Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 13, 2006 17:18:03 GMT -5
OOC: sorry...forgot to add something...basically what I'm saying is that in June of 05, that report would have been correct, in January 06, not so much.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 13, 2006 17:40:02 GMT -5
"Mr. Secretary,
While you have said a lot, you have not answered some of my basic questions. I shall rephrase them to make them easier for us all to comprehend and acknowledge.
To begin with, your Research and Development Bill has failed. As such, a significant portion of this Bill is now out of date and unusable. Why should we continue to support this Bill now that such a major component has been removed?
Nobody has said that large carriers are useless. The question poised is why shouldn't we pursue both smaller and larger carriers simultaneously? Rarely in the course of normal military operations in Iraq or Afghanistan were any significant portion of the nearby aircraft used in any operation. Why are we avoiding the use of flexible, small platform carriers entirely?
In regards to body armor, I am not discussing research and new programs. I am asking you why we need to purchase fancy new planes when our soldiers on the ground still do not have all of the protection it is possible for us to give them. Do you believe that the purchase of new jets outweighs the value of properly arming our infantry?
In regards to missile defense... frankly Mr. Secretary, I don't care if its classified. Your layered estimate of a kill ratio upwards of 95% is ridiculous. If we know exactly where the missile is coming from, have an hour or two of warning concerning the launch of said missile, everything is in the right place, the missile isn't a modern or particularly effective one, and we have a great degree of luck in regards to our electronics systems and the weather, we have an excellent chance of hitting an incoming missile. In normal operations, even with a layered defense, we are just as likely to not be able to intercept a missile as actually hit it. All of this is publicly available information. Will these technologies develop further? I certainly hope so. But my question to you is this:
We have the technology, at our disposal, to arm aircraft with developed and tested laser weaponry that, if deployed correctly against a launch site, could bring down a launched missile. Why are we not purchasing any?
In regards to the Marine Corps, once again I ask you for a break down of what is actually being spent on the ground-pounders. What are you procuring for our Marines beyond expensive airplanes?
Finally, in regards to procurement, I see a large jump in procurement costs when, even in the Bush years where rapid rearming and more research was taking place, procurement rates were steady and, in many cases, falling. The portion of the budget taken by procurement has leapt upwards by a significant amount. The difference between 19 percent and 22 percent, when the budget is a number as vast as we are talking about, is VERY significant. An increase in procurement might be necessary, but why are we spending all this money preparing for these high intensity conflicts of which you speak but ignoring the fact that we still have trouble fighting the low intensity ones? Are there no better ways to spend this money?
Why, Mr. Secretary, are we gearing up for the next big hypothetical World War but not taking the steps necessary to improve our ability to fight the insurgency based wars we are currently involved in fighting?
It seems to me that our military should be prepared for BOTH eventualities, not simply be focusing on making our airplanes even more impressive than they already, especially when the combat skills of our pilots continue to be found to be lacking when compared to those found in other less advanced countries. Why, when our military faces all of the problems we see today, should we spend such enormous sums of money on projects of dubious value?
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 15, 2006 13:06:20 GMT -5
Congressman, I am addressing you questions as fully and completely as possible. I’m sorry if they do not fit into your views, but I am giving them from my position as Secretary of Defense. It is unfortunate you and your colleagues decided to vote down our R&D proposal without due consideration or any attempt to negotiate modification which you could support. My role in the Administration is to provide the management of the Defense Department, to provide for the defense of the United States. We are attempting to enhance both the overall strategic options and the ability of individual service members. Carriers and Air PowerI perhaps have not been clear, but we DO have an option for smaller aircraft carriers through the use of the 12 Wasp- and Tarawa- Amphibious Assault vessels carrying AV-8B Harriers, or the F-35B when it comes into service, rather then its normal helicopter airwing. Frankly, a dedicated class of smaller aircraft carriers, at the expense of even one super-carrier, IS a waste! A smaller carrier would not be able to operate as many fixed wing aircraft as effectively, nor would it be as survivable as a super carrier, and as mentioned, we have already have an option for STOVL carriers. Taking the examples of France and Britain for lighter carrier; we could reduce size by 100-200 feet in length and 30-50% displacement, but after the CVN-21 crew reductions the crew savings would be marginal; design, construction and operating costs still significant; and air wings cut in half or more. Your statement on the use of aircraft, carrier or otherwise, in Iraq and Afghanistan is incorrect. During the first few months of operations in Afghanistan, 75% of sorties came from carriers; and from that, with a SMALL force of Special Forces supporting an indigenous force which had previously been close to defeat, we used highly effective air power to quickly knock the Taliban from power. In Iraq air power was used extensively, first to cripple and pin down Iraqi army units as ground forces raced to Baghdad, and to complement artillery, which often was moving with the forces too fast to be deployed and used in battery fire. Even while fighting terrorists and insurgents in these countries, rather than needing artillery with fast moving forces, we are able to have aircraft available to deliver precision guided munitions in effective ground support. Body ArmorAgain, we ARE producing and delivering Interceptor armor AND the Land Warrior armor. These are the best systems we have to provide protection AND maintain operational effectiveness. That we could provide 50lbs body armor that will protect soldiers from most IEDs, small arms, and other explosions is all well and good, except that the soldier would not be able to move… Let me quote members of the 101st Airborne. “You've got to sacrifice some protection for mobility. If you cover your entire body in ceramic plates, you're just not going to be able to move… Body armor has saved numerous lives in Iraq and Afghanistan and it will continue to do so, especially as it is modified to better meet the threat we face. However, there are limitations as to how much armor you can add onto an individual and maintain his effectiveness as a soldier: when I step out the gate I am wearing on my person body armor, a Kevlar helmet, my M4 rifle with a few hundred rounds of ammunition, my M9 sidearm with another hundred rounds of ammunition, 2-3 quarts of water, a portable radio, night-vision equipment, and numerous other odds and ends...”
"Too much weight means a soldier moves slower, tires more easily, [maneuvers] less stealthily and spends more time feeling sorry for himself instead of focusing on the mission. And then there's the bulkiness that becomes an issue as you move through tight space and wedge into the seats of military vehicles that were not designed with comfort and/or legroom in mind. All these tradeoffs must be addressed before you make the decision to add armor, it must be determined that the armor will be effective, and then it must be designed in a way that minimizes impact on our ability to do our job."Comparing body armor to jets is like comparing a bowling ball and a BB… They have entirely different roles, costs, priorities, challenges, and abilities to enable operations; and it is disingenuous to suggest we are trying to make a value judgment on one or the other. Missile DefenseYour position on missile defense is confusing sir, you seem to be against missile interceptors which are in service or soon to be, yet all for untested directed-energy technology which has a long way to go before it is truly operational. The point of missile defense is to deploy not only the interception capability, but just as importantly the diction, communication, targeting, and control. One of the things I am proud of during my time as Secretary of the Navy is the deployment of the Aegis Ballistic Missile Defense capabilities; it would have been even more capable if not hamstrung by restrictions from the 1990s. While no single system is perfect, none ever is; we are continuing to develop these systems and your characterization of performance as useless is flat wrong. While we have the Airborne Laser Demonstrator, and it has shown promise, the limits of chemical lasers are the difficulty. It requires large amount of toxic fuels which are rapidly expended and are difficult to handle safely. Hence the reason why we can only mount these systems on large 747s which no one should suggest be deployed directly into combat. The key breakthrough to effective directed-energy systems will be developments in solid-state, or at least hybrid systems, which rely on electricity or far less toxic chemical fuels then the current systems. That is why these systems are emphasized in the R&D bill, but that is a long-term effort. In 10, 15, or 20 years I absolutely agree that directed-energy will take an ever increasing role in our systems; but it will be costly and it is not ready for effective deployment today. The last thing we want to do is push a system into regular service when it is not ready. Take for instance the E-8 JointSTARS, it was in the system design and development testing during the 1991 gulf war and was pushed into operations. While it did work effectively in the short-term, the long-term result was delaying full operational capability by five-eight years. Marine Corps FundingNone of the “Marine-Corps Unique” funding goes towards aircraft (that is covered in Navy/USMC: Aircraft). I do not have the specifics here, but I think it would be more than clear that most of this $1.86Billion would be for “ground-pounders”. Additionally, missile and ammunition costs are in separate general Navy funds. Besides aircraft the Marines are procuring the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle, to replace Amphibious Assault Vehicles, as well as body armor (~$10million) and some key Land Warrior components. BudgetYour comparison between the Bush years and the current efforts is important. The reason for significant procurement is to some degree because many of the R&D programs conducted during those years are coming to fruition, after a decade without many great advancements, and it now time to begin buying these next generation systems. Many of the combat systems designed in the 1970s and early 1980s, and procured through the early 1990s are becoming old and outdated. We are seeking capabilities which are effective in BOTH high- and low-intensity operations. Networked Interoperability among highly-capable systems will support and enhance operations in both environments. Improved situational awareness WILL be extremely useful when combating insurgencies, but it is important to match that with effective human intelligence as well. If called on to fight regional powers with improving militaries these capabilities and precise weaponry will allow for focused attacks to take out key opposition assets, in order to effectively disrupt the ability of an opponent to operate effectively on either the strategic or tactical level. Your final characterization of “the combat skills of our pilots continue to be found to be lacking when compared to those found in other less advanced countries” is blatantly false and disparaging! Perhaps you are referring to public disclosures of “training exercises”, which have very specific rules of what we can and can not do; at the same time we of course do not reveal all of our capabilities. All of our services train hard and longer than almost any other nations, and utilize our technological advantages to the fullest extent. It is our responsibility to allow our forces to continue to do so now and in the future by providing the funding to equip and train to operate in a spectrum of operating environments.
