Army says no to more tanks, but Congress insists

[Omaha Steve]

Source: AP-Excite

By RICHARD LARDNER

WASHINGTON (AP) - Built to dominate the enemy in combat, the Army's hulking Abrams tank is proving equally hard to beat in a budget battle.

Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams.

But senior Army officials have said repeatedly, "No thanks."

It's the inverse of the federal budget world these days, in which automatic spending cuts are leaving sought-after pet programs struggling or unpaid altogether. Republicans and Democrats for years have fought so bitterly that lawmaking in Washington ground to a near-halt.

FULL story at link.


Read more: http://apnews.excite.com/article/20130428/DA5UHPN00.html

---

This undated file photo provided by the General Dynamics Land System shows the production of an Abrams tank in Lima, Ohio. Lawmakers from both parties have devoted nearly half a billion dollars in taxpayer money over the past two years to build improved versions of the 70-ton Abrams, which the Army refers to with a moniker that befits their heft: the M1A2SEPv2. The upgraded tanks cost about $7.5 million each, according to the Army, and service officials say they have plenty of them. (AP Photo/General Dynamics Land System, File)


(Just beat the LBN time limit)

[A Simple Game]

1. The army should take delivery of the tanks at the Capital building.

Park them in front of the Capital and let the legislators explain why the army might do that.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

17. OUR MILITARY IS JUST A CSH COW FOR THE CORPORATIONS

OUR MILITARY IS JUST A CSH COW FOR THE CORPORATIONS

[Poll_Blind]

2. This and that story about the unkillable "hydrogen reserve" project are a BAD SIGN.

Like a bad, bad sign, y'all.

PB

[iandhr]

3. When the army says "please no more."

You know its a serious issue.

[mbperrin]

5. That's a genuine "no shit"!

And yes, my stupid Congressman and Senators are pushing it.

Sigh.

[delrem]

8. It means that they don't have enough soldiers to operate them all!

[Iliyah]

4. The Army says damn the profits to un-Americans

and to take care of our own.

[DallasNE]

6. Reading The Article And Doing The Math

They build roughly 2 1/2 tanks per day and they have 18,700 people building the components and assembling the tank. That looks like an awful lot of pork. But to make matters worse, they are really just upgrading those 2 1/2 existing tanks with more modern doodads. Doodads that cost $7.5 million per tank. Now those must be pretty fancy doodads at that rate. I hate to think how many people it would take to build a tank from scratch.

But can you trust the numbers. They say they need another $436 million and the cost to upgrade is $7.5 million per tank so that means they can only upgrade 58 tanks. Lastly, the design is 30 years old so wouldn't it make more sense to do what the military suggests and use the money on the next generation tank rather than doing both. Besides, how much good are tanks doing in Afghanistan today? Are they becoming a relic of the past?

[delrem]

11. "how much good are tanks doing in Afghanistan today?"

The US is going with "night raids" in Afghanistan - which are terrorist operations of occupation forces.

But that doesn't mean that total domination of the sky and ground isn't important in *first* seizing an area like Afghanistan! You betcha that when the US "intervenes" in Syria to "save the Syrian people", there'll be an impressive display. That it'll take only ~5% of US forces to do it will make the accomplishment all the more impressive. The US doesn't spend equivalent to the rest of the world combined on war materials for nothing. The US spends this because it's the game the US is playing.

Those tanks also keep the US economy going. I shouldn't say "also keep", since this is the primary objective. The US is a war economy where "gov't subsidies" come in the form of defense spending, and this keeps many huge operations (not just a few) alive in a world that otherwise might prove too competitive. That these usually no bid contracts are paid for by US debt to China etc., is ... well ... the reason why some people wish there was some fucking CHANGE. Because some people see the CONTRADICTION.

But what do they know?

[bossy22]

12. the abrams is the next generation tank

The new M1A3 is an upgraded version slated for production in 2018. The abrams is so effective that there is really no need to design a whole new tank- especially since doing so would definitely have a price tag that is higher than the abrams. So in reality, the army is saving money

[DallasNE]

18. But You Ducked The Question

Are tanks a relic of the past -- like a battleship?

American Warthogs take out enemy tanks, not Abrams in tank battles like were fought in WW II.

Spending money on something not needed is not really saving money. One Apache helicopter can inflict a lot more damage than a tank.

[Lurks Often]

19. Tanks aren't a relic

and are still very useful. It was the tank units that destroyed most of the Iraqi tanks during the Gulf war in 1990-1991 and the invasion and of Iraq in 2003, not planes or helicopters.

[Electric Monk]

7. That's one area where austerity could actually save some real money.

[TreasonousBastard]

9. Once again the greatest impediment to an efficient republic...

is our elected representatives.

Military contractors, often enough in cahoots with the military itself, have managed to have every state and district benefit from jobs building every kind of shit you can imagine. Reagan gave the Navy battleships they didn't want, but smaller contracts are still out there killing the budget every day.

We need jobs but the bastards won't hire teachers or anyone else who might actually help socially or economically so we're left with the military. They won't fix the bridges we have, either, because the photo ops and ribbon-cutting ceremonies are with new bridges to nowhere. And so it goes...

BTW, has anyone remembered the really good shit we got done when Pelosi was running the House?

Hint, hint, hint...

[wercal]

10. A different way of looking at it...

Reading the article, the army still wants the money...the just want to use it for R & D for the roll out of a new tank to be fielded in 2017. That means that all of the M1 fleet that was just upgraded will start to become obsolete less than a decade after the money was spent.

I know everyone is trying to protect their own pork...but I think the outcome is correct. Keep upgrading the M1...don't field a brand new tank.

[bossy22]

14. the new tank is a version of the M1

the M1A3

I think the bigger issue is the cost of restarting the production line. It is not a question of if we will be producing new tanks, but when. In the winter, when you leave your house you lower the heat but you don't turn it off completely. Why?- well even though you are wasting money heating a house that no one is staying in (ignoring pipe freezing in this example) the savings from turning it off are overshadowed by the costs of bringing the house back to a livable temperature once you get home.

[bossy22]

13. Congress is not completely out of their mind

there is alot of talk out there that shutting down the Abrams line (temporarily) and then restarting it will cost more than just keeping it open for the next few years.

I also must say that the gentleman for the Atlantic Council makes no sense. when you lose niche industrial capabilities it is extremely difficult (if not impossible without outside help) to regain them. If anything it is understated not overstated in difficulty. Yes the overall economy will be fine but just because you are popping out dishwashers doesn't mean you can pop out a tank. The UK learned this the hard way when they ceased nuclear submarine production temporarily in the 1990s (cold war draw down). The industrial base atrophied to a point that they actually had to ask U.S. Submarine producer Electric Boat to "show" them how to build a nuclear submarine again. It was an embarrassment in British defense circles. While i am fully aware that a nuclear sub is a completely different animal to build than a tank, the loss of critical production and skills should not be taken lightly.

[One_Life_To_Give]

21. How many armored divisions can the Warsaw Pact field?

The Abrams was designed to take on Pact forces which isn't so likely now. Nor do our potential adversaries have the ability to field the numbers that could be done in the past. The difficult part will be as you imply, keeping the key parts of the design and manufacture organizations and expertise together. But the question of how many or few to build per day/week should be based upon the economics as currently there is very little need for a better 70ton main battle tank.

[Politicalboi]

15. We have drones, who needs tanks?

This is just a waste of money. Have these people build government hospitals that are almost FREE for the public to use 24/7 in each state and EACH county within 50 miles . Give our service members who are studying to be doctors and nurses jobs at these hospitals. Make them huge with doctors offices for regular visits, physical therapy the works.

[SoapBox]

16. Well maybe the likes of Graham and other Clowns think

that we can use them to invade North Korea. Or was it Syria. Or was it Iran. Or was it......

[gtar100]

20. It's trickle down economics for the military too.

As in, our Defense program is really a Defense Industry program. Somebody's special interest in this cash cow just exposed a dirty little secret.

[Brother Buzz]

22. Have a look see, zoom out a bit.....

https://maps.google.com/?ll=40.197745,-120.141758&spn=0.00211,0.004619&t=h&z=18