On April 14th, 2009 at 11:50 am, Patronedheart said: #30

Being a former Air Force radar troop, I think this radar is funded by the FAA, not DOD. However, if it was optimized for Operation Noble Eagle (since the military likes to look for low-flying aircraft, and the the FAA likes to look at high-flyers), it’s possible that the Air Force may be funding the antenna and systems optimizations.

From the text provided by MM -

The radar system was built with the help of earmarks form Rep. John Murtha and was paid for by the Department of Defense.

Saying it again, with added parenthetical reference in italics -

An excellant example of Congress forcing the DOD to accept something (money and/or systems) that they did not want, need, or plan for.

On April 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, zyzzyg said:
An excellant example of Congress forcing the DOD to accept something that they did not want, need, or plan for.

An alternate arguement would have been, had the money been removed, that the DOD budget was being cut. Yes, there would have been members of Congress in high dungeon because we were (and still are) at war. Who wanted to be the ‘panty waste’ to challenge a DOD appropriation?

Somehow and someway, we have to come to terms with providing DOD with what they want and need, and not what the Congress wants them to have. And, not to be cowed by those going high dungeon and using an arguement about cutting DOD spending and being soft on defense.

The reality is that many Congressionally sponsored DOD projects should be cut without someone being called soft on defense.

Exaggerrating for effect, cutting the expenditures for spurs for the Cavalry is a good idea, because today, the Cavalry is less about horses and more about helicopters.

Rep Murtha is more symptom than a desease, and it is the desease that truly needs to be addressed.

Being a former Air Force radar troop, I think this radar is funded by the FAA, not DOD. However, if it was optimized for Operation Noble Eagle (since the military likes to look for low-flying aircraft, and the the FAA likes to look at high-flyers), it’s possible that the Air Force may be funding the antenna and systems optimizations.

On April 13th, 2009 at 4:38 pm, zyzzyg said:

The reality is that many Congressionally sponsored DOD projects should be cut without someone being called soft on defense.

Puleeze. This isn’t exclusively a DOD spending issue.

Fill in the blanks below. Almost anything fits;

“The reality is that many Congressionally sponsored ______ projects should be cut without someone being called anti-_________.”

Yep, just because we can (make a submersible Air Craft Carrier) doesn’t mean we should.

But we already have – its called the USS Oriskany.

Aircraft Carriers are large targets and would be subject to attack even though they travel in battle groups. Something should be done to better protect them.

lol, currently its called a Frigate. While they are the taxi cabs of the US Navy, think of them as a Secret Service agent who jumps in front of a bullet.

On April 13th, 2009 at 4:42 pm, cpodug said: #11

zyzzyg, make you a deal. How about we treat the disease one symptom at a time. Sooner or later, the rest of the symptoms would quietly disappear.

A thoughtful proposition, but no thanks. How long would it take to sift through 535 individuals with their own agendas? And then there is the concern that those voted out of office will be replaced with a new person who will want to work the system to their advantage, too.

Yes, just because you can do something, doesn’t mean you should. And, unfortunately the human condition is such that if the system allows you to, more often than not, you will do it. Note: It isn’t illegal, just an accepted practice that has mestaticized.

Fix the system (the desease) and the symptoms, all of them, go away.

On the Osprey and other systems -

Exaggerrating for effect (and, maybe some laughs) -

Aircraft Carriers are large targets and would be subject to attack even though they travel in battle groups. Something should be done to better protect them. OK, make them submersible. Being submersible would make them stealthy and more difficult to attack.

The technical problems will be worked out over time. It will be the cutting edge of modernity and nothing will be able to threaten a submersible Air Craft Carrier.

If you are against this program, you are soft on defense and a panty waste. Moreover, there are jobs that will be at stake. And, now you are threatening the American worker and the American Dream of middle class stability. Don’t you love America? We need the submersible Air Craft Carrier.

Yep, just because we can (make a submersible Air Craft Carrier) doesn’t mean we should.

There are the real needs and wants of DOD, good and bad ideas, and then . . . there is Congress.

A state-of-the-art radar system that has sat idle for years

So it would be quite fitting to name after that good-for-nothing Murtha!