I, of course, am not as knowledgeable as you on the Military, its weapons or its budget, but I did find this article at http://www.cdi.org/mrp/transformation.cfm that seems to have a good number of reasonable suggestions. Most of them would have very little effect on our current effort as well as I can make out. For instance, regarding the Crusader:
"While originally designed for use against massed armies in a traditional "force on force" confrontation, the Army argues that the Crusader is vital to its plans for transforming to a lighter, more mobile force. Yet one of the major questions plaguing the program is the system's weight and how this will affect its ability to be airlifted into combat. As originally configured, both the SPH and the RSV have travel weights of 50 to 55 tons. Thus, while both of the two largest military cargo transports in operation -- the C-5 "Galaxy" and the C-17 "Globemaster" -- are capable of carrying either of the Crusader's components, neither can carry a complete system. The Army now states that the program's contractor has been able to reduce the weight of the system by roughly 25 percent. The current plan is to purchase 480 Crusader systems, at a total program cost of $11.1 billion, or $23 million per two-vehicle unit. Recommendation: Kill the Crusader and purchase a suitable alternative. The GAO has identified the German-made Panzerhaubitze (PzH) 2000 self-propelled howitzer as a viable alternative to the Crusader. While its maximum rate of fire is slightly below that of the Crusader, its cross-country speed, sustained rate of fire, range and rearming time all meet the requirements for the Crusader. Further, according to CBO, purchasing 550 PzH 2000 and accompanying resupply vehicle will save $6.7 billion over 10 years (CBO's "Budget Options for National Defense," March 2000)." Sounds reasonable to me, cheaper, probably available sooner... but like I said, I'm no expert. Gautam wrote: > His _point_, to the extent that he had one, was that the Bush Administration > was cheating the American public. No, his points was that the Bush administration was asking for a huge military increase _and_ a tax cut, sending the budget deeply into the red to do so. Neither you nor Sullivan addressed the question of why tax cuts should not be reigned in in order to help pay for the war. You suggested that a budget surplus would be good for the economy, but didn't answer my suggestion that a military increase was possibly detrimental. > Of course I was contemptuous of Krugman. He didn't > say anything beyond everyone who disagrees with me is evil and out to cheat > the public. He actually argued that the Administration was using 9/11 to > reward its supporters. That's contemptible. I've read the article again and can't find the part where he said the administration was rewarding the terrorists. A little help? -- Doug email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.zo.com/~brighto "Imagine all the people, Living for Today" John Lennon
