T-90 vs Abrams

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by Panther Al

Which is something the AF really really doesn't want to see.

Why exactly is that?

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Why exactly is that?

They lose a portion of their budget to the Army. This would relegate them to
Air Superiority (Fighters ! Their favorite!)
Strategic Bombing
Air Interdiction
Global Air cargo movement.
Strategic Missile Wings.

Once the Army got the A-10s, then the Army would take the AC-130s and Combat Talons, most probably a larger slice of Theater air cargo movement.

This would shove the Air Force almost completely out of the Special Operations Role (BIG budget money) and the Air Force would take a back seat in every operation supporting either the Army or the Navy.

They would see their role in anything but a full blown war with an adversary of like technical capability as just truck drivers.

[Legbreaker]

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

[ArmySGT.]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

In other words, it makes a lot of sense for the A-10's etc to be transfered.
Also, having the ground support aircraft actually controlled by the ground forces is likely to save a lot of time, money and ultimately probably lives too.

Goes to show just how messy things can get in a massive organisation like the US government, or even just the military arms of it. There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Absolutely makes sense. That the Army should own all CAS and Theater Transport. Will they change doctrine? Doubtful. Then again the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs should always be Army too in my opinion. We had an Admiral overseeing two ground wars.

I don't call a plumber for tax advice and I think an Admiral has no business running a war in a land locked country.

I have been wrong before, though.

[Legbreaker]

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

[ArmySGT.]

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles.

[Legbreaker]

Originally Posted by ArmySGT.

That's why they call it a Republic, run on democratic principles.

Principles perhaps. Practise, not so much.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

I believe I owe everybody a sincere appology.
I indicated that the US government should be run using common sense and logic. What the HELL was I thinking!!! :O

Its okay, take a deep breath and let the meds take control!

[Webstral]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

There's a lot to be said for a single controlling entity responsible for rationalising not just the military but the entire government, without having to answer to voters, special interest groups and any other influences outside saving money, people, and minimising bureaucracy. Keep politics out of it and work on a logical and efficiency basis.

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

[schnickelfritz]

On the subject of the T-90 and related high performance Russian armor, my concern would be whether they could field anywhere near enough of them to make a difference versus the current Western tanks in a real shooting war.

And are the T-80 and T-90 as dangerous to the crews as the T-72 is?

The Mi-28 and Ka-50 are fearsome machines, as are the latest Russki jets, but their problem is one of resources. They've come up with some veicles and systems that may work well enough when it starts, but will there again, be enough to make a difference? Will there be enough of the Mil-28 and Ka-50 to survive all of the Stingers and such? My guess is no.

I seem to remember an issue of the old International Combat Arms magazine in the 80's that was showing a variety of anti-helo aircraft the US was looking at...the Piper Enforcer and Cavalier Mustang 2 included. I believe that the thought that these would be used sort of as the Skyraider was in 'Nam, and sort of to hunt and shoot down Pact helicopters.

I'll tell you this...I think Western gear is generally good enough to fight the Pact to a stalemate in Europe, but I sure as hell wouldn't want to see the Tanguska SPAA at anytime from inside anything airborne. Ever.

-Dave

[Legbreaker]

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Our current government will be lucky to last their current term. They are polling around 30% support which is absolutely ABYSMAL!
They lied through their teeth about a number of key issues during the last election campaign and have back flipped on some very serious issues. Some people (30%) do still support them for various reasons, however...

Yes they lied about some issues. One of the key issues to which you refer, I suspect, is the carbon tax. You know as well as I do that the current Prime Minister meant what she said when she vowed not to introduce carbon pricing but she wouldn't be the PM if she hadn't struck a deal with the Greens to form a minority government, and the cornerstone of that deal was a carbon tax. Call it lying if you want but in reality that's just political expediency. Hmm, a choice of not holding government or doing an unpopular deal and holding government. Be honest, what would you have done?

Originally Posted by Legbreaker

Globally almost all economies are struggling, or in few cases (not pointing the finger at anyone here Greece) are near as dammit bankrupt. What I'd like to see, but sure as hell will never happen, is some competent financial administrators brought in to sort out the mess, pay off debts and generally streamline governmental processes, without being subject to removal by politically driven mechanisms. A period of 12-36 months should be enough to get most countries back on track before handing back to the politicians (to screw up again).

But, none of that is EVER going to happen while humans remain, well, human.

Australia is currently in the strongest position economically of any developed economy in the world. You might not like the current government but they have steered Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil very successfully. I'd rather live in Australia at the moment than just about anywhere else. Australia doesn't need any independent financial experts to fix its financial problems because it's problems are tiny compared to just about every other developed economy.

[StainlessSteelCynic]

I'd argue that the current Australian government has not done one single thing to steer Australia through a period of massive global economic turmoil. Even the Kevin Rudd government had little enough to do with Australia being in the position that she is in. What really counts for the Australian economy is having 40 years or more of selling iron ore, natural gas, wheat and wool to China, Japan and the Middle East*


* I know that that's a gross over-simplification but that's what's really saved our arse, not the (barely-existent) policies of the Gillard or Rudd governments.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Webstral

Like fascism or communism. Is that the way you see Australia going? Certainly I'm not interested in having a power with no accountability to voters deciding anything. We have enough problems with government agencies running amok without eliminating any and every form accountability. We fought a war specifically to free ourselves from a government in which the citizenry had no voice. Still, our Australian cousins have to form the government that best serves your interests.

No modern democracy is perfect. I see major issues with both the US and Australian democratic systems. We here in the Antipodes do have a couple of significant advantages, though, in terms of democratic principals. All citizens of voting age in Australia are required to vote, so (theoretically at least) a greater proportion of citizens in Australia actually have a say in who governs them than citizens in the US do. Of course, I'm sure Americans would fiercely guard their right to disenfranchise themselves from the democratic process, if that is their individual wish.

Secondly, it seems (from waaaay down here anyway) that the US has a firmly entrenched 2 party state. Any political groups other than the Republicans and the Democrats are so tiny as to have virtually no relevance. We have 2 main parties here, too, but a number of minor parties regularly get enough seats, particularly in the Senate, to have some say in the political process. I know many people (including myself) who regard a 2 party state as not being a whole lot more democratic than a 1 party state.