http://www.military.com/daily-news/2014/12/18/congress-again-buys-abrams-tanks-the-army-doesnt-want.html

The new defense spending bill includes $120 million for tanks that the Army has repeatedly said it doesn't want.

For three years, the Army in numerous Congressional hearings has pushed a plan that essentially would have suspended tank building and upgrades in the U.S. for the first time since World War II. The Army suggested that production lines could be kept open through foreign sales.

Each time, Congress has pushed back. Last week, Congress won again in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2015.

In a statement, Rep. Mike Turner, R-Ohio, said that Congress "recognizes the necessity of the Abrams tank to our national security and authorizes an additional $120 million for Abrams tank upgrades. This provision keeps the production lines open in Lima, Ohio, and ensures that our skilled, technical workers are protected."

Turner chairs the Tactical Air and Land Forces Subcommittee of the House Armed Services Committee and will retain that position in the next Congress. The General Dynamics Land Systems plant in Lima, the only U.S. manufacturer of tanks, is in the district of Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio.

Turner's office did not respond to several requests for comment on why Congress went against the recommendation of Gen. Ray Odierno, the Army chief of staff, to suspend tank production.

Todd Harrison, a Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments analyst, said it was open to question whether the Army and the Marine Corps needed more tanks on top of the estimated 9,000 already in their inventories. However, he noted that it was not unusual for Congress to go against the military's recommendations on the budget.

"It's just one example and it's not unique to this year," Harrison said. "In some cases, Congress is using its appropriate role of oversight. In some cases, Congress can act out of purely parochial interests."

The tank debate between the Army and Congress goes back to 2012 when Odierno testified that "we don't need the tanks. Our tank fleet is two and a half years old on average now. We're in good shape and these are additional tanks that we don't need."

I like Abrams tanks as much as the next guy, but this really is getting silly. The Abrams M1A2 SEP is the most recent upgrade for the Abrams, to do that they need to install a new electronics suite and a few other bells and whistles, making more Abrams chassis is stupid because we haven't even upgraded our entire fleet to the most current model yet. Its getting to the point where there are just heaps of tanks sitting out in a lot somewhere collecting dust, because we don't need half of them. A high intensity conflict that see's us deploying 3,000 tanks is pretty hard to believe.

Some of you are probably wondering why we don't sell them, well we can to Saudi Arabia and a few other select countries, but those are export models and they already have plenty apparently. As for US Army Europe, US Army Korea, those tank fleets should already have the best of the best, making new tanks isn't helping anyone...at all. There is a lot of fat we can trim from our defense budget, and it wouldn't be hard to start with this.

Yeah let's forget the homeless and starving. MORE TANKS!

>War Hawk Republicans

Eisenhower warned of this kind of crap, and we all just shut our ears <_<

The military industrial complex is still going strong. Mind you the Navy and air force do for the most part deserve a very large budget, but buying tanks like this for the army is a whole new level of stupid.

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 14, 2015, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 14, 2015, 12:47:25 PM

>War Hawk Republicans

Eisenhower warned of this kind of crap, and we all just shut our ears <_<

The military industrial complex is still going strong. Mind you the Navy and air force do for the most part deserve a very large budget, but buying tanks like this for the army is a whole new level of stupid.

In comparison though, it's a much better investment than the JSF.

The F-35 will be a good aircraft but, the way we went about it was fucking terrible. Once all the kinks are worked out it will be an effective platform, and countries are already lined up to purchase it, although the brits made a big screw up when they did so.

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 14, 2015, 12:54:11 PM

Quote from: DAS B00T x2 on January 14, 2015, 12:51:53 PM

Quote from: Raptorx7 on January 14, 2015, 12:49:10 PM

Quote from: ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ Nick Mc ʕっ•ᴥ•ʔっ on January 14, 2015, 12:47:25 PM

>War Hawk Republicans

Eisenhower warned of this kind of crap, and we all just shut our ears <_<

The military industrial complex is still going strong. Mind you the Navy and air force do for the most part deserve a very large budget, but buying tanks like this for the army is a whole new level of stupid.

In comparison though, it's a much better investment than the JSF.

The F-35 will be a good aircraft but, the way we went about it was fucking terrible. Once all the kinks are worked out it will be an effective platform, and countries are already lined up to purchase it, although the brits made a big screw up when they did so.

Nothing but the avionics package impresses me at all. I don't understand the point of it either. It's clearly not an air superiority fighter, and we currently field much more mission capable ground attack aircraft. 
Is it supposed to be some kind of supplementary asset? It's way too expensive for that.

I am not exactly sure what its "replacing" but these are its advantages.

-Carrier capable

-Stealthy unlike the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-18, and most certainly unlike the A-10

-Avionics package/Electronic warfare

-It can carry pretty much any guided munition

-VTOL

-Stealthy unlike the F-15E Strike Eagle, F-18, and most certainly unlike the A-10

-It can carry pretty much any guided munition

I recall reading that outside of RF stealth, it's not very stealthy compared to 4th generation fighters.

There's only four internal hardoints for munitions though, and I don't know if I'd even want all four ready for a CAS or OCA mission, given this thing's unimpressive power/weight figures. It really should have been a twin engine aircraft...

This is just more proof that our Illuminati-run government knows WWIII is about to happen and is gearing up for the fight, both against nations across the pond and for the revolution here at home. Wake up, sheeple. The signs are in the clouds.

What a bunch of idiots. That money should be spent on producing more A-10s.

They shoould be investing that money on nasa.

Maybe the Army should just return them.

...by driving them through the Congress building.

Nice use of money...