# Army Taking Guard Apaches



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The U.S. Army is taking Apaches from the state guard units, proposing to replace them with Black Hawks. The Apaches are going to fill the holes left as the Army is "divesting" the Kiowa Warriors, which are the small, armed recon helicopters.

Army goes to war with National Guard, seizes Apache attack helicopters - Washington Times

Here are my thoughts. The first one is "prepper" related, while the other ones are just my thoughts about the decision to retire the OH58D.

Removing the 64s from the state guard units removes the states' ability to resist tyranny. As we have seen in recent articles, the federal government is assuming the state guard units will not go along with any tyrannical attempts against the citizenry. I find these two things disconcerting, don't you?
The Black Hawks, they say, will be beneficial to the guard units for their role in state disaster roles. That's nice, but it isn't their only role, as we know.

Now, regarding the retirement of the Kiowa. Those little things require less maintenance, break less, and can get a lot more "down and dirty" than can the larger Apache. The block upgrade that was formerly planned would have updated the avionics and beefed up the engine and transmission. The machines were going to be lighter, stronger, and with better avionics. I was looking forward to that.

The attitudes of the pilots were even different. Apache pilots are pilots who have to be soldiers to fly, but the Kiowa Warrior pilots are soldiers who happen to be pilots. During the Iraq war, they would be flying in the streets, the copilot/gunner using his M4 out the door, engaging bad guys as if he were infantry or MP.

I'll hate to see the little Kiowa go.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

America hates low tech. Everything has to high tech for some crazy reason. They have been wanting to get rid of the A-10 for years. Is it gone yet? Id be surprised if it wasn't. But doesn't it get the job done?
If someone with an ar is dueling with someone with a 1919. It doesn't matter how many electronic devices he has attached to it I think hes going to have a bad day.

I also hear the Hawaii air guard has f-22


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

I'm of a different thought than Denton.
Why would the National Guard need helicopter gunships? Why sould they have helicopter gunships?
Who would they use them against?


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Why would the National Guard need helicopter gunships?


State guard units are a check against federal supremacy. They should be just as heavily armed as regular federal units.



rice paddy daddy said:


> Why s(h)ould they have helicopter gunships?


To protect the citizens of each state against foreign invaders AND federal aggression.



rice paddy daddy said:


> Who would they use them against?


Against foreign invaders and/or federal troops wishing to violate the sovereignty of that state.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> I'm of a different thought than Denton.
> Why would the National Guard need helicopter gunships? Why sould they have helicopter gunships?
> Who would they use them against?


So, I suppose the air guard unit in Montgomery has no need of the F16s, either.

The founding fathers were dead set against a standing military. They are expensive and are prone to misuse. I think we can see their fear, as we have been watching our kids be used for corporate good while the bill is stacked on the national credit card.

On the other hand, it would make better sense for states to have such assets in the hands of the "part time" military. The power would be in the hands of the states, where power should be. There would also be less chance for misuse for reasons other than the defense of the nation and the constitution.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Denton said:


> Removing the 64s from the state guard units removes the states' ability to resist tyranny. As we have seen in recent articles, the federal government is assuming the state guard units will not go along with any tyrannical attempts against the citizenry. I find these two things disconcerting, don't you?


Yes, I find this very disconcerting. Every move the federal government in currently making troubles me deeply, though. This is what governments do prior to unleashing hell on their own populations. They are slowly dismantling every check against their power. They have manufactured a police/surveillance state right before our eyes. They've purchased literally billions of rounds of ammunition in the last three years. They've been equipping local and state police forces with heavy military hardware (including 2,717 MRAP armored vehicles, heavy machine guns, grenade launchers, etc.) through pentagon 1033 and 1122 programs. They're openly training to conduct house to house searches and seizures...admittedly to confiscate firearms. They're training with targets depicting young children, pregnant women, elderly men and women, etc. to eliminate any hesitation officers/soldiers might have in murdering civilians for crying out loud.

If people aren't connecting the dots, it's because they don't WANT to connect the dots. It might just be time to cash out. Sell everything...move my businesses overseas...get out of dodge while I can. This place is going down and the flag wavers are just as blind as the liberals/socialists/communists/welfare bums who think they will get something out of the destruction of our culture and our society.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Charles Martel said:


> State guard units are a check against federal supremacy. They should be just as heavily armed as regular federal units.
> 
> To protect the citizens of each state against foreign invaders AND federal aggression.
> 
> Against foreign invaders and/or federal troops wishing to violate the sovereignty of that state.


So, since the National guard is under the command of the state governor, you are OK with someone like the governor of Connecticut having control of the world's most advanced attack helicopters? The same governor who rammed a blatantly unconstitutional gun ban bill through the legislature on a weekend when no one was watching? And threatened to go door to door to round up those tens of thousands of citizens who have refused to comply? Really? You want someone like that in command of that much firepower?
Or do you mean the governor of New York who has not only signed draconian anti gun legislation but also publically said that conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone who is against gay marriage or abortion is not welcome in his state?
Or perhaps you mean the governor of California who never met an anti gun bill he didn't like?
Or any one of a dozen others.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

rice paddy daddy said:


> So, since the National guard is under the command of the state governor, you are OK with someone like the governor of Connecticut having control of the world's most advanced attack helicopters? The same governor who rammed a blatantly unconstitutional gun ban bill through the legislature on a weekend when no one was watching? And threatened to go door to door to round up those tens of thousands of citizens who have refused to comply? Really? You want someone like that in command of that much firepower?
> Or do you mean the governor of New York who has not only signed draconian anti gun legislation but also publically said that conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone who is against gay marriage or abortion is not welcome in his state?
> Or perhaps you mean the governor of California who never met an anti gun bill he didn't like?
> Or any one of a dozen others.


That is the problem with Apache Attack helicopters, isn't it? Everybody that controls them, should not be allowed to (Obama, Gov. Moonbeam etc) and people like me or Sarah Palin that would put them to good use killing wolves cannot get one.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

rice paddy daddy said:


> So, since the National guard is under the command of the state governor, you are OK with someone like the governor of Connecticut having control of the world's most advanced attack helicopters? The same governor who rammed a blatantly unconstitutional gun ban bill through the legislature on a weekend when no one was watching? And threatened to go door to door to round up those tens of thousands of citizens who have refused to comply? Really? You want someone like that in command of that much firepower?
> Or do you mean the governor of New York who has not only signed draconian anti gun legislation but also publically said that conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone who is against gay marriage or abortion is not welcome in his state?
> Or perhaps you mean the governor of California who never met an anti gun bill he didn't like?
> Or any one of a dozen others.


There's only a handful of state governors that I wouldn't trust more than any of the criminals and despots in DC. And if I didn't like or trust the government or governor of my state, I would move to another state.

The broader point that you seem to be missing is the massive amount of military and political power being consolidated by the federal government. This trend should scare the bejeezus out of every citizen of this nation. The more broadly distributed political and military power is, the less likely it is to be abused.

As a general rule, the more broadly distributed power is, the more freedom individuals will have. As power becomes consolidated into fewer hands, it becomes easier for corrupt and despotic figures to seize and misuse.


----------



## bigdogbuc (Mar 23, 2012)

I love helicopters. They're just cool. But of all the things that can be used against us, I'm most afraid of the helicopter. Watch some YouTube videos of military choppers in Afghanistan and Iraq. I sat there thinking to myself; "I'm really glad those are the bad guys. That shit would suck." Devastating, you ALMOST felt sorry for the poor sons-a-bitches.

Questions is, when do WE officially become the bad guys?


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

bigdogbuc said:


> I love helicopters. They're just cool. But of all the things that can be used against us, I'm most afraid of the helicopter. Watch some YouTube videos of military choppers in Afghanistan and Iraq. I sat there thinking to myself; "I'm really glad those are the bad guys. That shit would suck." Devastating, you ALMOST felt sorry for the poor sons-a-bitches.
> 
> Questions is, when do WE officially become the bad guys?


If you live in Connecticut and own an AR and 30 round magazines, you already ARE the bad guys.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

bigdogbuc said:


> I love helicopters. They're just cool. But of all the things that can be used against us, I'm most afraid of the helicopter. Watch some YouTube videos of military choppers in Afghanistan and Iraq. I sat there thinking to myself; "I'm really glad those are the bad guys. That shit would suck." Devastating, you ALMOST felt sorry for the poor sons-a-bitches.
> 
> Questions is, when do WE officially become the bad guys?


It's truly frightening. I've watched video of Apache crews reducing "bad guys" into glowing, green stains on the surrounding rocks from miles away. Poor suckers never saw or heard it coming. This is why we will have to eliminate the choppers and their crews on the ground, where they are most vulnerable.

We're already the bad guys. The DHS has said as much. As a group (preppers), we're largely religious (strike one), self-reliant (strike two), gun owning (strike three), and freedom loving (you're outta there). There are also a fair number of retired military within our ranks (the DHS has openly admitted that retired veterans comprise one of the greatest threats to national security). As such, we are all on the list for re-education or eradication.


----------



## Slippy (Nov 14, 2013)

bigdogbuc said:


> Questions is, when do WE officially become the bad guys?


Interesting question. I don't know when most of us officially became the "bad guys" but I do know that sometime after I finished school, started working and raising a family, I woke up and I WAS the bad guy...

I wanted Freedom, they wanted regulations. I wanted the Constitution, they wanted to usurp the Constitution with (unlawful) laws; I wanted to work hard, earn and produce, they wanted to take more and more of what I worked for. I wanted to teach my children to work hard and earn an opportunity, they wanted to GIVE it to someone who didn't earn it or was unqualified to do it; I wanted to be left alone, they wanted to bother me by increasingly taxing me, regulating me, harrassing me and vilifying me.

Hell, I simply wanted 3 outs in a damn inning in Little League baseball, a winner and a loser and they wanted everyone to bat and get a trophy. Now one of my childhood hero's, (Only because I loved baseball) Hammerin' Hank Aaron has turned into a freaking racist and compares Republicans to the KKK! Now I'm the damn bad guy and I don't even consider myself to be a Republican! FUBAR!


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Slippy said:


> Interesting question. I don't know when most of us officially became the "bad guys" but I do know that sometime after I finished school, started working and raising a family, I woke up and I WAS the bad guy...
> 
> I wanted Freedom, they wanted regulations. I wanted the Constitution, they wanted to usurp the Constitution with (unlawful) laws; I wanted to work hard, earn and produce, they wanted to take more and more of what I worked for. I wanted to teach my children to work hard and earn an opportunity, they wanted to GIVE it to someone who didn't earn it or was unqualified to do it; I wanted to be left alone, they wanted to bother me by increasingly taxing me, regulating me, harrassing me and vilifying me.
> 
> Hell, I simply wanted 3 outs in a damn inning in Little League baseball, a winner and a loser and they wanted everyone to bat and get a trophy. Now one of my childhood hero's, (Only because I loved baseball) Hammerin' Hank Aaron has turned into a freaking racist and compares Republicans to the KKK! Now I'm the damn bad guy and I don't even consider myself to be a Republican! FUBAR!


^^^ What he said. ^^^


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> So, since the National guard is under the command of the state governor, you are OK with someone like the governor of Connecticut having control of the world's most advanced attack helicopters? The same governor who rammed a blatantly unconstitutional gun ban bill through the legislature on a weekend when no one was watching? And threatened to go door to door to round up those tens of thousands of citizens who have refused to comply? Really? You want someone like that in command of that much firepower?
> Or do you mean the governor of New York who has not only signed draconian anti gun legislation but also publically said that conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone who is against gay marriage or abortion is not welcome in his state?
> Or perhaps you mean the governor of California who never met an anti gun bill he didn't like?
> Or any one of a dozen others.


Read the Federalist Papers. What was expected to happen in such cases is clear as a bell.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

National Guard now makes up 50-60%of our standing force. What are they suppose to train with?


----------



## luckyduck2 (Mar 31, 2014)

Lets reach out there a little and say. Next election theres a republican a and a socialist democrat and a tea party favorite. You need 270 electoral votes to become president. The socialist democrat get 120 electoral , the republican that spends like and thinks like a democrat gets a 140 electoral votes , the tea party favorite gets 186 { sorry forgot total} well nobody gets 270 but the tea party favorite really wins you'd think, NOT SO. NOW the house has to vote in the president and dems stick with dems and repub's split so the the socialist party WINS 
Sorry I mean the democrats win. Maybe some states split they don't want to recognize another socialist president that's eating away our freedom. There going to need the national guard to protect us from a GOV. that soul purpose was not to govern states but to protect states from outsiders. Why do we need a a federal education system when each state can govern them selfs etc. sorry guys I take this hard


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

The South was right in 1861.
States rights.
Too bad that scalawag Lincoln nullified the 10th Amendment. Among other ways he raped the Constitution.


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

Denton said:


> Read the Federalist Papers. What was expected to happen in such cases is clear as a bell.


Denton, I love ya Brother, but this is nothing new. The Constitution was being subverted before the ink was even dry.
And while I agree that this government should be run like the Constitution laid it all out I also realize that will never happen.


----------



## Hawaii Volcano Squad (Sep 25, 2013)

Drone training area moving to Hawaii's Big Island target range.
Just drove by there over the new saddle peak highway when I drove to Hilo to buy a new Ruger GP100 Wiley Clapp edition.

"The skies above the Big Island’s saddle region will be among several Hawaii testing sites for military drones beginning as early as this summer, the US Marine Corps said in a document released Monday"
According to a final environmental assessment issued Monday, the Corps is planning to relocate a total of 57 of the unmanned aircraft, along with 274 active-duty Marine Corps and Navy support personnel, from Twentynine Palms, Calif., to Oahu.
The transfer of the USMC Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Squadron Three to Marine Corps Base Hawaii Kaneohe Bay could begin as early as June.
Training would be conducted primarily in military restricted airspace over the Kaneohe base and Wheeler Army Air Field on Oahu, over the Pacific Missile Range Facility on Kauai, and over the US Army’s Pohakuloa Training Area on Saddle Road on the Big Island.

Twelve RQ-7B “Shadow” reconnaissance drones will be relocated with the support personnel. Delivery of 45 RQ-21A “Blackjack” aircraft is scheduled for 2015.

The relocation is necessary to address a deficiency in the Marine Corps’ capabilities in the Pacific region and to ensure that “Marine forces are sufficiently manned, trained, and equipped to meet any crisis or conflict,” the environmental study said.

The commander of U.S. Army Pacific said the military’s presence in the region won’t diminish despite cuts elsewhere.
The Army’s presence in the Pacific has grown to 106,000 active-duty soldiers from about 90,000. That’s a nearly 18 percent increase as military officials plan drastic cuts elsewhere over the next five years, the Honolulu Star-Advertiser reported.

Gen. Vincent Brooks, commander of U.S. Army Pacific at Fort Shafter, said Hawaii’s approximately 22,500 active-duty soldier count will remain about the same. He also said a 4,300-soldier Stryker Brigade that was said to be vulnerable to cuts and possibly moving to Washington state won’t be leaving.

“How we have forces based in the Pacific we see remaining about the same for the next several years,” Brooks said.

“There are some adjustments that we know we’re going to have to do,” Brooks said, citing as an example his own headquarters being cut 13 percent. Those cuts are expected to be carried out through attrition.

The four-star general made the comments Tuesday at a Waikiki news conference. The Association of the United States Army is holding a land power in the Pacific forum through Thursday. It’s the second year the event is being held in Hawaii.

Thirteen countries sent delegations to the conference


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

This is a great day. I have been looking forward to this day since about a week after I came to this board. The day I finally get to call out my very good friend RPD... Just savor that for a minute...  Please do not misunderstand, I am not calling him out because he is wrong. I am calling him out for being far too timid on his assessment of "president" Lincoln.



rice paddy daddy said:


> The South was right in 1861.
> States rights.


The South was right in 1861? Hell yeah the South was right! They were right in 1861, 62, 63, 64 and the first part of 65 as well!

Connecticut contemplated to seceding from the union in the Hartford Convention in 1814 without suffering the wrath of having their state completely destroyed by the federal government.

Just a few interesting tidbits of trivia for any of you that care about the real truth of history:

Q: What was the first state to outlaw slavery? A: Virginia.

Q: What is the only state to never outlaw slavery? A: Massachusetts.

Q: Where and when did the last actual enslaved slave die? A: Massachusetts in 1872 (a full 7 years after the War of Northern Aggression ended)!

The source of all three of those came from this book:

http://www.amazon.com/South-Right-J...397185047&sr=8-1&keywords=the+south+was+right



rice paddy daddy said:


> Too bad that scalawag Lincoln


That monster murdered over 600,000 Americans wearing the blue and the gray (not to mention the uncounted women and children) and the best adjective you can come up with is "scalawag"?  Come on friend! You are a Vietnam Vet. You have forgotten more colorful language than I will ever know.



rice paddy daddy said:


> Too bad that scalawag Lincoln nullified the 10th Amendment. Among other ways he raped the Constitution.


As near as I can tell, he violated all of the Bill of Rights except the 3rd and 5th Amendments.

The only reason he did not violate the 3rd Amendment is because his minions burned down the homes of the population before they COULD quarter troops there. I.E. Atlanta.

I expect the only reason I have to defend the bastard on the 5th Amendment is because I have not done quite enough research personally. (So that one is MY fault.)

I mean really, this is a President that ordered his troops to fire on the citizens of New York City because they opposed his war of aggression. He suspended Habeas Corpus. He was was the first bastard to institute an income tax.

The man was an absolute monster. Yet the most cherished monument in Washington DC is the Lincoln Memorial.

Sorry RPD: This not an attack on you. It is an attack on our education system that teaches kids that Lincoln was a man to be admired. He was not. He was the start of our current welfare state.

The absolute worst Presidents in American history in order from my perspective:

1 - Lincoln
2 - Woodrow Wilson
3 - Teddy Roosevelt tied with Obama


----------



## luckyduck2 (Mar 31, 2014)

go gettem ONE EYE JACK


----------



## luckyduck2 (Mar 31, 2014)

This not an attack on you. It is an attack on our education system that teaches kids that Lincoln was a man to be admired. He was not. He was the start of our current welfare state.

Your so right The same education system reading to our second graders the book I HAVE 2 mom me's. no more school prayer , no more pelage, nobody gets a first place trophy, everybody gets the same prize so the hard working kids get the same thing are the lazy { future EBT card holders} get.


----------



## Charles Martel (Mar 10, 2014)

Amen, brother Inor.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> Denton, I love ya Brother, but this is nothing new. The Constitution was being subverted before the ink was even dry.
> And while I agree that this government should be run like the Constitution laid it all out I also realize that will never happen.


I didn't say it wasn't. Evil has always existed. That doesn't change things, however. We veered hard away from the vision to the point where we don't resemble it at all. We are now, as a matter of fact, upside down from it, and will argue that it is right to be so. I love you, too, but that we started drifting from it early on isn't a reason to look favorably on the result.

By the way, here is another way of looking at Lincoln.

The South was right in its position on states' rights, but it was wrong in attempting to secede in the manner it did. Look at the way the colonies broke away from England and compare that to the South's way. Where was the declaration of independence? That is an important document of the revolution; an official document, drafted in a specific manner and containing vital information. The South basically rebelled, and the response was to that rebellion.

The South didn't show up to the appointed time and location for congress. Sine die is Latin for, "The sun just sat on your dumb butts and you know longer have a legislative form of government." OK, I ad libbed a little, but you get the point. Because of that, Lincoln was elected king. He wanted to restore the republic, and that was what he almost did.

Notice how Lincoln was going to restore the republic, but was killed before he was able to do it. What happened after that? The republic was forever more shelved for democracy, the southern states had to take a loyalty oath to get out from underneath occupation, and the nation was never again the same.

The South was right, but went about it wrong, Lincoln was right, but was killed before finishing the job, and the replacement for the office was a general who was owned by the banks who saw great fortune to be had at all our expense.

Just another angle for observation. After all, we love to critically analyse things, here.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Oh, come on! Don't let me be a thread killer! I thought we were all friends, here!


