the current one.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:23 pm to son of arlo
quote:
At the time, they were the 4th largest mechanized military force in the world, but you have a point in you're own perverted way. The Iraqis had plenty of numbers to defend their 3rd world country, but those numbers weren't quality, weren't motivated, and weren't well trained.
It's why I'm not particuarly worried about the North Korean.
Bulk isn't as important as skill on the modern battlefield.
quote:
How much does it cost to win a war? I'd rather overspend a bit and win rather than suffer the consequences.
I do not disagree with this one bit.
As long as the war you are fighting is a war and not deciding to kick the shite out of someone because you are pissed off. Which Gulf War 2 clearly was.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:25 pm to zeebo
quote:
Shrink the military? Can right and left agree on this?
Of course we could agree. Unfortunately, when there is any discussion of budget cuts, whoever is in danger of losing out simply starts threatening to slash vital parts of their operation instead of trying cutting excess spending or increasing efficiency. Then, of course, nothing happens and we're back to square one.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:26 pm to bigblake
quote:
An Air Force that spends 20 trillion in planes is more lethal than the current one.
Just to quibble, that's not necessarily so. I'd rather have a smaller force with well trained pilots/crews and properly maintained planes with effective weapons.
quote:
I argue what is really needed.
I suppose since we've already fought the wars that have ended all wars, we probably don't need much at the moment, but you have to think of the whole military and military industrial complex as a living and breathing organism that doesn't hibernate.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:27 pm to Jbird
quote:
Probably a true statement but what the Navy brings to the Air Forces is a lethal mobile runway that the USAF and ground based forces may or may not have. See it's easy to say close all these bases, but when a Iraq or any other number of conflicts arise I need Landstuhl Medical Center and I need Ramstein AB to move cargo and troops into theater. I need a refueling base to get C-17s from Ramstein into Iraq and Afghanistan, I need these very same bases and air craft to Medivac wounded back to a world class medical center. I don't have that capability by simply slashing and burning in the name of saving dough. Well unless you want to go back to pre WW2 isolationism.
Nope I don't disagree with most of this as long as we continue to meddle in the affairs of other countries.
But that is rather the sticking point of all of this. We are at the point now where we are causing more problems then we are solving with our droning of the week club.
Cutting the military needs to include cutting it's various missions or it will fail miserably.
You can only close support bases in Germany if you pull completely out of those desert shite holes.
I'm not advocating closing every base world wide. Clearly no one knows where the next major crises is going to pop up so you need some support bases. Or those mobile air bases carriers so wonderfully provide.
But we really need to take a look at what we are tasking our military with and start ending those missions and then you can reduce force size and structure.
This post was edited on 1/25/14 at 4:28 pm
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:30 pm to NOLA1128
Fallujah is right up there with Belleau Wood IMHO.
Posted on 1/25/14 at 4:30 pm to Navtiger1
quote:
I have no problem cutting the military if we had intelligent people who would cut in the right places first. Unfortunately they cut personnel, pay, and pensions before attacking bloated defense contracts. The force does need some cuts post war, but the amount the government wastes on crap like the Comanche Helicopter “7 Billion dollars” but it never sees production. There are hundreds of these projects that should be scraped first along with the over pain contractors.
Beat me to it.
Page 7 of 12
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News