Comments on: QDR: Reviews Pour In

By: Robert

Robert — Thu, 16 Feb 2006 15:41:03 +0000

The V-22 is a suicide boondogle and continuing the program is throwing good money after bad.
whereas the dd(x)is well based on good engineering and operational needs for the future.
re: the House on fire post, That’s because rumsfeld and cadre are the ones who keep setting the fire!

By: Ken Talton

Ken Talton — Mon, 06 Feb 2006 20:33:06 +0000

Actually, I rather strongly disagree with the notion of getting rid of DDX. It is a good replacement for the BBs in fire support. Its 155mm guns will be very long ranged and they should be fairly survivable. If hitting power comparable to a 16 inch shell is needed it can launch a tomahawk or TACM. It looks to be a useful and fairly versitile complement to the fleet.
CGX and the LCS are actually using the tech developed for it, which is why their costs seem lower.
Note that the US must be capable of fighting wars of “all temperatures”. If we get rid of the capability to wage a stand up-fight we virtually ensure that someone else will exploit that.
A development/ replacement of the A-10 some bombers, mabey just millitarized 747s and a shift to a good medium cartridge like the 7mm Enfield or 6.5mm Grendel would be high priorities if this third-class-part-time-enlisted-puke ever got his way.

By: Charlie

Charlie — Sun, 05 Feb 2006 15:35:49 +0000

Ok, the only thing I agree with is dropping the DD(X) system, since it’s still in the R&D stage. But the Raptor, Osprey and Virginia class are already operational, so by canceling them all you are doing is throwing more money down the toilet, not to mention eliminating thousands of jobs that were created by these programs. I live just south of Dobbins AF base/Lockheed’s Marietta plant, where they make the F-22, and I know that if it wasn’t for the F-22 program, that plant would have most likely been shut down, and thousands of people would have been out of a job.

By: Sarge

Sarge — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 23:37:01 +0000

I wonder how long the DoD & its contractors can carry on before the whole “system” collapses completely?

By: Steve

Steve — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 21:44:43 +0000

Even though I’am Navy, I gotta think that the DDX has to go, the Burke Class will be just fine in he future.

By: Big D

Big D — Sat, 04 Feb 2006 19:07:14 +0000

OK, let’s wipe out our sub-building, for starters. We won’t need sub construction lines in 20 years when most of the current fleet gets AARP invites.
Better yet, let’s cancel the Virginia class and start building a new, cheaper sub design that we can build in large numbers some day later on!
Oh, wait, that was the idea for the Virginia class, to throw away the fixed costs for the Seawolf and start over. The Virginia looked cheap, on paper, as long as we built a bunch of them. At current predicted rates, they’re not that much less than SSN-21.
Let’s also assume that we will face no other enemy but irregular infantry for the next 20 years, even if we throw away most of the stuff designed to fight those enemies.
Look, I might disagree with specific things like spending $3B in NON-R&D costs on each DD(X), but this whole “let’s change everything to light infantry to fight the current fight” is rather short-sighted.