Comments on: In the Tank

By: Military vs. Space: why the Mars Rover is a great deal. « David's Slingshot

Military vs. Space: why the Mars Rover is a great deal. « David's Slingshot — Tue, 07 Aug 2012 00:54:15 +0000

[...] Some of the projects that Congress supports are things the Pentagon doesn’t want. Such as 3 billion dollars for refurbishing tanks that the Pentagon plans to replace anyway: with a model that doesn’t have a glaring weakness [...]

By: PatriotSGT

PatriotSGT — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 18:56:23 +0000

This is a prime example of what I was saying in a previous post about the defense budget and how our training and equipment monies have been cut while the money gets diverted to special interest projects.
Congress won’t cut defense because of exactly this. They will reduce our dollars for buying Soldier equipment and training. In my state we are already preparing for the inevitable doomsday cutbacks that are luming out there in the years to come. Prior to 911 we had years like that when there wasn’t gas money for military vehicles to drive to the rifle range so Soldiers could maintain proficiency. But I can guarantee projects like the one you pointed out will get their share.

Please call your congress critter and stop the insanity.

By: ThatGuy

ThatGuy — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 07:30:32 +0000

IK, a lot of US hardware came out ages ago and have been kept going by updates. The B-52 is an example of this, though not as at-risk as an M1 I’ll grant you that. I’m just wary of any new programs to find completely new vehicles or weapons as many end up costing a whole lot and not delivering for a while. The v-22 osprey being an example of that.

By: Don

Don — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 05:43:11 +0000

The M! and the M1A1 were designed to fight a war in Europe. They are not cut out for urban or gorilla warfare. As low to that ground as they are, it might be difficult to provide decent contours to disperse the blast of an IED instead of taking it full on. Seems like adding armor might help, though.

By: Iron Knee

Iron Knee — Wed, 01 Aug 2012 00:07:41 +0000

The M1 originally came out in 1980, so it is probably due for a redesign.

By: ThatGuy

ThatGuy — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 23:42:14 +0000

What’s weird is you’d expect General Dynamics to simply modify the design and create refit kits to update existing tanks and at least make up for the end of the refurbishment program, right? That seems to make more sense than scrapping the M1 all together and having companies vie for a new, untested design. The R&D for a new program might be even more expensive than refitting the new tanks, not to mention a lot slower.

That said, I think the Pentagon needs at least enough leeway in their operation to be able to specifically veto expensive programs they don’t want. Though I suppose it’d be a cold day in hell before any government agency gives back money it has been given.

Jeff makes a really good point. It’s really sad that no one could support the Pentagon in getting rid of the refurbishment program and fixing what’s wrong with the existing tanks. For supporting a policy adjustment that would be better for the budget, create jobs, please the Pentagon and especially improve the safety of troops who operate these tanks, Congresspeople could be painted as soft on national security. Welcome to the Twilight Zone.

By: Jeff

Jeff — Tue, 31 Jul 2012 17:21:39 +0000

Politicians care more about their image and the distorted messages they would encounter than doing anything that utilizes common sense. Here we have a perfect example of a way to save taxpayer dollars. But the folks in Congress seem to be worried that they’ll appear soft on national security, and don’t seem to have a lot of confidence in their ability to explain their vote to end this superfluous program.