Weapon systems John Kerry wanted to cancel/cut

[Rogue 9]

Yeah, but an Iowa can just sit offshore and keep pounding, while cruisers run out of missiles and bombers have to get fuel. If (and that's a big if) it does happen, a battleship is perfect for the role.

[Sea Skimmer]

For the "leveling of everything" strikes aren't bombers better? Is shore bombardment sufficient reason to maintain an Iowa?

Nope, and firing 16 inch shells to 23 miles is the only unique capability an Iowa has. As it was there reactivation in the 80's was justified mainly to provide the USN with a large volume of long-range cruise missile capability (this was before we had a vast fleet of VLS cruisers to fire Tomahawks) with which to combat the Soviet surface fleet. It was also a time when the USN's carriers where also somewhat lacking in long range anti shipping weapons, Air launched Harpoon and HARM only entered service in the mid 80's. When we got more missiles into the fleet on surface ships and aircraft they became redundant and where retired.

[Sea Skimmer]

Yeah, but an Iowa can just sit offshore and keep pounding, while cruisers run out of missiles and bombers have to get fuel. If (and that's a big if) it does happen, a battleship is perfect for the role.

An Iowa sitting offshore is an incredibly easy target for mines missiles and shore batteries, many of which now outrange their armaments. In the Gulf War it took the efforts of about twenty minesweepers and a carrier load of anti mine helicopters just to clear the two Iowa's deployed a mile square area each, in which they where forced to constantly circle. And when Iraqi shore defenses fired at she proved unable to hit the offending missile battery and had to withdraw until A-6's bombed it.

[Sea Skimmer]

I recall the effect during Vietnam (I think it was the New Jersey): The 16in shells were so effective at defoliation that one could clear an effective helicopter LZ.

The LZ's you got from that couple hold only a single heilcopter, BLU-82 worked far better.

The guns also reaped a huge number of NVA casualties. In fact, the New Jersey was one ship North Vietnam demanded the US remove from the theater before the Paris peace talks could begin, even though the USN also had 4 carriers there as well.

That is complete and utter bullshit. The only thing North Vietnam requested was the ceasing of all air and naval bombardments, no referance was made to any specific unit or ship, nor did they actually ask for the units to be withdrawn.

[Exonerate]

Err, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the armor of a Battleship a major argument for it?

[Howedar]

Consider yourself wrong and corrected. You can't armor against a large antiship missile.

[Vympel]

Well, at the time was DIVADS such a disaster? I can't recall when the programme was finally killed.

It took a while, but by 1984 the problems with it certainly were quite evident, off the top of my head (M48 chassis in the age of the M1, crappy radar that never worked, and rigged tests). It was a case of spending billions of dollars to save millions of dollars.

Wait, how bad was the original Patriot at its air-defense role? As deployed, it would have been used to attrit Frontal Aviation and maybe cruise missiles, not try and shoot down TABMs. There probably would have been blue-on-blue problems, but that's an issue for every air-defense system ever built.

EDIT: And if it was cancelled, what now? Are you going to leave the US Army and with a bunch of old IHAWK batteries for air-defense?

I don't think the US needs SAM systems like Patriot quite frankly. Air dominance is so complete all you need is anti-TBM systems and SHORADS, as far as I'm concerned. The concept was probably right for the time, but really, I'm a big fan of cancelling systems that don't perform as they should and are over budget and behind schedule. And making the contractor pay for it, too.

IIRC, they were hulls that could readily be used for SAGs and thus were reactivated. As TLAM-N shooters they represented a major threat to the USSR; they would have had to hunt down not only the carriers but the BB groups.

There were plenty of Tomahawk tubes anyway- and we know how many crew they needed. Besides, look at how long they stayed in service after that costly upgrade. Not worth the money.

As opposed to giving them no organic air support off the Gator carriers? How many soldiers have died in UH-60 crashes?

The UH-60 doesn't have as high an accident rate, nor is it a maintenance nightmare by comparison, nor does is it a supposed CAS aircraft with extremely negligible armament load and pathetic survivability in a modern air defense environment. V-22 anyone? They love this white elephant shit. Hell, at least the A-10 is cheap and trouble free.

Not with TF30s and their 1970s AWG-9 was getting a bit old.

The TF30 problems were largely overcome with the P-414A model, and the basic AWG-9 is still a damn good radar. Besides, you don't need a new aircraft to deal with engine problems- you re-engine the existing fleet.

WTF? The USSR was certainly doomed economically, but Reagan's massive spending programs accelerated the Soviet Union's downfall when they attempted to match it with a much smaller GDP and inferior technical base to work with.

