- 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: Fox New Exclusive: US Marine Corps are at their breaking point
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:02 am to Darth_Vader
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:02 am to Darth_Vader
Well, we just built a $4 billion boat, so we can probably spare some for the Marines.
0
Posted on 4/15/16 at 9:35 am to TheCaterpillar
quote:
This.
They need to bring in some outside people to completely change the spending model. We spend money on some dumb shite while important stuff is ignored.
They can start with the 700,000 civilians employed at DOD. No way their numbers should be over half the size of active duty troops.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 10:31 pm to Mr.Sinister
Sorry to bump an old thread.
It's not that simple (although I wish it were). I won't bore you to tears with the crap that goes behind this, but a lot of times you can't just go back to the vendor and ask them to simply build you more of some component that is now failing. That said, pulling spare parts for some systems from jets in the boneyard isn't all that uncommon.
quote:
I don't see why that squadron is robbing parts from museum pieces when those aircraft are built in St. Louis MO. Are they not allowed to req parts for shortages?
It's not that simple (although I wish it were). I won't bore you to tears with the crap that goes behind this, but a lot of times you can't just go back to the vendor and ask them to simply build you more of some component that is now failing. That said, pulling spare parts for some systems from jets in the boneyard isn't all that uncommon.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:06 pm to djangochained
quote:
Who needs marines when we have an army
Because maybe some people want things done right, fast, and cheaper?
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:10 pm to FlyingTiger06
quote:
It's not that simple (although I wish it were). I won't bore you to tears with the crap that goes behind this, but a lot of times you can't just go back to the vendor and ask them to simply build you more of some component that is now failing. That said, pulling spare parts for some systems from jets in the boneyard isn't all that uncommon.
In the video linked in the OP I believe they state that this version of the F/A-18 was taken out of production sometime in the early 2000's, like around 2001 or 2003 I think.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:16 pm to scormi5
quote:
Because maybe some people want things done right, fast, and cheaper?
Then why not get rid of most of the army minus the rangers and fund the Marines?
I've always thought we should multiply our special ops guys over having a large infantry.
Quality over quantity
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:24 pm to Byron Bojangles III
quote:
Maybe if we didn't spend so much on defense we could cut the deficit.
Welfare programs are costing twice that amount. Why don't we overhaul those first and try policies that build real jobs. Requiring able bodied welfare recipients to find work and have term limits on assistance.
I rather cut there first than our defense. Then let's look at the wasteful spending in other areas.
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:36 pm to bmy
quote:
Then why not get rid of most of the army minus the rangers and fund the Marines?
I've always thought we should multiply our special ops guys over having a large infantry.
Quality over quantity
sounds like you've played Call of Duty a bit too much.
For starters, units like the Rangers (which are light infantry) and Marines are trained and structured for certain types of missions. They are damn good at those missions for sure. But they cannot fight and win a war on their own. In fact, under certain circumstances, they'd be wiped out if sent in alone.
This post was edited on 4/15/16 at 11:39 pm
Posted on 4/15/16 at 11:36 pm to RockyMtnTigerWDE
You know where the marine aircraft money is going?
To build these:
To build these:
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:18 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
sounds like you've played Call of Duty a bit too much.
For starters, units like the Rangers (which are light infantry) and Marines are trained and structured for certain types of missions. They are damn good at those missions for sure. But they cannot fight and win a war on their own. In fact, under certain circumstances, they'd be wiped out if sent in alone
Are you implying that they couldn't learn to do other things if given the resources? Traditional ground wars are largely a thing of the past.
Our typical infantry hasnt exactly been a massive success recently btw.
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:28 pm to Darth_Vader
If you believe anything on that channel you're an idiot
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:30 pm to Darth_Vader
My son left the Marines last year - too much P.C. in addition to what you describe.
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:32 pm to Lake Vegas Tiger
Maybe if the a Marines hadn't fricked up the F-35 program so much with that ridiculous B variant there would be some more money available.
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:35 pm to bmy
quote:
Are you implying that they couldn't learn to do other things if given the resources?.
