In the 18th and 19th century, that was true. We didn't even have a Navy, for several decades. Didn't need one. Each state raised it's own "Army" (a militia really). and decided how many "soldiers" to send to any battle or campaign. It was a nightmare.

That's just not the way of things, today. Our biggest trouble spots in the world, are heavily militarized - Iran with new SAM's it's getting from Russia, North Korea with it's huge militarization and help from China, probably top the list.

If we get involved - when we get involved, because we have close ties to both Israel and South Korea, it would sure be good to have those newer fighters.

I don't know if you can REALLY feel the importance, if you don't have close relatives in the Navy/etc. Whether we lose 20 servicemen or 2000, in the next "clash", may not affect you, directly.

If you haven't seen the movie "Charlie Wilson's War", I heartily recommend it. It's a true story, quite funny, with Tom Hanks and Julia Roberts -- good stuff.

CLEARLY shows what having the right weapons means in a war.

Just the right weapons, and the Afghan's (not the Taliban), went from Cannon Fodder to Rambo, and sent the mighty Red Army/Air Force, right back where they came from.

18th & 19th century? Dwight D. Eisenhower?

The Taiban sent the Soviets packing because they advocated exactly what you are, bigger, faster, more complex, weapons systems. That is not the future.

The future is wars of insurgency, where helicopters are more valuable than fighter jets. What we should be building is A-10s, instead piloted missiles.

Thanks, Adak, for sending me to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...y_expenditures
The idea that the US is not spending enough on "defense" is so absurd that I can feel little sparks going off in my brain.
I'm afraid that any one who thinks we need to spend more needs to be in a secure environment where sharp objects are kept locked up. But when I think of the company there .....

Don't forget that 650 Billion doesn't include fighting the wars, Afghanistan, Iraq or Terror, not to mention the Billions that are spent indirectly by other departments, on behalf of the military.

That 35 year old f-18, is still leagues and leagues beyond what most of the rest of the world is using...I said most...

Try to get input from Korean war pilots who were getting their asses kicked by migs in the early part of the war. We didn't need state of the art war planes then either.

Our "Russian" weapons from Egypt, and others from Israel (unmarked), and the Afghani fighters, are the one's who sent the Russians, packing - the Taliban came into power, later.

Watch the movie "Charlie Wilson's War" for the remarkable details of how it happened. Charlie's staff are stunning! :D

A-10's are great tank killers/infantry supporters, ("it's not a plane, it's a flying 20mm Cannon", is no joke), but very vulnerable to ground fire, and certainly NOT for air to air combat. They'd be "Buffalo'd".

Did you ever hear about the "Buffalo's"? They were older planes on Midway. We sent every one of them to attack the Japanese carriers when they came into range. EVERY SINGLE Buffalo was shot down by the Jap. Zero's, on that ONE mission. They are believed to have shot down ONE Zero, during their fight.**

Same thing in Korea. We had prop planes - and an older jet fighter. North Korea had vastly better mig jets.

If you have better equipt. and training, you'll kick their butt, and win 80% - 90% of your dog fights. If not, you probably won't survive long.

Helicopters were never designed for, and generally can't survive, air to air combat with a fighter jet. They don't even try such a stunt.

It was true at Midway, it was true at the Turkey Shoot (Battle of the Coral Sea), it was true over France and Germany, with the Mustang, it was true in Korea, it was true for all the Israeli wars, in Bosnia, and in Iraq - and it's still true today.

If you have better equipment and training, you will be the hammer, you'll get to do the pounding, and have minimal losses. If you don't, you'll be the nail and get pounded upon . . .

Very few fights wind up "even". You either win or die, pretty much.

<<not for the faint of heart>>

**Three U.S. buffalo pilots were rescued. One was deemed worthy of further interrogation. The other two were shackled to chains, and dropped over the side of the ship, after the normal beatings.

They didn't follow the Geneva Conventions then, and they certainly don't follow them now.

If we want the best outcome for our service sons and daughters, we need to give them the best equipment and training.

Thanks for your thoughts.
I understand why subs can't run, but the reasons for not having a weapon like I describe don't work for me.
Small one first - the noise in deploying it. I'm thinking of the situation where the U-boat has attacked the convoy and sunk a ship or two, and now the destroyer escort are hunting the sub with sonar and lobbing depth charges. The enemy know where the sub is already. So silence doesn't matter.

Space? well true, at a premium, but not being sent to the bottom of the ocean must be the first priority. Or taking out enemy warships. Either way, some kind of sub-to-surface weapon strikes me as good value, and worth the space.

So the main objection seems to be that the ship has to be pretty much directly above the sub. I don't see why - the sub could release twenty smallish floating mines over ten minutes as it maneuvers, then remain in this general area. If the destroyer wants to keep hunting, it must risk the minefield. Or the mines could be connected to a long rope that the destroyer will intersect and pull the mines in to it. Modern hi-tech toys could do much more, I'm mostly thinking WWII technology.

I know one of Charlie's Angels in real life. Ex sis-in-law worked on capitol hill at that time and is best friends with one of Charlies staffers. She's STILL stunning (and smart and interesting and very very cool.) I heard great stories from the premiere, when she visited last summer. :)

Sonar detection in WWII was in its infancy as no country had ever imagined submarines deployed on the scale used by Germany. So, part of the game was to play dead up to push oil, debris and even bodies through a lock.

Never forget that this era was the first time submarines were used as an effective weapon integrated as such in the navy at least in Germany. In other countries, they were considered something of a special weapon to be use at specific places and moments, or even worse, as toys.

Therefore, it's only logical that designers didn't think of every contengency.

Back to the problem of space.

A submarine, even today, has a very delicate equation to solve: flotability. If you put too many things in it, once you dive, you wont be able to resurface again.

For example, a bathyscaphe (very deep water exploration vessel - down to 30000 feet) do not use ballasts to dive but an enormous steel weight that is left on the ocean floor once they want to get back to the surface.

I used to work for a DoD contractor and I tested these thingys that were used for sub sonar testing. Can't say much...it was all classified and I don't know if it still is, but it was fascinating! :unsure: :bolt:

You're watching too much history channel, Adak. No more dog fights, any air to air is long now long distance. The need for ground support, helicopters and a-10s is the future. The Taliban is the successor to the Mujahideen.

Sorry Bruce. I lived on Adak Island. One of the islands that was overrun by the Japanese in WWII, briefly. Whole family is military, almost. I wasn't on Adak when the Japs came a'visiting. :mad2:

We had very few dog fights in Iraq, because they knew it would be suicide, and flew out of the country.

That's winning without fighting, and that's what I want. :)

You can't have ground support aircraft, unless you control that air space. (My nephew flew Apache long-bow attack helo's in the Army, until recently.)

You may recall (although the media didn't give the incidents much traction), the "test run attacks" over several of the US Air Force Bases, by Russian strategic bombers.

Flew right over our AF bases, with bombers the size of B-52's! Stupid AF pukes couldn't get our fighters scrambled fast enough to "greet them" and turn them away.

I'd like to believe that there would never be another war, but the minute I believe that, I know I brought that war one second closer to a reality.

If you want peace - walk softly, and carry a big stick. No one who wants to tear you up, will respect you when you're carrying a handful of rose petals, or a feather from a pure white dove.

The Taliban are a particular "flavor" (philosophy) of Mujahideen, dedicated to fighting against the West, and re-establishing the Caliphate with Sharia laws, and of course (always), converting the "non-believers".

Our advisors fought in Afghanistan, with other Mujahideen, dedicated to freeing their land from the invading Russians. They had no problem with us - quite liked us, actually.

fixed it for ya.

Thanks, Classicman. :thup:

@Shawnee, it's quite obvious that Charlie was no angel - apparently his line for why he hired VERY buxom and beautiful women was:

"You can teach typing, but you can't teach tits" ;)

Smart guy though - and he sat on just the right committee's. Julia Roberts was great as the ultra rich widow with the passion for Pakistan & Afghanistan.

The CIA guy in his boss's office -- and bugging Charlie's office - had me rolling.

Charlie incredously asking the CIA station chief in Pakistan:
"The Russians have invaded. Those people are being slaughtered, and you tell me you don't want to upset things?" "I don't even know what that means."

And best of all:
The Texas bellydancer is VERY provocatively belly dancing, and the Egyptian minister they have to butter up, asks:

"What religion is she?"

Just as the dancer drops into the most sensous splits imaginable, Charlie answers:

< Censored >

Well, you need to see Charlie Wilson's War now, don't you? :D :D :D