Is Robert Gates A Genius?

Is Robert Gates A Genius?

www.newsweek.com

If you're wondering where to come down on the Gates plan, here's a simple guide: John McCain, the most thoughtful, reform-minded legislator on military issues, "strongly supports" it. Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe—who has compared the EPA to the Gestapo, Carol Browner to Tokyo Rose and environmentalists to the Third Reich—warns that it will lead to the "disarming of America." You choose.

(visit the link for the full news article)


Related News Links:
www.washingtonpost.com

In recent decades, defense budgeting has existed in a dreamland, where ever-more-elaborate weapons are built without regard to enemies, costs or trade-offs. In 2008 the General Accounting Office said cost overruns for the Pentagon's 95 biggest weapons programs—just the overruns!—added up to $300 billion.

Honestly, the US Military budget could use a little trimming.

When you're spending more money on defence than the rest of the world combined you need to rethink why your powers of persuasion and diplomacy have degraded so badly.

You also need to rethink who really has control over your budget and what the hell they're doing with all that "Black money" that goes down the drain and never produces anything viable.

The US taxpayer has paid through the rectum for failed project after failed project like:
The Commanche
the XM2001 Crusader self-propelled artillery
the OICW
Future Warrior programme
DDX Destroyer
The Aurora
Blackswift
X-51
Urban Warrior
the M-16 replacement debate

Which were all amalgamations of yesteryear's technology with some shiny gimmicks and flashy new bells & whistles added on, that offered little improvement over current Standard Issue gear or even made soldiers more vulnerable.

What do we have to show for all this reckless spending?

Failed prototypes, hangar queens, mothballed designs, and fancy blueprints and simulations. Not one of the above mentioned projects has yet to go into service. Most never will.

It's time to take the power away from the tech-nerds and whizz kids over at DARPA, Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin, Northrop and Boeing who've held the military budget hostage with their little pet projects and useless designs which just aren't practical, and who think the solution to every tactical problem is Chemical Lasers, Railguns and STARWARS.

Meanwhile, the GI on the ground needs viable, proven weaponry right now.
It's been almost 15 years since the DOD launched a programme to develop something as basic as an M-16 replacement, and they still don't have an answer.

That's got nothing to do with a shift from stand-up wars of attrition to counter-insurgency, but rather the stranglehold the Military-Industrial Complex has over the military and foreign policy.

There's just so many competitors, so much revenue squandered on innovation when troops on the ground are dying now because their ancient M-16s or M-249s have cycled through about 10 billion rounds in their lifetime and jam up on every 10th shot, conveniently when an insurgent has them in their sights.

In my opinion, the entire problem revolves around Bureaucracy and a focus on the "near-future", instead of the here and now.

The United States military brass just have this imperialistic tendency to rule the world.

They want to pioneer space-based warfare, lasers, railguns, phasers and Death Stars (and god knows what else) before any one else does just to have the upper hand in some potential global struggle in the future.

When right now, they can't even wrest control of a country the size of Texas from a bunch of a teenagers with AK-47's and RPG's.

www.newsweek.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

Thanks for the article

This is something that has always bothered me. We spend more on military than the rest of the world combined, and we wonder why places like Iran, China, Russia, etc, insist on beefing up their deterrent. In case you haven't figured it out yet, it's because WE'RE building up first. They are building up in response to our bloated, incredibly powerful military.

Time to stop lining the pockets of defense contractors. Time for the leader of the global arms race, the United States, to put down the baton and declare peace.

Yes by all means gut the military and cancel all future programs. NOT. We do that and before you know it we will have to be playing catch up with China and Russia. I will gladly pay for my country to be the most advanced in the world. In case you didn't know, no one has been able to handle those teenagers, not the Soviets in the 80's and not us now.

[edit on 11-4-2009 by USamf]

reply to post by USamf

I will gladly pay for my country to be the most advanced in the world.

Then give your blood to them as far as I'm concerned.

