It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

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

Thank you.


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


Is Robert Gates A Genius?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 08:32 PM

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
So tiresome...

I'm sure, fighting reason and fact is not going to be an easy battle.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
No they were part of programmes to replace current issue military technology.

Not research projects for god's sakes.

That like saying that every Cancer research program must cure cancer completely after it concludes! Which is utterly ridiculous. The aim of a research project may be to produce a new rifle for the infantry but that doesnt mean that not satisfying the Pentagon is tantamount to failure. This is something I stated repeatedly, yet apparently you simply dont seem to understand ?

Have you ever been exposed to ongoing research ever ? Please find out and educate yourself before making absurd allegations.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
DARPA didn't develop half those projects. The US Army did, again to replace current issue hardware.

I was refering to the ones DARPA was involved in like the X-51 etc. Moreover the point is still valid be it DARPA or the US Army or whatever.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Quick munitions lecture:

Airbust munition = Explodes while airborne.
Thermobaric = Fuel-air mixture designed to create an immense fireball and resulting pressure wave.

Thus ends the lecture. The 20mm Airburst munition developed for the OICW was not thermobaric.

You are simply ridiculous!

Please study what Thermobaric and Airburst actually mean rather than what you think they mean. In very simple terms Airburst is a mechanism of detonation. Thermobaric implies the type of detonation. You really cant compare the two.

What you need to wrap your head around is that fact that the OICW program though originally was intended to develop the XM29 grenade launcher that fired 20mm HE shells, in 2004 when it was canceled they split the program into three increments. The First increment was to continue developing a lightweight carbine, the second increment was to continue to develop the grenade launcher that fired the HE-AB munitions (which resulted in the XM25, M320, XM109, XM307) and the third increment was to combine both the first increment and the second increment. Now, the 20mm HEAB has been discontinued as you have asserted but the 25mm standalone HE AB launcher the XM25 is being developed and is considered quite successful! That technology was developed with the help of technology and experience gained from the OICW program.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira

Or the M203 replacement they now developed called the M320 ?? Yes, what useless work indeed!

Which is a 40mm impact-fuse grenade system. Not a 20mm airburst munition. AGAIN proving that the 20mm idea has been well and truly shelved.

My point was that, contrary to your claim that the OICW program was utterly a waste of resources, the M320 being an offshoot of that program is a viable alternative to a present day system- the M203.

As for the AirBurst munitions, they have continued to develop them, except in a 25mm version in the XM25 rather than a 20 mm version like in the XM29; which was rejected.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
A range finger detects the distance to a target ONLY.

Not windage, not correct azimuth for launch and sometimes it is necessary even when using a range finder to guesstimate, as it's preferred to explode a grenade a few metres overhead of a target to shower soldiers that are behind cover (which was the original purpose of the 20mm airburst).

That is totally incorrect! You have a surprising ability to state totally false information with great alacrity.

The whole point of the HE-AirBurst munition is the ability to calculate the exact point of detonation be they point, area or defilade. This is done through a Target acquisition/Fire control system. This is where the laser rangefinder comes into the picture. The soldier "paints" a target and activates the laser rangefinder. The TA/FC system calculates the ballistics and provides an adjusted aimpoint for the target. The soldier then adjusts his aim to center on the target. The TA/FC system provides this information to the air burst grenade and on its way down range measures the distance traveled and bursts precisely at the right point. This is how airburst munitions work and thats how they are delivered.

Your absurd claim of calculating windage and azimuth is ridiculous for an infantry weapon. They are not artillery or mortars, it is a mere grenade launcher!

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
That's cute. You think the military actually cares about human life.

As if your naivety couldn't become anymore blatant.

Maybe that's why they are spending Billions on the Future Force Warrior program and on other such programs to secure and equip individual soldiers.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Try comparing that to the cost of an M-4 or M-16, which even with the SOPMOD kit, comes down to less than a few hundred dollars per soldier.

Which is the primary concern at hand for the DOD.

These statements make no sense what-so-ever. Compare what to the M4 and the M16 ? You do realize that the M4 was inducted relatively recently into the Army dont you ?

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Yes and what are these ramjets being proposed for?

Hypersonic spy planes and bombers. The two programmes are intrinsically linked, as Blackswift cannot function without the success of the X-51 demonstrator to prove Ramjet engines are viable.

Again you are utterly and thoroughly ignorant of what you are saying.

The X-51 is a SCRAMJET not a ramjet. There is a MASSIVE difference. Please read up. Next, the main intention behind the X-51 as I have stated previously but obviously your mind couldnt comprehend it, was the Prompt Global Strike program. Please look it up.
Finally, the X-51 is an small pilot-less vehicle that is meant to simulate SCRAMJET technology for a cruise missile like object. To design a piloted vehicle like a bomber or a "spy plane" as you fantasize about would need much much more work and a much larger test program unlike the X-51.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
It's a proof of concept initiative to show the USAF, who has been highly sceptical of ramjet-powered aircraft, that it's feasible and practical.

