Comments on: Legislative Sausage in the Works

By: pau

pau — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 20:18:01 +0000

Do we really need to be in Iraq? I say no!

By: WR

WR — Fri, 23 May 2008 05:51:57 +0000

"useless article"? "this contributes nothing"? Despite Military Curmudgeon's anti-American jab at religions in the HK416 article and the "uselessness" of this article, I say give him a 3rd chance and no more. If he doesn't change for the better, then keelhaul MC and have him walk the plank.

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 20 May 2008 16:38:46 +0000

I think one thing about the Skycrane or a variant of it is that it could hopefully take the FCS vehicles a little further than the C-17.I mean,the C-17 could get the vehicle to the airport,but if you were in a mountainous region like Afghanistan,the Skycrane or variant could get it into the mountains.Forget capsules for carrying people,let the CH-47 carry the people,let the Skycrane or its variant carry the super heavy equipment that the CH-47 cannot lift.This would be very necessary if,heaven forbid,we actually decided to send troops into Iran or even the tribal areas of Pakistan.That is my argument for the Skycrane or its variant.As I said before,let the Skycrane both supplement & complement the CH-47 Chinook(work in tandem with).

By: Roy Smith

Roy Smith — Tue, 20 May 2008 04:09:53 +0000

I mentioned the Sky Crane before because I actually saw a “model” of a CH-53 modified to appear like the CH-54 Skycrane.Now the modified CH-53 is just a concept that will most likely “never get off the ground(no pun intended),” but they do already have rebuilt CH-54s already out there & they have frames that can be rebuilt.Of course,there are also plenty of CH-53s out there that can be altered & modified to resemble a Skycrane,but I think people want something bright,new,& shiny instead.Personally,I’m for recycling & rebuilding.

By: mike

mike — Tue, 20 May 2008 03:58:53 +0000

Roy Smith — In regards to your question on the Skycrane:
The CH-53E Super Stallion in service with the Marines since the eighties and is still in service today. It has a external load carrying carrying capacity of 15 tons. I believe that is two or three tons more than the Skycrane could ever carry, is that true?? The Sikorsky designation is S80E.
The Navy also uses a variant for minesweeping and for some heavy lift.
There is a CH-53K version coming out but will not be operational until 2015. But I am not sure of funding status.

By: Mystick

Mystick — Mon, 19 May 2008 20:03:50 +0000

What a lot of people both in Congress, and, unfortunately, the Pentagon forget is that all these sexy weapons systems are fine and dandy, but one of the strengths of the US military has been its ability to move men and material across long distances in a short period of time. This ability is just as important as precision standoff weaponry, fast planes, and hi-tech grunt gear.
All that stuff is worth nothing if it can’t be moved to the appropriate place on the battlefield when its needed.

By: Nessuno

Nessuno — Mon, 19 May 2008 18:59:18 +0000

Here’s a political reality that apparently Curmudgeon hasn’t considered.
The reason things like trucks and transports are left for earmarks is because Congress wants the congressmen to get political credit for it. That’s basically it. If we got rid of the earmark process in military budgeting, we wouldn’t lose these vital purchases; they would simply be included in the larger budget.
Above all other considerations, including party affiliation, all congressmen have the mutual self interest of getting re-elected. So they help each other out by maximizing the appearance of value that the individual congressman brings to the district. They want to be able to point to something tangible and tell constituents, “I di that for you!“
The only reason F22s and aircraft carriers aren’t funded by earmarks is that it would appear too obscene and backfire. Otherwise, I guarantee they’d be for it.
So if you eliminate earmarks, you don’t eliminate these vital purchases, you just eliminate the political pandering and ego stroking. And you also force militarily useless projects to be considered by committee and voted on, which would reduce wasted money on programs that were glibly ignored by the original post.

By: TDS4S

TDS4S — Mon, 19 May 2008 17:22:45 +0000

What the…? This contributes nothing. If Military Curmudgeon has a point to make about the appropriations process, then he should state it clearly along with some organized supporting evidence. If he just has a gripe about our entirely terrible senior military and political leadership, then he should shut up and get out like I did. But either way, no more of this pointless moaning, please.

By: DFW

DFW — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:56:51 +0000

This has to be the most useless article I’ve seen on here before. Nothing informative about it… just a bunch of whining.
If the quality doesn’t improve quickly, DefenseTech needs to remove this “blogger”.

By: Tim

Tim — Mon, 19 May 2008 16:47:56 +0000

I’d buy this argument if there wasn’t a 99.9% correlation between congress critters pushing for more of X and X being built in their district.
The DoD’s priorities may be out of whack, but at least they are defense-related. Congress forces buys of lots of unecessary stuff and impedes cancellation of white elephants, too. You really have to close your eyes and squint to see Congress’ contribution as positive, instead of entirely self-centered.