Unfortunately I don't think most of America shares your viewpoint currently, especially considering the Government screwed them doubly over by giving them bad loans and wasting their money on pork-barrel military projects.

The last thing anyone would want to do in a time like this give even more money to the Government.

Yes by all means gut the military and cancel all future programs.

Correction: Cancel all USELESS future programmes.

If it doesn't show any promising results after several years, why fund it?

no one has been able to handle those teenagers, not the Soviets in the 80's and not us now.

So why are we bothering?
Ask your beloved government, they'll have all the answers I'm sure.

The Soviets btw, were facing not only the Mujahideen by the combined powers of the Pakistani ISI, the CIA, and billions in Saudi/Arab funds right behind them.

[edit on 11/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]

The Aurora never existed, the X-51 is a limited program that will only fly a few times, and the Blackswift just went black. None of these programs should be counted with the others, as they either never got developed, or are still in the early development stages. You can't call them "failed projects".

It should also be noted that the X-51 is using mostly off the shelf technology, as much as possible. That will both give it a greater chance of success, and keep costs down, as they won't have to develop the entire airframe from the bottom up.

Is Gates a genius? Not by any stretch of the imagination. Does military spending have to change? Yes it does. One of the big problems is that the more you buy, the lower the cost goes. The B-2 and F-22 are prime examples. The B-2 if it had been bought in the original numbers planned, would have cost a little over $300 million an airframe. The 21 they bought wound up costing billions per airframe, which was the excuse used to kill it at 21. The same for the F-22. If they had bought enough to replace the F-15 fleet, they would have dropped the price a lot as the purchase went on.

Gates is doing more to gut the Tactical Air branch of the Air Force than anyone has lately. We already have F-16s with airframe cracks limiting them (3% of Block 30/32s and 18% of Block 40/42s as of March 2008), our premier fighter for decades, the F-15 is G-limited due to longeron cracking issues that grounded them twice.

The AVERAGE age of our Air Force bomber/tanker fleet is approaching 50, while our F-15s are over 26. In next years budget they plan on retiring 250 fighters, with nothing to replace them for years. We're facing a massive fighter gap in the coming years, that is going to take decades to close.

Instead of cutting fighters out, and stopping the F-22, they need to be buying more F-22s, and starting up the F-15 and F-16 purchases again, to compliment the F-35.

I think that we will find that many defense contracts are no more than an ingenious money laundering scheme.

We have dumped enough money into the military industrial complex to solve half the planets problems (between famine and disease alone). Ultimately we have been funneling money on three fronts, out of the tax-payers contributions to support and nurture the American "Enterprise" Monopolies:

Guns (meaning weapons and weapons systems),
Oil (meaning energy) and,
Drugs (meaning faux-pharmaceutical research and illicit drug trafficking at the global scale)

- it's their version of "In GOD we trust".

All of these are, of course, operating within the control of the mega industries represented in the transnational corporate activity (Military Industrial Complex) so closely intertwined by groups such as the banksters and those organization which are now revealing themselves to have always been "supranational" in privileges and influence (like Carlyle, the Trilateral Commission, 300, CFR, the Bilderburg Group, and of course the WTO, UN, IMF and International Settlement Bank, etc.)

Weapons development alone is a beautifully contained financial hole, since most of it is classified and or "black" projects which get accounted for within closed channels of the Federal government, while the private side has the protection of "trade" secrecy.

As long as they can maintain the nation's dependence on them for the tools we need to 'protect' ourselves from 'threats' (which their think-tank members tell us to fear).

The matter is rendered 'out of our hands' and we are reducing our own power to reduce our deficit and other financial problems because we simply MUST allow them to bid 100 billion dollar development projects that end up tripling in cost every year.



[edit on 11-4-2009 by Maxmars]

reply to post by Zaphod58

The Aurora never existed

Something was buzzing over Los Angeles during the 1990's doing Mach 5+ test flights in and out of Nellis AFB and it sure as hell wasn't the SR-71.

They proposed a replacement, it got squashed. Satellites and drones overtook that role.
As to what it was designated, the specifics, we'll never know.

Most of the work put into the SR-71 replacement programme (apparently designated SR-91) was probably transferred to DARPA's Falcon Project, which Blackswift is based off, since it's ultimate goal is a Mach 6 ramjet powered inteceptor/bomber.

Blackswift is most assuredly continuing, just with severely reduced funding:
www.flightglobal.com...

The 21 they bought wound up costing billions per airframe, which was the excuse used to kill it at 21. The same for the F-22.

Who says we need the F-22 anyway?

The F-35 is cheaper, can fit a wider array of munitions (and far more of them), has 5th generation manoeuvring abilities (albeit worse than the Raptor's) and is far more suited to the mission the USAF faces in the modern world.

The F-22 is a vestigial dream from the Cold War heydays that's just not practical now to upkeep.

Not to mention the F-35 is nowhere near as maintenance intensive as the F-22's stealth's makeup and characteristics are.
To me, the F-22 has an overreliance on stealth that can very easily be defeated by a lot of present day technologies.

and starting up the F-15 and F-16 purchases again, to compliment the F-35.

That I agree with but not more F-22's.

Refurbish the F-15s, F-16's, F-18's fleets and continue with the development and full integration of the F-35.
A far cheaper and realistic option.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


I'll leave the debate on Aurora for another thread, but I haven't seen ANYONE with one shred of evidence or one GOOD sighting, many years after hearing about it.

As I said, Blackswift just went black. We watched it go black right here in the thread about it. They didn't probably didn't reduce funding, they turned it black. But you can't say it's "failed" since it just started development within the last few years. I know about Blackswift, as we have a very extensive thread on it here, with some good insider information about it before it went black.

The F-22 was designed for air superiority, a mission the F-35 wasn't designed for. The F-35 is going to probably wind up like most multi-role fighters have to date. It's going to be good at many missions, but not great at any one mission. The F-22 is more like the F-15 it was designed to replace. The F-15 is one of the greatest fighters built to date, and did JUST the fighter mission. The F-15E, which is a separate design of the same airframe, does the ground mission great, and is a decent fighter. It has problems with the backbone and vibration from the engines though.

You can't say that the F-35 is less maintenance intensive, because there are only a small handful of them flying. Until they have some kind of numbers of them in the air, you don't KNOW how maintenance intensive they're going to be.

We also don't know HOW the F-35 will do in ACM. There are signs that it will be a very good fighter, but we won't know that until they're MUCH farther along in the testing program. They're nowhere near ready to start any kind of ACM testing yet, and won't be for probably another year or two.

Apparently we have a fleet of 187 Air Superiority F-22s, how many do we need? Odds are very small that we will ever fight another major war requiring so many aircraft, at least not in the near future. Concentrating on building the F-35's makes far more sense.

If makes far more sense to trim the military budget and spend on infrastructure. In addition, it is more likely that we will be fighting insurgent wars, rather than WW II type wars. Expanding use of drones makes far more sense. The U.S. military budget is far too big, in fact ridiculously too big.

reply to post by poet1b


We have 600+ F-15s that are 26+ years old. No matter how good the follow on is, there is no way that 187 F-22s can take over the role of that many fighters. The F-22 was designed to replace the F-15, so we SHOULD have gotten enough to cover that mission.

We don't currently HAVE the 187, that's all we're getting.

reply to post by Zaphod58

I'll leave the debate on Aurora for another thread, but I haven't seen ANYONE with one shred of evidence or one GOOD sighting, many years after hearing about it.

In interests of staying OT, as military threads derail faster than an Indian train, I'm going put that one to bed.
But I will say the USAF must have attempted at least once before announcing Blackswift to supplement the SR-71. It was friggin' 27 years old in 1991 and those massive, inefficient turbojets had lived through about 100 lifecycles by then.