More of the same here!

Firstly, the USAF has tested RAMJETS in the 50's and they worked beautifully then. In fact the SR-71 itself had a Fan-assisted RAMJET engine. Also, they are testing SCRAMJET engines on the X-51 program, which are completely different in scope and complexity.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
My god. The only thing Iraq & Afghanistan have strengthened is the notion that the US is incapable of fighting asymmetric warfare and all the fancy gizmos and high-tech research projects in the world cannot substitute for a bulky, disorganised and less-than-mobile military force.

Your statements are typically outrageously ignorant and utterly fallacious.

The US military has proved effectively today as witnessed by the whole world how advanced technology like the MQ-9 reapers and the thermobaric XM1060's etc have allowed the US to fight and WIN a highly asymmetrical war against aggressive opponents in treacherous terrain. The fact that the US can deploy rapidly to any corner of the world and fight even highly asymmetric battles effectively has proven the real strength and versatility of the US military.

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Sure they do, who will never want to complete another tour of duty once is Iraq & Afghanistan is over and done with.
Such is the mindset of people who never experience combat, however.

Please do not try to assume what you know of me. Unlike you I am not an armchair general who doesnt even have an educated guess as to what the military is.
Do you know how many soldiers have volunteered for a second tour or a third? Tell them, about your asinine theories about what they will or wont do!!

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Oh yeah definitely. A public, whom 70% of disagrees with the Iraq war is just dying to get blown up by an IED. I can see the logic in your argument there.

Firstly,CommonDreams is a ridiculous source and moreover that article is outdated. Secondly, here is a current article about military recruitment that should alleviate at least some of your ignorance. Baltimore Sun
Lastly, there is greater support for the war in Iraq and Afghanistan in America today with greater progress being made. Current disapproval for the surge in Afghanistan is a mere 38% according to one poll by Pew Research Center( Reuters )

Originally posted by The Godfather of Conspira
Like you have a damn clue. You do realise the Tamils originate from India? And have their own, self-designated state, Tamil Nadu, in Southern India:

Of course I have a clue. Unlike you I keep myself well informed of current events and so far the Tamils in India have not had any "insurgency" as you claim. An insurgent would imply a person who takes part in an armed rebellion against the state. The Tamils have not taken part in any armed rebellion against the Indian state. It is the Sri Lankan Tamils that have done so.

[edit on 14-4-2009 by IAF101]

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:12 PM
Weapons production is an ongoing service provided by many corporations in the US. To end the production is to lose the talent of thousands of engineers and manufacturers. It took us over 60 years to develop this coordinated talent, often referred to as the military industrial complex, and the US is not about to lose this ability. It has done enough downsizing.

Production of prototypes is an ongoing experiment in the satisfaction of the needs of the military services. Their needs change with the environments in which they are required to fly and fight. It is the duty of the citizenry to provide the best possible weaponry, ongoing support, and safety to our veterans. You would do this for yourself if you were faced with the same consequences.

The production of superior weapons is a huge export for the US. It assists in our balance of trade.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:43 PM
reply to post by Jim Scott

But how much of the money spent has led to something we have used or deployed? For the number of unsuccessful projects that spending that budget on research would produce, how great are the ones we put into production compared to the rest of the world?

I think a reduction is wise, because the money we give them isn't producing results. So far, they haven't put his as far ahead of the rest of the world that kind of budget should.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 09:54 PM
reply to post by TheDustman

Almost every "failed" project leads to new technologies that get down to the warfighter level. Most black projects eventually give us new technologies that we see in every day service. The SR-71 was one of the first aircraft to use any kind of stealth.

Just because we don't see black projects in huge numbers of these projects around the battlefield doesn't mean they're a failure. Many black projects are only technology demonstrators that lead to the "real" projects.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 10:33 PM
like somebody else said here...he's posted on texags. he's disqualified from "genius" status for life.

posted on Apr, 13 2009 @ 11:07 PM
I don't necessarily think we should be trimming back on projects that will keep our military advanced. In fact, I think some of these projects are good things.

A lot of the technology we have now actually is aging, and Russia and China are now developing technology that can challenge our own. Now, I don't think that we'll be going to war with either country any time soon, but the simple fact is that "big countries" like China, Russia, and the U.S. develop these weapons and eventually end up selling some of them.

So yes, we need to keep up with research and development on projects that will give us the ability to defeat advanced conventional Russian and Chinese technology - not for use against the Russians or the Chinese, but just in the event that their technology ends up being sold to our enemies.

Do we need thousands of F-22's? No. Probably not. But is it irrelevant? Not as long as other countries are developing fighter jets that render our current air force obsolete.

