This is not a bash those who serve thread but rather a bash those who make the decisions thread. I've been through three drawdowns and survived them
all. The one common factor through all these drawdowns though was what I call, "The people vs. weapons" factor.
Snippet from the article.
Sequester is coming, sequester is coming!
Everyone in Washington is running around crying sequester, when automatic defense cuts are supposed to kick in Jan 1, 2013, and cut hundreds of
billions in defense spending, screaming: "Oh my! The sky will certainly fall!"
I have four words for them: Relax: No, it won't.
And as if to prove my point, the military is so flush The Army's hiring $90,000 a year acupuncturists to treat its troops. Times clearly ain't so
But this is what I am really alluding too. Another snippit from the article.
"The reality is that the Global Hawk system has proven not to be less expensive to operate than the U-2, and in many respects the Global Hawk
Block 30 system is not as capable—from a sensor perspective—as is the U-2,” he told Aviation Weekly.
And it's a ten year old program. It started in 2001, and has been refined since, and still has not met expectations.
Ohio lawmakers lost their minds though when the idea of cutting the program came up. Lost their bipartisan minds, that is.
Senator Sherrod Brown (D.) and Senator Rob Portman (R.), of the Senate Appropriations Committee the Senate Armed Services Committee respectively, both
sought to keep these programs despite the Pentagon advising against. The defense programs are connected to jobs in Ohio, and these senators want to
keep federal money in their districts because it serves as a stimulative effect to the local economy.
So here we have a program that the pentagon clearly does not want anymore, one that they favor in a more taxpayer friendly program that already
exists, but are shot down. Pun intended.
There are plenty more examples of this type of fighting going on between Congress and the Pentagon, such as the dual engine requirements for the
But the people who really pay the price for this bickering are the Joes and Janes that are deployed.
When I first entered the service we would do what is called PMCS (Preventive maintenance checks and services) daily on our equipment. If we found a
faulty piece we would replace it if it was available and if not order it and it would arrive within the day or so.
A couple of years back while downrange, I needed a new fan belt for one of my Up armored HUMMV’s and was told by maintenance to drive it until it
breaks, then we’ll get you a new one. Needless to say, I went ballistic.
R&D is needed of course, but not at the expense of giving those who need parts and equipment now for the equipment they currently have. New equipment
doesn’t magically appear when you need it.
To quote Donald Rumsfeld, “You fight with what you have.”
Ok, I get it, but please have the spare parts on hand if you are going to issue me substandard equipment...I’ll be needing them.
I’m really thinking that a “combat acupuncturist” is not needed on the battlefield, but rather a well trained medic instead.
Maybe they should follow the Marines who recently ordered a .45 cal pistol because it has the stopping power instead of being PC with NATO with the
9mm. We're seeing Vietnam era M14's being pulled out of storeage for the same reason.
Maybe, just maybe, the private sector should develop things with there own funds, AND THEN sell them to the Government. "Hey! look at we just
developed, we thought you may need this." It's a win-win for all involved.
The thing is it's is not so much that the Joes and Janes are such a drain, it's the unwanted R&D.
Hell, this rant is going all over the place, but I think you get the gist. If needed, I'll clarify.
I still don't have the off-site content thing down...sorry.
edit on 23-8-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)
23-8-2012 by TDawgRex because: (no reason given)
edit on 8/23/2012 by tothetenthpower because: --Mod Note--Please use [ EX ] tags for
edit on 8/23/2012 by tothetenthpower because: (no reason given)