Comments on: New Weapons Get Big Cash in Pentagon Request

By: popstalon

popstalon — Fri, 02 Jan 2009 14:17:56 +0000

what is the POTUS? S
omeone just recently asked me about it.

By: curt w

curt w — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 20:53:48 +0000

well, the army is going to get a good budget but it will be wasted on that stupid land warrior system. the manufacturer is going to reduce the weight to 80 lbs before the army will accept it. well now ad in your body armor and your in the range of 125 lbs of gear. the army should apply some of this budget to finding a more effective combat caliber for weapons. make the soldier a more effective killer as opposed to a stupid looking robot that cant move fast on the battlefield.

By: Greg

Greg — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:33:55 +0000

The Special Operations Forces (SOF) have a few guidelines regarding operations, one of them is “Quality is better than Quantity.“
America should definitely try and keep an equal balance, but if necessary, quality should be the key factor in introducing new technologies to the battlefield. Today, insurgents have the numbers in a given city, but they must use insurgent, guerilla tactics to wear us down and gradually increase casualties, as in a war of attrition. Quality or training and quality of technology is still much more important than numbers.
Focus on better quality and innovation rather than how much money can i save.

By: Dusty

Dusty — Fri, 09 Feb 2007 06:27:03 +0000

Carriers serve an excellent purpose, especially when
putting troops and equipment on the ground. When neighboring countries refuse to allow US forces to base operations in their countries, aircraft carriers can bring troops on the ground as well as provide air support. Carriers, yes, are by no means stealthy or maneuverable, instead of replacing the carrier with something that cannot fulfill the same roles, replace and/or upgrade today’s carriers with lighter, stealthier ones; ones that can fulfull the same capabilities and roles that carriers play.

By: ben

ben — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 17:44:46 +0000

Speks is free.

By: Murc

Murc — Wed, 07 Feb 2007 01:00:19 +0000

Joe M — If your unsure of what the acronym means…either google it, or use wikipedia.
BT — the cougar is good, but its big…which can be good and bad. The army needs its lighter vehicles to, but these lighter vehicles…these days, must be armored. I’m kinda partial to General Dynamics humvee replacement concept…known as Joint Light Tactical Vehicle (JLTV).
I’m with you on the thermal instead of Night vision.
I’m not to keen on mothballing subs though, they are the epitome of stealth, I think we need to do some work on making them cheaper, and going diesel/electric…instead of making the majority of them (very expensive) nuclear.
The F-35 has a role to play, and with so many countries backing it…I dont see it getting cancelled. Although a rather annoying thing, is when they talk about what its going to replace…and then they go and spend millions on upgrading what they are planning on getting rid of. A prime example is the A-10…its old, its ugly, but it does a good job and should not and will not be canned. The harrier it will definitely replace…and I think the AF is still planning on it replacing (at least some of) the F-16’s…and as for the Navy’s hornet.…i dont know…I think its going to replace the hornet…but with sit side by side the super hornets.
I disagree about the B-52, you shouldn’t get rid of your cheap bomb truck.
The F-117…yes, its out dated, and its payload is very small, this is one aircraft that should be retired…unfortunately, theres Lockheed that keeps rattling on and on about how its still great, and that they can outfit them to be unmanned and ground controlled…I hope they dont receive funding for such a dumb idea.
Thermopile — Yes, the carriers do an alright job…but I prefer something that makes economical sense. I would rather have a fleet of Arsenal Ships, which was a good concept. Imagine over a dozen of them…they would sit low, and be stealthy, have a small crew (around a dozen), and carry a couple hundred missiles, and outfit it with a EM gun when they come of age.
There has never being a hostile attack on a carrier…I think a reason the terrorist or enemy countries haven

By: Dmac

Dmac — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:41:32 +0000

DragonSkin failed miserably in its testing at an independent lab — I haven’t the slightest idea why folks are agitating for its adoption. The DragonSkin execs do run a good PR campaign, I suppose.

By: Haninah

Haninah — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 15:08:10 +0000

@BT:
Retire the B52?!? Well, there’s a first time for hearing every suggestion, I guess…

By: BT

BT — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 10:14:47 +0000

Murc, I’m with you, the Army keeps trying to wish away this nightmare of 4GW, and go with their pork projects.
I’d choose the Barret 468 6.8mm SPC or something similar. Dragon Skin is a must, its NIJ L3 now. The Cougar works as advertised no need waste time reinventing any new vehicle; although I’d like to see more Ti, ceramic composite and less RHA. We should supply state of the art thermal scopes/goggles for every soldier. Passive low-light NVG is so yesterday, even the insurgents have been found using them. Not enough boots walking the beat, where are the armed UGV’s/sentries? Can someone please create hyper spectral sub-surface radar, for those damned IED

By: Joe M

Joe M — Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:39:12 +0000

Hey Murc,
i’m new to this!! why so many TLA’s (3 lettered acronyms) Pleae let me kknow what they met because Your comment seemed interesting and informative..
Money definetly on New weapons and Intelligence gathering.. Also I do not see satellites Losing there place either Space based Lasers is Still better than Nuclear, Bio, or chemical for that fact Perfect on point targeting and No casualties…