|
|
|
Post by Rick Warder on Jan 16, 2006 0:22:26 GMT -5
Stop apologizing for making the game interesting.
E.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 16, 2006 1:13:47 GMT -5
Mr. Secretary, it is not a question of your answers not fitting my views. It is a question of your attempts to mimic the opinions and views of the former Secretary of Defense, Mr. Rumsfeld. We've all seen how well his plans and ideas worked out when he voiced them over the numerous objections of the actual people in the military.
Your R&D proposal was, frankly, ill conceived and relied on an outdated behemoth of a program which was serving no useful purpose and wasting money. But my question to you is why should we pass this bill when the ENTIRE army portion is now defunct?
In regards to Afghanistan and Iraq, you have misunderstood me. I never stated that air power is not critical to winning wars. I said that individual operations did not, in any way, EVER stress the full capabilities of our carriers. So why couldn't a smaller carrier do the job?
As for body armor, once again, the question is NOT implying that body armor serves a better purpose than an airplane. The question is why is purchasing another fancy airplane MORE important than purchasing more body armor and combat systems for our infantrymen when they clearly need it? Money needs to be spent to procure aircraft as WELL as being spent to procure body armor. So why can't we knock a few of the airplanes off this bill and purchase more of your vaunted landwarrior systems? Airforce pilots always love to talk about how important their airplanes are, but that belief is exagerrated, just as a grunt thinks that his particular unit is doing "all of the work". We have to strike out for a balanced military, not an air-heavy one designed to take on a made-up enemy with legions of advanced aircraft.
Since you seem to have not heard my position on missile defense correctly, Mr. Secretary, I shall resummarize it for you. I CORRECTED your erroneous and misleading statements about our missile interceptor systems. Missile defense is, in my mind, a sound goal. Even if our protection blanket was only 25% effective, I would regard it as a good thing to spend time and money on. However, exagerrating the effectiveness of those systems to a Congress that is already predisposed to support such measures is a waste of all of our time. You have been called before this Congress to testify and answer questions, I would appreciate it if you did that truthfully and avoided making up statements that no member of this Congress has ever made. Nobody in this entire body has ever, in the course of this discussion, said that missile defense is "useless". As for YOUR characterization of laser technology as being untested and undeveloped... well I've heard from a lot of people within the military who disagree with you. I will have to weigh both of your opinions when I cast my vote. Thank you for the information.
As for the Marines, I find it interesting that you have grand strategies laid out for the Airforce and Naval Air, yet the "Marines" category has received some specific funding for aircraft and then a chunk of funding for procurement of "everything else", which you seem to have surprisingly little information about. Once again, can you assure this Congress that you have a comprehensive plan for the Marines that includes getting our "ordinary" fighting men all the equipment that they need? I have quite a few worried people back home in my District writing me to ask how we can afford new carriers and amazing, advanced aircraft and all the Secretary of Defense can tell them is that "they're getting some new fighting vehicles."
Frankly, I disagree with your characterization of spending in the Bush years strongly. Useless military programs were cut. The military worked to keep their budget reasonable. Is this jump in procurement partly a result of the R&D programs started during both the Clinton and Bush years playing out? Surely so. Does it account for all of it? No. We're gearing up for an air war that doesn't exist. What assurances can you give this body that your office will not continue spending larger and larger sums of money on expensive weapons systems like this? What guarantee do we have that the money we earmark for use by the military is going to be used effectively to help our troops?
Frankly, sir, I heard the same arguments about our "training" during Korea and Vietnam. It wasn't accurate then, and it's not accurate now The fact is that superior technology, which you seem so intent on promoting, can not substitute for a well trained soldier, airman, or sailor. Can you assure this Congress that you are not trying to transform our military into a expense-ridden mammoth that is overly reliant on technology? Can you assure the American people that their tax dollars are being spent in the best way possible to keep our men and women in uniform safe?
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 16, 2006 15:15:50 GMT -5
Congressman, Secretary Rumsfeld introduced important reforms into the Department of Defense, and though many of those have been adjusted, they remain a key part of how we do business. Speed, flexibility, and lethality - enabled by networked operating systems - are the way to enhance the effectiveness of our forces across operating environments. There were good reasons why systems like Crusader and Comanche were cut in favor on lighter, cheaper, and more achievable systems. Again you offer nothing but criticism, not proposals or alternatives; rather you seem comfortable delaying the efforts put forward by the Department and the Services to provide for the current and future defense of this nation and those who serve it.
Carrier/Air Power So you are now complaining that we had TOO MUCH air power capability in Afghanistan and Iraq??? That we were able to pace operations to maintain a sustained and effective effort? We are not going to shift to smaller carrier just so you can criticize the other extreme. As I’ve already noted we have a platform that can act as a small carrier when needed, but it inappropriate for that to become a major focus of naval aviation. Frankly, we can NEVER have too much support for the warfighter; and carping about it is all well and good until we actually need it.
We have already tripled the number of Land Warrior systems fielded on a yearly basis; to field more than that at once would simply throw off the training and operation cycles – taking too many units out of rotation as they convert – not to mention production rate limits. To put it simply, the systems for ground combat do cost less then air systems, which not only deal with air threats, but are key to supporting the ground warrior. The close air support is invaluable, as we have seen in recent action, acting in essence as long-range mobile artillery, reconnaissance, and air defense in support and protection of ground forces.
Missile Defense/Directed Energy I was not exaggerating the methodology of a layered defense, whether the pK of a single system is 25% or 50%, the number of engagements does correspond with an ever increasing chance of interception. It is quite simply the law of probability and diminishing returns; if you flip a coin you have 50% chance of getting heads, if you flip it twice you have 75% chance of getting heads (and so on: 87.5%, 93.75%, 96.875%...). The same works with dice… The Aegis BMD system is a 360-degree system, and other systems operate in environments that likely vectors can, at the very least, be estimated at operational useful level and can change tracks. I would very much like to expand the engagement envelope into the launch and more of the accent stages of missile flight, and direct-energy, KEI, and upgraded SM-3 will someday provide that as an operational option.
The reason directed-energy will EVENTUALLY be a major advancement is that speed-of-light systems allow for easier targeting (don’t have to lead the target by much), long range, and the ability to engage multiple times very quickly. The issues holding back current systems are, as mentioned, the toxic chemical fuels (requiring large tanks), cooling systems (can not reengage as often or fire as rapidly), and trans-atmospheric targeting software/designation problems. These are solvable problems, especially as solid-state and hybrid systems are developed; but right now we can only operate from fixed sites or large cargo aircraft prototypes/demonstrators that quickly deplete their fuel and require a great deal of maintenance.
Marine Corps ground funding The Marines are perhaps the most versatile and adaptive of the services, but they are also the smallest and fall under the Secretary of the Navy. As detailed in the reorganization efforts, the Marine Corps will be rounded out into more defined units. The specifics of “Marine Corps – Unique” procurement funding are as follows;
Weapons and Combat Vehicles: $758million Communications and Electronic Equipment: $545million Support Vehicles: $206million Engineer and Other Equipment: $315million Spares and Repair Parts: $36million TOTAL: $1.86Billion
Over the past few years the Marines have upgraded their artillery and introduced rocket artillery. The EFV will fall under W&CV, as will body armor; the Land Warrior network systems are accounted for under both C&EE and W&CV, depending on the component. The large future efforts for the Marines will be the new rifles once that R&D effort is complete, replacement of the LAV-25, M1-A1, and supporting combat and engineer vehicles by the MEFFV in the 2015-2025 timeframe – which include some FCS technologies. So we do indeed have a plan for the ground Marines, it is just not as costly as other areas which will have greater effects over a greater range of operations.
Training/ect… Again, your comments on training are incorrect. Our training facilities at Ft. Polk, Ft. Irwin, 29-Palms, not to mention the Red-Flag and Joint-Combined Task Force Exercises are unmatched by any other nation. Indeed, our allies seek every opportunity to participate in those exercises; which replicate real world operations as closely, and even to a tougher degree, as possible. Those are the big exercises, which units go through as they work up for deployment; while our focus has changed in recent years to include cross-culture interaction and focused environment training, it still stresses the basic combat skills. In addition, individual training is achieved by both live-fire/hands on experiences and virtual reality/networked training technologies. These efforts are far more advanced training methods than all but the most industrialized nations or elite forces.