They didn't probably didn't reduce funding, they turned it black. But you can't say it's "failed" since it just started development within the last few years.

Well we're all speculating out of ass regarding it aren't we?

I called it "failed" because it technically was started in 2003 and show zero results since then. That and the fact that we don't need hypersonic spy planes anymore. They're extremely expensive (unit cost & maintenance wise), represent an enormous national security risk if they ever got shot down and just tend to create more problems than they solve.
The history of the SR-71 is perfect evidence of this.

We need to update the aging fleet of Keyhole satellites and build stealthier, faster, multi-role drones.

No risk, global reach, cheap as dirt, what's not to like?

The F-22 was designed for air superiority, a mission the F-35 wasn't designed for.

The US isn't planning to take over the world, as much as certain conservative circles fantasise about that idea.

Air superiority is guaranteed. Every other nation on the planet is years away from even a 5th. Gen Fighter, let alone the necessary power projection capabilities to make use of them.

The F-35 is more than a match for everything that can be thrown at the United States currently save for the very latest Sukhois and MiGs which being fielded in very small numbers and will take years to reach full production levels. Obviously we can exclude the Eurofighter from comparison.
Not to mention the AN/APG-81 is leaps and bounds ahead of the F-22's APG-77.

I don't even know why they bother to classify the F-22 as a ground attack fighter when it's radar doesn't even have an 80 degree down-angle and lacks high-resolution mapping to ignore surface clutter.
It's a pure dog fighter.

It's going to be good at many missions, but not great at any one mission.

Precisely. Consolidate a big, unmanageable fleet of highly-specified, yet very similar aircraft like the F-18, Strike Eagle, A-10 with one that can fulfil all those roles.

You can't say that the F-35 is less maintenance intensive, because there are only a small handful of them flying.

It won't need a constant reapplying of it's stealth makeup and a good buffing after each flight to make sure it's stealth integrity hasn't been compromised, that's for sure.

It relies more on contours and less on radar-absorbent paint and all that other crap.

There are signs that it will be a very good fighter, but we won't know that until they're MUCH farther along in the testing program. They're nowhere near ready to start any kind of ACM testing yet, and won't be for probably another year or two.

You planning on robbing a bank or a something?

Even the current situation the world is in, I don't think we're going to need to worry about US air superiority being challenged for decades to come.

reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira


The F-15 and F-16 are already losing to SU-30s in exercises. There are a pretty good number of SU-30s out there, as they're an export fighter. It's only going to get worse as time goes on.

By the time the F-35 is ready, there will be larger numbers of SU-30s, and even some -35s out there. The F-15 and -16 will be outdated by that time, without some serious upgrades. The F-35 isn't even going to be capable of hauling all the A2A weapons in the inventory for many years to come.

As for hypersonic recon planes, yes they are needed. Satellites are predictable. If you don't want something to get out, you figure out when the satellite comes over, and stick it in a hangar or somewhere it can't be seen. Recon aircraft like the SR-71 and Blackswift are unpredictable and can come over any time.

The F-22 ISN'T considered a ground attack aircraft, but the incremental upgrades will allow a limited ground attack role. Hence the SDB that's being developed for it.

[edit on 4/11/2009 by Zaphod58]

26 years ago we were facing the Soviets, and cold war scenarios, and even then we had more fire power than we needed. What justifies 600 dog fighters in this era? Wouldn't we be better off retiring that large number of fighters?

I would rather see the money spent on equipment for soldiers on the ground.

reply to post by poet1b


Money IS being spent for the ground fighters. They're getting quite a few upgrades and new systems. The problem is that we use a large number of fighters for TacAir for the ground fighters. We're already facing a HUGE fighter gap by 2015, and it's only going to get worse if we keep retiring fighters. And those are fighters for the defense of the US, not ones that are being used in combat missions.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
You also need to rethink who really has control over your budget and what the hell they're doing with all that "Black money" that goes down the drain and never produces anything viable.

