Where is Osama??

[Bustem' Down]

It's my hope that we never find him or catch him. I think that the moment we do, the Liberals will all rejoice that we've had our revenge against the terrorists, that the War on Terror has been won, and that we can go back to dismantling the military and spend more on social projects rather than continue to take the fight to the terrorists who take Osama's place.

I don't think the consevatives are doing much better with the military. Right now the military is gorged with people so the increases in money that the pres. is working to get we don't see much in the trickle down. Most of it is for material. I would like to see a slight reduction in the military after we finally get out of Iraq. It would increase my chances at promotion and we would see more money used towards quality of life rather than new missles.

 

[Bruzilla]

I've got some bad news for you Bustem. The priority of the DoD is not to get you advanced. That's your responsibility. I would rather see more weapons, training, and capability than you with a higher paygrade. If you want to advance, study harder, do better on your tests, and get those one or two slots. For what it's worth I spent six years as an E-5 because they were only making between zero and two AW1s a year while I was taking the exam. Still, I would rather have seen new airplanes and search/kills stores than a promotion.

 

[Bustem' Down]

Why? When was the last time the Navy shot any missles? Other than a few carrier based aircraft dropping something it would be 2003. I've already in this short couple years seen the effect on morale and it's bad. The tight budget is making quality of life bad, and I'm not talking about promotions. Thier already doing things to slim down personel in the Navy. High year tenure for e-5's was just moved down to 14 years and thier promoting programs to shift to the army (although that's not bringing the numbers they hoped.). If morale is bad, units don't perform effeciently, you know that.

 

[Bruzilla]

Spare me your crying rag. I was in the dreaded hollowed-out military of the late 1970s. You think morale was great back then? I worked with the Navy throughout the 1990s, and morale wasn't any better or worse than it was when I was in. Being in the military generally sucks. The pay sucks, most duty stations suck, the lifestyle sucks, the living conditions suck, the family seperation sucks, etc. The military life isn't for everyone, and staying in the military isn't for everyone either. If the suck factor gets to be too much for someone, they should get the hell out because it isn't going to get any better. The basic fundamental fact of life that governs conditions in the military is that you aren't going to pay a lot for something you need a lot of. No matter how great a paperclip is designed, no one is ever going to pay thousands of dollars for one if thousands are needed. This goes for cops, firemen, teachers, etc. That's never, ever, going to change so either get your commission and make O-7 or become a civilian.

As for missiles, there's a big difference between not using them and not needing them. Would you prefer that we wait until they are needed to get a contract into place. acquire the components to build them, hire and train a work force to build them, build and test them, and then ship them to the front? I'm sure that if you were sitting on an Aegis cruiser with an empty AA missile magazine, and with a flock of ASMs coming at you, you wouldn't want to hear "DoD is on the phone with Lockheed right now and they say they can get us some missiles in about 18 months. Is that ok?"

 

[Larry Gude]

And THAT, boys and girls...

The pay sucks, most duty stations suck, the lifestyle sucks, the living conditions suck, the family seperation sucks, etc.

...is why volunteers are so damn cool. There's really no good reason to join up save one; TO SERVE.

 

[ylexot]

As for missiles, there's a big difference between not using them and not needing them. Would you prefer that we wait until they are needed to get a contract into place. acquire the components to build them, hire and train a work force to build them, build and test them, and then ship them to the front? I'm sure that if you were sitting on an Aegis cruiser with an empty AA missile magazine, and with a flock of ASMs coming at you, you wouldn't want to hear "DoD is on the phone with Lockheed right now and they say they can get us some missiles in about 18 months. Is that ok?"

except the 18 months part. Try 5-10 years. Occasionally, you can do something quickly (the GBU-28 was done in a record 27 days), but that means you have to use existing stuff and modify it slightly. New missiles (even using some current components) take years to develop and test.

 

[Bruzilla]

The problem is that once you quit making something, you lose the workforce, tooling, and other capabilities to other efforts. The bunker buster was able to be developed so fast because you had a steady workforce and research facilities available to do the work. If you shut all that down because you want to give pay raises to service personnel, then you lose all that capability and it takes a long time to get it back.

I wonder how great the morale would be on that Aegis cruiser as the ASMs slam into it and kill most of the crew.

 

[2ndAmendment]

According to his profile, Bustin is only 29. He is typical of people and especially that generation, self-centered. People in general want to be paid more than they are worth and want instant gratification. It takes time to understand life is not that way.

 

[Bruzilla]

It took me ten years, five months, and 29 days. That's how long I was in.

 

[vraiblonde]

Being in the military generally sucks. The pay sucks, most duty stations suck, the lifestyle sucks, the living conditions suck, the family seperation sucks, etc.

