Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : War -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (790)	2/12/2001 9:43:35 PM
From: Carolyn	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 23908

This site has some interesting information: acq.osd.mil Ballistic Missile Defense Organization

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (790)	2/13/2001 7:11:39 AM
From: John Carragher	Respond to of 23908

I watched on cspan yesterday hearings with the congress committee for defense(armed services? forgot name). I found it rewarding in listening to the gentlemen. For example limited stars wars. Safe ,if it works for us. but how about the 40,000 us citizens in so. Korea. etc. He went further on our defense , mentioning terrorist etc could send a fishing vessel up Alexandria bay and fired a missile into the window of the white and they couldn't stop it. Two of the three being interviewed seemed to believe we could save 40 to 50 billion in defense by consolidation of the arm services management groups. He gave an example of being in Navy all his life and knowing Navy folks from Britain , Russia better than those in other branches of his own armed services. Suggested we should perhaps cross train military officers(maybe). Both felt there was enough money in budget to run military. Also brought up each having their own air force etc. Too much duplication and no communication between them. In the end they asked about the 2002 budget two out of the three felt a 5 to 10 billion increase over existing budget was sufficient. The third guy said he had no idea. The admiral who seem to do most of the talking had some interesting ideas about building bases for combined military. He wrote a book about future deployments and weapons but did not catch the title. Ron with your background you may be able to comment. thanks John

To: Hawkmoon who wrote (790)	2/13/2001 11:53:27 PM
From: CVJ	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23908

Ron, >However, I could see building the JSF first (if they can expedite the procurement) and hold off on the YF-22 Raptor.< >So if they can demonstrate the ability to build it cheaper and able to meet the requirements of all the services who will use it, that's great.< The military has a less than stellar record with a joint service fighter. The F-15 and the F-18 started out as the same plane for the Air Force and the Navy. Different loading requirements for carrier landings and take-off resulted in the Navy needing a separate version, and thus was born the F-18. Many lost bucks along the way. I think that because of the success of the Navy's F-4 design being adopted by the Ar Force that everybody thought they could do it again. If the JSF is designed first to Navy requirements and then adapted to the A.F., it has a chance to succeed, but not the other way around. JMHO Chas <grub>