Military is pulling choppers out of the bone yard

[edward]

The military is pulling retired helicopters out of a huge storage facility in Southern Arizona. Known as the bone yard to locals, the facility contains thousands of retired aircraft from all of the military services including the National guard.

The Super Stallion, and Sea Dragon choppers are being refurbished and sent to Iraq. The Bush Administration first forced our soldiers into providing themselves with hillbilly armored Humvees and now we are sending them 30 year old helicopters.

If this is what results from giving tax cuts to the wealthy, it is time to rethink our priorities.

Check the third picture in this link. (please do not look at the Paris Hilton Pic) Our troops deserve better.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2005/8/23/94820/8149

 

[kyleb]

A little dark humor from the comments section there:

Who knew that the comparisons with Vietnam...

included using the same equipment.

 

[Smurf]

I stand by my position that, if America really wanted a stable Iraq, they shouldn't be taking the "Hi-Tech" "overwhelming firepower" routes anyways.

 

[Pengwuino]

... i guess this is shocking... considering they take old aircraft and ships out of mothball yards all the time...

I believe recently the marines asked for a WW2 battleship to be brought out of mothball to support them on beach landings since newer battleship's guns don't have enough range and sending cruise missiles for a 30 mile attack is overkill and expensive.

I guess even the most common procedures can be used as an attack on the administration...

 

[Pengwuino]

I stand by my position that, if America really wanted a stable Iraq, they shouldn't be taking the "Hi-Tech" "overwhelming firepower" routes anyways.

Then what should we use? Swords and 'barely enough firepower'?

Oh, Canadians... i get it.

 

[edward]

... i guess this is shocking... considering they take old aircraft and ships out of mothball yards all the time

Do you have any links to support retired aircraft being sent into combat?

I believe recently the marines asked for a WW2 battleship to be brought out of mothball to support them on beach landings since newer battleship's guns don't have enough range and sending cruise missiles for a 30 mile attack is overkill and expensive.

Ahh yes it is all over the news about the Marines wanting WWII battleships.

Man where did you get that from? They use air cover to support landings, and they sure as hell aren't making any landings in Iraq.

The last Battleship recommissioned was the New Jersey in 1992. Ronald Reagan thought it would be helpful to use it to shell Lebanon, it wasn't. After several months one of the main gun turrets blew up killing the gun crew.

 

[Pengwuino]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61.htm

Fairly common. You would like to just modernize massive 10,000 ton+ ships instead of creating entirely new ones whenever possible... saves money and all.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050415.shtml

And they do not like to use air cover to support landings. The best close-combat air support the US has is the A-10 which ... sadly... is starting to be seriously considered for phasing out. Battleships on the other hand, can put muuuuuuuuuuuuch more firepower on many more sites then an airplane can... and can do it cheaper... albeit less accurately.

The DDX ship mentioned is also a light, high-tech ship being made... small guns... but if i remember correctly, the design looks pretty cool and futuristic.

 

[edward]

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/bb-61.htm

Fairly common. You would like to just modernize massive 10,000 ton+ ships instead of creating entirely new ones whenever possible... saves money and all.

The link above was a nice historical look at WWII battle ships, but supports nothing that is current.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ollienorth/on20050415.shtml

And they do not like to use air cover to support landings. The best close-combat air support the US has is the A-10 which ... sadly... is starting to be seriously considered for phasing out. Battleships on the other hand, can put muuuuuuuuuuuuch more firepower on many more sites then an airplane can... and can do it cheaper... albeit less accurately.

The second link is primarily wishful, but not necessarily wise thinking by Oliver North. The link doesn't support anything about current or even recent ship recommissions. There have been none.

My thread was about how our troops are suffering and dying to a great extent due to the tax cuts, no more no less.

If a person can't see this by looking at the pictures in the link, there is nothing else I can say.

But I personally do not feel that our soldiers should have to drive around Iraq in vehicles like the one in the picture with the garbage bin in the back being used as a gun turret. That is totally lame!

If we have to pull 30 year old choppers out of the bone yard so that the likes of Donald Trump and Paris Hilton can eat more caviar and buy more jewlery, someone has lost track of their priorities.

 

[Pengwuino]

Well, get back to me when your ideology stops clouding your judgement and you read a book or two on military history and you cut out the non-sex related paris hilton jokes.

 

[edward]

Well, get back to me when your ideology stops clouding your judgement and you read a book or two on military history and you cut out the non-sex related paris hilton jokes.

So from your point of view it appears that providing American soldiers with modern equipment is "clouded judgement".

I have read many books on military history. I started reading them about 1955. When did you start? No book on military history applies to the current situation.

I was not joking about Trump and Hilton, I was dead serious.

 

[kyleb]

I never would have guessed that the fall of the neo-cons would be so depressing to watch.

 

[pattylou]

I never would have guessed that the fall of the neo-cons would be so depressing to watch.

I've had some of that same sense the last few weeks. Not quite depression, more like "Oh God, even when they crash into the ground they drag the rest of us down." It will get better, eventually.

 

[pattylou]

I can't decide what to make of the original post. I googled for more news and found this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/hlr-ch53x-helicopter-program-moves-toward-milestone-b-approval/index.php

And the link below had what appeared to be useful information:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2741511p-9179104c.html

 

[Townsend]

The Super Stallion, and Sea Dragon choppers are being refurbished and sent to Iraq. The Bush Administration first forced our soldiers into providing themselves with hillbilly armored Humvees and now we are sending them 30 year old helicopters.

How old is the F/A-18 A/C/D or how about the f-16 and f-15? The military uses a lot of old aircraft all the time. America has the largest military budget in the world and I believe Bush has done nothing but increase military spending...

I don't know for sure but if I remember correctly, Clinton made major cuts on military spending...

So my point is, where do you come off saying that tax cuts are responsible for this? And why is this such a bad thing? Do you have any reasonable argument to suggest that these older aircraft cannot be made serviceable? I believe civilian airliners use the Arizona desert for aircraft preservation as well.

 

[Smurf]

I never would have guessed that the fall of the neo-cons would be so depressing to watch.

You mean you really expected them to go out peacefully? I for one totally expected this.

 

[Townsend]

I for one totally expected this.

You expected what? What do you suppose is happening that you're seeing?

 

[Townsend]

So from your point of view it appears that providing American soldiers with modern equipment is "clouded judgement".

That is a ultra-simplistic point of view, don't you think?

 

[kyleb]

I've had some of that same sense the last few weeks. Not quite depression, more like "Oh God, even when they crash into the ground they drag the rest of us down." It will get better, eventually.

I don't mean depressing like my dog just died or such, but depressing like watching a baseball game where the pitcher just can't manage to get anything over the plate.

You mean you really expected them to go out peacefully? I for one totally expected this.

I fully anticipated the kicking and screaming, I just expected it to be fun to watch.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Does anyone remember when the Monica Lewinski issue was supposed to be important?

 

[Smurf]

I fully anticipated the kicking and screaming, I just expected it to be fun to watch.

Because you weren't thinking of it in a moral way. You were thinking of it like "Us vs Them" and they're going to lose, so you expected to enjoy it. Not realising we're actually talking about people's lives here. Lots of people make that mistake, ever since the media video game-ized war.

 

[Smurf]

Does anyone remember when the Monica Lewinski issue was supposed to be important?

Who IS Monica Lewinski? I know I've heard her name. Just don't know who she is, is she the ***** who gave clinton a blowjob in the oval office? Or some other celebrity that just spent a little too much time in the spot light?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Lewinski, a Portland girl btw, is who you're thinking of - the White House page. It was a huge scandal, you know, of great national significance.

 

[Smurf]

meh. I think I was still in africa at the time. Didn't really care. The only thing I remember about it was seeing this really gay-looking guy standing outside the white house with an 'Impeach Clinton' sign. (liberal media my ass! No one ever reports on the "Impeach Bush" protestors)

I think he was just sexually frustrated because he was 30 and still fighting his homosexuality. I mean, I'd be pissed too if I could never get it up with a woman and then the president just comes wandering along and gets sucked off during a press meeting.

 

[Smurf]

Having said that, I guess I could see how 'the president's blowjob' could be of national significance.

Hey! I just got a great idea for a new parody.

 

[kyleb]

Does anyone remember when the Monica Lewinski issue was supposed to be important?

I wasn't suggesting that this issue in itself is a big deal, but rather commenting on the reaction in this thread as well as the general state of things at the moment.