Where did they attempt to match it? Can you show any increase in Soviet procurement practice in response to Reagan's efforts in comparison to those of previous presidents? Economic data to show the effects? Reagan wasn't responsbile for it- it was a long time coming. He just happened to be in office at the time. Democrats would be selling the same dubious false cause if one of their's had been in office.

[phongn]

I don't think the US needs SAM systems like Patriot quite frankly. Air dominance is so complete all you need is anti-TBM systems and SHORADS, as far as I'm concerned. The concept was probably right for the time, but really, I'm a big fan of cancelling systems that don't perform as they should and are over budget and behind schedule. And making the contractor pay for it, too.

I'm a big fan of multilayered air-defense systems to catch what leaks through the rest. (e.g. F-106s, then Bomarc, then Nike Hercules, then HAWK for NORAD or CAP, then SM2, then ESSM, then RAM in a more modern sense for the USN)

I can see where you're coming from in cancelling systems that have balooned in cost and time, but what if that leaves no replacement (as often noted, the CH-46 has no replacement, so the V-22 must soldier on).

There were plenty of Tomahawk tubes anyway- and we know how many crew they needed. Besides, look at how long they stayed in service after that costly upgrade. Not worth the money.

There weren't that many TLAM tubes around in the 1980s, IIRC, and despite their cost for refitting they were hulls sitting around. In hindsight, no, it was not worth the money but in that situation the BBs made sense.

A lot, but the UH-60 doesn't have a reputation as a deathtrap (42 marines killed thanks to the Harrier so far), nor is it a maintenance nightmare, nor does is it a supposed CAS aircraft with extremely negligible armament and pathetic survivability. This is coming from someone who thinks the USMC has a serious ego problem btw. V-22 anyone? They love this white elephant shit.

Fair enough, but some air support is better than none. In the context of the Cold War, I'd rather not leave the USMC totally dependant on the large-airstrike-optimized CV force.

The TF30 problems were largely overcome with the P-414A model, and the basic AWG-9 is still a damn good radar. Besides, you don't need a new aircraft to deal with engine problems- you re-engine the existing fleet.

True, but the Super Tomcat was basically the same airframe with new engines and new sensors, which could have been backfitted to the rest of the fleet (as was intended). And IIRC, the TF30-engined Tomcats continued to have trouble even with the newer varients.

Where did they attempt to match it? Can you show any increase in Soviet procurement practice in response to Reagan's efforts in comparison to those of previous presidents? Economic data to show the effects? Reagan wasn't responsbile for it- it was a long time coming. He just happened to be in office at the time. Democrats would be selling the same dubious false cause if one of their's had been in office.

I didn't say that Reagan exclusively caused the downfall of the USSR -- it was a long time coming -- only that he managed to take it down then an there.

(EDIT: I fear that I am an idiot and misspoke. I should have been more clear in that Reagan's offensive against the USSR was not limited to just massive defense expenditures but a variety of tactics).

At least according to N. Friedman's The Fifty Year's War, Gorbachev had directly attempted to counter Reagan's massive technological buildup in his perestoika plans to buy some time: given a taste of freedom the Soviet citizens were not exactly happy to give it back up. The further economic assault (convincing the KSA to raise production so that oil fell from $40 to $12 a barrel from 1980-1986, forcing the USSR to use hard currency for debt relief, increased grain sales to use up Soviet capital, etc.) weakened them.

It was less that the Soviet military had massively changed procurement, it was that it could not face the sudden qualitative American advantage (brought to you by the easily-available microprocessor). They were, frankly, frightened at a whole host a projects, many of which never actually worked (SDI, Assault Breaker

[Ma Deuce]

Yeah, but an Iowa can just sit offshore and keep pounding, while cruisers run out of missiles and bombers have to get fuel. If (and that's a big if) it does happen, a battleship is perfect for the role.

In any case, the USN does lack effective shore bombardment capabilities at the moment, but thats the gap the DD(X) is designed to fill (with its two 155mm howitzers that have an ROF of 12 rounds per minute, out to a range of about 100 miles). Not nearly as much brute firepower as an Iowa, but it will be much more precise, what with various forms of guided projectiles at it's disposal.

[Sea Skimmer]

It took a while, but by 1984 the problems with it certainly were quite evident, off the top of my head (M48 chassis in the age of the M1, crappy radar that never worked, and rigged tests). It was a case of spending billions of dollars to save millions of dollars.

The radar worked fine, same set as the F-16, what didn't work was the elaborate programming someone thought up so it could pick out hovering helicopters via there rotor blades. This led to one amusing test in which the test vehicle engaged an air consideration fan. Though to be fair, an early and in this case live fire test of Phalanx resulted in an island being shot up.