Do we utilize a technology advantages? Absolutely! Are these a substitute for skill of the individual warfighter? Absolutely NOT; they are enhancements! Is defending this nation an expensive proposition? Yes, it is; but we are doing our best to enable the men and women who serve in defense of this nation to do so most effectively, by providing the best training, equipment, and preparation we can.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 17, 2006 18:12:12 GMT -5
Mr. Secretary, you were not asked before this body to offer your political opinion. You were summoned to answer our questions.
I will continue my questioning, hoping that you will keep in mind that your purpose here is only to offer the facts as you seem them from you perspective as Secretary of Defense, NOT try to lecture Congress on what you personally think it should do.
What reliable, modern alternative do we have to the Nimitz sized super carrier? It is impossible to have too much support for our soldiers, but it is inefficient to crack a walnut with a sledgehammer, especially when that inefficiency comes at such a high cost. You note that we need new, technologically advanced carriers. Where, might I ask, are the new and improved smaller carrier platforms?
In regards to Land Warrior, are you saying that we have completely filled our ability to supply our ground troops with new and advanced weapons? If Congress appropriated an extra 250 million dollars to your bill here for the express purpose of aiding the common infantryman, would you be able to use that money to any effect? More importantly, if you subtracted 250 million from your airforce procurements, could that money not be used to extend any benefit to our ground troops?
Your statements about directed energy weaponry don't quite mesh with the information I have in front of me here. Are you saying that a fully tested and designed, workable laser-armed aircraft was NOT delivered to this government by the company Northrop Grumman in 2007?
Nobody asked your opinion on ground forces training, Secretary, although I am happy to hear that our men and women in uniform and receiving such excellent care.
I believe we have about exhausted the time we have to spend on this interview, so as soon as the Secretary of Defense has finished his final responses to these questions, I hope that we can quickly move towards a vote on this issue.
|
|
|
Post by Avery Adams on Jan 17, 2006 23:31:43 GMT -5
Congressman, I am presenting these positions as the Secretary of Defense. In that role it is my responsibility to put forward these issues as what the services and department have formulated as being best for the overall security and defense of the nation through enhanced capabilities. It may be the role of congress to fund these appropriations, but it the Services, Joint Chiefs, and OSD who are the professionals who manage these issues day-to-day, and helped formulate these requests.
Carriers/Amphibious Assault I can not stress that I am entirely against a dedicated class of light aircraft carrier; rather that role should be filled by Amphibious Assault ships when needed. That being said, we are funding a replacement for the Tarawa-class LHA and potentially the Wasp-class LHD. This would basically be an evolved and somewhat enlarged Wasp-class vessel, incorporating some of the CVN-21 aviation support technologies; though it will not have a “well-deck” for docking landing craft. As the next generation "big-deck" amphibious ship, LHA(R) will be optimized for aviation, capable of supporting current and future aircraft such as the tilt-rotor MV-22 and the F-35B. Additional LHA(R) roles include troop support, particularly in the form of helicopter and landing craft ship-to-shore movement. LHA 6 features several aviation capabilities enhanced beyond previous amphibious assault ships. These include an enlarged hangar deck, realignment and expansion of the aviation maintenance facilities, a significant increase in available stowage for parts and support equipment, and increased aviation fuel capacity. Currently, the lead ship is under construction and planned for commissioning in 2012 or 2013, with five initial ships delivered over ten years and up to twelve by 2035. Design costs are about $800million, lead ship at about $3B, and average unit cost estimated at $2.4B each.
(OOC: I mistakenly did not include these in the request)
Land Warrior/Air-Ground Funds By tripling the introduction rate of Land Warrior Spiral 1 systems we will be able to equip 3 Infantry and 3 Heavy Brigades per year. This will allow all our active Army Brigades to be appropriately equipped with Spiral 1 level, so that by the time FCS technologies begin equipping the Brigades; the Land Warrior Spiral 2 upgrades can be introduced in tandem.
This level does approach the limit of not only production, but also the training and certification process for such an advanced system. This is not something we can just throw at the forces with a user’s manual. We want to make sure the training up on these systems is deliberate and complete, during which time these forces would have limited availability for deployment.
Transferring funds between accounts for the sake of transfer would not make sense; but with $250m in ground funding, besides the planed Land Warrior, armor, and communications, I would likely push for improved fires designator/communication systems to allow for more effective indirect artillery and air support. I would also seek to accelerate the introduction of new small arms (see R&D).
What aircraft funds would I feel comfortable reducing? Frankly none; but if a choice must be made, I would reduce the annual purchase of the EA-18G from 4 squadrons to 3 squadrons per year (16 to 12 aircraft) to replace Navy and Marine Corps EA-6Bs, which would save ~$304m per year but stretch production from 2014 to 2016.
Airborne Laser I assume you are referring to the Boeing-led Airborne Laser project, with the Northrop Grumman Chemical Oxide Iodine Laser (COIL) mounted on a 747? This program is FAR from an operational system. While the first airframe was delivered in 2002, this did not include the weapon or targeting systems that continue to be developed and tested. This program has suffered significant delays and has fallen well behind the original schedule. Two testbed aircraft have been acquired, and I detail their progress and plans below.
1st Testbed/Component Experimentation FY 2004: ground integration and testing of the Beam Control Fire Control (BCFC) segment, integration of the six laser modules in the laser System Integration Laboratory (SIL), SIL testing of iodine flow in preparation of “first light”, majority of integration efforts of BCFC. FY 2005: first flight with the Beam Control System, passive Low Power (LP) system readiness and flight tests, High Energy Laser (HEL) SIL testing, first light of the full laser in SIL, Link-16/BCFC integration, testing of laser modules in SIL. FY2006: LP system ground and flight tests, begin SIL disassembly and refurbishment, conduct any necessary aircraft structural modifications. FY2007: Continue SIL disassembly and refurbishment, initiate aircraft installation of HEL, conduct any necessary aircraft structural modifications, BCFC upgrade, Service Life Extension Program (aircraft, laser, BCFC, and BMC4I), begin ground testing of fully integrated prototype system. FY2008-2010: Full ground and flight testing of fully integrated prototype ABL system. FY2011+: Upgrade of components to 2nd ABL standard.
2nd Testbed FY2007: Initiate design refinement, procure airframe. FY2008-2010: Testing of matured components in SIL, component ground and flight testing, integration all systems aboard the aircraft. FY2011+: Begin ground and flight testing of fully integrated HEL weapon system.
Limited Operational Capability will not occur until 2012 at the earliest; the 1st Testbed is a crude collaboration of systems, while the 2nd Testbed will represent operational capabilities. The COIL system is, as mentioned earlier, a chemical laser system – with corresponding drawbacks of limited and corrosive toxic fuels. These two test aircraft have and will provide invaluable experience and data, as well as limited operational capabilities. The goal is to move beyond this type of system to a Solid State Laser (SSL: using electricity generated by engines, rather than chemicals); though a hybrid type (combining various SSL and COIL components as they mature technologically) will likely be an intermediate step. These evolutions will allow for lighter, more efficient direct-energy systems, and effective and practical integration into actual combat aircraft and other platforms.
Congressman, you directly questioned our training methodology; across the board we seek to provide training of both basic skills and real-world simulation for all warfighters.
I hope I have addressed the concerns of congress and explained clearly our plans for providing the most advanced and effective Armed Forces for today and the future.
|
|
William Reynolds
DNC Chair
A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends upon the character of the user.
Posts: 100
|
Post by William Reynolds on Jan 18, 2006 12:34:03 GMT -5
Unless any other members of Congress have questions, I move that we vote on this bill.
|
|
Jack Jenkins
Democrats
Being a Ranger is a function of attitude and state of mind, as well as a matter of training.
Posts: 78
|
Post by Jack Jenkins on Jan 28, 2006 16:49:55 GMT -5
I move for a vote ASAP
|
|
|
Post by linkingdot on Dec 4, 2006 22:52:10 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker,
I support this legislation. We must supply our fighting men and women with the most available weaponry.
|
|
|
Post by gregoryrader on Jan 17, 2007 20:34:43 GMT -5
Mr. Speaker, I move to amendment the bill by Adding the construction of 8 Ohio class SSBN ( cost 150 Billon $) 4 Seawolf class SSN ( cost 10 Billon $) 100 Billon $ for R&D of a new Submarine-launched ballistic missile with triple the range and warheads of the Trident II missile to be named the Trident III missile 100 Billon $ for R&D of A new Class of SSBN that cares 48 Trident III missiles And construction of 4 ships of this class.
|
|