Gates' defense budget: more low-tech, less high-tech

[Viking]

Probably a good decision to limit the number of Zumwalts they build.  They're pricey, and given that the main instrument of US sea power is the carrier group (and thus odds are good that a ship would be operating near a carrier), it doesn't make sense to have a stealth destroyer sitting right next to a huge, unstealthy carrier.

You can see the AEW aircraft, you can see the carrier and you can see the radar from the air defense radar and the guided missile cruiser. But you can't see the JSFs in the CAP, you can't see the attack sub under the carrier group and you can't see the stealth picket destroyers all around the carrier group getting the data from the radar and sonars of the louder parts of the carrier group.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle

I read that is Mime Resistant Ambush Protected vehicle...

I am now hugely disappointed

[Viking]

Does this mean they are going to bring back the Sgt York?  That tech was rather low...

[FunkMonk]

I was quite happy when I heard they were axing the Army's FCS. That crap sounds like it would have gotten a lot of soldiers killed.

[Sheilbh]

I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.

I agree.  I hope he doesn't get too much stick for doing what seems perfectly sensible.

[Alatriste]

If North Korea wants to nuke the US  in a first strike you shouldn't worry about ICBMs but fishing boats, cargo containers and civilian airplanes...

How about we worry about both, rather than put all our eggs in one basket?

That's not the point. The point is, the day the shield works (if it ever does, and that's highly unlikely) the enemy would have means to "go trough the Ardennes" instantly and at zero cost, and I didn't even mention cruise missiles, small airplanes and a host of other ways to carry a nuke to its intended destination.

Is worth it spending so many billions and investing so many R&D resources just to force the enemy to use slower but stealthier ways? IMHO the missile shield would be the most expensive & useless toy in the history of war even if it worked like a charm shooting down 100 ICBMs from every 100. 

[Berkut]

If North Korea wants to nuke the US  in a first strike you shouldn't worry about ICBMs but fishing boats, cargo containers and civilian airplanes...

How about we worry about both, rather than put all our eggs in one basket?

That's not the point. The point is, the day the shield works (if it ever does, and that's highly unlikely) the enemy would have means to "go trough the Ardennes" instantly and at zero cost, and I didn't even mention cruise missiles, small airplanes and a host of other ways to carry a nuke to its intended destination. 

Instantly and at zero cost?

Really?

How much do you think a nuke weighs?

[Vince]

I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.

I agree.  I hope he doesn't get too much stick for doing what seems perfectly sensible.

With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell. 

[Valmy]

With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell. 

We should have listened to Eisenhower.

[Habbaku]

We should have listened to Eisenhower.

[Crazy_Ivan80]

I hope they have put aside money for breech-loaders.

And what would they need to load their pants with?

[DGuller]

With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.

Why not then eliminate only the jobs in the Republican districts, while leaving them alone in the Democratic districts, as a compromise?

[Vince]

With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell.

Why not then eliminate only the jobs in the Republican districts, while leaving them alone in the Democratic districts, as a compromise?

I can live with that.   

[Sheilbh]

With all the defense jobs at stake every Congressman with a defense job in his district is going to raise hell. 

We should have listened to Eisenhower.

Expensive but not entirely useful weapons programmes are really ideal ways of getting pork in a bill.  They can be described as being in the national interest which makes them ideal.

[jimmy olsen]

I would say that overall this is pretty refreshing - a change of focus from the whiz-bang golly-gee super toys to practical and applicable force augmentation.

We have some 180+ F-22s already - how many more do we need[/]? Note that I am not asking how many more people in Connecticut and Georgia to we need to employ.

As many as neccessary to replace every F-15