IntenseDebate - cjkosh

11 years ago @ Defense Tech - Congress Adds $60 Mill... · 1 reply · +1 points

One thing never mentioned is that with the potential of Chinese or Russian/Chinese combined attack sub numbers surpassing the US in the near future, and with supposed new laser etc sub detecting technologies (sat sea surface diff detection (not that new)etc) - our few boomers will be at greater risk. Do we want such a large portion of our deterrence on subs in the future? Maybe invest in greater land missile defense numbers so we can at least get a shot off from the land based missiles.

11 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Navy Wants 28 More Tom... · 0 replies · +1 points

Just an inquiry. Won't adding 70 ft to what is supposedly an attack sub compromise maneuverability? Since they will be facing off with Russian subs and supposedly a greater number of Chinese attack subs, I would think that would be a concern.

11 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Old A-10 and New F-35 ... · 0 replies · +9 points

A-10 Vietnam era? Only if you consider the Space Shuttle Vietnam era.

12 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Air Force Begins Massi... · 0 replies · +1 points

"Built very strong structurally". Seems odd that there is no mention of what changes were made to warrant that description. I seem to recall stories of wings falling off on the runway. Were the wings or wing box replaced at some point fleet-wide?

12 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Agencies Await Decisio... · 1 reply · 0 points

I must be missing something. No-one has mentioned Afghanistan. Is there some reason they can't take some of these instead of the C-130s and get them back to a higher number of planes to replace their grounded fleet? Seems like a better match.

12 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Admiral: Navy Must Shr... · 0 replies · +2 points

Okay, if I have my math right - there will be a 43% reduction in the number of "deterrent" missiles aboard this leg of the triad. Of course if a sub is laid up there would be an increase in the percentage of missiles offline as well. Does this mean there will be an increase in land based missiles or air-based strategic delivery systems? Seems like some treaty would forbid that. So, unless we have unused headroom in those legs numbers, there would have to be an increase in warheads on the subs missiles. Probably also verboten, but hopefully not.

Or, are we once again unilaterally disarming, and our most "survivable" strike asset at that?

14 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Deploying amphibs look... · 0 replies · +1 points

Other than having the politics backwards, interesting insight.

14 years ago @ DoD Buzz - Deploying amphibs look... · 0 replies · +1 points

I'm assuming that those electric engines and systems are EMP hardened?

14 years ago @ DoD Buzz - DoD's 'industrial capa... · 0 replies · +2 points

Okay,

#1: The US has as much if nit more "rare-earth" materials as China, if the gov't would just get out of the way. That means the EPA needs to get schooled on reality.

Item #2: Consolidation of competitors may mean slightly less costs, but also less diversity of thought or ideas. Boeing didn't come up with the Space Shuttle, the F-22, the F-15, the F-35, etc. etc. etc. Boeing just bought out their more successful competitors. Boeing still can't come up with a fighter on it's own nickel.

If you let the industry consolidate further - there will be less fresh ideas, and less creativity. The gov't should be promoting More competition (even to the public sector) between defense contractors, so they are not totally beholden to the govt teat while they innovate.

15 years ago @ Kit Up! DEV - The MultiCam Woodland/... · 0 replies · +2 points

Oh, for Pete's sake. Why a multi-cam anyway? Trying to be all things to all environments means less than ideal for all. Issue cam for the places the units are stationed in or projected to serve in. Optimized desert/urban, woodland. Old school KISS.

IntenseDebate Comment System

Connect with cjkosh

People I'm following

cjkosh