The US taxpayer has paid through the rectum for failed project after failed project like:
The Commanche
the XM2001 Crusader self-propelled artillery
the OICW
Future Warrior programme
DDX Destroyer
The Aurora
Blackswift
X-51
Urban Warrior
the M-16 replacement debate

Black money ?? Failed projects ?? What the hell are you talking about.

All those projects were successes. The money spent of those projects thought not directly in use yet, has furthered our technological expertise and scientific knowledge by leaps and bounds, not to mention saved countless American lives. Also, ALL military funding is carefully accounted for and expenditure audited to prevent any opportunity for graft. This information is readily available to Congressmen and Senators with the appropriate clearances.

Also, it is absolutely ridiculous to consider that programs like the DDX destroyer, now known as the Zumwalt class destroyer (which has been approved by the Navy!) as a failed program. This applies to almost all the items on that misinformed list.

The Comanche is and always will be a absolute success in terms of achieving the goals set out. Cost overruns and feasibility fall into the vagaries of politics and national priorities but you cant say that they didnt deliver an exceptional piece of hardware and furthered our understand and knowledge by leaps and bounds. This technology might be used in the future for developing a new generation of unmanned rotary wing aircraft.

As for the OICW program, it led to the future of weapons design with the concept of modular weapons design firmly gaining ground in miltary circles and now seen as an inevitable conclusions. The Future Force Warrior program on the other hand is absolutely essential and ongoing at this point in time. How did you even come to think that the program was canceled ? The new BDU's are set to be operationalized in the beginning of 2010 and improvements from the projects will be introduced every few years to the field units.

As for the X-51 and Blackswift projects, the X-51 is a scientific and technological demonstrator which has still not been canceled because despite the ignorance in Washington, NASA and DARPA know the importance of investing in this kind of viable technological initiatives which are essential if America is to secure its future through projects such as the Prompt Global Strike and even applications in future civilian and space technologies.

The Aurora project cannot reasonably categorized by any sane person as a "failed project" because the existence of such a project is itself highly doubtful. Without any concrete evidence as to its actual existence, it is simply ridiculous to claim that its a failed project.

The XM2001 Crusader project again, can hardly be dubbed as a "failure". The main contention with the program was the high cost per unit compared to existing weapons systems. Despite the technological leap the crusader made, there was little incentive in the government to aquire it as national priorities had changed. No doubt any future self-propelled artillery system will incorporate a LOT of the technologies developed for this system.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Which were all amalgamations of yesteryear's technology with some shiny gimmicks and flashy new bells & whistles added on, that offered little improvement over current Standard Issue gear or even made soldiers more vulnerable.

What do we have to show for all this reckless spending?

Again, as typical of you, this is yet another highly misinformed and ignorant statement seeking to slander the American military and its affiliates. None of the technologies that you yourself listed out are anything like the technologies of "yesteryear" as you claim. This would be self evident had you any understanding of what these projects are actually trying to accomplish or have accomplished.

The attitude that every dollar spent should produce some working marvel is an utterly ridiculous and naive outlook on scientific research and technological progress, especially in such high technology areas like military research. Failure is often the stepping stones to success, as in any en devour.

The accumulation of knowledge and gaining expertise in these niche technologies is what sets America apart from the rest of the world and in the principle reason behind our military prowess. Without investing in technologies, America would loose the ability to defend itself from threats and put it on the path to ruin.

The "hangar queens" and "failed prototypes" are what led to the development of some of the most promising technologies by learning from the mistakes made in them and sometimes using those very same "mothballed" concepts in new areas where they have proven to be critical.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It's time to take the power away from the tech-nerds and whizz kids over at DARPA, Skunk Works, Lockheed Martin, Northrop and Boeing who've held the military budget hostage with their little pet projects and useless designs which just aren't practical, and who think the solution to every tactical problem is Chemical Lasers, Railguns and STARWARS.

