en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/565658 Comments by Bronco46 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884799 Finally, somebody who's been paying attention. Sat, 31 Oct 2015 06:55:32 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884799 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884724 Billion is correct. But it's the cost of the whole program. This is proof that the universities are turning out half-educated beer guzzlers. Sat, 31 Oct 2015 06:54:48 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884724 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884582 THE WHOLE PROGRAM IS $2.7 BillION. Think before you write. But then the guy that wrote the article got it wrong too. Sat, 31 Oct 2015 06:53:28 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/10/29/best-photos-of-runaway-army-blimp/#IDComment1001884582 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/defensetech.org/2015/09/30/pentagon-russia-violated-treaty-with-recent-missile-test/#IDComment997384153 This is an obvious escalation. And nothing will be done by this administration. Thu, 1 Oct 2015 01:07:18 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/defensetech.org/2015/09/30/pentagon-russia-violated-treaty-with-recent-missile-test/#IDComment997384153 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996573172 Mike did you ever spend much time in a 113. I did. And M-577 was USMC vehicle. And not anywhere near as many have been made. The 113 has a crew of two, not four. And it can carry eleven armed troops. More when you've really got to get out of Dodge. All the criticism I'm seeing here seems to be uninformed and incorrect. Fri, 25 Sep 2015 00:43:10 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996573172 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996564424 We have something called NATO. And yes we share technology. And we choose to use weapons and technology that works. I don't understand why that's a problem for you. As someone who carried a gun for his country. I want what works. And that doesn't have to have "Made in the USA" on it. Put yourself in the position of being shot at. You'll agree. And what in God's name do you thing we get from Russia! We do have a lot of Russian equipment that we train with. But it's all captured. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:09:58 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996564424 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563936 I think you mean the M-113. The M-114 was just a command variant of the 113. And the M-113 and all its variants worked very well, for what they were designed to do. Yes, they could be knocked out. But they were meant to give us .30 cal and splinter protection, and they did that. They are still in use today. That doesn't sound like a vehicle that didn't work to me. I rode in these and was grateful for the ride and the protection. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 23:04:43 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563936 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563412 Hitler's people tried to build an impervious armored vehicle. And they did. But it sank into the ground and became a sitting duck. You can only put so much armor on any vehicle. Put too much and it just becomes a pill box. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:58:39 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563412 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563191 You simply need to behave yourself. And follow their directions. And if they do anything outside of the law. Report them. It's just that simple. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:56:12 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563191 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563049 Whoa, whoa, who TED! Too much coffee this morning. These things are submitted for testing. If they don't work or are too expensive they usually don't make it. It's not possible to make a completely safe armored vehicle. For an APC all you can do is provide splinter and blast protection. And most importantly speed! Many are attacking the jerry-cans ate the front. But this vehicle would spend the vast majority of its service life just driving around. So having a some extra gas is a good thing. No seems to have noticed they're not welded on. We already use armed dune buggies in a number of roles. A fast trac would be an upgrade. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:54:44 +0000 http://50.87.248.111/~militbe2/dodbuzz.com/2015/09/24/u-s-army-testing-light-recon-vehicles/#IDComment996563049 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/23/pentagon-acknowledges-upgrading-nukes-abroad/#IDComment996561114 Counting the number of weapons needed is no the kind of math that 99.9% of civilians are qualified to do. The men in the military know what they need to make up for losses, weapons that fail, and weapons they can't get to. So it's not a matter of just adding up megatonnage. As for meteors. You need to start paying more attention to science fact. And less to cable TV channels that specialize in science fiction. 99% of the movies on the subjects of science and especially science fiction get the physics wrong. And most defy most know science as well. So don't count on Bruce Willis grabbing a B-61 and flying up and saving the earth. It's unlikely we'll have anything like that ability in the next 100 to 200 years. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:37:54 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/23/pentagon-acknowledges-upgrading-nukes-abroad/#IDComment996561114 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/23/pentagon-acknowledges-upgrading-nukes-abroad/#IDComment996559957 There will be no mission to save earth to any asteroid, even in the distant future. Do so research on valid astronomy sites. 99% of all the science and science fiction movies get the psychics wrong, And most of the science. Thu, 24 Sep 2015 22:25:00 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/23/pentagon-acknowledges-upgrading-nukes-abroad/#IDComment996559957 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/08/first-f-35-assembled-overseas-takes-flight/#IDComment994352259 Is it any wonder the Chinese and other of our natural enemies always are able to copy our technology? Is it possible to keep anything secret when thousands of workers in multiple other countries are building these supposedly top-secret weapons? For God's sake, the Italian's have changed their government more than 50 times since the end of World War Two. They can't decide whether they want their dog catcher to be a communist or not. Should we be handing them these kinds of secrets? Wed, 9 Sep 2015 19:21:08 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/08/first-f-35-assembled-overseas-takes-flight/#IDComment994352259 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993746017 The armor and comparatively more (but less effective) guns didn't stop the Hood from being sunk with one round. Speed and effective weapons are always to be sought after. Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:07:00 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993746017 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993745725 A distinction without a difference! Sat, 5 Sep 2015 21:04:07 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993745725 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993322878 Sorry Caracold. This thing is only one-third the length of a Nimitz or Ford-class carriers. It's not even close to being half the length of Essex Class carrier. It's unbelievably early to write off large carriers. Missile defense on these ships is a lot better than you seem to understand. Wed, 2 Sep 2015 23:21:04 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993322878 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993322293 Many ships with 14 inches and more have been sunk in the past. The HMS Hood is a memorable example of this. Hulking beasts just aren't nimble enough. And they eat huge amounts of resources. A plastic ship bothers me a little. I can imagine this thing melting. But depending upon what it costs. And the number they actually build. This could work out. Wed, 2 Sep 2015 23:13:44 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993322293 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993321172 All ships are obsolete when they are launched. It's the update program that counts. These ships always need many SLEP's. Wed, 2 Sep 2015 23:05:25 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/09/02/britains-future-warship-the-dreadnought-2050/#IDComment993321172 http://defensetech.org/2015/08/28/lockheed-pitches-uq-2-or-rq-x-for-future-spy-missions/#IDComment992590085 Agreed VT! Fri, 28 Aug 2015 23:17:01 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/08/28/lockheed-pitches-uq-2-or-rq-x-for-future-spy-missions/#IDComment992590085 http://defensetech.org/2015/08/20/video-f-35a-spits-181-rounds-in-seconds/#IDComment991544886 Wait! What! They're going to mount the gun on the outside of the Navy and Marine Corps versions?? Didn't they learn the lesson of outside mounted guns on the F-4? And how stealthy will that setup be? Fri, 21 Aug 2015 23:51:55 +0000 http://defensetech.org/2015/08/20/video-f-35a-spits-181-rounds-in-seconds/#IDComment991544886