It wasn't so bad. Granted, I was just a military wife, but our duty stations were pretty good, the pay wasn't bad for a 20 year old kid, we had a decent place to live, and my ex was away from home WAY more once he got out of the Army and started working for a contractor.

You get job training and money for college; free health and dental; you can shop at the commissary; if you run into any kind of trouble, be it legal or financial or emotional, there are programs to help you out.

It wasn't a bad way to get started and any young person who thinks the military is so rough, well, keep sweating it out at the Mickey D's and see where that gets you. :shrug:

 

[Bustem' Down]

As for missiles, there's a big difference between not using them and not needing them. Would you prefer that we wait until they are needed to get a contract into place. acquire the components to build them, hire and train a work force to build them, build and test them, and then ship them to the front? I'm sure that if you were sitting on an Aegis cruiser with an empty AA missile magazine, and with a flock of ASMs coming at you, you wouldn't want to hear "DoD is on the phone with Lockheed right now and they say they can get us some missiles in about 18 months. Is that ok?"

Just finished 5 years on an Aegis cruiser. I can tell you, there is no shortage of supply to SM-2 SAM. We had more than anyone in the fleet in 2003. Also, not as many Tomahawks were fired in 2003 as in 1991 because thier better and we don't need to use as many. I work with Lockheed contractors right now, so I know how that works.

 

[Bustem' Down]

According to his profile, Bustin is only 29. He is typical of people and especially that generation, self-centered. People in general want to be paid more than they are worth and want instant gratification. It takes time to understand life is not that way.

I'm not self-centered. If I was, I wouldn't be making a 20 year commitment to this job. I also don't want to be paid more than I'm worth, just what I'm worth. For all the republican talk of being for the military, and that may have been the case years ago, I saw bigger pay raises and more done for quality of life under Clinton than Bush.

 

[Bruzilla]

I'm not self-centered. If I was, I wouldn't be making a 20 year commitment to this job. I also don't want to be paid more than I'm worth, just what I'm worth. For all the republican talk of being for the military, and that may have been the case years ago, I saw bigger pay raises and more done for quality of life under Clinton than Bush.

You need to open your eyes a bit more. Clinton offered lots of stuff, but at what cost? We were suppossed to replace the P-3 starting in 1992, we didn't. We were suppossed to replace the H-46 and 47 by 1994, we didn't. There were lots of long service life equipment items that were suppossed to have been replaced during the 1990s and they weren't. Now we're having to replace the P-3, F-14, F-18, and most of our helicopters at the same time, and while they are getting to be dangerous to fly... and that's just naval aviation.

Clinton also moved many active duty positions over to the reserve and national guard to save money, and as a result we have thousands of reservists and guardsmen stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, you had it nice under Clinton during the 90s, but a lot of people are having to pick up that check for you today.

Yes, there are plenty of missiles out there, but how many are enough? How many air threats could your cruiser counter before you started shooting blanks? There are few things certain in war, but one thing that is for sure is that ammo gets used up at about five times the pre-war estimates.

 

[Bruzilla]

It wasn't so bad. Granted, I was just a military wife, but our duty stations were pretty good, the pay wasn't bad for a 20 year old kid, we had a decent place to live, and my ex was away from home WAY more once he got out of the Army and started working for a contractor.

You get job training and money for college; free health and dental; you can shop at the commissary; if you run into any kind of trouble, be it legal or financial or emotional, there are programs to help you out.

It wasn't a bad way to get started and any young person who thinks the military is so rough, well, keep sweating it out at the Mickey D's and see where that gets you. :shrug:

The military is a great way of life for some people. I had a blast and enjoyed it enough to recommend both of my sons to join. But, it's not for everybody, and even for those who start out loving it, it can quickly become more of a hinderence than a help. Once you're married and have kids, or you've progressed to a point where promotions aren't coming, or realize that you would be much better off on the outside, it's time to leave.

Maybe that's why the military's policies are the way they are. It's good to encourage people to leave so that there's room for the nuggets coming in.

 

[reefbeef]

Lately I've been noticing a considerable lack of new info on the whereabouts of Mr. Bin Laden. News and information has been slowly tapering off over the last few years and it makes me believe that we were never at all close to catching him in the first place. Everyone was super optomistic in 2002 and I think now it's showing that we were never really close. Not that we haven't hampered his operations or anything, but I do see a shift in the news from a failure at catching Bin Laden and moving more towards the success of Iraqi Freedom.

Why don't we go strip mine throughs mountains and watch him run like a little teard

 

[Bustem' Down]

You need to open your eyes a bit more. Clinton offered lots of stuff, but at what cost? We were suppossed to replace the P-3 starting in 1992, we didn't. We were suppossed to replace the H-46 and 47 by 1994, we didn't. There were lots of long service life equipment items that were suppossed to have been replaced during the 1990s and they weren't. Now we're having to replace the P-3, F-14, F-18, and most of our helicopters at the same time, and while they are getting to be dangerous to fly... and that's just naval aviation.

Clinton also moved many active duty positions over to the reserve and national guard to save money, and as a result we have thousands of reservists and guardsmen stuck in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yeah, you had it nice under Clinton during the 90s, but a lot of people are having to pick up that check for you today.

Yes, there are plenty of missiles out there, but how many are enough? How many air threats could your cruiser counter before you started shooting blanks? There are few things certain in war, but one thing that is for sure is that ammo gets used up at about five times the pre-war estimates.

No, the only reason we have gaurdsmen in now, is because we need more personel in the army, F-14's are going away, and F-18's are being replaced by the new super hornets. I even wrote a letter to the governor of Virginia, because the protests over then in Norfolk were getting loud. What I'm saying here is that the use of the military is good, but, the managment is a little rough. It probably would have been better having Powell as Sec of defence. AA missles though are not in much need right now. We have no real credible threat except for maybe Iran. I know the kill rate for an SM-2 from an aegis ship, and we are in good hands. There are not enough countries in the world to present a credible air threat.

 

[Railroad]

I think both BD and Bruzilla are making good points - meaning that I think there's probably a good middle ground on this issue.

 

[ylexot]

AA missles though are not in much need right now. We have no real credible threat except for maybe Iran. I know the kill rate for an SM-2 from an aegis ship, and we are in good hands. There are not enough countries in the world to present a credible air threat.

The aircraft are not the threat that new missiles are designed to combat. Missiles like AIM-9X are there to counter other AA missiles. Missiles like the Python and the Archer are far beyond the capabilities of the AIM-9M and anybody that has those missiles does pose a credible threat...even to our best aircraft.

Another reason for buying new stuff...parts obsolesence. We are making things cheaper these days by using commercially available hardware. For example, the computer processors in missiles are processors used in your desktop PC. Those processors are only made for a limited time and you cannot just plug in a newer processor. So, you have to buy all that you will need up front. Want more missiles than that? That will require new designs or modifications to the old designs. This is why they are always making a new version of the AIM-120. And while they are redesigning the missile anyway, they add more capabilities to it since those added capabilities are cheap to add in.

 

[ylexot]

Right now the military is gorged with people so the increases in money that the pres. is working to get we don't see much in the trickle down.

No, the only reason we have gaurdsmen in now, is because we need more personel in the army

Are we gorged with people or do we need more personel?

 

[Bruzilla]

No, the only reason we have gaurdsmen in now, is because we need more personel in the army, F-14's are going away, and F-18's are being replaced by the new super hornets. I even wrote a letter to the governor of Virginia, because the protests over then in Norfolk were getting loud. What I'm saying here is that the use of the military is good, but, the managment is a little rough. It probably would have been better having Powell as Sec of defence. AA missles though are not in much need right now. We have no real credible threat except for maybe Iran. I know the kill rate for an SM-2 from an aegis ship, and we are in good hands. There are not enough countries in the world to present a credible air threat.

All I can say is thank goodness you're just a sailor and not SECDEF.

The reason that we don't have enough soldiers in the Army, and selected Airmen in the Air Force, is because Clinton and his boys decided that there were a lot of jobs in both services that aren't needed on a 24/7 basis... guys like military police, construction people, combat support, intelligenece, inflight refuelers, etc., and so they moved most of these jobs over to reserve and guard units. Not a bad idea unless a war comes along, especially one where you really need those kinds of people. That is why there are so many reserves and guardsmen in Iraq and Afghanistan.

F-14s and early F-18s are going away, but the point is they were suppossed to be already gone (just like P-3s, AV-8Bs, and H-46s.) The Super Hornet is an interim fix because there's no way that we can pay for the JSF birds that we ultimately need because we're also having to replace all the other planes that we needed to replace during the 90s and didn't.

As for credible threats, remember that most countries that stand as the usual suspects as enemies, along with many that are just a government change away from being an enemy, have air forces that are equipped with late-model Soviet/Russian fighters that were built to beat the F-15s/16s/18s that we rely on (nothing can beat an F-14/AIM-64 combo... provided the Tomcat driver can fire from range.) An SU-27 or MiG-29 has an even chance against an F-15/16/18, but little chance against a JSF.

As for Colin Powell, he's a wimp and always has been. If he had had his way we would still be moving troops and equipment into Kuwait for Desert Storm 1.