Did Obama actually say or imply.... [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Did Obama actually say or imply....


.264 magnum
10-22-2012, 20:48
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?

If he did I'm sure Marines all about the world are wondering about that.

G36's Rule
10-22-2012, 20:54
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?

If he did I'm sure Marines all about the world are wondering about that.

Yeah, he stuck his foot in deep with that exchange.

m2hmghb
10-22-2012, 20:55
The Brits won't be happy with that. They did a bayonet charge in Iraq.

janice6
10-22-2012, 20:55
Yah, a big stick will work when you run out of ammunition.......Where to find a big stick?????????

Was he talking from his military experience?

camelotkid
10-22-2012, 20:58
Yah, a big stick will work when you run out of ammunition.......Where to find a big stick?????????

Was he talking from his military experience?
no he was talking about romneys military experience...you know in france...when he was...oh yea that was just a mission trip to spread his cult religion:whistling:

KalashniKEV
10-22-2012, 21:00
Multi tool > Bayonet.

.264 magnum
10-22-2012, 21:04
Multi tool > Bayonet.

What?

concretefuzzynuts
10-22-2012, 21:06
He looked desperate for some tag line.

Geko45
10-22-2012, 21:06
Well, it's not like his base would have any way of knowing any better.

AngryPanda
10-22-2012, 21:10
What?

If I was going to Iraq right now, and you said I could take a multi-tool, or bayo with me, multi tool every time.

I just watched a replay of the bayonet comment, doesn't take much to get ya'll all worked up does it?

.264 magnum
10-22-2012, 21:12
Well, it's not like his base would have any way of knowing how wrong he was on that point.

Good point. If one states something that is wrong in a forest and no one hears.......

.264 magnum
10-22-2012, 21:18
If I was going to Iraq right now, and you said I could take a multi-tool, or bayo with me, multi tool every time.

I just watched a replay of the bayonet comment, doesn't take much to get ya'll all worked up does it?

1. Why not take a multi-tool and a bayonet assuming one is a Marine?

2. I'm not worked up at all.

3. Are you OK with The President attempting to shame his opponent with an falsehood/bogus claim?

AngryPanda
10-22-2012, 21:24
1. Why not take a multi-tool and a bayonet assuming one is a Marine?

2. I'm not worked up at all.

3. Are you OK with The President attempting to shame his opponent with an falsehood/bogus claim?

1. Just agreeing with what Kalshnikev said about multi tool > Bayonet

2. Not saying anyone in particular, just looking forward to GT, facebook, and everyone at the gunshop talking about bayonets for days. I don't think Obama implied anything, other than what he meant to about warships.

3. It's a presidential debate, should I expect truth? What one muppet says to the other really doesn't bother me.

michael_b
10-22-2012, 21:27
Actually he said we have fewer bayonets now than we use to.

Odd choice of horses and bayonets.

Also his aircraft carrier comment was ludicrous. Schafer wouldn't let Romney respond although I doubt Romney would point out how many ships it takes to make a carrier battle group or how do you expect to enforce sanctions without strong naval power.


-On mobile

devildog2067
10-22-2012, 21:37
When I was in the infantry I used my bayonet all the time.

I opened crates with it, I chopped wood with it... one time they made me cut grass with it when the base lawnmowers were broken.

Basically I used it whenever I wasn't willing to abuse my own knife.

427
10-22-2012, 21:37
E-tool > Bayonet

KalashniKEV
10-22-2012, 22:10
When I was in the infantry I used my bayonet all the time.

Seriously?

Did you actually strap it to yourself and carry it around with you?

Did you have to carry the M40 pro mask on the other leg? :supergrin:

WarCry
10-22-2012, 22:22
The direct quote is:
"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed."

The last US bayonet charge was in 1951, in Korea. The last US Army training for bayonets ended in 2010.

Yes, the Marines still train and issue them. That falls under "fewer", as does the ceremonial horses used in parades and funerals, but they're not being used to pull cannons into firing range anymore.

So, the question posed is "Did Obama actually say or imply that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?"

The answer is that no, he didn't say we don't use them. The argument could be made that he implied we don't NEED them - and I don't think that's wrong.

I trained with a bayonet in the Army. Frankly, one of my favorite memories from Basic. And after that 8 week period (back in the early 90s), I never saw one again.*


*caveat before I get pounced on: No, I was not in a front-line combat unit. I was a REMF, but it never even came up again in the training we still had to maintain.

Tango 1Zero
10-22-2012, 22:32
**** Obama!

the iceman
10-22-2012, 22:36
I carried a bayonet everyday in Iraq. That would be a real shame if the Army got rid of them.

devildog2067
10-22-2012, 22:51
Seriously?

Did you actually strap it to yourself and carry it around with you?

Did you have to carry the M40 pro mask on the other leg? :supergrin:

Of course... and I carried a shelter half and tent poles in my pack. It was SOP after all!

But seriously, a bayonet isn't that heavy, and it was nice of Uncle Sam to issue me a knife I could use as a prybar or to dig small holes with.

Lampshade
10-22-2012, 23:11
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?

Try not to miss the forest for the trees on this one.

NIB
10-23-2012, 00:29
Seriously?

Did you actually strap it to yourself and carry it around with you?

Did you have to carry the M40 pro mask on the other leg? :supergrin:

Well when I left the 82nd and the Army we still strapped on our bayonets, promask, LBE gear, and the entire 82nd F'N packing list into the large rucksack. :supergrin:

What do they issue now fluffy pillows, a bed time story book, and pre-addressed post cards to their congressmen?

:tongueout:

The Maggy
10-23-2012, 00:36
11B in iraq; 2005, 2006, 2007, and 2008. I carried a bayonette over because we "had" to take them. My armsroom collected them in kuwait because we didn't need them.
Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Eurodriver
10-23-2012, 06:07
http://i50.tinypic.com/dg43th.jpg

I took this pic about 4 hours before I got on the bus to go to the airport to deploy to Iraq.

I knew it would come in handy one day.

And yeah, I had my bayonet on me all the time.

Bren
10-23-2012, 06:49
no he was talking about romneys military experience...you know in france...when he was...oh yea that was just a mission trip to spread his cult religion:whistling:

That would be a better comeback...if Romney had implied military service. As it is, that was just a weak attempt.

kensb2
10-23-2012, 06:57
I went through bayonet training in the Army, but I've yet to be issued one in 8 1/2 years, including 2 combat deployments. I'd say we probably "have" more bayonets than in 1916, but most are likely sitting in some warehouse boxed up. I think Obama sounded extremely condescending in that exchange. He did nothing to refute Romney's assertion that the NAVY said they needed 313 ships to complete their mission. Anyone have a cite one way or the other?

ricklee4570
10-23-2012, 07:14
When you are on the front lines a bayonet might come in handy.

If your behind the front lines, of course hand to hand combat would not be something likely to happen for you.

