[W:224] In order to cut U.S. defense spending dramatically would you be willing to...

[vegas giants]

Thank you for VOLUNTEERING to serve. You asked for the job now you whine about what is required to do it.

You and your ilk refused to volunteer because you did not want to miss a episode of gilmore girls but you never miss an opportunity to send those that did volunteer somewhere to fight a war for corporate profits.

Dont ever talk to me about me and my ilk.

 

[Jredbaron96]

The SU-57 is still in development, and still highly classified.

It's first flight was just four years after the F-35, and now you're going to pull "it's still highly classified"?

Yeah, and pilots who's careers could very well be jeopardized if they don't tow the "party line,"\

Ah, so now you're accusing pilots who have actually flown the plane of lying. Without proof either, because the best you have is a journalist who straight up lies about the F-35 because he has a personal vendetta against it.

I love how the argument that the F-35 sucks is that all the pilots who praise it are just trying to save their careers, and all the foreign nations that are buying it are just stupid. But nah man, this one journalist and these tests from years ago prove the F-35 is a piece of crap, and all the evidence to the contrary is bullshit.

You can't kill a tank by striking its unmanned turret

A tank without a functioning turret is a mission kill.

I realize you're not a tanker and you know nothing of tank combat, so to clarify: a mission kill is when the equipment can no longer carry out it's primary mission, even if most of the equipment is still functional.

"Hull down" is a common tactic in tank warfare,

That was never the debate. The point was how you are still attached to it as the defining confrontation even though there are a number of counters to it. It's not a new tactic, nor is it one American tank crews are unfamiliar with, but you keep referencing it as proof that the Armata is so much better than the Abrams.

Because again, you probably read that on warisboring.com or a Pierre Sprey blog and are now stuck with it as a talking point.

E ) Source?

https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html is where most of the information on the Armata comes from.

Ahem...

Ah, so I in fact never said welfare nor did I say dump all our military budget. We can shave billions off of the DoD and still have the largest defense budget in the world. Thank you for proving my point.

And you want to go back to that????

Your inability to grasp that the 1990s were a unique time in American history not easily replicated is not my problem.

Admittedly inconclusive, as I wouldn't expect either side to be especially truthful regarding the matter, but still.

The best you can come up with is a Russian claim with barely any circumstantial evidence? This is almost as bad are the German claim.

 

[Dayton3]

I assume we would station the weapons and munitions there ahead of time with a small force to guard and oversea it. Prepositioning.

 

[vegas giants]

If our defense was half the size, what nations would suddenly become a military threat to America?

Absolutely no one

 

[Dayton3]

You and your ilk refused to volunteer because you did not want to miss a episode of gilmore girls but you never miss an opportunity to send those that did volunteer somewhere to fight a war for corporate profits.

Dont ever talk to me about me and my ilk.

What are you talking about? I didn't join the military for several reasons. One being I had an academic scholarship to go to college. Another being that both of my parents my mother (whose two brothers had served in the U.S. Navy) and my father (who served two years in the Army including 7 months of hard combat in Korea) were against me joining.

"Gilmore Girls"? That a tv show or something?

Thank you for VOLUNTEERING. But keep your whining about doing a job you asked to do to yourself.

 

[vegas giants]

What are you talking about? I didn't join the military for several reasons. One being I had an academic scholarship to go to college. Another being that both of my parents my mother (whose two brothers had served in the U.S. Navy) and my father (who served two years in the Army including 7 months of hard combat in Korea) were against me joining.

"Gilmore Girls"? That a tv show or something?

Thank you for VOLUNTEERING. But keep your whining about doing a job you asked to do to yourself.

My god. Officers went to college. Military academies ARE a academic scholarship. I dont think any had to ask mommy and daddy after college for permission to join the military.

Quit your whining about my ilk.


And cut the military in half we will be safer and save a ton of money

 

[Dayton3]

My god. Officers went to college. Military academies ARE a academic scholarship.

None of the service academies offered me a scholarship. I thought attending one of the academies automatically obligated you to 5 years of service (unless waived by the U.S. military).

 

[vegas giants]

None of the service academies offered me a scholarship. I thought attending one of the academies automatically obligated you to 5 years of service (unless waived by the U.S. military).