What resources? Artillery? Tanks? Cavalry Fighting vehicles? All those things take specialized training to crew. And those crews have to have constant on-going triaining to maintain a state of readiness. Do you have any idea the training and manpower that goes into being able to put a 155mm round on a target 12 miles away? Or how much training goes into being a tank commander? Then you've got to have trained maintenance people to maintain them. Then you've got to have trained people to supply them. By the time you do all this, all you've done is sew a Ranger tab on the shoulder of every soldier in the army.
quote:
Traditional ground wars are largely a thing of the past.
LOL. A lot of "experts" said the same thing in the spring of 1914. The main reason we've only had one traditional war in the past 50 so years is our military has been strong enough to make it out of the question for any country to challenge us. But the world is changing and growing more dangerous as our current leadership in Washington allow our military might whither.
quote:
Our typical infantry hasnt exactly been a massive success recently btw.
Name one force that has inflicted a single battlefield defeat on any US formation going back to the Vietnam War.
This post was edited on 4/16/16 at 1:37 pm
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:43 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
The main reason we've only had one traditional war in the past 50 so years is our military has been strong enough to make it out of the question for any country to challenge us. But the world is changing and growing more dangerous as our current leadership in Washington allow our military might whither
Tough to compare an era of flying drones and soon to be robots in combat with 1914
There's no feasible say for our country to be attacked in a meaningful way by ground troops. The future of warfare is technology.. not door kickers
Posted on 4/16/16 at 1:59 pm to bmy
quote:
Tough to compare an era of flying drones and soon to be robots in combat with 1914
There's no feasible say for our country to be attacked in a meaningful way by ground troops. The future of warfare is technology.. not door kickers
Drones? About the only thing they're good for is to blow up goat humper villagers in some third world Shithole. Try using them over an actual battlefield against a foe with even rudimentary air defenses and they're sitting ducks. They'd never even make it to their targets.
As for robots, all an enemy would need to do against your robot army is detonate an easy to make EMP and your entire army is wasted in one fell swoop. Game over, you lose.
Drones and robots...
Posted on 4/16/16 at 2:08 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
Drones? About the only thing they're good for is to blow up goat humper villagers in some third world Shithole. Try using them over an actual battlefield against a foe with even rudimentary air defenses and they're sitting ducks. They'd never even make it to their targets.
As for robots, all an enemy would need to do against your robot army is detonate an easy to make EMP and your entire army is wasted in one fell swoop. Game over, you lose.
Drones and robots...
Well suited to the task at hand then. I'm not sure what scenario you are envisioning that involves an actual world-war style battlefield
It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Posted on 4/16/16 at 2:14 pm to bmy
quote:
Well suited to the task at hand then. I'm not sure what scenario you are envisioning that involves an actual world-war style battlefield
It doesn't make a bit of sense.
Korea, South China Sea, or Eastern Europe are all possible flashpoints. The quickest way to make one or more of them ignite, is to make it apparantly to any of our potential foes we are weak and not ready for war. Countries like Russia, China, and North Korea are doing all they can to make themselves ready for a traditional style war. If we are not ready to counter them, that's when one of them can get froggy and decide to make a move.
This post was edited on 4/16/16 at 2:18 pm
Posted on 4/16/16 at 2:38 pm to bmy
quote:
Then why not get rid of most of the army minus the rangers and fund the Marines?
I've always thought we should multiply our special ops guys over having a large infantry.
Quality over quantity
Your average Marines are nowhere close to having the skill set of the "Rangers" you're talking about. The Marine Corps is a fine service, but they are not nearly as 'special' as they like to tell themselves
Posted on 4/16/16 at 2:47 pm to Womski
quote:
Your average Marines are nowhere close to having the skill set of the "Rangers" you're talking about. The Marine Corps is a fine service, but they are not nearly as 'special' as they like to tell themselves
Well that's why they aren't considered special forces
They're infantry.. and good infantry. But are they really necessary ? I'm not sure they are. Most of the army isnt either. Air force and navy.. throw the money to them.
Page 6 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News