In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability...

**Drew1369** · 05-16-2008, 05:42 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y...eature=related

"I will slow our development of future combat systems."

Yeah... Beautiful... Lets forget history ehh? Japan slowed their futur combat systems back in the early 20th century and that is a main contribution to their defeat in 1945...

he will get rid of our nuclear weapons...

Yeah because if America does it everyone else will too right?

What a turd this guy...

Drop our "unproven" Missle Defense system (which has shot down numerous test missles, several scud missles that Saddam claimed to have not had, oh and... what was it... oh yeah a satalite) and lets not forget that many weapons on the battlefield during the first Persian Gulf war where "unproven."

Again... what a turd.

**simpswr** · 05-16-2008, 06:32 PM

. . and lets not forget that many weapons on the battlefield during the first Persian Gulf war where "unproven" . .

And after 12 years of Republican administrations yet . . .

**Drew1369** · 05-16-2008, 06:41 PM

I don't understand what you are getting at...

yustr · 05-16-2008, 08:34 PM

Drew,

Future Combat Systems is an initiative of former Sec Def Rumsfeld. Its a $500B (yes with a B) program of many differing technology advances on many differing platforms. Some of them are promising some will flop. All are costly. It was intended to be for all the services but only the Army is involved so far

I think that any new president would "slow" this program (In fact, the Bush administration has cut funding many times.) as is not only their right but also their responsibility.

So saying

Quote:

Yeah... Beautiful... Lets forget history ehh? Japan slowed their futur combat systems back in the early 20th century and that is a main contribution to their defeat in 1945...

is disingenuous . You know he doesn't mean there will be no weapons development. You know there are many development programs in addition to this one. You know you're looking for any excuse to land a jab because you also know you're party's on the ropes.

Let's talk about what McCain would likely do: keep troop levels high in Iraq. Thereby perpetuating the drain on available dollars and wearing out the current equipment. FCS will not be ready to fill the gap for many years so that equipment will have to be repaired/replaced. Further draining the budget. Where's the money going to come from? FCS perhaps???

**Drew1369** · 05-17-2008, 01:58 AM

Quote:

The Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the cornerstone of Army Modernization. FCS is the Army’s promise to provide Soldiers the best equipment and technology available as soon as practical. FCS is not just a technology development program-it is the development of new Brigade Combat Teams-these new brigades, with more infantry, better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communications allowing complete domination in asymmetric ground warfare while allowing the Army to build a force that can sustain itself in remote areas.

https://www.fcs.army.mil/

https://www.fcs.army.mil/news/pdf/US...ng_Overdue.pdf

Jab... perhaps... I have to get mine in as well do to all of the jabs and left hooks coming from the other side.

But come on... this program is going to non-the-less rock... I have seen some of these programs in the field and they kick much booty.

But what I'm getting at is what more is he going to cut? Many people (from both sides) have decried the F-22 saying that the F-15 is good enough.

Really? Perhaps, but again the point... if you do not update you fall behind.

Look at it as a virus and virus protection updates.

Would you decline an update because your current version is working just fine?

**simpswr** · 05-17-2008, 05:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew1369

I don't understand what you are getting at...

I guess I was responding to what seemed to be an inferance that the other party would not delelop weapons . .

mommabear · 05-17-2008, 10:01 AM

Quote:

The Future Combat Systems (FCS) is the cornerstone of Army Modernization. FCS is the Army’s promise to provide Soldiers the best equipment and technology available as soon as practical. FCS is not just a technology development program-it is the development of new Brigade Combat Teams-these new brigades, with more infantry, better equipment, unmatched situational awareness and communications allowing complete domination in asymmetric ground warfare while allowing the Army to build a force that can sustain itself in remote areas.

Uh, I'm no expert, but the first thing that crossed my mind when I read this (especially the part I've bolded), was that I saw a story headline about the soldiers in Iraq finally starting to receive the reinforced vehicles they've been begging for to give them more protection from the IEDs. I think I saw that article less than a month ago.

If that's the way Rumsfeld's FCS takes care of our soldiers, then there has to be a better way.

