You were in 73 Easting. I think i ought to shut up. larry
On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 6:38 PM, Bruce Sorge <sor...@gmail.com> wrote: > > The budget is large because in small part of the tremendous amount of waste > that goes on in the military. I'll not get into specific details but there > are hundreds of thousands of dollars of waste, especially down range. > Individually we do out best to curb some of this waste, but a lot of it is > out of our control. Another part of the tremendous amount of cost for the > budget is the constant refitting of equipment that we have. Army equipment > requires constant maintenance, in part because some soldiers just don't give > a shit about the equipment they have, and another part is the nature of some > of the stuff we use. The Bradley for instance is a great platform in combat > as long as the crew is vigilant and is always on top of their maintenance. I > have been in combat in an M113-A3 Armored Personnel Carrier. I put over 5,000 > miles on it in five months, and the only issue was that a small o-ring > started seeping. I was a section leader on a Bradley and again, I had minimal > maintenance issues with my sections Bradley's. Why? Because I am very anal > about maintenance. Part of that comes from the fact that my first 12 years in > the Army I was a mechanic. So now as an end user of the equipment I used to > work on, I am keenly aware of the importance of staying on top of my > equipment. However, these vehicles go through a lot of wear and tear and like > anything mechanical, something is bound to go wrong with it. These vehicles > have parts that are very expensive, usually the high tech electronics that > are in them. Same with tanks and howitzers. > > There are a tremendous amount of civilians that work on military bases, and > they cost money as well. However, the issue with that is it's actually more > cost effective to keep them rather than use soldiers for some of the things > that they do. I didn't think so at first until my brother-in-law, who works > at the Pentagon broke it down to me. > One of the biggest issues with the DOD budget is that Generals want their > projects. They want them because congressmen and women want them because they > either create jobs, or they get to keep the jobs in their districts by way of > more contracts. There are tons of government contractors as well, and the > military is always buying things. A few of the things that are bought are > actually worth it, but most is useless. It's another example of if it looks > good on paper, it must be good in practical application. As we all well know, > that is not always the case. > > One of the things that the Army bought were off the shelf Dell smartphones. > These phones were tweaked for the military. We were issued them to test them > out in Afghanistan. They had GPS, detailed maps of our area and the ability > to tag the maps with data. I used mine to keep track of all the mines and > IED's that we found in the area, as well as where all of the important people > in the villages I patrolled in lived, and also tagged some homes with > potential HVT's. And I kept track of orchards that we had cleared and when we > cleared them. Other than that though it was pretty useless. The phone part of > it was disabled even though there were cell towers in the area (I know > because I had a cell phone while I was there). I actually kept paper > laminated maps that I could easily update with a marker. I also had detailed > imagery on paper of the villages from a PPT slide I made, and kept up to date > information on it and printed a new one out every couple of weeks or so on a > printer that I bought and had delivered to Afghanistan. I could have used > Army printers and ink, but thought I'd do my very small part. I did use Army > paper though. > > I have a couple friends who worked here at Fort Benning, in the R&D > department. They told me that the status quo was to buy things and field > them, and to check a box, send it to them for testing. I was told that most > of what they said was junk the Army already bought, and the really useful > stuff was overlooked because of the cost. Watch The Pentagon Wars for an > example. > > Uniforms are another huge waste. In the 17+ years that I have been in the > Army, I have worn four different uniforms, and two different dress uniforms. > These things are not cheap. Currently, a set of ACU's cost about $80.00. A > brand new dress uniform costs around $400.00. And now the Army is going to > change our uniform again because the ACU is a colossal piece of shit. Unless > you are fighting in a granite quarry, you are not camouflaged in any way, > shape or form. > > To be honest, we don't need new tanks or other armored vehicles. The M-1 and > Bradley's, as well as the Paladin are great platforms and have tremendous > potential for the foreseeable future. Upgrades would suffice. I can't say > whether or not we need new jets or ships as I am not a sailor or airman. I > can only speak for the Army. The HMMV's are great for training and sending to > areas where we are doing humanitarian stuff, but the MRAP HAS to be used for > combat situations as it's proven to save lives. While the vehicle is not > indestructible, it is worth the money. I have seen more than one get the shit > blown out of it by an IED, and the crew survived. They had injuries, but they > all lived. Unfortunately though, even an MRAP cannot withstand 15,000 lb. of > explosives, as was the case during my last Iraq deployment when one of the > trucks in my platoon was blown up and everyone died instantly. > > In my opinion, new procurement of equipment needs to be put on hold so that > money can be spent for training. I shudder to think of what will happen when > battalions such as the one here at Fort Benning literally has to quit > training because they don't have the money, so the soldiers will end up > mowing lawns and picking up trash around here instead - and then something > pops off that needs our attention, and we have to do half ass hurry up > training. That's how men and women die in combat. > > When I deployed to Desert Shield/Storm, I was 110% confident that the > regiment I was in would kick ass and we did. The squadron I was in fought in > the Battle of the 73rd Easting (Google it, it's an amazing fight). This was > because we trained and trained, then trained some more on everything. The > result was that one squadron (cavalry speak for battalion) plus one troop > (company) took on two Iraqi tank divisions and won. > > Some other things that can be cut back on are the amount of gyms on bases. We > have many here on Benning and to be honest, I have not visited a single one. > Reason is that I can run on my own, and prefer to run outside rather than a > treadmill. I can do push-ups and sit-ups anywhere, and I have my own home > gym. Home gyms are not expensive. The machine I have and free weights and > kettle bells, and exercise ball all cost less than $400.00. > > I really don't need someone coming in to mow my front lawn or trim the bushes > around my house. I can do all this myself. I already have a lawn mower and > edger because I am responsible for my back yard, so I made the initial > investment in equipment. All I'd have to buy is a hedger. > > So, cut new programs, continue refurbishing critical equipment and fund > training. Stop or cut back on some things that we don't really need on base. > Lay off some civilians and let soldiers do some of the jobs that are done by > civilians for a while. Close the commissary and PX one or two days a week, or > close earlier every day. While it is convenient for my wife and I to go to > the Commissary for grocery shopping, we usually go off post to Wal-Mart, > Target, Burlington, Ross or the mall to buy other things, because there is a > better selection off base, and prices are usually lower. > I can go on and on but I have already said a lot. > > Bruce > > On Feb 28, 2013, at 5:52 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> wrote: > >> >> Some good stuff, Bruce. >> >> Question for you, though. The Military portion of the US budget is >> significantly out of proportion to other countries. Some of that is because >> we've chosen to be a bigger military policeman for the world. Other parts >> of it seem to be just historical inertia and lobbying from contractors. >> >> Do you think that the US military budget is too big as it currently stands? >> Too small? If too big, where do you think it should be cut? If too small, >> where should it be expanded? >> >> >> Cheers, >> Judah >> > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:361679 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