Yes take away power from the intelligent people who can actually contribute to the safety and security of this nation and instead squander it in some perverse social programs to feed to lazy and pay the greedy. Brilliant plan!

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Meanwhile, the GI on the ground needs viable, proven weaponry right now.
It's been almost 15 years since the DOD launched a programme to develop something as basic as an M-16 replacement, and they still don't have an answer.

I have never understood how people are ever ready to denigrate the M16 compared to other assault rifles when time and time again the M16 has proven itself to be a reliable, accurate and deadly weapon in all conditions. Maybe that is why the Army and the Marines to this day still use the M16 because their lives depend on it. Not armchair generals.
The M16 is still one the best standard assault rifles that can be deployed in large numbers. You say that the military spends too much money yet you want the Army to buy expensive rifles that offer little overall gain compared to rifles already available. That just doesnt make sense.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
The United States military brass just have this imperialistic tendency to rule the world.

They want to pioneer space-based warfare, lasers, railguns, phasers and Death Stars (and god knows what else) before any one else does just to have the upper hand in some potential global struggle in the future.

Here it comes at last. The typical anti-American rhetoric that this entire post has been building up to.
Ironically, these "imperialists" are the ones that have liberated more than a half a dozen countries and helped expand individual freedoms for many millions of people while the naive and the ungrateful at home and abroad have chastised them for "imperialistic" ambitions!

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
When right now, they can't even wrest control of a country the size of Texas from a bunch of a teenagers with AK-47's and RPG's.

\
Same hackneyed ignorant BS that doesnt deserve a response.


[edit on 11-4-2009 by IAF101]

Maybe they should look into lower cost F-22's, is the stealth technology that effective? How many SU-30's are out there now? Apparently India is ordering a bunch, but they haven't been built yet.

Personally, I think they have a stealth jet, but no one knows about it. It fly's too high, too fast, and has too small of a radar profile to have been detected yet.

reply to post by poet1b


The best way to make a cheaper F-22 was to produce more of them. The more they produce the lower the cost goes. The F-22 currently costs about $137M per airframe. If we had bought them at the numbers they originally planned for, they would have dropped to under $100M per airframe.

As for the SU-30:

Algeria has 18 SU-30MKA with 20 on order. The MKA is similar to the MKI, but has French and Russian avionics.

China has 76 MKKs with the PLAAF, and 24 MK2s with the PLAN.

India has 120 MKIs (they're license producing them) and will eventually have 230.

Indonesia has 2 MKs and 3 MK2s in service.

Malaysia bought 18 MKMs (part of the deal was that Russia sends a Malaysian astronaut to the ISS).

Russia has 19 SU-30s.

Venezuela has 24 MK2s.

Vietnam has 12 MK2Vs.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Something was buzzing over Los Angeles during the 1990's doing Mach 5+ test flights in and out of Nellis AFB and it sure as hell wasn't the SR-71.

They proposed a replacement, it got squashed. Satellites and drones overtook that role.
As to what it was designated, the specifics, we'll never know.

So you claim that you dont know but assume that it exists anyway ?? Do you have even one shred of concrete evidence that there was an Aurora project?

Finally it makes ZERO sense to have an SR-71 replacement in this day and age. Do you know what the SR-71 was used for ? Why do we even need to use such primitive methods these days when US satellites are more than capable of fulfilling ALL that the SR-71 could do with much greater safety ?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Who says we need the F-22 anyway?

The F-35 is cheaper, can fit a wider array of munitions (and far more of them), has 5th generation manoeuvring abilities (albeit worse than the Raptor's) and is far more suited to the mission the USAF faces in the modern world.

The F-22 is a vestigial dream from the Cold War heydays that's just not practical now to upkeep.

Not to mention the F-35 is nowhere near as maintenance intensive as the F-22's stealth's makeup and characteristics are.
To me, the F-22 has an overreliance on stealth that can very easily be defeated by a lot of present day technologies.

This is perhaps the most misinformed outlook on the F-22 program.

The fact that most of the F-22 details are classified and not even released to our closest allies where as the F-35 is basically being handed out to all our allies including ones like Turkey etc should tell you something as to its importance and its uniqueness.

The F-22 acquisition is critical if we are to maintain a decisive advantage and maintain air dominance in all theaters in the near future. While naive and misguided people would advocate that we give up on the F-22, China, Russia are both trying actively to develop technologies to achieve air dominance against the F-22 and are trying to proliferate these technologies to nations that would oppose us or threaten world peace. It is thanks to the F-22 which people like yourself kept griping on about that today we are assured air dominance in any theater with the development of the Su-30's and the Pak-fa's and the J-X's etc.
Even if we have a very potent system, number matter too and any number below 200 is not a credible advantage at all, especially when you consider that the Chinese and the Indians plan to acquire about 500 Su-30's between them and then you have the Russians and their Pak-Fa program also. These future threats necessitate the need to arm the USAF with greater quantities of F-22's so that Americans of tomorrow are not held at the mercy of the despots of China and Russia.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Refurbish the F-15s, F-16's, F-18's fleets and continue with the development and full integration of the F-35.
A far cheaper and realistic option.

Refurbishing? This is not a 1965 Ford Mustang we are talking about.
These aircraft represent the difference between Americans being bombed and Americans being safe. Half measures and patch up jobs are not going to cut it. Already the F-16 can barely hold its own against some of the newer Russian and Chinese aircraft. Without acquiring more 5th generation aircraft today, Americans will forever loose the skies to the Russians and the Chinese. And that is something Americans will not let happen. No matter how enraptured they are with this imbecile Obama.

[edit on 12-4-2009 by IAF101]

reply to post by IAF101


Great, the neo-con apologist. Right on time too.

All those projects were successes. The money spent of those projects thought not directly in use yet, has furthered our technological expertise and scientific knowledge by leaps and bounds, not to mention saved countless American lives.

I'm not sure what your definition of "success" entails, but when it's regarding a military project, success would entail that project entering current service and mass production.

NONE. Not one of those projects has yet to enter current serivce.
6 of those were CANCELLED, before anything more than a prototype was built.

How could they save lives if they were never deployed and used by men in Iraq or Afghanistan?

So to you billions down the drain that amount to a cancelled prototype is a success?

I'd hate to see what you measure of "failure" is.

now known as the Zumwalt class destroyer (which has been approved by the Navy!) as a failed program.

Approved in an extremely limited adoption. From the proposed DD-21's 20 or so new destroyers and littoral combat ships to 3 destroyers, for $3.5 billion dollars per unit. A hair's breadth away from a brand-new Nimitz-Class carrier at $4.5 billion.

Now that's an excellent tradeoff. A puny destroyer, with 2, 155mm deck guns, 20 VLS Tomahawk modules and the provision to carry 2 Seahawk helicopters. With the added gimmick of "stealth".

Versus a floating armada of 85 aircraft able to carry a combined 510 metric tonns of various munitions, able to attack all manner of air, ground and sea targets, equipped with an actual ABM system, and the logistical capabilities to keep a crew of 4,500 people fully prepared for war for months at a time.

This technology might be used in the future for developing a new generation of unmanned rotary wing aircraft.

Uh no, it won't.
The Commanche was a recon helicopter that could perform limited pin-point strikes.
It had nowhere near the durability, survivability, range of armaments or tonnage of the Apache.

Aerial Reconnaissance has fallen almost exclusively upon UAV's in the battlefield and will continue to do so in the future.

Hence, the Commanche was a waste well and truly.

$7 billion down the drain.

As for the OICW program, it led to the future of weapons design with the concept of modular weapons design firmly gaining ground in miltary circles and now seen as an inevitable conclusions.