I heard the real warriors in my sons unit pretty much unanimously felt the Presidents comments concerning bayonets revealed just how out of touch with the military he really is. That and his constant comments about the military not asking for money! Hilarious. And people on the left really think the military wants their funding CUT, since they are not asking for any more money!

IvanVic
10-23-2012, 07:14
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?


No. He said "we have less bayonets."


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Bren
10-23-2012, 07:46
No. He said "we have less bayonets."


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."

Are you just pretending you don't understand the comment, or do you really not? That might explain your political viewpoint, I guess, if you can't even grasp that.

Aside from that, we don't have "less bayonets."

devildog2067
10-23-2012, 08:27
That and his constant comments about the military not asking for money! Hilarious. And people on the left really think the military wants their funding CUT, since they are not asking for any more money!

The military NEEDS its funding cut.

Not because they're greedy, but because we can't afford it. We don't have the money.

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2010/06/~/media/Images/Reports/2010/b2418_chart1_1.ashx?w=600&h=478&as=1

A 30-40% cut wouldn't even get us back to year 2000 levels.

The trick is, how do we maintain a strong military without spending so much money?

devildog2067
10-23-2012, 08:29
And yeah, I had my bayonet on me all the time.

Much as I was joking about it, and as much as I never had to stick a bayonet into anyone, most of the Marines I knew were the same way. I kept my bayonet (I had the older one, because you see back in the OLD Corps...) on my LBV and so did almost everyone else in the company.

IvanVic
10-23-2012, 09:07
"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military's changed."

Are you just pretending you don't understand the comment, or do you really not? That might explain your political viewpoint, I guess, if you can't even grasp that.

Aside from that, we don't have "less bayonets."

The OP asked this question:

.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?


As you correctly quoted, Obama said, "we have less bayonets," implying that while we still have them, the bayonet does not hold the same battlefield utility that it did during the revolutionary and civil war, for example.

Obama's remark was snide, un-presidential, and undoubtedly made him look bad, however, I'm at least intelligent enough to be honest - and Obama never said "we do not use/need bayonets anymore."

Anglin_AZ
10-23-2012, 09:46
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?

If he did I'm sure Marines all about the world are wondering about that.

Just to be fair, he didn't say we don't use them he said we have less of them and horses as well.

vart
10-23-2012, 10:00
It's a comment not worth discussing...

But it is worth posting that it's not worth discussing...:whistling:

kensb2
10-23-2012, 10:02
What's an aircraft carrier again? Is that the one that goes underwater while playing Battleship?

engineer151515
10-23-2012, 10:16
The military isn't asking Obama for equipment.

The rich aren't asking for tax breaks.


Hell, has somebody checked to see if the President's phone is simply unplugged?

As far as he knows, the unemployed aren't asking for any jobs either.

domin8ss
10-23-2012, 10:20
no he was talking about romneys military experience...you know in france...when he was...oh yea that was just a mission trip to spread his cult religion:whistling:

You're such an idiot. His ”cult religion” happens to be very supportive of guns, to the degree that Utah is the only state in the country with an official state gun.

As for Romney and Vietnam, he was in France before the draft. Romney was in college during the draft years earning his bachelors degree in business and then juris doctorate.

ray9898
10-23-2012, 10:23
It is a correct statement, not really sure where the 'outrage' is on this one.

mgs
10-23-2012, 10:44
The military isn't asking Obama for equipment.

The rich aren't asking for tax breaks.


Hell, has somebody checked to see if the President's phone is simply unplugged?

As far as he knows, the unemployed aren't asking for any jobs either.

Great observation! I carry a knife more than a gun so I guess I'm old-school and obsolete while at work. A knife also makes less noise!

Haldor
10-23-2012, 10:57
.....that the modern military does not use/need bayonets?

If he did I'm sure Marines all about the world are wondering about that.

What I got out of it was that he thinks ships are as obsolete as horse cavalry.

What an idiotic response. With the end of our Iraq involvement and the drawdown in Afghanistan we do need to restructure our military forces. My opinion is we should do the following:

The Navy needs to be significantly expanded. The Navy and Marine corp together makes up the only military force we have that can project meaningful force without requiring extensive overseas bases and the political liabilities these bases create. Together the Navy/Marine corp provides the capability to rapidly respond with credible force to events anywhere in the world. We just need to be sure they can deal with more than one major event at the same time. Today's Navy lacks the ships to do that. The Marine Corp should stay about the same size it currently is. It just needs to be restructured to fit their new role (actually returning to it's pre-Afghanistan role)

The Army should remain about the same size it currently is, except it should to transition to a primarily reserve force. The Army's role is to provide long term staying power for prolonged engagements. The Army is not a rapid reaction force and it is both wasteful and stupid to pretend otherwise. By the time the Navy can get their equipment to where it is needed, the reserve Army units can be brought up to full readiness.

The Army does need organic fixed wing aviation forces and the Air Force is no longer facing a cold war Soviet Union threat. The Air Force has outlived its usefulness as an independent military organization and should be reabsorbed by the Army.

The savings created by getting rid of an independent Air Force and converting the Army to a primarily reserve force would easily fund the expansion of the Navy.

Which is more going to be intimidating to a rogue nation? The Army and Air Force sitting in their bases in the USA or the Navy and Marines sailing 200 miles off their shorelines.

WarCry
10-23-2012, 11:13
What I got out of it was that he thinks ships are as obsolete as horse cavalry.

What an idiotic response. With the end of our Iraq involvement and the drawdown in Afghanistan we do need to restructure our military forces. My opinion is we should do the following:

Air Force is reabsorbed by Army. Army needs organic fixed wing aviation forces and the Air Force is no longer facing a cold war situation against the Warsaw Pact.

Army needs to transition to a mostly reserve force. The Army is not a rapid reaction force and it is pretend otherwise.

Navy/Marine corp needs to be significantly expanded. This is the only military force we have that can project force without requiring extensive overseas bases. Together the Navy/Marine corp provide the capability to rapidly respond with credible forces to events anywhere in the world.

I'm not sure about combining AF/Army again, simply because the AF also has air-lift missions, not just combat. Keeping them separate lets them run on their own commands.

Back to the statement from the debate, I think what he was saying isn't the ships are obsolete. He was saying - in my view - that with technology, you don't need as MANY ships. A job that used to take a massive amount of keels - hitting multiple land-based targets, for instance - can now be done with one platform with high-end launch capabilities. So, where it might have taken 5, 6, 7 destroyers in the WWII era to complete a particular mission, now that same mission can be completed with one Aegis-equipped ship.

Yes, that reduces the number of ships. But it's not a reduction in capability.

IvanVic
10-23-2012, 11:18
It is a correct statement, not really sure where the 'outrage' is on this one.

I'm glad to see I'm not the only sane one around here.

SGT278ACR
10-23-2012, 11:33
What I got out of it was that he thinks ships are as obsolete as horse cavalry.