Oh god. Dude stop talking about the military. You are clueless. Yes you serve after graduation. No you are not required to go to one to be an officer. Duh

 

[Dayton3]

Oh god. Dude stop talking about the military. You are clueless. Yes you serve after graduation. Duh

So you are admitting I'm right? Good.

Get used to it.

 

[vegas giants]

So you are admitting I'm right? Good.

Get used to it.

Yes. You failed to serve because mommy and daddy said to a 20 something college graduate they cant serve.

Pathetic

 

[Dayton3]

Yes. You failed to serve because mommy and daddy said to a 20 something college graduate they cant serve.

Pathetic

No. I was 17 when that decision was made and had not gone to college yet.

What parents want actually means something to some of us you know.

 

[vegas giants]

No. I was 17 when that decision was made and had not gone to college yet.

What parents want actually means something to some of us you know.

Then you just chickened out on your own after college. Even worse.


Again....


Dont ever talk about my ilk.

 

[Rhakron90]

It's first flight was just four years after the F-35, and now you're going to pull "it's still highly classified"?

The plane is literally still in proto-typing. Its far too early to say anything about it.

Though I would point out that it is, apparently, being built with air superiority missions explicitly in mind... Which was not the case with the F-35.

Ah, so now you're accusing pilots who have actually flown the plane of lying

I certainly wouldn't expect them to tell us if the plane sucked. Do you have any idea what consequences bad mouthing one's superiors, or their policies, to the press tends to have in the military, particularly for high-ranking officers?

If you're going to do that at all, you resign, and then you write a book. While still in, the general rule of thumb is that one "shut up, and color."

a journalist who straight up lies about the F-35 because he has a personal vendetta against it.

A ) Prove it.

B ) It is hundreds of journalists, military policy experts, and retired military officers. Quite frankly, yes, I find them a lot more trust worthy than a few active duty pilots, that the air force clearly specifically agreed to be paraded in front of journalists for a puff-piece.

I love how the argument that the F-35 sucks is that all the pilots who praise it are just trying to save their careers, and all the foreign nations that are buying it are just stupid. But nah man, this one journalist and these tests from years ago prove the F-35 is a piece of crap, and all the evidence to the contrary is bullshit.

The "argument" is that the F-35 is wildly overpriced for the mediocre performance it has so far demonstrated, especially in comparison to the superior alternatives we already had available. It is "in demand" for no other reason than that it is literally the only option on the market right now. That will change quickly.

A tank without a functioning turret is a mission kill.

A direct hit to the turret/gun is most likely a mission kill on any tank. Acting like this some special problem, only particularly applicable to the Armata is bogus.

Again, on an Abrams, such a hit is likely to be a total kill, and not merely a mission kill.

That was never the debate. The point was how you are still attached to it as the defining confrontation even though there are a number of counters to it.

Literally the only reason we're still talking about it is because you apparently like the look of your own text too much to simply shut the **** up and concede the point.

It's not a new tactic, nor is it one American tank crews are unfamiliar with, but you keep referencing it as proof that the Armata is so much better than the Abrams.

In this regard, it objectively is better than the Abrams, which is precisely why we tried to develop a tank with the same capability under the FCS program (that Obama cancelled)

CONCEDE THE POINT.

Because again, you probably read that on warisboring.com or a Pierre Sprey blog and are now stuck with it as a talking point.

CONCEDE THE POINT.

https://vpk.name/library/f/armata.html is where most of the information on the Armata comes from.

And this is what, exactly? I don't even when this was written, as it seems to speak of 2015 in the future tense.

There are also a number of inaccuracies right off the bat. Some of its diagrams show 5 crew members in the vehicle, rather than 3, with the extra two literally sitting inside of the engine.

This really the best you have?

Ah, so I in fact never said welfare nor did I say dump all our military budget. We can shave billions off of the DoD and still have the largest defense budget in the world. Thank you for proving my point.

Precisely how much would you cut? Precisely which programs? Where would the money go instead?

So far, you have vehemently defended the previous administration's decisions to slash R&D programs which now leave us substantially behind our enemies in several regards, and have created gaps in our capabilities which will take decades to bridge.

Your inability to grasp that the 1990s were a unique time in American history not easily replicated is not my problem.

Your inability to grasp the need to stay ahead of peer level competitors (who are only peer level to begin with due to lack of effort on our part) who are actively gunning to take our place as global hegemon is not my problem.

The best you can come up with is a Russian claim with barely any circumstantial evidence? This is almost as bad are the German claim.

Which is almost as bad as the Israeli claim, which is almost as bad as the American claim, and so on, and so forth...

 

[Dayton3]

Then you just chickened out on your own after college. Even worse.


Again....


Dont ever talk about my ilk.

Your ilk, volunteering to serve in the U.S. military, knowing full well what that might entail, and whining about it after the fact is almost traitorous.

Even traitors have served in the U.S. military.

 

[vegas giants]

Your ilk, volunteering to serve in the U.S. military, knowing full well what that might entail, and whining about it after the fact is almost traitorous.

Even traitors have served in the U.S. military.

Yeah but you didn't. You sat at home too afraid to be a man.


Keep going. I am loving this

 

[Dayton3]

Yeah but you didn't. You sat at home too afraid to be a man.

Why do you claim I was afraid of anything? You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

 

[vegas giants]

Why do you claim I was afraid of anything? You have no evidence of that whatsoever.

You were terrified. You probably pee your pants at the very thought of it right now.


Thank God mommy and daddy wouldn't let you be a man. Lol

 

[Jredbaron96]

The plane is literally still in proto-typing. Its far too early to say anything about it.

So, despite having a test flight just four years after the F-35, it's still just a prototype?

I certainly wouldn't expect them to tell us if the plane sucked.

Because that would destroy your whole narrative. Case closed.

A ) Prove it.

That Dan Grazier is a liar? Okay.

He claimed in this article a bunch of nonsense: First that the air force decided not to upgrade (it did not, it was just considering it), while insinuating without evidence that the Marines and Navy will do the same. He also claims that the F-35As mentioned in the article will require 213 modification to be made serviceable; again he lies, there were 213 need mods across the ENTIRE fleet, including all the variants. He then claimed that the landing gear needed to be redesigned for all F-35s, which is outright false. The only change was going to be for the C variant, but that was only for catapult launches at light weight (for carrier launch qualifications), and in the end the Navy resolved the issue without modification to the aircraft.

B ) It is hundreds of journalists, military policy experts, and retired military officers.

Hundreds? Where are you getting this number from?

has so far demonstrated, especially in comparison to the superior alternatives we already had available.

The F-35s capabilities have already been demonstated by now, it is you who willfully ignores the testimony of pilots in favor of single instances from years ago.

Again, on an Abrams, such a hit is likely to be a total kill, and not merely a mission kill.

And is much harder because the turret of the Abrams is actually heavily armored, lol.

In this regard, it objectively is better than the Abrams,

Opinion noted. It's good for what the Russians need, for sure.

Some of its diagrams show 5 crew members in the vehicle, rather than 3, with the extra two literally sitting inside of the engine.

That's not the Armata, dude. It says right underneath "The drawings of Russia's Armata platform was created on the basis of images of a modification of the T-90 tank". It was just a design idea.

That also has nothing to do with it's night vision capability.

Precisely how much would you cut?

Close down unneeded bases, MWR stuff that nobody uses, merge Jackson and Wood, combine geographically close bases together (JB Lewis is a good start). Cut down on redundant training facilities (each branch doesn't need a school for MPs). Get everyone on the same uniform again, reduce ammunition calibers to streamline logisitcs (we don't need a 20mm, 25mm, and 35mm). Transfer 25-30% of the active duty forces to reserve over the course of a few years (ideally getting rid of the airborne pukes at Bragg). Draw down troops in Korea (the ROK can handle the KPA with ease) and sell our surplus equipment to the Koreans, Japanese, Australians, sub-Sahara Africa, the Georgians, so on. Procurement reform (one thing you are right about is that the F-35's program itself was ridiculous, even if you are wrong about the final product. Deactivate some of the older subs and bombers, while keeping the B-2s combat ready if need be.

(who are only peer level to begin with due to lack of effort on our part)

Our state of overmatch was not the norm, which was the point you failed to grasp.

Which is almost as bad as the Israeli claim, which is almost as bad as the American claim, and so on, and so forth...

So now you're down to just reciting Russian propaganda. No wonder you're an Armata shill.

 

[Dayton3]

You were terrified. You probably pee your pants at the very thought of it right now.


Thank God mommy and daddy wouldn't let you be a man. Lol

And "vegas giants" does what he does best. Lie about people who are better than he is.

 

[vegas giants]

And "vegas giants" does what he does best. Lie about people who are better than he is.

At least I served buddy. Unlike your ilk

 

[Lursa]

Literal Communism... Yaaaayyyy...

Thanks, I'll pass.

While we dont want high unemployment, people arent entitled to jobs.

Pretty sure buggy producers didnt appreciate when the Model T Ford came in.

Oversimplification? Yes...but the fact is...humans need to adapt, no one is entitled to a job...that's communism.

 

[Dayton3]

At least I served buddy.

And whine about it like a cowardly dog.

 

[vegas giants]

And whine about it like a cowardly dog.

Look I get it. Mommy and daddy wouldn't let you join like others in your family did. They could see you couldnt hack it. Awwwwwww. That's sweet.

 

[Jredbaron96]

Moderator's Warning:

The topic of this thread is not each other.

 

[Rhakron90]

So, despite having a test flight just four years after the F-35, it's still just a prototype?

The plane isn't expected to be in any kind of operational status until well after 2025, yes.

Because that would destroy your whole narrative. Case closed.

Because I know how the military works. lol

Hell, scratch that. I know how the world works, period. Generally speaking, one doesn't get to bad mouth one's boss, or his projects, to random reporters, and keep one's job.

That Dan Grazier is a liar? Okay.

He's far from the only guy reporting on it. And that's assuming your take on his claims is even necessarily accurate.

Hundreds? Where are you getting this number from?

Well'p... Five minutes on google running the phrases "F-35 ridiculous" and "F-35 is junk" returns literally hundreds of millions of results, and more than a dozen negative articles about the plane on the first pages of each, by a dozen different authors, one of them being freaking John McCain.

I'm sure you can extrapolate from there...

The F-35s capabilities have already been demonstated by now, it is you who willfully ignores the testimony of pilots in favor of single instances from years ago.

The only things that have been conclusively demonstrated, after nearly 20 years of work, is that the F-35 can defeat planes and air defense systems from the 1970s and 1980s. Quite frankly, it should have been doing both of those things more than a decade ago.

Put it this way: Even the F-22 is occasionally shot down in war games with foreign planes like the Typhoon, or Rafael, and we know the F-22 is a much, much better warplane than the F-35 will ever be. This hardly bodes well for the F-22's slower, mildly retarded, little brother, the F-35.

And is much harder because the turret of the Abrams is actually heavily armored, lol.

Against modern AT rounds, most armor is of questionable effectiveness. Which is precisely why there is so much focus now on being able to see the enemy first, and on active protection systems which either stop, or substantially sap the energy out of, projectiles before they ever contact armor.

And again, the actual target area for the Armata's gun is tiny in comparison to the Abrams. It's literally just a gun mantlet. Everything else is just housing for the optics around it.

A direct hit to an Abram's gun mantlet or optics would almost certainly mission kill the tank as well, and might very well kill the crew in addition to that

Opinion noted. It's good for what the Russians need, for sure.

Okay then.

Close down unneeded bases, MWR stuff that nobody uses, merge Jackson and Wood, combine geographically close bases together (JB Lewis is a good start). Cut down on redundant training facilities (each branch doesn't need a school for MPs). Get everyone on the same uniform again, reduce ammunition calibers to streamline logisitcs (we don't need a 20mm, 25mm, and 35mm). Transfer 25-30% of the active duty forces to reserve over the course of a few years (ideally getting rid of the airborne pukes at Bragg). Draw down troops in Korea (the ROK can handle the KPA with ease) and sell our surplus equipment to the Koreans, Japanese, Australians, sub-Sahara Africa, the Georgians, so on. Procurement reform (one thing you are right about is that the F-35's program itself was ridiculous, even if you are wrong about the final product. Deactivate some of the older subs and bombers, while keeping the B-2s combat ready if need be.

Taking out the MWR would be a dick move. A great many newly enlisted soldiers rely on those services quite heavily. MWR run gyms are also often one of the only things to do overseas.

The rest of these aren't necessarily terrible, though the airborne hatred is odd...

Our state of overmatch was not the norm, which was the point you failed to grasp.

Nor will it ever be again, if we fail to keep up with the technology of adversaries.

Again, I don't know about you, but I'd rather not be the guy rolling into a future conflict with "last war" tech. It doesn't tend to end well.

So now you're down to just reciting Russian propaganda. No wonder you're an Armata shill.

As opposed to what, Israeli propaganda?