Military US Military Is Scared Americans Won't Fight For Globalism

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
It is a huge transport helicopter, so I doubt it.

Also, if memory serves they were around since the Vietnam war, which makes them a 60s project, that makes it pretty dated.
The Chinook has seen several generations of updates, and they are still being produced.

310 kph is the top speed IIRC. That's faster than pretty much everything but the V22.
 

Agent23

Ни шагу назад!
The Chinook has seen several generations of updates, and they are still being produced.

310 kph is the top speed IIRC. That's faster than pretty much everything but the V22.
Humm, probably because it is not as heavily armored as full blown combat helicopters.

Nor does it have to carry all that ordnance around.

Probably there were few requirements for outright replacement, since it fills a slot that is in between cargo aircraft and smaller helicopters that carry commando units or act as close in air support, and with the fact that the USA has been in low level conficts against goat-hearding cave dwellers for most of the time since the 60s, which also means that it is less likely for enemies to take them out well, no need to fix what isn't broken, I guess.

Come to think about it, the C-130 is also quite ancient
 

Marduk

Well-known member
Moderator
Staff Member
Humm, probably because it is not as heavily armored as full blown combat helicopters.

Nor does it have to carry all that ordnance around.

Probably there were few requirements for outright replacement, since it fills a slot that is in between cargo aircraft and smaller helicopters that carry commando units or act as close in air support, and with the fact that the USA has been in low level conficts against goat-hearding cave dwellers for most of the time since the 60s, which also means that it is less likely for enemies to take them out well, no need to fix what isn't broken, I guess.

Come to think about it, the C-130 is also quite ancient
The latest variant of CH-47 is from 2001, and additional "block" upgrades are planned.
It's one of those old hulls that have a boring, utilitarian job that can't be really upgraded upon much with a new one yet benefit from logistics and training staying mostly the same. Similar story to UH-1's (the modern USMC Venom variant ones have little in common with the Vietnam era Hueys, they even evolved to be twin engine over history), or in the east, Mi-17.

Also outside of attack helicopters, military helicopters have little to no armor anyway.
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
It’s time to crush the case against the Marine Special Ops Command three (bizpacreview.com)

I totally missed this case entirely.

TLDR: Marine defends another Marine being attacked with a single punch. Target drops and slams head into ground. Seven people w/the agressor that attacked the Marine run away. The 3 Marines present all stick around, render aid, and ensure that the unconscious attacker gets medical help...though he dies later.

All 3 Marines are arrested and charged with the resulting death...in 2019. Case still pending, evidence of Marine Officers trying to silence the Marines and their attorney...shit still ongoing.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
It’s time to crush the case against the Marine Special Ops Command three (bizpacreview.com)

I totally missed this case entirely.

TLDR: Marine defends another Marine being attacked with a single punch. Target drops and slams head into ground. Seven people w/the agressor that attacked the Marine run away. The 3 Marines present all stick around, render aid, and ensure that the unconscious attacker gets medical help...though he dies later.

All 3 Marines are arrested and charged with the resulting death...in 2019. Case still pending, evidence of Marine Officers trying to silence the Marines and their attorney...shit still ongoing.
Why are those officers being dicks? Were the soldiers also doing stuff they were not suppose to do?
 

The Whispering Monk

Well-known member
Osaul
Why are those officers being dicks? Were the soldiers also doing stuff they were not suppose to do?
I really don't know the answer to that.

Possibilities:
1. The Marines in question pissed off someone higher up
2. Random officer sees this as his way up the food chain
3. Contractors in questions have inordinate influence with Marine Corp command to push this
4. Coverup of something else entirely
5. whatever I haven't thought up
 

PsihoKekec

Swashbuckling Accountant
2. Random officer sees this as his way up the food chain
3. Contractors in questions have inordinate influence with Marine Corp command to push this
These two are the most important ones. Anyone who reaches general rank has eyes set on lucrative employment with defense industry and are kissing their ass 24/7, so the firms employing contractors have outsized influence on all branches. Anyone wanting to become a general must be adept at kissing generals asses and destroying some enlisted men is a small price to pay for career advancement. The firm that employed these contractors doesn't even need to pull the string, people with right mindset simply know what needs to be done.
 

King Arts

Well-known member
These two are the most important ones. Anyone who reaches general rank has eyes set on lucrative employment with defense industry and are kissing their ass 24/7, so the firms employing contractors have outsized influence on all branches. Anyone wanting to become a general must be adept at kissing generals asses and destroying some enlisted men is a small price to pay for career advancement. The firm that employed these contractors doesn't even need to pull the string, people with right mindset simply know what needs to be done.
More I learn about the army the more I feel we need to purge the officer corp out of corrupt liberals. Anyway maybe we should also ban contractors. Make the army do everything in house.
 

S'task

Renegade Philosopher
Administrator
Staff Member
Founder
Anyway maybe we should also ban contractors. Make the army do everything in house.
This is actually a bad idea with how the military is presently structured (Also, the military has always used contractors to supplement in support roles from manufacture to administrative going even back to the Revolutionary War). The core issue is though that the military constantly rotates soldiers between locations and assignments on roughly a five year basis. While this makes a degree of sense for overseas deployments, this is also done for all home stationing too, which means that for many non-combat support roles you have a constant churn of soldiers who are coming and going from an job. This means that many support functions of the military end up depending on contractors who stay on certain activities long term to build and preserve institutional knowledge. This is especially present in IT areas. It's one thing to move from being a maintenance engineer on one base to another, the skills transfer, but for IT matters you don't really have equivalent postings and due to how IT infrastructure is managed you basically have people rotating in and out from a single point, thus preventing the military building up institutional knowledge for how to run and manage such things.

Contractors also tend to be cheaper than forcing everything in house, and there's actually more accountability with contractors, as their contracts are for explicitly lengths of times and then rebid, which means they are in constant competition and have to reliably meet their job requirements or else the contractors will be dropped. Is politics involved? Certainly, but politics would be involved if things were purely in house and there would be LESS public oversight of things...
 

King Arts

Well-known member
This is actually a bad idea with how the military is presently structured (Also, the military has always used contractors to supplement in support roles from manufacture to administrative going even back to the Revolutionary War). The core issue is though that the military constantly rotates soldiers between locations and assignments on roughly a five year basis. While this makes a degree of sense for overseas deployments, this is also done for all home stationing too, which means that for many non-combat support roles you have a constant churn of soldiers who are coming and going from an job. This means that many support functions of the military end up depending on contractors who stay on certain activities long term to build and preserve institutional knowledge. This is especially present in IT areas. It's one thing to move from being a maintenance engineer on one base to another, the skills transfer, but for IT matters you don't really have equivalent postings and due to how IT infrastructure is managed you basically have people rotating in and out from a single point, thus preventing the military building up institutional knowledge for how to run and manage such things.

Contractors also tend to be cheaper than forcing everything in house, and there's actually more accountability with contractors, as their contracts are for explicitly lengths of times and then rebid, which means they are in constant competition and have to reliably meet their job requirements or else the contractors will be dropped. Is politics involved? Certainly, but politics would be involved if things were purely in house and there would be LESS public oversight of things...
Hmm I thought it was just like cooks so you could add a new army job for like cooks or janitor.

As for that other problem why don’t they just have it so that soldiers stop getting transferred stateside? That way most soldiers will spend most of their careers at one base. Would there be any negatives to that?
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
Hmm I thought it was just like cooks so you could add a new army job for like cooks or janitor.

As for that other problem why don’t they just have it so that soldiers stop getting transferred stateside? That way most soldiers will spend most of their careers at one base. Would there be any negatives to that?
Yes.
Retention would plummet.
Plus you hurt experience of a soldier.
For instance, where I am now I hardly do my job if at all.
Why would I want to remain in my field if all I do is nothing? Especially with no war?

And the Army has cooks
 

King Arts

Well-known member
Yes.
Retention would plummet.
Plus you hurt experience of a soldier.
For instance, where I am now I hardly do my job if at all.
Why would I want to remain in my field if all I do is nothing? Especially with no war?

And the Army has cooks
Aren't you military intelligence? Can't that be done all the time anywhere?
 

Zachowon

The Army Life for me! The POG life for me!
Founder
I don't want to ask if it's classified, if it is you don't have to answer I'd rather not get a hot sauce enema and get black bagged in Guantanamo. But what exactly is your army job?
Basically my field is useless if you arnt at certain units because it will never be used
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top