What an idiotic response. With the end of our Iraq involvement and the drawdown in Afghanistan we do need to restructure our military forces. My opinion is we should do the following:

The Navy needs to be significantly expanded. The Navy and Marine corp together makes up the only military force we have that can project meaningful force without requiring extensive overseas bases and the political liabilities these bases create. Together the Navy/Marine corp provides the capability to rapidly respond with credible force to events anywhere in the world. We just need to be sure they can deal with more than one major event at the same time. Today's Navy lacks the ships to do that. The Marine Corp should stay about the same size it currently is, just be restructured to fit their new role (actually returning to it's pre-Afghanistan role)

The Army should remain about the same size it currently is, except it should to transition to a primarily reserve force. The Army's role is to provide long term staying power for prolonged engagements. The Army is not a rapid reaction force and it is both wasteful and stupid to pretend otherwise. By the time the Navy can get their equipment to where it is needed, the reserve Army units can be brought up to full readiness.

The Army does needs organic fixed wing aviation forces and the Air Force is no longer facing a cold war Soviet Union threat. The Air Force has outlived its usefulness as an independent military organization and should be reabsorbed by the Army.

The savings created by getting rid of the Air Force and converting the Army to a primarily reserve force would easily fund the expansion of the Navy. Which is more going to be intimidating to a rogue nation? The Army and Air Force sitting in their bases in the USA or the Navy and Marines sailing 200 miles off their shorelines.

I agree 100% that the Navy/USMC needs to be significantly expanded, however, I'm curious about what your assessment of the Army & Air Force is based upon. Would you care to elaborate?

BuckyP
10-23-2012, 11:58
Obama successfully diverted the conversation, and IIRC Romney wasn't able to respond. What was missed is that funding is not just to keep the status quo and expand on it, but get it to the next level. The same way we went from horses to jeeps, jeeps to HumVees, etc.... which is how you get much "fewer horses".

ustate
10-23-2012, 12:08
no he was talking about romneys military experience...you know in france...when he was...oh yea that was just a mission trip to spread his cult religion:whistling:

Feel free then to vote for Obama and not the guy from that 'cult religion'. My dad spent time spreading our 'cult religion' and went to Vietnam.

RimfireMan
10-23-2012, 12:33
It is a correct statement, not really sure where the 'outrage' is on this one.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, too many posters on GT spend their time looking for something to get their panties in a wad.
:upeyes:

AK_Stick
10-23-2012, 12:40
What I got out of it was that he thinks ships are as obsolete as horse cavalry.

What an idiotic response. With the end of our Iraq involvement and the drawdown in Afghanistan we do need to restructure our military forces. My opinion is we should do the following:

The Navy needs to be significantly expanded. The Navy and Marine corp together makes up the only military force we have that can project meaningful force without requiring extensive overseas bases and the political liabilities these bases create. Together the Navy/Marine corp provides the capability to rapidly respond with credible force to events anywhere in the world. We just need to be sure they can deal with more than one major event at the same time. Today's Navy lacks the ships to do that. The Marine Corp should stay about the same size it currently is. It just needs to be restructured to fit their new role (actually returning to it's pre-Afghanistan role)

The Army should remain about the same size it currently is, except it should to transition to a primarily reserve force. The Army's role is to provide long term staying power for prolonged engagements. The Army is not a rapid reaction force and it is both wasteful and stupid to pretend otherwise. By the time the Navy can get their equipment to where it is needed, the reserve Army units can be brought up to full readiness.

The Army does need organic fixed wing aviation forces and the Air Force is no longer facing a cold war Soviet Union threat. The Air Force has outlived its usefulness as an independent military organization and should be reabsorbed by the Army.

The savings created by getting rid of an independent Air Force and converting the Army to a primarily reserve force would easily fund the expansion of the Navy.

Which is more going to be intimidating to a rogue nation? The Army and Air Force sitting in their bases in the USA or the Navy and Marines sailing 200 miles off their shorelines.


I'm certainly glad your not in charge because that is a ridiculously poor thought out, wasteful approach. And would result in a net loss of capability, and and increased loss rate the next time we deploy to a conflict.

Increasing the size of the Marine Corps will not greatly improve their combat capability. They are not, and will never be a major war fighting unit. Trying to make them so, is a foolish and costly venture we can't afford.

Similarly, removing the army's RDFs and making them a reserve fighting force is something I can only imagine as thought up by someone who lacks any sort of familierity with the .mil and their respective capabilitys and roles.

4 glocks
10-23-2012, 12:57
Darn, now I have to stockpile horses and bayonets.

RimfireMan
10-23-2012, 13:03
Darn, now I have to stockpile horses and bayonets.
They complement your collection of VHS videos! :rofl:

4 glocks
10-23-2012, 13:12
They complement your collection of VHS videos! :rofl:

No 78 rpm records and 8 track tapes.

Eurodriver
10-23-2012, 13:52
Much as I was joking about it, and as much as I never had to stick a bayonet into anyone, most of the Marines I knew were the same way. I kept my bayonet (I had the older one, because you see back in the OLD Corps...) on my LBV and so did almost everyone else in the company.

The Old Corps? Did you wear the tri-color camo and have to polish your boots?

So happy I didn't have to do either of those. (The collars on the MARPAT cammies are rounded, so it only took 10 seconds to put your rank on when you woke up half drunk on Monday morning)

Of course, in the new Corps, these young devil pups don't even roll their sleeves anymore. At least I've got that on them ;)

NIB
10-23-2012, 14:55
Didn't we just have a thread where Congress was forcing the Army to buy tanks it didn't want. I remember Congress also forcing the Air Force to buy C-17 aircraft that it didn't want some years ago. And that's just what has leaked so far. Who knows what else and how much Congress has forced the military to buy because of Congressmen slapping each other on the butts.

As we speak, the Army is looking into getting a new physical fitness uniform and a new camouflage pattern. Nothing but a waste of money if you ask me. There is nothing wrong with the current PT uniform that would require a new uniform all together. As for a new camouflage pattern, they are already issuing multicam overseas. Just make it Army wide by slowly replacing worn out ACU pattern gear.

If we were to get Congress out of telling us what we need and stop making the military into a fashion show then that would help.

racer11
10-23-2012, 15:05
http://i50.tinypic.com/dg43th.jpg

I took this pic about 4 hours before I got on the bus to go to the airport to deploy to Iraq.

I knew it would come in handy one day.

And yeah, I had my bayonet on me all the time.

Did you take that bayonet with you,,,and,,,it looks like you did take yer sheets with you.

Eurodriver
10-23-2012, 15:37
Did you take that bayonet with you,,,and,,,it looks like you did take yer sheets with you.

Of course.

The sheets were turned into the Battalion three days before we deployed, along with all of our personal effects.

Meaning we went 3 days with only the stuff we were deploying with. Only had one pair of civilian clothes, no car, no TV, no cell phone, etc etc.

devildog2067
10-23-2012, 16:04
The Old Corps? Did you wear the tri-color camo and have to polish your boots?


We got MARPAT and rough-side-out boots right as I was getting out.

Builds character, or something.

Boot Stomper
10-24-2012, 00:54
The Brits won't be happy with that. They did a bayonet charge in Iraq.

Can you give more information on this event in iraq. It sounds interesting.

Boot Stomper
10-24-2012, 00:58
Darn, now I have to stockpile horses and bayonets.


Maybe this is what Obama had in mind with horses. He did admit to eating dog.

http://eatocracy.cnn.com/2011/11/30/horse-coming-soon-to-a-meat-case-near-you/


Yes Obama fans he did eat dog. Listen in his own words. The weird thing about his statement is he says, "Away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat...." Just where was he eating dog?? Strays in the street??

Obama Admits that He Ate Dog Meat - YouTube

AK_Stick
10-24-2012, 01:12
When you are on the front lines a bayonet might come in handy.

If your behind the front lines, of course hand to hand combat would not be something likely to happen for you.

I heard the real warriors in my sons unit pretty much unanimously felt the Presidents comments concerning bayonets revealed just how out of touch with the military he really is. That and his constant comments about the military not asking for money! Hilarious. And people on the left really think the military wants their funding CUT, since they are not asking for any more money!


Honestly, the bayonet sucks for a fighting knife. And we haven't really used it as such for years. Even on the front line, the guys who are getting into knife action, are generally carrying their own knives. Striders, Randall etc.

Most of the infantry guys I knew, never carried the M-9, if they were even issued, they were back in the room, because it was useless gear. Mostly they got used for prying crates, and opening MRE's. Even then, with the wide issue of multi-tools, to almost everyone, they were over sized for even that.


The only time I ever used my M-9 in Iraq was when I was on gate guard, because the Iraqi's didn't like them, and they looked mean, and as such, they were much more willing to cooperate.

Lampshade
10-24-2012, 07:13
Yes Obama fans he did eat dog. Listen in his own words. The weird thing about his statement is he says, "Away from the dinner table, I was introduced to dog meat...." Just where was he eating dog?? Strays in the street??

He ate dog, so what? People do that in some places around the world.

Are we supposed to get all upset, teary eyed and emotional about him eating dog?

Talk about lib tactics. :upeyes:

kensb2
10-24-2012, 07:23
He ate dog, so what? People do that in some places around the world.

Are we supposed to get all upset, teary eyed and emotional about him eating dog?

Talk about lib tactics. :upeyes:

+1
I too ate dog when I was stationed in Korea. I would've tried horse as well, but we had a platoon function the night my buddies went out to try it.

Averageman
10-24-2012, 07:39
In the context of the argument it was a snappy line, what it means to the guys on the ground?
Perhaps a smaller Navy with bigger ships could work, but history says we need smaller escort Ships also.
Perhaps a smaller Army with more Reserve and National Guard units "rounding out" the numbers would work, but again history shows you need the highly technical positions staffed by regular forces. It simply takes to long to be tactically proficent with some weapons systems.
I think we need to less politics and more practical experiance.

Haldor
10-24-2012, 17:50
- Stupid post

Haldor
10-24-2012, 18:05
I agree 100% that the Navy/USMC needs to be significantly expanded, however, I'm curious about what your assessment of the Army & Air Force is based upon. Would you care to elaborate?

Basically we are not fighting any high intensity wars. If a high intensity war does start it is going to take the Army a significant amount of time to deploy its equipment (an Army unit without its gear is not terribly useful). During that build-up and deployment the reserve units will be able to reach full operational levels (like they did during the first Gulf War).

To give the Army sufficient time to deploy and gear up we do need a strong rapid reaction force who can hold an aggressor in check for a set period of time. I can't imagine any US force that can do that better than the Marine Corp backed up by the Navy.

Reasons for the Air Force to exist:

- Defense force able to stop a full scale Soviet attack either in Europe or on the USA. No longer needed.

- Strategic Missile/Bomber Command. No longer needed.

- Rapid deployment of Army assets. No longer needed if Marine Corp is dedicated rapid reaction force. Normal deployment of Army units is by ship (Navy).

- Regional Air superiority for deployed Army Unit. Still valid, this is a role the Air Force wants badly however they are handicapped in doing this by a lack of overseas air bases. No cold war, no overseas bases to speak of.

- Close Air support for deployed Army Units. Still valid, this is not a role the Air Force wants at all.

The last two missions for the Air Force are still valid and they would do them better than they do now if they were under the control of the Army. That is why I believe the time has come to fold the Air Force back into the Army. Doing so will greatly reduce inter-service wrangling and as an additional benefit will permit the Army to use whatever air platform best suits a particular purpose instead of trying to do everything with a helicopter.

WarCry
10-24-2012, 18:13
Is that in constant dollars?

Upper right of the image says it's in 2005 dollars.

Haldor
10-24-2012, 18:28
Yes, that reduces the number of ships. But it's not a reduction in capability.

Reducing the number of ships did reduce our capability. We made a conscious decision during the Clinton presidency to no longer have the ability to win two simultaneous conflicts at the same time. That was not an unreasonable position at the time following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Iraq and Afghanistan have consumed our attention and resources for the last 10 years. Now that these are winding down it is time to rethink where we spend our resources.

We now face a China that is seriously upgrading its war making capability and is becoming more confrontational. We need to respond to that new reality and in the Pacific the only way to do that is to expand our Navy. Since increased military spending is highly unlikely the only way to do that is to take money from the other branches. That means reducing the cost of the Army and Air Force, which led to the thinking in my previous post.

Haldor
10-24-2012, 18:30
Upper right of the image says it's in 2005 dollars.

Noticed that as soon as I posted. Thanks.

SGT278ACR
10-24-2012, 19:16
Basically we are not fighting any high intensity wars. If a high intensity war does start it is going to take the Army a significant amount of time to deploy its equipment (an Army unit without its gear is not terribly useful). During that build-up and deployment the reserve units will be able to reach full operational levels (like they did during the first Gulf War).

To give the Army sufficient time to deploy and gear up we do need a strong rapid reaction force who can hold an aggressor in check for a set period of time. I can't imagine any US force that can do that better than the Marine Corp backed up by the Navy.

Reasons for the Air Force to exist:

- Defense force able to stop a full scale Soviet attack either in Europe or on the USA. No longer needed.

- Strategic Missile/Bomber Command. No longer needed.

- Rapid deployment of Army assets. No longer needed if Marine Corp is dedicated rapid reaction force. Normal deployment of Army units is by ship (Navy).

- Regional Air superiority for deployed Army Unit. Still valid, this is a role the Air Force wants badly however they are handicapped in doing this by a lack of overseas air bases. No cold war, no overseas bases to speak of.

- Close Air support for deployed Army Units. Still valid, this is not a role the Air Force wants at all.

The last two missions for the Air Force are still valid and they would do them better than they do now if they were under the control of the Army. That is why I believe the time has come to fold the Air Force back into the Army. Doing so will greatly reduce inter-service wrangling and as an additional benefit will permit the Army to use whatever air platform best suits a particular purpose instead of trying to do everything with a helicopter.

Interesting, however, I really can't see any tangible logic in any of this, just more of your personal perception. I ask this with all due respect... have you served in the US Armed Forces; and, if so, how long, where and what branch?

raven11
10-24-2012, 20:26
Basically we are not fighting any high intensity wars. If a high intensity war does start it is going to take the Army a significant amount of time to deploy its equipment (an Army unit without its gear is not terribly useful). During that build-up and deployment the reserve units will be able to reach full operational levels (like they did during the first Gulf War).

To give the Army sufficient time to deploy and gear up we do need a strong rapid reaction force who can hold an aggressor in check for a set period of time. I can't imagine any US force that can do that better than the Marine Corp backed up by the Navy.

Reasons for the Air Force to exist:

- Defense force able to stop a full scale Soviet attack either in Europe or on the USA. No longer needed.

- Strategic Missile/Bomber Command. No longer needed.

- Rapid deployment of Army assets. No longer needed if Marine Corp is dedicated rapid reaction force. Normal deployment of Army units is by ship (Navy).

- Regional Air superiority for deployed Army Unit. Still valid, this is a role the Air Force wants badly however they are handicapped in doing this by a lack of overseas air bases. No cold war, no overseas bases to speak of.

- Close Air support for deployed Army Units. Still valid, this is not a role the Air Force wants at all.

The last two missions for the Air Force are still valid and they would do them better than they do now if they were under the control of the Army. That is why I believe the time has come to fold the Air Force back into the Army. Doing so will greatly reduce inter-service wrangling and as an additional benefit will permit the Army to use whatever air platform best suits a particular purpose instead of trying to do everything with a helicopter.

:rofl::rofl: this post is soo full of fail I really don't know where to begin

first of all our your making the same mistake every administration makes, fighting the next war based on the last one , just because the Russian hoard went away doesn't mean that other world powers like China doesn't think twice of a large standing Air Force that because of Air to Air Refuling and nearby bases can be anywhere in the globe in 24h

2nd you are seriously suggesting we get rid of missile command? which is one one of our nuclear deterrents and is available 24/7 and due to its location in the center of the country is safe from attack, our bomber force brought North Vietnam to the negotiation table, made iraqi units surrender after a strike , the stealth bombers in the inventory can hit any target regardless of SAM or other Air Defense threats

2nd the Marines may pride themselves on "rapid reaction force" but that does not mean you completely take away the Army capability to rapidly deploy by Air. with a Squadron of C-17 you can deploy any Army battalion with equipment anywhere in the globe. if you need Abrams tanks yes you can load them on a ship if you had the time or you can get a C-17 or C-5 and have them overseas in a couple of days. we cannot rely on every enemy letting us build up our forces in front of them. do you suggest the 82nd Airborne does parachute drops from Navy Ships? our troops in Afghanistan are brought in by air even those Marines unless our C-17 are owned by the Navy and no one told me. and how about if we need MRAP because men are dying in IED attacks are you going to tell them- yea the new MRAP we ordered will be here in 3-4 weeks or load three into a C-17 and be there in a day give or take.

and what is this BS about no overseas bases

Germany Geilenkirchen NATO Air Base MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:1525,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.e3a.nato.int/) Ramstein AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:1840,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.ramstein.af.mil/) Spangdahlem AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:1915,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.spangdahlem.af.mil/) Guam Andersen AFB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2110,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.andersen.af.mil/) Hungary Papa Air Base MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20168,INSTALLATION) Base site Italy Aviano Air Base MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2380,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.aviano.af.mil/) Ghedi Air Base MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20172,INSTALLATION) Base site Japan Kadena AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2530,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.kadena.af.mil/) Misawa AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2575,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.misawa.af.mil/) Yokota AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2620,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.yokota.af.mil/) South Korea Kunsan AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2875,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.kunsan.af.mil/) Osan Air Base MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:2890,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.osan.af.mil/) Norway Stavanger MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:10,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.501csw.usafe.af.mil/units/rafstavanger/index.asp) Portugal Lajes Field MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:360,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.lajes.af.mil/) Spain Morón AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20111,INSTALLATION) Base site Turkey Incirlik AB MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:4615,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.incirlik.af.mil/) Izmir AS MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:4630,INSTALLATION) Base site Office of Defense Cooperation, Turkey MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:20159,INSTALLATION) Base site U.K. RAF Alconbury, RAF Molesworth, RAF Upwood MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:4645,INSTALLATION) Base site RAF Croughton, RAF Fairford MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:8,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.501csw.usafe.af.mil/units/rafstavanger/index.asp) RAF Lakenheath MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:4690,INSTALLATION) Base site (http://www.lakenheath.af.mil/) RAF Menwith Hill MOS (http://apps.mhf.dod.mil/pls/psgprod/f?p=132:CONTENT:3611338170648963::NO::P4_INST_ID,P4_INST_TYPE:4695,INSTALLATION) Base site RAF Mildenhall
and that list doesn't include the air bases in Hawaii , Guam , Qatar , etc

i will agree that sometimes the Air Force seems not too on CAS because it tries to retire the A-10 after every conflict but the A-10 is a tank buster made in 70's made by a company that no longer exist. the F-35 will be able to carry newer weapons, have advance avionics and communications gear, and is faster to target than a A-10 CAS is still a mission the AF has

Annoyedgrunt
10-24-2012, 20:45
When I was in the infantry I used my bayonet all the time.

I opened crates with it, I chopped wood with it... one time they made me cut grass with it when the base lawnmowers were broken.

Basically I used it whenever I wasn't willing to abuse my own knife.

OK, come clean- that was punishment duty, wasn't it? :rofl:

That sounds almost like the "cover and align these rocks!" (pointing to a pile of gravel) duty that the DI's would sometimes bestow the less-than-stellar recruits.

AK_Stick
10-24-2012, 21:13
Basically we are not fighting any high intensity wars.



Because the war we are currently in, is not a high intensity conflict with another significant military element, does not mean that the next one will not be.


Taking Iraq, was a high intensity war.



Your lane sir, you are out of it.

NIB
10-24-2012, 22:39
Interesting, however, I really can't see any tangible logic in any of this, just more of your personal perception. I ask this with all due respect... have you served in the US Armed Forces; and, if so, how long, where and what branch?

I was going to ask the same question.

Haldor
10-25-2012, 16:56
Because the war we are currently in, is not a high intensity conflict with another significant military element, does not mean that the next one will not be.


Taking Iraq, was a high intensity war.



Your lane sir, you are out of it.

How long did it take for us to build up to take Iraq? Did rapid deployment of Army forces play any role in the Iraq war?

I am not saying get rid of the Army or get rid of airplanes. I am saying put the Air Force back inside the Army so they will focus on what the Army needs. Having an independent Air Force means that providing the Army with the aviation assets they need costs a lot more than it needs to.

Haldor
10-25-2012, 17:19
:rofl::rofl: this post is soo full of fail I really don't know where to begin

first of all our your making the same mistake every administration makes, fighting the next war based on the last one , just because the Russian hoard went away doesn't mean that other world powers like China doesn't think twice of a large standing Air Force that because of Air to Air Refuling and nearby bases can be anywhere in the globe in 24h


Put the same resources into carriers and naval aviation and those planes will be where they need to be if we do have to face China. Are you suggesting we stage close air support in the South Pacific Sea from 2000 miles away in Guam? If we still had our bases in the Philippines then this would be a less ludicrous idea, but that's right, air bases on foreign soil are subject to political problems (which is the point I tried to make).

2nd you are seriously suggesting we get rid of missile command? which is one one of our nuclear deterrents and is available 24/7 and due to its location in the center of the country is safe from attack, our bomber force brought North Vietnam to the negotiation table, made iraqi units surrender after a strike , the stealth bombers in the inventory can hit any target regardless of SAM or other Air Defense threats


Have you forgotten about nuclear missile subs? Cruise missiles? The reasons we built them was because our land based missiles were not secure against an enemy attack and locating them in the continental USA makes this the prime target for enemy missiles. Our land based missiles haven't played any meaningful role in nuclear deterrence in the last 30 years. I am not suggesting that the Air Force capability go away, just the wasteful independent organization instead.

Today's nuclear bomber force is just an Air Force wet dream. Stealth is no longer the panacea you seem to think it is. Our potential enemies have had lots of time to find counters to it.


2nd the Marines may pride themselves on "rapid reaction force" but that does not mean you completely take away the Army capability to rapidly deploy by Air. with a Squadron of C-17 you can deploy any Army battalion with equipment anywhere in the globe. if you need Abrams tanks yes you can load them on a ship if you had the time or you can get a C-17 or C-5 and have them overseas in a couple of days. we cannot rely on every enemy letting us build up our forces in front of them.

What can an air deployed Army battalion do that a Marine expeditionary brigade can't do quicker and better? And unlike the Army battalion, the Marine unit brings it's own organic aviation assets and typically is going to have a carrier task force in the vicinity for air superiority and deep strike capability. The Army has to beg these along with transport from the Air Force and the Navy.


do you suggest the 82nd Airborne does parachute drops from Navy Ships? our troops in Afghanistan are brought in by air even those Marines unless our C-17 are owned by the Navy and no one told me. and how about if we need MRAP because men are dying in IED attacks are you going to tell them- yea the new MRAP we ordered will be here in 3-4 weeks or load three into a C-17 and be there in a day give or take.

When was the last time anybody did a large scale combat parachute drop? As I said above I wasn't suggesting destroying the planes in the Air Force, rather giving them (along with their pilots and support people) to the Army to use as best fits their need.

and what is this BS about no overseas bases

I will ask, how many of those bases you listed are in the Pacific? The problem is not having overseas bases, the problem is having them where they do you any good.

Laugh all you want. We are most likely going to have to reduce military spending and yet we somehow have to face an increasing military threat in the Pacific. Would you be willing to cut the navy and give that money to the Airforce/Army instead given that mission? Explain to me again how Army battalions and air bases in Europe are going to deal with the Pacific.

Sporaticus
10-25-2012, 17:21
The direct quote is:
"Well, Governor, we also have fewer horses and bayonets, because the nature of our military’s changed."

Good to see someone with integrity, quoting it right. :wavey:

raven11
10-25-2012, 17:38
I will ask, how many of those bases you listed are in the Pacific? The problem is not having overseas bases, the problem is having them where they can do you any good.

Laugh all you want. We are most likely going to have to reduce military spending and yet we somehow have to face an increasing military threat in the Pacific. Would you be willing to cut the navy and give that money to the Airforce/Army instead given that mission? Explain to me again how Army battalions and air bases in Europe are going to deal with the Pacific.

Go to the store and buy a a world map, we have three airbases in Japan one of them on Okinawa which is roughly 514 miles away from China , two in South Korea, one in Guam

Last time I checked those are in the Pacific

fnfalman
10-25-2012, 17:41
A bayonet is a nice cutting tool to have for those who don't want to buy their own knives. However, the M9 is stupidly heavy in its current package. Also, a bayonet charge with chopped down M16s look rather...unscary?

fnfalman
10-25-2012, 17:46
To give the Army sufficient time to deploy and gear up we do need a strong rapid reaction force who can hold an aggressor in check for a set period of time.

Yes, and it's called the 18th Airborne Corps. Well, a couple of light infantry outfits too but we don't count legs as part of the RDF.

Drop a Division Readiness Brigade from the 82nd Airborne on top of somebody's head, and if they haven't cried uncle by the end of the day, the Division Readiness Brigade from the 101st Airborne would be there to finish them off.

Sometimes I really wonder what the heck does Uncle Sam need with the rest of the Army much less the other branches. Well, the Air Force does a pretty good job as delivery service.

If you ain't Airborne, you ain't squat.

Haldor
10-25-2012, 17:48
Go to the store and buy a a world map, we have three airbases in Japan one of them on Okinawa which is roughly 514 miles away from China , two in South Korea, one in Guam

Last time I checked those are in the Pacific

You are assuming that if there is a conflict with China that Japan and Korea are going to let us launch attacks from their territory when facing a real threat of war with China. Remember the 1986 F111 bombing raids on Libya that we had to send from the UK, because none of our Nato Allies would let us use our air bases in their countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

That was against a 2-bit third world dictator. Imagine how tight the sphincter factor is going to be in Japan and Korea if it means going against China in their home waters?

Air bases on foreign soil are not something you can count on when the SHTF. Sure if somebody was attacking Korea or Japan, they would fine with us using them to defend them. If letting us use them means risking war with China? Probably not so much.

raven11
10-25-2012, 18:04
You are assuming that if there is a conflict with China that Japan and Korea are going to let us launch attacks from their territory when facing a real threat of war with China. Remember the 1986 F111 bombing raids on Libya that we had to send from the UK, because none of our Nato Allies would let us use our air bases in their countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

That was against a 2-bit third world dictator. Imagine how tight the sphincter factor is going to be in Japan and Korea if it means going against China in their home waters?

Air bases on foreign soil are not something you can count on when the SHTF. Sure if somebody was attacking Korea or Japan, they would fine with us using them to defend them. If letting us use them means risking war with China? Probably not so much.

Japan doesn't stop our EP-3C signals intelligence aircraft out of Okinawa even after one of them was downed nor objected when we sailed a carrier battle group down the Taiwan Strait based out of Japan , Guam is a U.S. Protectorate, and Korea after years of China supporting North Korea and tensions like the stabbing of a SK coast guard officer by Chinese fishermen means there is no love for China in the SK government

AK_Stick
10-25-2012, 21:19
How long did it take for us to build up to take Iraq? Did rapid deployment of Army forces play any role in the Iraq war?

I am not saying get rid of the Army or get rid of airplanes. I am saying put the Air Force back inside the Army so they will focus on what the Army needs. Having an independent Air Force means that providing the Army with the aviation assets they need costs a lot more than it needs to.



