Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: kabar

the LCS (littoral combat ship) is an overpriced not very boondoggel with poor survivability. in fact most modern ships copuld not take the punishment ww2 us destroyers took.
the infantry GCV (ground combat vehicle) is a joke and looks like somethiing out of the nazi panzer design center in ‘45 and even lees effective.

as always training will be cut because the perfumed princes of the pentagon don’t make any money from it as opposed to their fancy overpriced weapons systems and post retirement consulting fees. notice they didn’t list cutting all flag officers by 60% which would be a good start.


15 posted on 01/20/2013 11:22:08 AM PST by bravo whiskey (“People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]


To: bravo whiskey
We struture our forces based on mission and a threat analysis. Do you expect the US to be engaged in WWII naval battles?

LCS is a fast, agile, focused-mission platform designed for operation in near-shore environments yet capable of open-ocean operation. It is designed to defeat asymmetric �anti-access� threats such as mines, quiet diesel submarines and fast surface craft.

The LCS class consists of two variants, the Freedom variant and Independence variant - designed and built by two industry teams, respectively led by Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics, Bath Iron Works. These seaframes will be outfitted with reconfigurable payloads, called Mission Packages, which can be changed out quickly. Mission packages are supported by special detachments that will deploy manned and unmanned vehicles and sensors in support of mine, undersea and surface warfare missions.

as always training will be cut because the perfumed princes of the pentagon don’t make any money from it as opposed to their fancy overpriced weapons systems and post retirement consulting fees. notice they didn’t list cutting all flag officers by 60% which would be a good start.

A cynical view that questions the loyalty and patriotism of our military leadership. I don't take such a jaundiced view. And cutting the number of flag officers will not save a lot of money.

When I served in the Navy (1965-72) we had 600 ships and the Draft. We are now down well below three hundred ships. Our carrier force has been reduced by one. The operations tempo caused by two wars has taken its toll on equipment and personnel. There is no doubt that we can spend our defense money wiser and more efficiently and I would say the same thing about Medicare, Medicaid, Food Stamps, etc. If I were to set priorities, defense would be number one. Without it, everything else is at risk. And a weaker America will invite challenges to our national interests that will cost far more than the $50 billion we save from DOD.

24 posted on 01/20/2013 11:42:30 AM PST by kabar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

To: bravo whiskey

Dempsey is Ubama’s man, yet here he is bemoaning cuts to the military? ...The very cuts his boss, Ubama, and the Democrat party lust for? Sure. Another Ubama scumbag, Leon Panetta, was saying the same kinds of things not long ago. And he said them with a straight face.

How stupid do you have to be not to see through this game?

If you make the proposed military cuts sound draconian and “devastating”, etc., then the Republicans will HAVE to “negotiate” to save the military. Of course, IN RETURN for the Democrats agreeing to let the Republicans “save” the military , well... there better not be any real cuts to the Democrats’ welfare/moocher/vote-buying programs.

Some deal, huh?

THE SEQUESTRATION CUTS MUST BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN !!


34 posted on 01/20/2013 12:05:40 PM PST by Lancey Howard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson