Say hello to the Marine Corps' newest....

[Captain ******* Kirk]

The Army isn't allowed to because they were stupid enough to get rolled by the Air Force in 1948.

[regexcellent]

The army has intermittently lobbied to get the A-10s the Air Force doesn't want.

Not that it should get them, because that would muddle branch distinctions further still. Then again in the magical world of my imagination, our military would be one branch a la the Canadian Forces. The Marine Corps would just be four divisions within that single branch, 3 active 1 reserve (I think that's their force structure). And all their ****ing planes would belong to the air component.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

And we can see how successful they've been at taking the fixed-wing CAS mission back from the Air Force...

We all know the rankings on bureaucratic/political competence in the American military: Marines > Navy > Air Force > Army. This is why the Army is going to take the brunt of the defense budget cuts, and why they're never getting fixed-wing aircraft back.

[regexcellent]

Can't argue with that really. As Truman put it,

The Marine Corps is the Navy's police force and as long as I am President that is what it will remain. They have a propaganda machine that is almost equal to Stalin's.

[Captain ******* Kirk]

The Marines not only are getting the F-35, but had enough pull to ruin the whole program to meet their stupid requirements.

[regexcellent]

And at the same time, while they're spending money on ****ty STOVL jets with no clear mission, their troops are using hand-me-down rifles and driving hand-me-down trucks Every Marine a Rifleman after all

[Captain ******* Kirk]

There's not much pork-barrel money for Congresspeople's districts in making new rifles. The Army might do better for itself if it learned how the game is played.

[Ben Kenobi]

Then again in the magical world of my imagination, our military would be one branch a la the Canadian Forces.

We owe that **** tacular development to commie Pierre Elliot Trudope. Prior there was the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. You forget that Canada has significant history with Britain wrt to the deployment and development of our military. The names have finally been changed back, it would be fantastic if unification could be undone and we reverted back to the old setup.

[Dinner]

I saw this and thought of you, Al. It's called "Philidelphia: The city that bombed itself."

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight.html

[regexcellent]

We owe that **** tacular development to commie Pierre Elliot Trudope. Prior there was the Canadian Army, the Royal Canadian Navy, and the Royal Canadian Air Force. You forget that Canada has significant history with Britain wrt to the deployment and development of our military. The names have finally been changed back, it would be fantastic if unification could be undone and we reverted back to the old setup.

No, no it wouldn't. I know the conservatives changed the names back, and that really doesn't matter, but unification was an excellent step that significantly improved the efficiency of the Canadian Forces. Unlike us, the Canadians don't have four of everything.

[Hauldren Collider]

*I'm sure anyone could learn how to do amphibious assault with a short class on how to get on a boat until it's time to get off the boat, after all that's what happened in the largest amphibious operation we've ever conducted (which involved no marines).

This ^^^

[Hauldren Collider]

Reg is also right about the Marines being the biggest source of unnecessary redundancy in the American military. Surprised he made that point, as the Army is the biggest source of stupidity in the American military.

This is mainly a function of their being the largest single branch in the military. On a man-to-man basis, the Army's probably not stupider than any of the others.

[Sava]

While the idea behind the F-35 (one jet for all) seems smart, it's turned out to be a cluster****. I'd rather see individual aircraft designed specifically for the roles they will be fulfilling.

As for new rifles, there's really not much more innovation to be had with such firearms. Sure, future designs could improve reliability, durability, cost... perhaps ergonomics. But I'm not sure if such things are going to turn the tide of battle, so to speak, in future conflicts.

Barring any major technological breakthroughs that allow something beyond a firearm... maybe like development into a practical man-portable rail gun... I'm not sure there is much room for improvement.

[regexcellent]

Rifles and other small arms can absolutely make a difference in counter-insurgency, with respect to their cost.

[Sava]

Rifles and other small arms can absolutely make a difference in counter-insurgency, with respect to their cost.

Do you think the US should buy AK47's from Russia instead of produce its own weapons?

$150 to $160 per unit for a new AK-103
$673 per unit for a new M4

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_the_AK-47_and_M16