**EnglishPaul** · 05-19-2008, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew1369

Look at it as a virus and virus protection updates.

Would you decline an update because your current version is working just fine?

But if you are running out of money, it is better to pay the electric bill rather than the virus update subscription!

**Drew1369** · 05-19-2008, 07:47 PM

.....

Not much I can reply to with that one EP... touche

**Chode** · 05-21-2008, 02:12 PM

EP, choosing not to collect revenue from those able to pay isn't the same thing as not having revenue available; it's just bad tax policy. And drew, the big issue isn't the cost of FCS, per se, but some very real concerns about what benefit we're getting for all this money being spent.

The history of FCS is just one long, sad story of ballooning costs (the original projection for the program was $92B, current projections are around $450B) and lowered expectations. Originally, one of the big benefits of FCS was that we would have a new generation of tanks and artillery that could be transported by C-130s. These vehicles would offer enhanced lethality and comparable or better survivability than the current inventory. right. At present, none of the FCS manned combat vehicles look to transportable by C-130. They just can't meet the goal for design weight/performance. Yet, rather than admit failure, the Pentagon just keeps throwing money at the program.

We spent major money developing the Crusader as a replacement for the Paladin, then scrapped it for a nebulous FCS replacement that is looking more and more like a minor face lift to the Paladin. And it can't be carried by a C-130. Meanwhile, there is the Bofors Archer. Fast, light, good crew protection, fires all NATO 155mm rounds including the Excalibur, 6 rounds MRSI capability, and it can park and start firing in about 60 seconds.

When it comes to tanks, there isn't anything on the drawing board that beats an Abrams. In fact, the Army plans to upgrade the Abrams and keep it in service for many years. In an urban battlefield, when things get hot, you don't send in the Stykers, you send in the Abrams. Even with innovations in ceramic armor, electromagnetic armor, and reactive armor, the M1A2 is still the best of the best and is likely to remain so for the next decade at least.

Hell, after 3 years and $5B, Boeing hasn't even been able to deliver a new, interservice radio. Pork, pork, and more pork. The Joint Strike Fighter has become the single most expensive weapon development program in history, and the finished product looks to be so expensive that potential buyers are cutting their orders, thus raising the cost per plane even more. Meanwhile, the F16 just gets better and better, and so cheap potato farmers in Idaho can buy them.

**EnglishPaul** · 05-21-2008, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drew1369

.....

Not much I can reply to with that one EP... touche

Oh, but look! Chode seems to have managed it!

O.K. so may be it would have been better to say "would you sell your granny to afford a new virus update?"

Like always, Chode, I know none of the details, and so can't be the one to come back at you. But it does surprise me that a potato farmer from Idaho is allowed to buy an F16.

**Chode** · 05-21-2008, 04:02 PM

Well, citizens can't buy F16's, but my point was that this is a very inexpensive aircraft that has proven to be upgradeable at reasonable costs, and can do many of the missions that it's big bucks replacement is supposed to fulfill.

My problem with the FCS platform is that the key offensive elements aren't likely to more mobile and deployable than existing units, and they don't provide significantly enhanced fire power and protection than current assets. They just cost a lot more.

It's fine to say that the FCS program is building a force to fight the next war, but who are we fighting? Well, the Chinese are about 20 years behind the curve, and the Russian Airforce may have some good aircraft in their arsenal, but they aren't buying and deploying them, or training pilots.

The Israelis proved that even old M60 Patton tanks could beat Russian armor given proper tactics, and any of the Abrams variants as well as the British Chieftains and German Leopards can roll over Russian armor without stopping to catch a breath.

05-16-2008, 05:42 PM	#1 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,158 OS: Vista Business	In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dl32Y...eature=related "I will slow our development of future combat systems." Yeah... Beautiful... Lets forget history ehh? Japan slowed their futur combat systems back in the early 20th century and that is a main contribution to their defeat in 1945... he will get rid of our nuclear weapons... Yeah because if America does it everyone else will too right? What a turd this guy... Drop our "unproven" Missle Defense system (which has shot down numerous test missles, several scud missles that Saddam claimed to have not had, oh and... what was it... oh yeah a satalite) and lets not forget that many weapons on the battlefield during the first Persian Gulf war where "unproven." Again... what a turd. __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

05-16-2008, 06:32 PM	#2 (permalink)
simpswr Mentor Hardware Team Join Date: May 2007 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 3,810 OS: XP, Vista	Re: In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... . . and lets not forget that many weapons on the battlefield during the first Persian Gulf war where "unproven" . . And after 12 years of Republican administrations yet . . . __________________ Rich MemTest86 \| BIOS \| BenchTest \| Spyware Cleaning \| How to Post a Screen shot \| PC running slow

05-16-2008, 06:41 PM	#3 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,158 OS: Vista Business	Re: In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... I don't understand what you are getting at... __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

05-19-2008, 07:47 PM	#9 (permalink)
Drew1369 TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Seattle, WA, USA Posts: 2,158 OS: Vista Business	Re: In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... ..... Not much I can reply to with that one EP... touche __________________ Marge: We wouldn't be in this trouble if you'd just paid the heating bill! Homer: I thought global warming would take care of it! Al Gore can't do anything right!

05-21-2008, 02:12 PM	#10 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 726 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... EP, choosing not to collect revenue from those able to pay isn't the same thing as not having revenue available; it's just bad tax policy. And drew, the big issue isn't the cost of FCS, per se, but some very real concerns about what benefit we're getting for all this money being spent. The history of FCS is just one long, sad story of ballooning costs (the original projection for the program was $92B, current projections are around $450B) and lowered expectations. Originally, one of the big benefits of FCS was that we would have a new generation of tanks and artillery that could be transported by C-130s. These vehicles would offer enhanced lethality and comparable or better survivability than the current inventory. right. At present, none of the FCS manned combat vehicles look to transportable by C-130. They just can't meet the goal for design weight/performance. Yet, rather than admit failure, the Pentagon just keeps throwing money at the program. We spent major money developing the Crusader as a replacement for the Paladin, then scrapped it for a nebulous FCS replacement that is looking more and more like a minor face lift to the Paladin. And it can't be carried by a C-130. Meanwhile, there is the Bofors Archer. Fast, light, good crew protection, fires all NATO 155mm rounds including the Excalibur, 6 rounds MRSI capability, and it can park and start firing in about 60 seconds. When it comes to tanks, there isn't anything on the drawing board that beats an Abrams. In fact, the Army plans to upgrade the Abrams and keep it in service for many years. In an urban battlefield, when things get hot, you don't send in the Stykers, you send in the Abrams. Even with innovations in ceramic armor, electromagnetic armor, and reactive armor, the M1A2 is still the best of the best and is likely to remain so for the next decade at least. Hell, after 3 years and $5B, Boeing hasn't even been able to deliver a new, interservice radio. Pork, pork, and more pork. The Joint Strike Fighter has become the single most expensive weapon development program in history, and the finished product looks to be so expensive that potential buyers are cutting their orders, thus raising the cost per plane even more. Meanwhile, the F16 just gets better and better, and so cheap potato farmers in Idaho can buy them. __________________ Sweet!

05-21-2008, 04:02 PM	#12 (permalink)
Chode TSF Enthusiast Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 726 OS: Windows XP Pro	Re: In 52 seconds Barak Obama has killed his general election ability... Well, citizens can't buy F16's, but my point was that this is a very inexpensive aircraft that has proven to be upgradeable at reasonable costs, and can do many of the missions that it's big bucks replacement is supposed to fulfill. My problem with the FCS platform is that the key offensive elements aren't likely to more mobile and deployable than existing units, and they don't provide significantly enhanced fire power and protection than current assets. They just cost a lot more. It's fine to say that the FCS program is building a force to fight the next war, but who are we fighting? Well, the Chinese are about 20 years behind the curve, and the Russian Airforce may have some good aircraft in their arsenal, but they aren't buying and deploying them, or training pilots. The Israelis proved that even old M60 Patton tanks could beat Russian armor given proper tactics, and any of the Abrams variants as well as the British Chieftains and German Leopards can roll over Russian armor without stopping to catch a breath. __________________ Sweet!