5 ms·

Why wouldn't you want an Abrams? It does all the things. Sure, it's pigfat, but it's a proven design and it's not hard to stick an APS on it. Honestly, the Abra

Why wouldn't you want an Abrams? It does all the things. Sure, it's pigfat, but it's a proven design and it's not hard to stick an APS on it. Honestly, the Abrams is kind of like the A-10 and the F-22, even if you are trying to make fun of the US military, there is just nothing to latch on to with those platforms. They do what they are supposed to do, even when taking cost into consideration. Edit: I admit to not reading the article and not knowing about the over-production.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Why wouldn't you want an Abrams? It does all the things Because you haven't fought the kind of war that heavy armor is useful (particularly on an effectiveness to logistical burden analysis) for in decades, and don't expect to in the foreseeable future.
- madeuptempacct 8y ago
  Abrams lit up Iraqi T-72s recently. Absolute air superiority isn't a thing in a real war, even for the US. ATGMs will lose their deterrence factor if APS systems end up working as advertised, so tanks will regain their relevance. Also, tanks support infantry in cities. When properly utilized, they don't end up on fire like T-80s in Grozny. Again, during the Iraq war, marines were supported by tanks in cities.
  - pc86 8y ago
    None of which means squat when you consider that you could wipe out half of all the US Abrams in the world and we'd still have too many to use for any foreseeable conflict. You're arguing that the Abrams is a good platform when nobody is saying the opposite. It's a great platform. But we have plenty of them, and we don't need to build anymore. Respond to the point people are making and not the point you have a response for.
  - paulie_a 8y ago
    Or we just stop starting wars. Then we can just reduce the redicilous funding of both air and land vehicles.
freddie_mercury 8y ago
I guess you could read the links to find the answers to your question. But here it is anyway > "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."
TaylorAlexander 8y ago
It’s like chocolate cake. Chocolate cake is great! It’s simple, it does what you want. There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake. But you’ve already got 250 chocolate cakes. Want another fifty chocolate cakes? No? Why not!? There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake!!! You want bicycles and books? Pffft. You get chocolate cake! Congress has just ordered another 50 cakes for you this week, with a bill for 300 in the pipeline. What is wrong? Why are you complaining!? You don’t like chocolate cake!? There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake!
- lostmsu 8y ago
  "I am Talkie, Talkie Toaster... Talkie is a name, and toasting is a game!"
Tuna-Fish 8y ago
Because you have 3000 of them sitting in depots you can't figure out how you could possibly use. click this and zoom out: https://www.google.fi/maps/@40.1943036,-120.139446,105m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.fi/maps/@40.1943036,-120.139446,105m/data...
ProAm 8y ago
My whole point was spending 9B on a rocketship is nothing compare to what we waste (not all military spending is waste, but there is plenty of waste in the defense budget) that we can afford to buy this rocket from Boeing. We probably spending more on healthcare for retired politicians than space exploration
- jessaustin 8y ago
  If you're suggesting that we stop paying for this, I agree in principle, but I'm afraid it would cause some bad incentives. It's hard enough to get them to retire already.
- njarboe 8y ago
  The US Government spends almost twice as much on the kidney failure program (the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program), $32.8 billion[1] than on NASA $19.5 billion. Very hard to find the ESRD figure, if you don't already know what it is called. NASA budget is very easy to find. [1] https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pdf https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pd...

dragonwriter 8y ago

> Why wouldn't you want an Abrams? It does all the things Because you haven't fought the kind of war that heavy armor is useful (particularly on an effectiveness to logistical burden analysis) for in decades, and don't expect to in the foreseeable future.

madeuptempacct 8y ago
Abrams lit up Iraqi T-72s recently. Absolute air superiority isn't a thing in a real war, even for the US. ATGMs will lose their deterrence factor if APS systems end up working as advertised, so tanks will regain their relevance. Also, tanks support infantry in cities. When properly utilized, they don't end up on fire like T-80s in Grozny. Again, during the Iraq war, marines were supported by tanks in cities.
- pc86 8y ago
  None of which means squat when you consider that you could wipe out half of all the US Abrams in the world and we'd still have too many to use for any foreseeable conflict. You're arguing that the Abrams is a good platform when nobody is saying the opposite. It's a great platform. But we have plenty of them, and we don't need to build anymore. Respond to the point people are making and not the point you have a response for.
- paulie_a 8y ago
  Or we just stop starting wars. Then we can just reduce the redicilous funding of both air and land vehicles.

freddie_mercury 8y ago

I guess you could read the links to find the answers to your question. But here it is anyway > "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

TaylorAlexander 8y ago

It’s like chocolate cake. Chocolate cake is great! It’s simple, it does what you want. There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake. But you’ve already got 250 chocolate cakes. Want another fifty chocolate cakes? No? Why not!? There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake!!! You want bicycles and books? Pffft. You get chocolate cake! Congress has just ordered another 50 cakes for you this week, with a bill for 300 in the pipeline. What is wrong? Why are you complaining!? You don’t like chocolate cake!? There’s nothing wrong with chocolate cake!

lostmsu 8y ago
"I am Talkie, Talkie Toaster... Talkie is a name, and toasting is a game!"

Tuna-Fish 8y ago

Because you have 3000 of them sitting in depots you can't figure out how you could possibly use. click this and zoom out: https://www.google.fi/maps/@40.1943036,-120.139446,105m/data=!3m1!1e3 https://www.google.fi/maps/@40.1943036,-120.139446,105m/data...

ProAm 8y ago

My whole point was spending 9B on a rocketship is nothing compare to what we waste (not all military spending is waste, but there is plenty of waste in the defense budget) that we can afford to buy this rocket from Boeing. We probably spending more on healthcare for retired politicians than space exploration

jessaustin 8y ago
If you're suggesting that we stop paying for this, I agree in principle, but I'm afraid it would cause some bad incentives. It's hard enough to get them to retire already.
njarboe 8y ago
The US Government spends almost twice as much on the kidney failure program (the End Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) program), $32.8 billion[1] than on NASA $19.5 billion. Very hard to find the ESRD figure, if you don't already know what it is called. NASA budget is very easy to find. [1] https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pdf https://juniperpublishers.com/joju/pdf/JOJUN.MS.ID.555651.pd...