Do we need 11 carrier battle groups? No... but when I hear calls to "do away with the super carriers!" I cringe at the silliness of the idea. If we put a couple CBGs off the coast of Somalia, for example, I think some of that piracy would decline quite a bit. We do need carriers. Perhaps we should keep them at home when we aren't using them, instead of sailing them around the world making port calls just because we can?

The U.S. may spend more than the whole world combined on defense, but it has little to show for it compared to what it SHOULD have by now. In my opinion, it's not the projects that need to be cut. It's the highway robbery being perpetrated by the American military industrial complex. Put a stop to that, and you could probably cut the budget in half and yet achieve twice the results.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:40 AM
Anyone who doesn't think the U.S. military budget couldn't have some fat wrung out of the system is truly in love with big government and the military police state.

Yeah, conduct the research, but the technology paid for by taxpayers should belong to everyone and made available for use by the public, like NASA.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 02:06 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Except that the RAM coating for the F-22 doesn't do a damn thing for me sitting here in my room. Neither does a scramjet engine.

The research is done by private corporations at the behest of the Government. They should be rewarded for that, and they are, by being given a contract. The taxpayer pays for the military as well, should we all be allowed to have MRAPs, or Bradley Fighting Vehicles?

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:43 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

The corporation gets paid, that's what the corporation gets. Just like the engineer that actually develops the technology. If the people, through the government don't get the intellectual property rights, being that they paid for the technology, then the Engineer or engineers that actually make the break through and develop the technology should get the intellectual property rights, not the corporation middle men.

In fact, any technology developed should belong to the engineer who developed the technology, and not to the corporation.

It is just another example of how the corporate controlled CWO screws the public.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 08:48 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Except that engineers and scientists agree to give the rights to the company that pays them for anything they develop, as a result of working for that company. So the company owns the rights to what is developed by their employees.

How does a new armor coating for an Abrams MBT help me out? Or help the scientist that developed it? The only people it would benefit are the military folks using it.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:13 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I'm sure we can get corporations to agree to give the patent rights to the government in exchange for the contracts, just as Engineers and Scientist agree to give their intellectual property rights to the corporations for funding the research.

Just because you can't think of a commercial use for the armor coating of the Abrams, doesn't mean someone else couldn't think of a commercial usage. Paid for by the people should belong to the people. Huge amount of money goes to these corporations so they can search for people to do the research, we should get rid of the middle men. We were better off when this research was being primarily conducted by U.S. entities like NASA, or through non-profit grants to research institutes.

Seems by your reasoning, the attitude is screw the people, screw scientist and engineers, everything should belong to corporations.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:19 PM
reply to post by poet1b

No, it shouldn't be screw the people, everything for the corporations.
But show me ONE THING that depleted uranium armor would be useful for in a non-military role. Or RAM coating that is hazardous material. Or a long range missile. Or a dual combustion ramjet (which MIGHT have potential uses if they can make it work).

If it's something that can be used for people, then yes, they should, and in many cases DO use it for non-military uses. Many of the advances made for military aircraft were incorporated into civilian aircraft usage. In fact many military aircraft are offshoots of civilian designs.

There are a lot of materials that are also classified, but maybe we should sell those off too right? Let's let anyone buy the classified designs, so that anyone we may fight can get their hands on it and reverse engineer it and find weaknesses.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:30 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

I didn't say de-classify secret technology, I said make technology developed by companies working on government contracts available to all who can use it. While some technology has an almost purely military purpose and should remain classified, other technology that has other possible uses should be released to the general public. Classified technology should still remain classified, but something developed by Lockheed Martin that is classified should be available to Boeing in developing additional weapons systems.

Say another company wanted to develop space launch vehicles using ramjet technology. If they are U.S. based, and meet classification requirements, then they should have access to ramjet technology for their commercial purposes, as long as it is prevented from being leaked to other nations.

This is nothing new, back in the cold war days computer exports were highly classified to keep the USSR from reverse engineering the technology.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:37 PM
reply to post by poet1b

Except that they're still competing companies. They don't just say "Ok, we're going to give the F-35 contract to Lockheed this year, since Boeing got the last contract." They still have to compete for the contracts and get awarded them.

You should look into how aircraft and other things are built. Some of the F-22, which is built by Lockheed, is also built by Boeing. Despite Boeing being a competitor. The RAM, which was developed by Lockheed, is only handled by them, but a large portion of the structure is built by Boeing and shipped to Lockheed.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 10:57 PM
reply to post by Zaphod58

Yeah, they still compete with each other, but both still get to use the same technology which was developed through government defense contracts. Neither company owns the technology developed in these programs. The Fed gov owns it, and they can give that technology to any company they develop contracts with.

posted on Apr, 14 2009 @ 11:37 PM
reply to post by The Godfather of Conspira

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.

So, lets wait till Russia and China catch up to us before we decide to do anything about it? Its called air superiority for a reason. Our competitors may very well not be able to field a comparable fighter till the 2030's, but do we want to be behind the curve, or ahead of the game when that time comes?

<< 1  2   >>

log in