I don't think the US needs SAM systems like Patriot quite frankly. Air dominance is so complete all you need is anti-TBM systems and SHORADS, as far as I'm concerned. The concept was probably right for the time, but really, I'm a big fan of cancelling systems that don't perform as they should and are over budget and behind schedule. And making the contractor pay for it, too.

The US couldn;t expect air dominance in the mid 1980's now could it? Anyway, Patriot brings down aircraft just fine, IFF issues have plauged every military in the world since the British thought up the concept.

There were plenty of Tomahawk tubes anyway- and we know how many crew they needed. Besides, look at how long they stayed in service after that costly upgrade. Not worth the money.

The whole fleet had about thirty two Tomahawk tubes on surface ships when the Iowa's began reactivation.

The UH-60 doesn't have as high an accident rate, nor is it a maintenance nightmare by comparison, nor does is it a supposed CAS aircraft with extremely negligible armament load and pathetic survivability in a modern air defense environment. V-22 anyone? They love this white elephant shit. Hell, at least the A-10 is cheap and trouble free.

No one's ever tried to sell the V-22 as a CAS aircraft.

The TF30 problems were largely overcome with the P-414A model, and the basic AWG-9 is still a damn good radar. Besides, you don't need a new aircraft to deal with engine problems- you re-engine the existing fleet.

Not really, AWG-9 could only scan a very small area at a time, making it hard to keep track of a fast moving raid, and for a multipul round engagement all the targets had to be very closely grouped. None of that is suprising through since the design was an update of something from the late 50's.

[Oddysseus]

Came across an interesting article on Slate: http://slate.msn.com/id/2096127/


Here is the basic idea of what Kerry did:

"In other words, Kerry was one of 16 senators (including five Republicans) to vote against a defense appropriations bill 14 years ago. He was also one of an unspecified number of senators to vote against a conference report on a defense bill nine years ago. The RNC takes these facts and extrapolates from them that he voted against a dozen weapons systems that were in those bills. The Republicans could have claimed, with equal logic, that Kerry voted to abolish the entire U.S. armed forces, but that might have raised suspicions. Claiming that he opposed a list of specific weapons systems has an air of plausibility. On close examination, though, it reeks of rank dishonesty."


Here are some more of Kerry's assaults on the military budget:

"From 1989-92, he supported amendments to halt production of the B-2 stealth bomber. (In 1992, George H.W. Bush halted it himself.)"

"Kerry sponsored amendments to ban tests of anti-satellite weapons, as long as the Soviet Union also refrained from testing. In retrospect, trying to limit the vulnerability of satellites was a very good idea since many of our smart bombs are guided to their targets by signals from satellites."

"Kerry also voted for amendments to restrict the deployment of the MX missile (Reagan changed its deployment plan several times, and Bush finally stopped the program altogether) and to ban the production of nerve-gas weapons."
- But then again they are a weapon of mass dstruction, right? He should oppose them, right?


Here are some of his acts as a defender and supporter of the military:

"n 1991, Kerry opposed an amendment to impose an arbitrary 2 percent cut in the military budget."

"In 1992, he opposed an amendment to cut Pentagon intelligence programs by $1 billion."

"In 1994, he voted against a motion to cut $30.5 billion from the defense budget over the next five years and to redistribute the money to programs for education and the disabled. That same year, he opposed an amendment to postpone construction of a new aircraft carrier."

"In 1996, he opposed a motion to cut six F-18 jet fighters from the budget."

"In 1999, he voted against a motion to terminate the Trident II missile. (Interestingly, the F-18 and Trident II are among the weapons systems that the RNC claims Kerry opposed.)"


Here's a quote to give to people who like to jump to assumptions about democrats and their capacity to fight for, represent, and lead this country. Let them rail against phantom demmy, then tell them you said it.

"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles. … The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."

President George H.W. Bush, in his State of the Union address on Jan. 28, 1992.

So is it about the fact that Kerry is militarly incompetent, a pacifist, or a enemy of the military (Or as Sean Hannity said of Clinton, "He loathes the military."). Or is it that half truths and down right lies of campaigners (or as I like to say, Karl Rove and his adpets are bastards.)

[Vympel]

No one's ever tried to sell the V-22 as a CAS aircraft.

No, they just tried to sell it as something that works when the damn thing doesn't at all.

[0.1]

There is actually nothing much wrong with Soviet weapons systems except that unfortunately, they're usually in the hands of those who are mainly incompetent. Which pretty much include the Russian and Chinese militaries at this point.

Personally, I like the SU-27 series, has to be the prettiest looking aircraft around. I just have to get one of those with a bathroom in it, or was it a toilet... Heh, I wonder if you flush midflight the waste is actually disposed in a more unique fashion. After all, not exactly a lot of room for waste storage.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

Personally, I like the SU-27 series, has to be the prettiest looking aircraft around. I just have to get one of those with a bathroom in it, or was it a toilet... Heh, I wonder if you flush midflight the waste is actually disposed in a more unique fashion. After all, not exactly a lot of room for waste storage.

I suppose it'd be like an airline toilet. It is the Su-34 or the Su-32FN (one is the VVS variant and one's the AV-MF variant.)

I can see this on a combined US-Russian operation (sometime in the near future):
F-15E Pilot: Oh man, I needa pee. I'm on this flight for the past 8 hours through two aerial refuellings.
(Begins dragging out little chemical bag stuff used in planes that have no toilet.)
Pilot: That's better (looks left at a Su-34, sees pilot missing.) Where the fuck did the pilot go! (Hails the other plane) What the fuck is wrong with your pilot.
Su-34 copilot: Good afternoon, Amerikantsi. My pilot ... in how do you say, toilet. His last assignment was in MiG-25s, shorter-ranged, so never acquired, what do you Amerikantsi call it? B-52 Bowels?
F-15E Pilot: Lucky Russian bastards ... what's that in your hand.
Su-34 copilot: Borstch soup, fresh from galley. It's even hot.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

There is actually nothing much wrong with Soviet weapons systems except that unfortunately, they're usually in the hands of those who are mainly incompetent. Which pretty much include the Russian and Chinese militaries at this point.

That's part of it, but then, it is true that Soviet electronics tends to be somewhat behind the Americans.

[Vympel]

There is actually nothing much wrong with Soviet weapons systems except that unfortunately, they're usually in the hands of those who are mainly incompetent. Which pretty much include the Russian and Chinese militaries at this point.

The Chinese Su-27SK/UBK and Su-30MKK pilots get significantly more flight time than the other hamburgers in the PLAAF flying pieces of shit like the J-7 variants etc. It's like the Chinese expect those unfortunates to die.

The Russians are worse off, with the exception of the relatively large and highly experienced test pilot corp. For a small scale conflict at least, the Russians can draw on considerable talent. Still, the worst is over in terms of pilot training; the hours have been going steadily up the last few years.

That's part of it, but then, it is true that Soviet electronics tends to be somewhat behind the Americans.

It's true of Soviet, but the Russians have been steadily breaching that gap since the fall of the USSR. The latest Russian radars and avionics are pretty cool; only slightly lagging behind the US in important departments (e.g. the US lead with AESA radars, the best Russian ones are PESA).

I suppose it'd be like an airline toilet. It is the Su-34 or the Su-32FN (one is the VVS variant and one's the AV-MF variant.)

Apparently Mikhaylov (RuAF CinC) has called it both Su-27IB and Su-34 in various interviews- but in the last one I read definitevely said it'll be known as Su-27IB once it's in service- this was in the aftermath of news that the first series production standard aircraft (avionics etc. wise I assume) had undertaken it's first flight (the 8th aircraft built).

Nothing came of the Su-32FN- it was abandoned as a project back in 1997 as I recall- Sukhoi wanted to focus more on the Su-30MK series- a damn good decision considering their export success. There was a brief flirtation with the name Su-32MF ('Multi Functional') but it didn't last long. Su-34 fell out of favor in 2000 and the media started calling it just Su-32. Now it seems the 7 previous prototypes were Su-32 but the series aircraft is Su-27IB/Su-34 (probably Su-27IB to the VVS and Su-34 to Sukhoi, like the Su-27M/Su-35 or Su-27PU/Su-30 etc.)

Anyway, the ejection seats apparently have a massage function and there's enough room for one of the pilots to lie down for long missions.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki]

The Russians are worse off, with the exception of the relatively large and highly experienced test pilot corp. For a small scale conflict at least, the Russians can draw on considerable talent. Still, the worst is over in terms of pilot training; the hours have been going steadily up the last few years.

It's true of Soviet, but the Russians have been steadily breaching that gap since the fall of the USSR. The latest Russian radars and avionics are pretty cool; only slightly lagging behind the US in important departments (e.g. the US lead with AESA radars, the best Russian ones are PESA).

I thought they had PESA with the MiG-31's Zaslon 20 years ago. Unfortunately, that thing had inferior performance in at least some respects to the frigging AWG-9 - 10 target track vs 24. IIRC it had some advantages in performance, but I forgot what they were supposed to be.

Anyway, the ejection seats apparently have a massage function and there's enough room for one of the pilots to lie down for long missions.

Russian tank crews, sitting in cramped tanks glare at Su-34 pilots. "Why the fuck does out country give such great ergonomic functions to the flyers, while we get stuck in two man turrets that are pressed so low that not only are they cramping us and the ammo, but is restricting the fire arc of the gun!"

[AdmiralTDM]

I'd vote for Bush before I'd have some socialist basterd in office cutting essential military spending to send it to the welfare bitches and the starving africans...

God Bless the US and fuck the rest if they dont get along with us.
* oh well I dont believe in god but this gets my point across..*

[Vympel]

I thought they had PESA with the MiG-31's Zaslon 20 years ago. Unfortunately, that thing had inferior performance in at least some respects to the frigging AWG-9 - 10 target track vs 24. IIRC it had some advantages in performance, but I forgot what they were supposed to be.

10 target track, engage 4 (two above and two below) vs 24 target track, engage 6. The N007 Zaslon could scan a wider section of the sky in both azimuth and elevation; and because it wasn't mechanically scanned, it could complete the scan instantaneously. Unfortunately, it's electronics and computers (it's Argon-15A computer was the first airborne digital computer of a fighter in the USSR) were sorely lacking. It also weighs double the AWG-9. Actually, in terms of the Zaslon it got much better over a decade ago; the in-service MiG-31B/BS radar (Zaslon-A) and the cancelled MiG-31Ms radar (Zaslon-M) increased performance, the latter to AWG-9 level in respect of targets tracked/engaged.

Still, the current crop of radars are much better. E.g. NIIR (Phazotron) offers the Sokol (Zhuk-MSF), also PESA, tracking 24-30 targets and engaging 6-8 of them- weighing 275kg (the MiG-31 radar weighs 1,000kg). In lookup, RWS mode range vs a head on fighter size target is 180-190km, lookdown is around 170km. NIIP (Tikhomirov) offers the N011M Bars (used on the Su-30MKI), with similar, slightly inferior performance (it's combined electronic/mechanic scan, offers greater scan angles and allows for tilting the antenna when not needed to reduce RCS, etc.)- in it's current version it's still at 'Block 1' so to speak, inheriting some of the processing limitations of the mechanically scanned planar array N011 that equipped the original Su-27M/Su-35 prototypes. Later versions should be around the same as Sokol. Basically, 24+ target track, ~200km range and 6-8 target engagement ability is the norm now.

The availability of much better processors allows for cheap upgrading of existing sets- the MiG-31BM will have it's radar upgraded to Zaslon-AM, which is basically just replacing the 28 year old Argon-15A with a new Baguet processor.

Russian tank crews, sitting in cramped tanks glare at Su-34 pilots. "Why the fuck does out country give such great ergonomic functions to the flyers, while we get stuck in two man turrets that are pressed so low that not only are they cramping us and the ammo, but is restricting the fire arc of the gun!"

Because they figure the pilots of a long range fighter designed for flights of several hours need it more than tank crews, I surmise.

[Iceberg]

I'd vote for Bush before I'd have some socialist basterd in office cutting essential military spending to send it to the welfare bitches and the starving africans...

God Bless the US and fuck the rest if they dont get along with us.
* oh well I dont believe in god but this gets my point across..*

This is the first post of yours I've seen and already you're pissing me off. Good job.

[Iceberg]

Because they figure the pilots of a long range fighter designed for flights of several hours need it more than tank crews, I surmise.

I see the Chair Force are a bunch of pussies no matter what country you're talking about.

[Iceberg]

Because they figure the pilots of a long range fighter designed for flights of several hours need it more than tank crews, I surmise.

I see the Chair Force are a bunch of pussies no matter what country you're talking about.

(he says lovingly, having two cousins in the aforementioned Chair Force )

[LobsterZoidberg]

Normally I don't get worked up over this sort of thing, but there's some stuff that put those votes in context here

Honestly, a good number of these cuts were part of a large defense appropriations bill- it's not exactly like these were the only things in that vote.

[AdmiralTDM]

I'd vote for Bush before I'd have some socialist basterd in office cutting essential military spending to send it to the welfare bitches and the starving africans...

God Bless the US and fuck the rest if they dont get along with us.
* oh well I dont believe in god but this gets my point across..*

This is the first post of yours I've seen and already you're pissing me off. Good job.

damn!

Youve missed alot of my politically incorrect or just plain stupid posts ive made!

So what in my post caused such a reaction from you o great one?

Anyways I'm honored!