It led to proving that 20mm airburst munitions are useless on the battlefield and have nowhere near the lethality of 40mm M203 grenades.

It also showed no matter how many fancy range-finding computers you mount on a battle rifle, it doesn't make the ordinary soldier any more efficient.

Any gains seen in targeting abilities are outweighed by such a bulky (8.2 kilograms loaded), cumbersome and difficult to use weapon (setting range, windage and azimuth before firing every grenade on a real battlefield gets you killed).
Not to mention, the unit cost of $10,000 dollars per soldier.

$100 million down the drain. Still no M-16 replacement.

How did you even come to think that the program was canceled?

In February, the programme was cancelled by the army despite the expenditure of USD2 billion over 10 years. A report from the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has urged the army to "review its decision to terminate the Land Warrior programme" and has earmarked USD80 million to resurrect it.

www.janes.com...

It's end-goal was supposed to be realised sometime around 2032. It spent $2 billion in ten years, and almost none of that technology has transferred to current issue gear.

Oh it looked very promising didn't it?

$2 billion down the drain.

As for the X-51 and Blackswift projects, the X-51 is a scientific and technological demonstrator which has still not been canceled because despite the ignorance in Washington, NASA and DARPA know the importance of investing in this kind of viable technological initiatives which are essential if America is to secure its future

Way to contradict yourself:

Finally it makes ZERO sense to have an SR-71 replacement in this day and age. Do you know what the SR-71 was used for ? Why do we even need to use such primitive methods these days when US satellites

You do realise the purpose of Blackswift/X-51 is a hypersonic spyplane?

Go and learn the meaning of consistency then try and make your straw-man arguements.

The XM2001 Crusader project again, can hardly be dubbed as a "failure". The main contention with the program was the high cost per unit compared to existing weapons systems.

Sure it can, READ:
www.senate.gov...

The Pentagon ruled on this issue in 2002 and concluded the Crusader was slower and less accurate than the Paladin, and for an increase in unit costs of $25 million dollars, it offered very marginal performance increases (the only substantial improvement was it's higher rate of fire.)

$11 billion down the drain.

The "hangar queens" and "failed prototypes" are what led to the development of some of the most promising technologies by learning from the mistakes made in them and sometimes using those very same "mothballed" concepts in new areas where they have proven to be critical.

I'm still waiting to see any of these "promising technologies" actually realised after years in development and billions funnelled into them. Especially after they've been cancelled.

Maybe you're just a very patient, slow-paced individual and that's all well and good for you.

But when you've got 2 wars slowly leeching the lifeblood of the military away and costing trillions per year, you need all the help you can get, right away.

Not sitting around waiting for DARPA or Skunkworks to come up with a miracle by 2020 or something.

Yes take away power from the intelligent people who can actually contribute to the safety and security of this nation and instead squander it in some perverse social programs to feed to lazy and pay the greedy.

Who do you think is going to be fighting your megalomaniac desires for you in the future?

It sure as hell won't be the detached, armchair-generals such as yourself nor will it be the upper crusts of the America.

It'll be the poor, tired and underprivileged as always.

Let me make a correction to that ridiculous assertion of yours:
Take power AWAY from the military-industrial complex, holding Washington by the balls and having innumerable lackeys within the Senate and Congress who will do or pass anything for them in order to have their invested share prices rise.

Maybe that is why the Army and the Marines to this day still use the M16 because their lives depend on it.

Or maybe it's because of 15 years of red-tape and failed programmes that have yet to produce a satisfactory successor?

Sheesh, it's never the military's fault is it? These guys are infallible.

Same hackneyed ignorant BS that doesnt deserve a response.

Well that was fun picking apart your Swiss-cheese arguments.

Come back to me when you have an understanding of the concept of COST TO BENEFIT RATIOS, and I might consider listening to you're very, very, very tiring conservative mantra.

[edit on 12/4/09 by The Godfather of Conspira]