It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Marines updating current equipment for future dispersed high end battle

page: 1
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:07 PM
link   
The Marines unveiled their plan for a distributed, high end battle in the future. In addition to developing new concepts, they are improving command and control features, as well as weapons. One of the concepts includes what they're calling a "Lightning Carrier", in which a STOVL carrier would forward deploy with up to 20 F-35Bs, and 4 MV-22s carrying refueling systems to refuel them. They could deploy as part of an Expeditionary Strike Group, or a Carrier Strike Group, as part of a CVN battle group.

They would also include the LX(R), which would be more sophisticated than the current Whidbey Island and Harpers Ferry class dock landing ships. One possible design would include using the San Antonio class LPD hull, with updated mission critical systems installed, possibly with a modular design. That would give a proven design for the base hull, and decrease development time and put the new ships into service as well as keeping commonality in the fleet.

Marine future upgrade plans




posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:18 PM
link   
Great news! I knew our terror bombings of innocent civilians and phantom "enemies" wasn't effective enough! I'm glad they're upping the ante and their budget considering there are literally zero modern realistic threats to our security!



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: finitedualities

I starred you because because I agree, at this point it seems ridiculous. However, WW3 is coming if it hasn't already started. That part is debatable. Also, you were wrong about no threats. Russia and China are potentially huge adversaries but I do wish we could all just get along well together. ❤



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:52 PM
link   
a reply to: finitedualities

LOL I like how Zaphod58 states



They could deploy as part of an Expeditionary Strike Group


We're going on an expedition...sounds so benign



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Lol, gotta spend the funds somehow!



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 10:55 PM
link   
a reply to: finitedualities

I do agree that there is little to worry about from any nations these days. But when we have super villains like Soros and Cheney still running around causing problems, the corporate, privatized and super wealthy do present unique threats of their own.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:00 PM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

Yes, they could land us in a war for their globalist agenda. Hence the constant weapon advancement.



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Going on a worldwide tour to spread democracy and freedom sounds much better than forcibly setting up puppet regimes in order ensure less privileged regions follow the whims of the bankers just like us



posted on Mar, 28 2017 @ 11:27 PM
link   
It is a shame in this world that we need that kind of war equipment. But we do and that will not be changing anytime soon.

That is the world we live in. I am glad our guys will have this stuff.
edit on 28-3-2017 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 12:58 AM
link   
a reply to: kwakakev

All those trillions spent and yet Soros still walks free and Cheney is enjoying those millions



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:00 AM
link   
a reply to: finitedualities




puppet regimes in order ensure less privileged regions follow the whims of the bankers just like us


Well our foreign affairs dept gave something like $110 million to the Clinton Foundation, probably to secure some of our politicians retirement fund in a few years...recycled $'s through some Swiss bank account



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse




That is the world we live in. I am glad our guys will have this stuff.


So they haven't got enough stuff already? LOL. Imagine how many mouths they could feed with just 10% of the US military budget.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: finitedualities




puppet regimes in order ensure less privileged regions follow the whims of the bankers just like us


Well our foreign affairs dept gave something like $110 million to the Clinton Foundation, probably to secure some of our politicians retirement fund in a few years...recycled $'s through some Swiss bank account

What? Taxpayer dollars to the Clinton foundation?

Do you have a source?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:05 AM
link   
a reply to: rickymouse

Good to see that spreading "freedom" has succeeded


www.huffingtonpost.com...


U.S. Military Budgets 1948-2015
Obama FY2010-15 $663.4 billion per year
Bush Jr FY2002-09* $634.9
Clinton FY1994-2001 $418.0
Bush Sr FY1990-93 $513.4
Reagan FY1982-89 $565.0
Carter FY1978-81 $428.1
Ford FY1976-77 $406.7
Nixon FY1970-75 $441.7
Johnson FY1965-69 $527.3
Kennedy FY1962-64 $457.2
Eisenhower FY1954-61 $416.3
Truman FY1948-53 $375.7



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:29 AM
link   
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Are those numbers millions or billions? It's a little unclear.

I'm only asking because the numbers sound large in billions under Truman.
edit on 29-3-2017 by Wide-Eyes because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: TheConstruKctionofLight

Are those numbers millions or billions? It's a little unclear.


Inflation adjusted billions.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:33 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

So they're relative numbers?



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 01:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: Wide-Eyes
a reply to: D8Tee

So they're relative numbers?


Yes, apples to apples comparison, inflation adjusted to 2016 dollars.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Wide-Eyes

well it appears to be billions...however you could be right about the Truman years
heres a 2nd source

www.theglobalist.com...


Although defense spending never did shrink all the way to Ike’s target, the wind-down of Truman’s war budget was swift and drastic. When measured in constant 2005 dollars of purchasing power, the defense budget was reduced from a peak of $515 billion in fiscal 1953 to $370 billion by fiscal 1956. It remained at that level through the end of Eisenhower’s second term.



posted on Mar, 29 2017 @ 02:34 AM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

www.news.com.au... -story/219577919ed8dfbd79cf808321234eba


AUSTRALIA has finally ceased pouring millions of dollars into accounts linked to Hillary Clinton’s charities. Which might make you wonder: Why were we donating to them in the first place? The federal government confirmed to news.com.au it has not renewed any of its partnerships with the scandal-plagued Clinton Foundation, effectively ending 10 years of taxpayer-funded contributions worth more than $88 million. The Clinton Foundation has a rocky past. It was described as “a slush fund”, is still at the centre of an FBI investigation and was revealed to have spent more than $50 million on travel. Despite that, the official website for the charity shows contributions from both AUSAID and the Commonwealth of Australia, each worth between $10 million and $25 million. News.com.au approached the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for comment about how much was donated and why the Clinton Foundation was chosen as a recipient. A DFAT spokeswoman said all funding is used “solely for agreed development projects” and Clinton charities have “a proven track record” in helping developing countries.



www.michaelsmithnews.com...



new topics

top topics



 
12
<<   2 >>

log in

join