 

[russ_watters]

Does anyone remember when the Monica Lewinski issue was supposed to be important?

No, but I remember when providing proper equipment for our troops in Somalia was unimportant.

Heck, why do you think these aircraft were decomissioned in the first place!

 

[russ_watters]

Its funny to me that people are complaining about the reactivation of aircraft that are supposed to be reactivated.

And for the record, it was the first Gulf War that saw discussion of WWII battleships being pressed back into service (they weren't, though). I don't think there was any chance of that for the second gulf war, as the New Jersey is now a museum (not mothballed), however, the Iowa still is mothballed, but I takes quite a bit of effort to bring them back. The Iowa spent 25 years in mothballs before being recomissioned in 1984. The New Jersey was decomissioned and recomissioned 3 times and was decomissioned for the last time the year before the Gulf War.

 

[Yonoz]

But I personally do not feel that our soldiers should have to drive around Iraq in vehicles like the one in the picture with the garbage bin in the back being used as a gun turret. That is totally lame!

Just because something does not look good doesn't mean it doesn't do its job. Had that armour been painted nice, we'd never be talking about this. What do you think standard APC armour looks like unpainted after a few weeks in humid air?
We used to mount sandbags on our M-113 APCs before moving into urban areas. It's a standard procedure that has saved many lives, but we always used to joke about it, because it looks "lame".
Of course, the US military could develop, produce and deploy nicer looking armour, but then its troops would be driving around in non-armoured vehicles until that was done, and the money needed would probably mean there would be less armoured vehicles.
As far as the helicopters are concerned, those stored ones will be undergoing a pretty serious overhaul. This isn't like your average car service. Had they been kept in service all this time they would be in worst shape, and there would probably be criticism of how the Marine Corps has too many helicopters.

 

[Skyhunter]

No, but I remember when providing proper equipment for our troops in Somalia was unimportant.

Heck, why do you think these aircraft were decomissioned in the first place!

You should remain consistent Russ. If you are going to bash Clinton for not providing the best for our soldiers, you should not give Bush a pass for doing the same thing.

This is why I always say that if you need to invoke Clinton to defend Bush you lose everytime.

 

[edward]

I can't decide what to make of the original post.

The original post has a lot to do with the contrast in the pictures. Our troops deserve better.

I googled for more news and found this:

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2005/08/hlr-ch53x-helicopter-program-moves-toward-milestone-b-approval/index.php

And the link below had what appeared to be useful information:

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/2741511p-9179104c.html

The new helicopters in the link above won't be available until 2014. As a contrast during WWII, the P51 mustang, the P38 lightning, and the B29 bomber went from first concept to flying over enemy territory in just 4 years.

I see the bone yard on a daily basis. Most of the aircraft taken out of storage are sold to foreign countries, or are used for training purposes. The remaining craft are cut up for scrap.
None have ever been put back into a combat situation involving the US military.

People who think this is just business as usual are merely seeing what they want to see.

 

[Smurf]

This is why I always say that if you need to invoke Clinton to defend Bush you lose everytime.

It's a fallicious argument. "You're worse so we're OK"

 

[Townsend]

It's a fallicious argument. "You're worse so we're OK"

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

 

[pattylou]

"You're worse so we're OK"

If the other argument is "You're *as bad* as us, so we're OK"

... Then the democrats are still the better party. In one situation the dems are marginally better. In the other, both parties are the same.

So the dems win. Nyah, nyah, nya nya, nyah.

 

[Smurf]

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

No, what I mean is it's a fallicious argument to use someone else's failure as an excuse for your own failure as well. i.e. Clinton didn't give adequate equipment to the troops, therefore it's okay that Bush isn't either. Or: Clinton didn't increase national security, therefore it's okay that Bush didn't either, thus allowing 9/11 to happen so easily.

 

[Skyhunter]

Everything is relative to something else...

How do we know if we're better or worse unless we can compare it to something else? How do you know if your car is fast unless you know how fast other cars are?

Clearly it is not a fallacious argument.

Wrong is wrong. If it was wrong for Clinton, it is wrong for Bush. If Clinton did not properly equip the troops, he was at fault, same standard applies to Bush. In other words, it is a fallacious argument.