And I, and alot of other people, who have spent some time inside the giant military machine are telling you, that you're talking about a subject, that you do not have a very good grasp on.



We didn't use the RDF capability of the Army, when building up for Iraq, because we didn't need to. We had strategic bases with which to stage from, while still maintaining our RDF's incase something went south while we were preparing for war.

From executive notice, we have multiple units, either forward deployed, or capable, from the contiguous US, who are capable of being wheels up, and headed into combat, in less than 18 hrs. They literally live with bags packed, ready to go, as soon as the call comes in.



We take our time, because it pays to, when deploying a unit, and things are scheduled months out to avoid conflict. When a war is looming, and we're not doing haz-mat paperwork, we're not doing OSHA safety requirements, we can expedite the process considerably. I can have 20 helicopters ready for shipment

AK_Stick
10-25-2012, 21:24
You are assuming that if there is a conflict with China that Japan and Korea are going to let us launch attacks from their territory when facing a real threat of war with China. Remember the 1986 F111 bombing raids on Libya that we had to send from the UK, because none of our Nato Allies would let us use our air bases in their countries?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1986_United_States_bombing_of_Libya

That was against a 2-bit third world dictator. Imagine how tight the sphincter factor is going to be in Japan and Korea if it means going against China in their home waters?

Air bases on foreign soil are not something you can count on when the SHTF. Sure if somebody was attacking Korea or Japan, they would fine with us using them to defend them. If letting us use them means risking war with China? Probably not so much.



Guam, and Diego Garcia, spring immediately to mind.

From there, we can stage aircraft/strikes on almost any place on earth.


Also, do you realize that during OIF/OEF/Gulf War I, we were striking Iraq, with assets that took off from America, flew to Iraq/Astan, and bombed them, and then flew home again, without ever landing?

We don't NEED Japan to strike China.

Haldor
10-26-2012, 05:41
We take our time, because it pays to, when deploying a unit, and things are scheduled months out to avoid conflict. When a war is looming, and we're not doing haz-mat paperwork, we're not doing OSHA safety requirements, we can expedite the process considerably. I can have 20 helicopters ready for shipment

And where are you going to land those 20 helicopters? On Guam, 2000 miles away from the likely conflict zone? What's the range of those helicopters again?

There is a huge difference between air transported troops and naval transported troops. The guys in the plans have to land or go home. The guys in the ships can hang there until conditions are right to land while the other guys consider the likely consequences of their actions.

If it ever turns hot, the guys in the planes have to have some place to land. In the Pacific, the guys on the boats are the ones who are going to take the places for the guys in the planes to land. We need more boats full of planes and boats full of guys if we are going to have any kind of a credible force in the Pacific that can deter aggression.

I get that you feel threatened by the idea that your branch is not the favored son in this scenario. The mission is what it is and requires the forces it requires. What is does not require is heavy mechanized forces in Europe or paratroopers in Georgia. Nor does it require half our overseas bases to be in Europe. Our current force structure was developed to defend Nato against a mechanized attack from the Warsaw Pact. That is no longer a legitimate issue.

You are the one claiming vast experience at this, tell me what we can cut from our current military to pay for a real Naval expansion? Or are you saying the Army and Air Force can deal with the Pacific and that we don't need to expand the Navy to do so?

How about a little less posturing and some actual thought.

AK_Stick
10-26-2012, 08:03
And where are you going to land those 20 helicopters? On Guam, 2000 miles away from the likely conflict zone? What's the range of those helicopters again? When loaded into a C-5 or C-17, they're quite handily capable, of global deployment.


There is a huge difference between air transported troops and naval transported troops. The guys in the plans have to land or go home. The guys in the ships can hang there until conditions are right to land while the other guys consider the likely consequences of their actions.

Yes, there is a huge difference. The difference being speed. The air transported guys cost more, and vehicle to vehicle bring less people to the fight. But they can be anywhere in the world in just over 24 Hrs. Boats have no such speed. And then it takes them days once they arrive on station to try and unload/establish a beach head. And thats without opposition.


If it ever turns hot, the guys in the planes have to have some place to land. In the Pacific, the guys on the boats are the ones who are going to take the places for the guys in the planes to land. We need more boats full of planes and boats full of guys if we are going to have any kind of a credible force in the Pacific that can deter aggression.

And do you think the enemy is going to just let the Marines/Navy pull up a couple of heavy Ro/Ro's into the port without any kind of defense?

You do realize that we have guys who specialize and train/practice for an airfield seizure, so we can rapidly grab a place to land, and begin to build a force, right in the middle of a combat zone?


I get that you feel threatened by the idea that your branch is not the favored son in this scenario. The mission is what it is and requires the forces it requires. What is does not require is heavy mechanized forces in Europe or paratroopers in Georgia. Nor does it require half our overseas bases to be in Europe. Our current force structure was developed to defend Nato against a mechanized attack from the Warsaw Pact. That is no longer a legitimate issue.

Says who? Some guy on the internet, who doesn't understand that we already have a quite competent and willing RDF force? Who thinks some guys in boats, somewhere in the ocean on that side of the world will have a better response time, than the RDF who can be wheels up, prepped for combat, with a complete strike package, and support, targeted anywhere in the world inside 18 hrs?


You are the one claiming vast experience at this, tell me what we can cut from our current military to pay for a real Naval expansion? Or are you saying the Army and Air Force can deal with the Pacific and that we don't need to expand the Navy to do so?

We don't need to cut from the current military, to pay for a scenario that doesn't exist. Your whole "concept" is drawn up from a lack of experience, and first hand knowledge.




This isn't about "posturing" It was "actual thought" on why your idea to start with was poor. And its continued, because you keep trying to support a poor idea, with argument based upon your ideas of how the military should work/look and not based upon the real world.

kensb2
10-26-2012, 08:15
I'm with Haldor, bring the Air Force back to the Army. We sure could use some better looking women! :tongueout:

.264 magnum
10-26-2012, 08:20
When loaded into a C-5 or C-17, they're quite handily capable, of global deployment.



Yes, there is a huge difference. The difference being speed. The air transported guys cost more, and vehicle to vehicle bring less people to the fight. But they can be anywhere in the world in just over 24 Hrs. Boats have no such speed. And then it takes them days once they arrive on station to try and unload/establish a beach head. And thats without opposition.



And do you think the enemy is going to just let the Marines/Navy pull up a couple of heavy Ro/Ro's into the port without any kind of defense?

You do realize that we have guys who specialize and train/practice for an airfield seizure, so we can rapidly grab a place to land, and begin to build a force, right in the middle of a combat zone?



Says who? Some guy on the internet, who doesn't understand that we already have a quite competent and willing RDF force? Who thinks some guys in boats, somewhere in the ocean on that side of the world will have a better response time, than the RDF who can be wheels up, prepped for combat, with a complete strike package, and support, targeted anywhere in the world inside 18 hrs?



We don't need to cut from the current military, to pay for a scenario that doesn't exist. Your whole "concept" is drawn up from a lack of experience, and first hand knowledge.




This isn't about "posturing" It was "actual thought" on why your idea to start with was poor. And its continued, because you keep trying to support a poor idea, with argument based upon your ideas of how the military should work/look and not based upon the real world.


First - that's great and all but more localized deployment is better/cheaper/faster etc. than launching missions for across the globe.

Second - if our Navy guys don't stop raping Japanese women with regularity they will kick us out.

Fox
10-26-2012, 08:55
The military NEEDS its funding cut.

The trick is, how do we maintain a strong military without spending so much money?

Withdraw from NATO, close US military bases in Europe. We also need to pull out of the peacekeeping duties in the Balkans.

Seriously, NATO should have ended with the collapse of the USSR.

As far as "allies", they mostly withdrew from Iraq and even then I only saw a token force from most of our European allies in OEF/OIF.

Bilbo Bagins
10-26-2012, 09:24
Guam, and Diego Garcia, spring immediately to mind.

From there, we can stage aircraft/strikes on almost any place on earth.


Also, do you realize that during OIF/OEF/Gulf War I, we were striking Iraq, with assets that took off from America, flew to Iraq/Astan, and bombed them, and then flew home again, without ever landing?

We don't NEED Japan to strike China.

Do we need all those approx 1000 bases overseas

We have 124 Military Bases in Japan.

Heck, do we need +200 US military bases in Germany. Some are slated to close with this round of defense cuts.

Do we really need 234 Pentagon run Golf course around the world?
http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

This is my only issue with Romney. I'm OK with some bumps in military spending for new technology and gear, but I don't want him to have more spending to keep a bunch unneeded foreign bases open.

You want to save money, cut the overseas bases by half. We can still get a lot done with 500 overseas bases.

raven11
10-26-2012, 09:27
First - that's great and all but more localized deployment is better/cheaper/faster etc. than launching missions for across the globe.

Second - if our Navy guys don't stop raping Japanese women with regularity they will kick us out.


that depends on always having a carrier on site at the right place and time. if the Navy- or should we say Marines gets us kicked out of Japan, guess what the entire 7th Fleet goes with back to Pearl and i bet a C-17 can get to China a bit faster than a Carrier Battle Group

we can't rely on every war the enemy giving us months notice to preposition Naval Task Forces off their coast unmolested. you take away the ability to put forces halfway across the globe at a moments notice you turn half the military into a defense force

KalashniKEV
10-26-2012, 09:57
:rofl::rofl: this post is soo full of fail I really don't know where to begin


Your lane sir, you are out of it.

This.

It's like you guys are trying to explain snow to an uncontacted tribesman in Africa.

A bayonet is a nice cutting tool...

No... it's not.

AK_Stick
10-26-2012, 10:58
Do we need all those approx 1000 bases overseas

We have 124 Military Bases in Japan.

Heck, do we need +200 US military bases in Germany. Some are slated to close with this round of defense cuts.

Do we really need 234 Pentagon run Golf course around the world?
http://www.fpif.org/articles/too_many_overseas_bases

This is my only issue with Romney. I'm OK with some bumps in military spending for new technology and gear, but I don't want him to have more spending to keep a bunch unneeded foreign bases open.

You want to save money, cut the overseas bases by half. We can still get a lot done with 500 overseas bases.


I agree, we have alot of bases that we could close to save money, and not adversely affect our effective power.

First - that's great and all but more localized deployment is better/cheaper/faster etc. than launching missions for across the globe.

Second - if our Navy guys don't stop raping Japanese women with regularity they will kick us out.

I understand, and agree. However, Carrier battle groups are not localized deployments. They're short term forward deployed strike assets. They are a support element, not a war fighting element. Having bases like Japan, give us a jumping off point for deployments, and they're very useful in making things cheaper/easier/faster. I was specifically talking about the scenario Haldor was talking about, where our bases in Japan, had been neutralized by them wishing to stay our of the fight. Even though its unrealistic, as a threat that large would be a national security threat to Japan as well, should it happen, we don't NEED those bases to land and deploy troops in the AO.

G29Reload
10-26-2012, 11:51
what was really funny was the idiot mocked Romney for citing ship count, then proceeds to condescend that there are these things called aircraft carriers and submarines.

Romney should have said, "Thats what I'm talking about, mortherf#$^%&er!"

Aircraft carriers, submarines. They be ships, get it homey?

So, if you think those aircraft carriers are the same as bayonetts, you just lost your job.

WarCry
10-26-2012, 12:11
what was really funny was the idiot mocked Romney for citing ship count, then proceeds to condescend that there are these things called aircraft carriers and submarines.

Romney should have said, "Thats what I'm talking about, mortherf#$^%&er!"

Aircraft carriers, submarines. They be ships, get it homey?

So, if you think those aircraft carriers are the same as bayonetts, you just lost your job.

And I STILL think you miss the point that was being made, and being made very condescendingly because it deserved to be: That point being that it's a matter of the TYPE of ships, not the NUMBERS of ships that matters.

You sound like the kid that throws a fit because you got 15 Matchbox cars for your birthday last year, but an XBox this year, but you got FEWER gifts, so it doesn't count!

The point stands as valid that it's not the NUMBER of ships that matter, it's the capabilities of the ships that wins (and, if used correctly, prevents) wars.

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 14:32
We don't NEED Japan to strike China.

ICBMs silos in Kansas and Nebraska can do it without breaking a sweat.

fnfalman
10-26-2012, 14:33
No... it's not.

If you're patient with a whetstone, you can put a decent edge on the M9.

paynter2
10-26-2012, 15:10
Yah, a big stick will work when you run out of ammunition.......Where to find a big stick?????????

Was he talking from his military experience?

Biden says Big 'O' has a big stick. :whistling:

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Joe-Biden-Big-Stick-Obama-NYU-Speech-149073685.html

SGT278ACR
10-27-2012, 06:52
Interesting, however, I really can't see any tangible logic in any of this, just more of your personal perception. I ask this with all due respect... have you served in the US Armed Forces; and, if so, how long, where and what branch?

I was going to ask the same question.

Haldor,
Unless I missed it in other posts, you still haven't answered the above question.

douggmc
10-27-2012, 13:22
And I STILL think you miss the point that was being made, and being made very condescendingly because it deserved to be: That point being that it's a matter of the TYPE of ships, not the NUMBERS of ships that matters.

You sound like the kid that throws a fit because you got 15 Matchbox cars for your birthday last year, but an XBox this year, but you got FEWER gifts, so it doesn't count!

The point stands as valid that it's not the NUMBER of ships that matter, it's the capabilities of the ships that wins (and, if used correctly, prevents) wars.

... and If I may attempt to put it even more succinctly, it is the quality (and ability/capability) that counts, not the quantity.

douggmc
10-27-2012, 13:32
Try not to miss the forest for the trees on this one.

+1 :agree::agree: