en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/781389 Comments by cjkosh http://defensetech.org/2015/05/06/congress-adds-60-million-to-navy-submarine-upgrades/#IDComment971026980 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. Wed, 13 May 2015 07:48:36 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/05/06/congress-adds-60-million-to-navy-submarine-upgrades/#IDComment971026980 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/16/navy-wants-28-more-tomahawks-on-virginia-class-submarines/#IDComment963578446 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. Sun, 12 Apr 2015 09:31:56 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2015/03/16/navy-wants-28-more-tomahawks-on-virginia-class-submarines/#IDComment963578446 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/10/a10-and-f35-win-in-spending-deal/#IDComment927705375 A-10 Vietnam era? Only if you consider the Space Shuttle Vietnam era. Fri, 12 Dec 2014 09:24:43 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2014/12/10/a10-and-f35-win-in-spending-deal/#IDComment927705375 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/#IDComment761628484 "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? Wed, 4 Dec 2013 05:58:15 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/07/12/air-force-begins-massive-b-52-overhaul/#IDComment761628484 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/14/agencies-wait-for-decision-on-c-27js-dod-fate/#IDComment736000133 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. Thu, 17 Oct 2013 03:33:52 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/10/14/agencies-wait-for-decision-on-c-27js-dod-fate/#IDComment736000133 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/27/admiral-navy-must-shrink-submarine-development-costs/#IDComment728769765 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? Thu, 3 Oct 2013 02:04:32 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2013/09/27/admiral-navy-must-shrink-submarine-development-costs/#IDComment728769765 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/15/deploying-amphibs-look-a-lot-like-the-future/#IDComment223275434 Other than having the politics backwards, interesting insight. Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:08:03 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/15/deploying-amphibs-look-a-lot-like-the-future/#IDComment223275434 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/15/deploying-amphibs-look-a-lot-like-the-future/#IDComment223273253 I'm assuming that those electric engines and systems are EMP hardened? Thu, 17 Nov 2011 08:00:32 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/11/15/deploying-amphibs-look-a-lot-like-the-future/#IDComment223273253 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/04/dods-industrial-capabilities-dilemma/#IDComment203782267 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. Thu, 6 Oct 2011 08:33:22 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/10/04/dods-industrial-capabilities-dilemma/#IDComment203782267 http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/the-multicam-woodlandjungle-debate.html#IDComment130525880 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. Fri, 25 Feb 2011 08:34:50 +0000 http://kitup.military.com/2011/02/the-multicam-woodlandjungle-debate.html#IDComment130525880 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/12/donley-ioc-delay-for-f-35-implied/#IDComment121011361 Yep, that's just what I'd like to see - an "optionally manned" NUCLEAR bomber. I'm sure the Chinese would be more than happy to turn our Nuclear or conventional "optionally manned" bombers around on a dime. Not like they wouldn't have compromised the chips used in guidance or communications, or even the software to drive those with their spy saturation of defense industries. No, - just assume 10 years behind the curve for Chinese intel - like seemingly everything else, that they won't/ or haven't cracked our control methods for remote craft. Thu, 13 Jan 2011 08:02:27 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2011/01/12/donley-ioc-delay-for-f-35-implied/#IDComment121011361 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/dems-seek-dod-budget-cuts/#IDComment55307783 I'm a little confused. The A-400 has problems so our Allies and others want the C-17. The F-35 is turning into an overpriced under-performing joke compared to the expectations. But yet, we also close the F-22 production line because it is too expensive. Ummn, the F-35 costs per plane are ramping up fast compared to upcoming competition, so the allies may choose to bail on that (driving up the price more), but at least Japan and Australia have indicated that they would prefer the F-22 (possibly driving that superior aircraft's price down). Thu, 4 Feb 2010 10:08:24 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/dems-seek-dod-budget-cuts/#IDComment55307783 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/dems-seek-dod-budget-cuts/#IDComment55302251 I'm a little confused. The A-400 has problems so our Allies and others want the C-17. The F-35 is turning into an overpriced under-performing joke compared to the expectations. But yet, we also close the F-22 production line because it is too expensive. Ummn, the F-35 costs per plane are ramping up fast compared to upcoming competition, so the allies may choose to bail on that (driving up the price more), but at least Japan and Australia have indicated that they would prefer the F-22 (possibly driving that superior aircraft's price down). So this administration would like to abandon the C-17 market and the potentially expanding market for our most technologically advanced fighter for another fighter that may very well lose out to the competition. (I forgot - the US didn't sell the F-14 and F-15 to our allies after it was developed - my bad). Are they trying to Intentionally destroy the most advanced parts of our defense industry? - or are they just as inexperienced and unprepared for their jobs as I had feared? Thu, 4 Feb 2010 08:53:09 +0000 http://www.dodbuzz.com/2010/02/01/dems-seek-dod-budget-cuts/#IDComment55302251