All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll! - Page 635 - Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans

Go Back  Ford F150 Forum - Community of Ford Truck Fans > Community > Off-Topic
All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll! >

All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll!

Topic Sponsor
Off-Topic Want to discuss something not related to a Ford F150? Here's the place.
View Poll Results: Should the electoral college remain or should it be switched to popular vote?
Yes, they should remain the way they are.
211
42.03%
No, it should be up to popular vote.
291
57.97%
Voters: 502. You may not vote on this poll

All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll!

Reply

 
 
 
Old 04-21-2014, 11:22 PM
  #6341  
Senior Member
 
tom231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,304
Thanked 142 Times in 102 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gone postal View Post
Yeah, the LCS, $200 million original estimated hull cost off the slips, final cost for the first two articles $658 million and $704 million.

The cost overruns on the first 2 articles would keep Lima running for 4 years.

Tell me again how keeping Lima open is a waste?
I never said anything about closing Lima. I merely suggested a different use, because nobody wants the tanks they are currently producing. = Waste.
tom231 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-21-2014, 11:46 PM
  #6342  
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,722
Thanked 267 Times in 198 Posts
Default

Lima exists to produce one article. M-1 tanks. The only adaptation that could be made to produce something else would likely be another MBT.

It is the ONLY plant in CONUS which has the tooling to produce main battle tanks.

It might be a good capability to keep active.

$255 million doesn't even touch the cost overruns on the LCS, DDG-1000, CVN-21, or F-35, yet it keeps a national asset active. That isn't waste, that's foresight. FCS ($25 billion over 4 years with no vehicles delivered) is waste. LCS ($600+ million hulls for close shore combat vessels with no offensive armament, only weak self-defense) is waste. F-35 ($1 trillion and rising) is waste.
gone postal is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 06:45 AM
  #6343  
Just Another Member
 
Theocoog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,520
Thanked 137 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gone postal View Post
Lima exists to produce one article. M-1 tanks. The only adaptation that could be made to produce something else would likely be another MBT.

It is the ONLY plant in CONUS which has the tooling to produce main battle tanks.

It might be a good capability to keep active.

$255 million doesn't even touch the cost overruns on the LCS, DDG-1000, CVN-21, or F-35, yet it keeps a national asset active. That isn't waste, that's foresight. FCS ($25 billion over 4 years with no vehicles delivered) is waste. LCS ($600+ million hulls for close shore combat vessels with no offensive armament, only weak self-defense) is waste. F-35 ($1 trillion and rising) is waste.
I agree. It's almost as if they're using the closing of the Lima production facilities as a distraction or deception away from the really money pits, such as those you mentioned. When you put the numbers together, $255 million is chump change to these people. But by telling congress that they don't want anymore MBTs, senior Army and DoD officials can claim frugality and at the same time keep their pet projects alive.
Theocoog is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 07:11 AM
  #6344  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 3,404
Thanked 458 Times in 365 Posts
Default

It's important, to me anyway, to make a distinction. There is a difference between funding our operational forces and funding the apparatus that is 'DoD'.

We don't need to cut any dollars that directly support our troops or their benefits - I would argue for an increase.

We absolutely need to butcher the parasite that is the 'DoD'. Those projects with huge overruns serve only the purpose of making a select few very wealthy. If you look back at WWI and WWII, we were able to turn out exceptional products (Liberty ships excepted) in great volume and in short time periods. Now there are WAY too many thinkers (use that term very loosely) and not enough doers.
WarSurfer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 08:09 AM
  #6345  
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,722
Thanked 267 Times in 198 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WarSurfer View Post
It's important, to me anyway, to make a distinction. There is a difference between funding our operational forces and funding the apparatus that is 'DoD'.

We don't need to cut any dollars that directly support our troops or their benefits - I would argue for an increase.

We absolutely need to butcher the parasite that is the 'DoD'. Those projects with huge overruns serve only the purpose of making a select few very wealthy. If you look back at WWI and WWII, we were able to turn out exceptional products (Liberty ships excepted) in great volume and in short time periods. Now there are WAY too many thinkers (use that term very loosely) and not enough doers.

It's far, far more important for troops to have money to train than it is to have the latest, greatest, shiniest weapons systems.

During the Bush/Clinton reductions, they cut training and operations budgets to fund new, shiny toys. The result? For one example, we had a limit of 25 miles per month on our tracked vehicles. It was a 12 mile convoy out to our local training area. This resulted in troops sitting on their asses in the barracks instead of training. Due to the mileage allowance, we were actually able to train on our warfighting mission every other month. The other result of this was massive increases in maintenance costs. When tracks don't move, they break. Seals dry out then leak, track pins dry rot, hydraulic systems get water in the fluid, ad nauseum. The same goes for aircraft, or any other complex mechanical system. The USAF was down to ONE hot spare engine for the F-16 fleet at one point during that debacle.

I'd much rather have an 85-90% solution at 70% of the cost (2 examples, buy F-15 silent eagles instead of F-35s, which by Boeing's offer was $65 million fly away cost vs. the $100+ million for F-35s, or buy an off the shelf frigate in lieu of LCS) and have the remaining 30% savings dumped into the training and maintenance budgets.
gone postal is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 08:33 AM
  #6346  
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 3,404
Thanked 458 Times in 365 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by gone postal View Post
It's far, far more important for troops to have money to train than it is to have the latest, greatest, shiniest weapons systems. During the Bush/Clinton reductions, they cut training and operations budgets to fund new, shiny toys. The result? For one example, we had a limit of 25 miles per month on our tracked vehicles. It was a 12 mile convoy out to our local training area. This resulted in troops sitting on their asses in the barracks instead of training. Due to the mileage allowance, we were actually able to train on our warfighting mission every other month. The other result of this was massive increases in maintenance costs. When tracks don't move, they break. Seals dry out then leak, track pins dry rot, hydraulic systems get water in the fluid, ad nauseum. The same goes for aircraft, or any other complex mechanical system. The USAF was down to ONE hot spare engine for the F-16 fleet at one point during that debacle. I'd much rather have an 85-90% solution at 70% of the cost (2 examples, buy F-15 silent eagles instead of F-35s, which by Boeing's offer was $65 million fly away cost vs. the $100+ million for F-35s, or buy an off the shelf frigate in lieu of LCS) and have the remaining 30% savings dumped into the training and maintenance budgets.
I'm all for 'latest and greatest' but as you say, not at the expense of training, care and feeding, etc...

Afghanistan is an example of technology not necessarily being a combat multiplier. We spent billions on hardware and software for crypto intercept capabilities and they use messengers on donkeys.
WarSurfer is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-22-2014, 08:55 AM
  #6347  
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,722
Thanked 267 Times in 198 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by WarSurfer View Post
I'm all for 'latest and greatest' but as you say, not at the expense of training, care and feeding, etc...

Afghanistan is an example of technology not necessarily being a combat multiplier. We spent billions on hardware and software for crypto intercept capabilities and they use messengers on donkeys.
Another classic example of the latest and greatest actually being a major detriment to warfighting capabilities is our commo gear. When it's so damned expensive and complex that commanders refuse to let it out of storage for fear of their careers if something is broken or lost, there's a problem with the system. (there's more to it than that, but I can't go there, so to speak). The result of this lack of training time on the gear is troops not using the gear properly, leaving gaping holes in comsec procedures and capabilities. It's new, its highly capable, it's expensive as hell, and absolutely useless.
gone postal is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 11:31 AM
  #6348  
Administrator
 
ymeski56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Beach Calimexifornia
Posts: 34,213
Thanked 961 Times in 540 Posts
Default

ymeski56 is online now  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 11:55 AM
  #6349  
Ahahahahahaha!!!
 
Buddhaman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Ethiopia, Mongoria
Posts: 14,415
Thanked 12 Times in 7 Posts
Default

That's awesome.
Buddhaman is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old 04-23-2014, 06:28 PM
  #6350  
SilverBullet
iTrader: (3)
 
LaBalaDePlata's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Odessa, Texas, 432
Posts: 8,018
Thanked 106 Times in 93 Posts
Default

LaBalaDePlata is offline  
Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll!


Contact Us Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: