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



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. 183 40.22%
No, it should be up to popular vote. 272 59.78%
Voters: 455. You may not vote on this poll

All things Political!! BK2 Rules, Newer Poll!

Closed Thread
 
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 04-22-2014, 12:22 AM   #6341
Senior Member
 
tom231's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 1,250
Thanked 127 Times in 97 Posts
Default

Quote:
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  
Old 04-22-2014, 12:46 AM   #6342
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,543
Thanked 187 Times in 153 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 offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 07:45 AM   #6343
Just Another Member
 
Theocoog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: New England
Posts: 1,514
Thanked 135 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Quote:
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  
Old 04-22-2014, 08:11 AM   #6344
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 3,367
Thanked 450 Times in 359 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 offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:09 AM   #6345
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,543
Thanked 187 Times in 153 Posts
Default

Quote:
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 offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:33 AM   #6346
Senior Member
 
WarSurfer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: DC
Posts: 3,367
Thanked 450 Times in 359 Posts
Default

Quote:
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 offline  
Old 04-22-2014, 09:55 AM   #6347
Senior Member
 
gone postal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Central NY
Posts: 5,543
Thanked 187 Times in 153 Posts
Default

Quote:
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 offline  
Old 04-23-2014, 12:31 PM   #6348
Administrator
 
ymeski56's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Long Beach Calimexifornia
Posts: 34,158
Thanked 961 Times in 540 Posts
Default

ymeski56 is online now  
Old 04-23-2014, 12:55 PM   #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  
Old 04-23-2014, 07:28 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  
 
 
Closed Thread

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The EPA has changed the rules on corn in gasoline. rtg143 Off-Topic 5 09-25-2017 01:24 PM
2015 F-150 Steering Vibration idrive Maintenance Shop 4 02-03-2017 10:20 AM
Duel fuel tank neither pump will work F150jelly 6 Cylinder Engines 8 12-25-2015 11:11 PM
Need help with P0022, P0354, and P0355 Chipadelphia 2004 - 2008 Ford F150 13 12-03-2015 09:36 AM
Can I Upgrade Wiper Arms To Newer Style? MT-Ford 1987 - 1996 F150 2 09-05-2015 01:58 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:53 PM.


Copyright 2006 - 2017 F150Forum.com 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: