View Poll Results: Which branch and explain?

Voters
64. You may not vote on this poll
  • Army

    19 29.69%
  • Navy

    8 12.50%
  • Airforce

    11 17.19%
  • Marine Corps

    6 9.38%
  • Coast Guard

    0 0%
  • Other

    20 31.25%
Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 133

Thread: Military Branches

  1. #81
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    It's a good point. There is a closer tie between knowing your own needs you and how they are fighting. The A-10 is an exception to ground support. Typically the Army will get from the Army and the Marines will get from the Marines/Navy.

    It makes far more sense for CAS to come from the Army and Marine Corps (and Navy). But you can't land them on carriers, so I would place them in the Army where they have a wide degree of inventory.
    I don't claim much knowledge of these things, but would it be impossible to modify an A-10 for carrier operations? Or would the modifications be too extensive/expensive?

    Going off a few promotional bits/documentaries I’ve seen on the plane, it is said to be capable of sustaining at least some amount of ground fire - and I understand carrier landings (for obvious reasons) put greater stresses on an airframe - but perhaps the two are not the same.
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  2. #82
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:43 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,107

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by TheGirlNextDoor View Post
    If we were to consolidate our overall military strength to just one branch, which branch should it be and why?

    My apologies for making this a U.S. poll question - feel free to start one that outlines military branches in other countries.
    the US Navy; the Army is incapable of projecting force on it's own, whereas the Navy can effectively control the coastlines; i think something like 80% of the worlds' population lives w/in 100 miles of a coastline? plus that way you keep the Marine Corps (part of the Department of the Navy); so you retain a powerful Air power (i think though i haven't looked this up that the Navy may actually have more planes than the Air Force; certainly we have our carrier groups), a Sea strike capability (to include strategic first and second strike nuclear capability), and a powerful Ground Combat capability (courtesy of the USMC). on top of this, the Navy is the one branch truly capable of independently projecting US power abroad and world-wide.

  3. #83
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,012

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    I still think it was the wrong strategy and not the boots on the ground that allowed the insurgency to establish themselves with the strength they had. It would have happened anyway, but more troops would not have stopped it unless used correctly. It is a trade off. I could be done with the troops we had.
    Unfortunately, there are think tanks and politicians in Washington who still believe this too. They will seek to test their ideas in future wars, despite the lessons learned through history. The nature of war never changes and neither do the 101 basics. There is an old Army maxim that states "if you fail to pay the butcher up front, you will pay in compound interest in the end." Trying to win wars on the cheap will always cost us in the end. Winning wars should have nothing to do with international PR.



    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    Rumsfeld did disregard the existing plan, but that plan was a 20th century plan. A Schwartzkopf plan. Overwhelm them with troops. We didn't have em.
    It was a plan written from 1991 to 2003. This is why military plans for future possible invasions are called "living" plans. They are constantly re-shaped and re-designed by actual military tactitioners to accomodate the changing targetted society and technology. But basics are never sacrificed. It was the only sensible plan and it was trumped for a civilian's plan that took 1 month to devise. Something cold and calculated was trumped by something half ass thrown together to win a favorable vote from Congress. The result was an American military standing in Baghdad with no orders or designs for what to do next. The CENTCOM plan was not a Schwartzkopf plan. It detailed occupation and the answers to the numerous scenarios that were going to come from sectarian indifferences. In no way was Iraq ever going to be a repeat of the Gulf War. CENTCOM knew it. Cultural experts knew it. And even Rumsfeld knew it. This is why a decade of complex military planning came down to civilians in Washington needing it watered down to deliver simple deceits to those who needed the illusion of a simple war.

    With an entire Marine 3rd Division and almost the 2nd sitting in front of their television sets watching the war, we had enough troops to do this right. On the west flank of the 1st Marine Division was one Army Division (3rd ID). The rest of the Army was either sitting around in Afghanistan or watching the event unfold from their television sets. At the end of the invasion, the vast majority of all Marines left. The 3rd ID left as soon as the 4th ID showed up to assume occupation. By the fall, all of the 1st Marine Division was back while the 3rd ID was beginning to start rotations with the 4th. We absolutely had the numbers to do this correctly. Instead we juggled the numbers around to accomodate a senseless display of troop rotation and a congressional sense that everything was well in hand.

    There are books and books on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by reefedjib View Post
    We should have dealt with the tribes, right off. I would suggest this is again the lack of a counterinsurgency strategy.
    The CENTCOM plan addressed Sunni counterinsurgency. It addressed many things. These things are what was considered "old and stale" by the Rumsfeld crew. You yourself in this very post were willing to dimisss it as too "20th century." Perhaps the military knew better about warfare than Washington suits? First, suits failed at diplomacy (yet again) and defaulted to sending in the military. But in order to retain some sense of control, they alter the military plan and insist that they know better. Of course, when they finally acknowledge that their ideology on how to fight today's wars is yet another failure on their part, they tap into the military again. Only this time they use Patreaus. It's only at this time do we start seeing success in Iraq. This is the same old story told from one war to the next since WWII. The exception? - The Gulf War, where military practitioners in uniform were allowed to bring the American people "victory."

    I'm not sure where you are coming from with this though. There was never going to be a diplomatic solution that was going to bring Sunni fighters to our side. No amount of COIN was ever going to trump an enemies need to feel defeated. Once they are defeated and they know it, then you organize COIN for any remnants that creep up. This is military doctrine. What we witnessed was far more than a simple insurgency. It was a continuation of war from a tribe that never felt defeated. And the reason the Sunni felt that they still had a fight was that most of them never even saw us as we headed towards Baghdad. They stashed weapons throughout the cities that we were not allowed to enter. They rallied and organized to continue defending long after we celebrated our "victory." A lack of COIN very much had to do with a lack of numbers to impliment anything. Marine and Army units were looking for ways to use locals to support us against Al-Queda. Some of Patreaus' plan came from Mattis' implimentations in 2004 in the Anbar Province. But in the end, the insurgency existed like it did because we never fought them in the first place.

    The correct COIN for Iraq needed to start with a base of more numbers to carry it out. You can't agree with the need for a "beat cop" then disagree about more numbers to accomplish that.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-06-10 at 10:33 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  4. #84
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,012

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I don't claim much knowledge of these things, but would it be impossible to modify an A-10 for carrier operations? Or would the modifications be too extensive/expensive?

    Going off a few promotional bits/documentaries I’ve seen on the plane, it is said to be capable of sustaining at least some amount of ground fire - and I understand carrier landings (for obvious reasons) put greater stresses on an airframe - but perhaps the two are not the same.
    I know very little about aviation, but I believe the A-10 is too heavy to land or take off from a short strip. If they can be modified, they would need a large carrier.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  5. #85
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-23-17 @ 05:59 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    15,429
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    I don't claim much knowledge of these things, but would it be impossible to modify an A-10 for carrier operations? Or would the modifications be too extensive/expensive?
    Its a combination of it's weight(particularly loaded down as that thing can carry a ****-ton of ordinance), and generation of enough airspeed to get off a short runway that do it in. I'm not sure, but I don't believe their wings fold, making storage of them on a carrier unfeasible. I don't know if its landing gear is capable of sustaining the impact of carrier style landings or not.

    It's just an awesome ground support weapons platform that ironically sits in the hands of the one branch that has next to zero clue on ground operations.
    "Loyalty only matters when there's a hundred reasons not to be-" Gen. Mattis

  6. #86
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    I know very little about aviation, but I believe the A-10 is too heavy to land or take off from a short strip. If they can be modified, they would need a large carrier.
    Quote Originally Posted by WI Crippler View Post
    It’s a combination of its weight (particularly loaded down as that thing can carry a ****-ton of ordinance), and generation of enough airspeed to get off a short runway that do it in. I'm not sure, but I don't believe their wings fold, making storage of them on a carrier unfeasible. I don't know if its landing gear is capable of sustaining the impact of carrier style landings or not.

    It's just an awesome ground support weapons platform that ironically sits in the hands of the one branch that has next to zero clue on ground operations.
    Sounds like they would either need more powerful engines (although already powerful, I gather) limitations on payload (thus limiting their usefulness), or perhaps (probably) both.

    And I think modifying the wings to allow folding would be possible, as well as strengthening the landing gear.

    It sounds like the main limitation is weight and engine power.

    Light-weight composites could reduce weight, but might reduce ground fire resistance.

    More powerful engines could improve takeoff distance, but only so far (as limited by the airframe, I would think).

    Overall, it might be cheaper (although perhaps not as much as one would think, give the limitations of the current procurement process) to just build a different plane entirely.

    What’s the deal with the F-35?

    Wasn’t that touted as the next all-purpose military aircraft (albeit in 3+ different versions)?

    Then again, didn’t they cancel it or something?
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  7. #87
    Meh...
    MSgt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Last Seen
    Today @ 07:10 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    18,012

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by The Mark View Post
    Sounds like they would either need more powerful engines (although already powerful, I gather) limitations on payload (thus limiting their usefulness), or perhaps (probably) both.

    And I think modifying the wings to allow folding would be possible, as well as strengthening the landing gear.

    It sounds like the main limitation is weight and engine power.

    Light-weight composites could reduce weight, but might reduce ground fire resistance.

    More powerful engines could improve takeoff distance, but only so far (as limited by the airframe, I would think).

    Overall, it might be cheaper (although perhaps not as much as one would think, give the limitations of the current procurement process) to just build a different plane entirely.

    What’s the deal with the F-35?

    Wasn’t that touted as the next all-purpose military aircraft (albeit in 3+ different versions)?

    Then again, didn’t they cancel it or something?
    Don't know anything about the F-35 except that it's yet another big bill program for the Air Force. Like the F/A-22 its a toy too expensive to use in combat with the promise of great use if we ever fight another superpower on the rise or at least one pretending to be. The Defense Industry loves the threat of China or a Soviet return.

    I should lobby congress for a hundred billion dollars to develop lightsabers for our troops in case the Empire invades our galaxy. You know, because "nothing is too good for our troops." And then when I accomplish in creating my new toy I willl aks for a hundred billion dollars more to maintain it and experiment with colors. And then when the American people want to save money congress can ignore my rediculous program and take it out of the military budget so that they can want for body armor and untorn NBC equipment.
    Last edited by MSgt; 09-06-10 at 11:21 PM.

    MSgt
    Semper Fidelis
    USMC

  8. #88
    Sporadic insanity normal.


    The Mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:55 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    19,736

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Don't know anything about the F-35 except that it's yet another big bill program for the Air Force. Like the F/A-22 it’s a toy too expensive to use in combat with the promise of great use if we ever fight another superpower on the rise or at least one pretending to be. The Defense Industry loves the threat of China or a Soviet return.

    I should lobby congress for a hundred billion dollars to develop light sabers for our troops in case the Empire invades our galaxy. You know, because "nothing is too good for our troops." And then when I accomplish in creating my new toy I will ask for a hundred billion dollars more to maintain it and experiment with colors. And then when the American people want to save money congress can ignore my ridiculous program and take it out of the military budget so that they can want for body armor and untorn NBC equipment.
    Ah.

    Perhaps the promotional vids on the F-35 were...promotional?

    Who knew?



    Still, according to those vids there was supposed to be a version of the F-35 for the Navy (carrier mods) and the Marines (STOL version - using lift fan - to at least partially replace Harrier).

    Still, one could wish as much were spent on individual soldier equipment.

    Personally, I wanna see combat/powered armor.

    I know it’s Sci-Fi, but still…
    Education.

    Sometimes I think we're alone. Sometimes I think we're not. In either case, the thought is staggering. ~ R. Buckminster Fuller

  9. #89
    Sage
    samsmart's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,316
    Blog Entries
    37

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by MSgt View Post
    Don't know anything about the F-35 except that it's yet another big bill program for the Air Force. Like the F/A-22 its a toy too expensive to use in combat with the promise of great use if we ever fight another superpower on the rise or at least one pretending to be. The Defense Industry loves the threat of China or a Soviet return.

    I should lobby congress for a hundred billion dollars to develop lightsabers for our troops in case the Empire invades our galaxy. You know, because "nothing is too good for our troops." And then when I accomplish in creating my new toy I willl aks for a hundred billion dollars more to maintain it and experiment with colors. And then when the American people want to save money congress can ignore my rediculous program and take it out of the military budget so that they can want for body armor and untorn NBC equipment.
    I kinda like the idea of the F-35 though. The U.S. is attempting to make aerospace versions of TIE fighters. That's cool.

  10. #90
    Sage
    jamesrage's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    A place where common sense exists
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 09:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    31,067

    Re: Military Branches

    Quote Originally Posted by Caine View Post
    E-4 is "Senior Airman" in the Airforce... not Sergeant.

    My wife was an E-4 in the Airforce when she got out....

    E-5 is in Air Force is a "Staff Sergeant"
    According to this site a e-4 airman is Senior Airman or Sergeant,maybe this has changed since your wife was in or maybe a mistake of the website.
    United States Air Force Ranks, lowest to highest
    Last edited by jamesrage; 09-08-10 at 01:10 AM.
    "A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murder is less to fear"

    Cicero Marcus Tullius

Page 9 of 14 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •