Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jsr

(7,712 posts)
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 08:32 AM Feb 2014

The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/the-end-of-the-tank-the-army-says-it-doesnt-need-it-but-industry-wants-to-keep-building-it/2014/01/31/c11e5ee0-60f0-11e3-94ad-004fefa61ee6_story.html

The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it.
By Marjorie Censer, Published: January 31

YORK, PA. — When an armored vehicle pulled down the statue of Saddam Hussein in an iconic moment of the Iraq War, it triggered a wave of pride here at the BAE Systems plant where that rig was built. The Marines who rolled to glory in it even showed up to pay their regards to the factory workers.

That bond between the machinists and tradesmen supporting the war effort at home and those fighting on the front lines has held tight for generations — as long as the tank has served as a symbol of military might.

Now that representation of U.S. power is rolling into another sort of morass: the emotional debates playing out as Congress, the military and the defense industry adapt to stark new realities in modern warfare and in the nation’s finances.

Gen. Raymond Odierno, the Army’s chief of staff, made its case before Congress in 2012. “We don’t need the tanks,” he said. “Our tank fleet is 2-1/2 years old average now. We’re in good shape, and these are additional tanks that we don’t need.”
3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
The end of the tank? The Army says it doesn’t need it, but industry wants to keep building it. (Original Post) jsr Feb 2014 OP
Isn't this where we hear about the need to keep building for when we do need them? Savannahmann Feb 2014 #1
They make excellent targets. nt bemildred Feb 2014 #2
It's Congress, not just industry jmowreader Feb 2014 #3
 

Savannahmann

(3,891 posts)
1. Isn't this where we hear about the need to keep building for when we do need them?
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 09:33 AM
Feb 2014

That was the excuse for Aircraft Carriers. If we stop building them we won't remember how to build them when we do need to build one.

jmowreader

(50,557 posts)
3. It's Congress, not just industry
Sun Feb 2, 2014, 01:31 PM
Feb 2014

Large end items like tanks and cargo planes are close to perfect government projects in that they have parts made in hundreds of congressional districts. (The perfct government project has parts made in all 435 congressional districts, which won't ever happen.) When they find a near-perfect project it never dies because no congressman wants "he voted to eliminate 250 jobs in our district" in the papers.

This has gone on for decades...the USAF got 10 C-130s every year Newt was in office because they're bolted together in his district.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»The end of the tank? The ...