----------



## Deebo (Oct 27, 2012)

Im still here, im just confused. Main stream schooling, I never "dug any dirt" on Lincoln, I only knew what my teachers told me. 
Denton, man, you are not a threadkiller.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

rice paddy daddy said:


> So, since the National guard is under the command of the state governor, you are OK with someone like the governor of Connecticut having control of the world's most advanced attack helicopters? The same governor who rammed a blatantly unconstitutional gun ban bill through the legislature on a weekend when no one was watching? And threatened to go door to door to round up those tens of thousands of citizens who have refused to comply? Really? You want someone like that in command of that much firepower?
> Or do you mean the governor of New York who has not only signed draconian anti gun legislation but also publically said that conservatives, Tea Party members, or anyone who is against gay marriage or abortion is not welcome in his state?
> Or perhaps you mean the governor of California who never met an anti gun bill he didn't like?
> Or any one of a dozen others.


I don't live in any of those states and never will. I would like for the National guard to be as well armed as the Feds.


----------



## jimb1972 (Nov 12, 2012)

Denton said:


> Oh, come on! Don't let me be a thread killer! I thought we were all friends, here!


Dammit Denton, I am trying to drink here not think.


----------



## Inor (Mar 22, 2013)

Hey Denton -

You are not a thread killer. Your post gave me enough to chew on that I need some time to digest it. (Another way of saying you caught me a bit flatfooted.) 



Denton said:


> By the way, here is another way of looking at Lincoln.
> 
> The South was right in its position on states' rights, but it was wrong in attempting to secede in the manner it did. Look at the way the colonies broke away from England and compare that to the South's way. Where was the declaration of independence? That is an important document of the revolution; an official document, drafted in a specific manner and containing vital information. The South basically rebelled, and the response was to that rebellion.


The South did declare its independence through their very public notices of each States' intention to secede as well as their very pubic recall of their Senators and Congressmen from Washington. But you are correct, they would have been better served with a formal declaration of independence. On the flip side, Lincoln obviously recognized the South's intentions by abandoning every Yankee military installation within the Confederacy except Ft Sumpter (which he knew would have minimal casualties but would have major symbolic importance).



Denton said:


> The South didn't show up to the appointed time and location for congress. Sine die is Latin for, "The sun just sat on your dumb butts and you know longer have a legislative form of government." OK, I ad libbed a little, but you get the point. Because of that, Lincoln was elected king. He wanted to restore the republic, and that was what he almost did.


I cannot comment on Lincoln's motives of whether he wanted to restore or destroy the republic. But my point is, in the end he destroyed it. And you are absolutely correct; he was elected "king". That is absolutely antithetical to everything that the United States stood for before 1860.



Denton said:


> Notice how Lincoln was going to restore the republic, but was killed before he was able to do it. What happened after that? The republic was forever more shelved for democracy, the southern states had to take a loyalty oath to get out from underneath occupation, and the nation was never again the same.


Again, I do not want to comment on what Lincoln "might have done" had he lived through his second term. The man was proven to be extremely duplicitous in his first term. So what would have happened in the remaining 3 1/2 years is just a roll of the roulette wheel as far as I am concerned.

But you are absolutely correct about 1865 being the year we stopped being a republic and started being a democracy.



Denton said:


> The South was right, but went about it wrong, Lincoln was right, but was killed before finishing the job, and the replacement for the office was a general who was owned by the banks who saw great fortune to be had at all our expense.
> 
> Just another angle for observation. After all, we love to critically analyse things, here.


I absolutely agree that Ulysses Sam Grant was a drunkard that allowed himself to be controlled by the powers that be. But I (maybe) disagree that he was not an honorable man. He was just a guy that was promoted well beyond his level of competency.


----------



## bad (Feb 22, 2014)

Could the helicopter grab be as simple as having the regular forces depleting their inventories. After all there has been what 13 years of more or less continuous war and now there is some decrease in funding from sequestration and other cuts. 

Good thread!


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

bad said:


> Could the helicopter grab be as simple as having the regular forces depleting their inventories. After all there has been what 13 years of more or less continuous war and now there is some decrease in funding from sequestration and other cuts.
> 
> Good thread!


Agreed.
Draconian budget drawdowns are most likely the reason. No need for tinfoil hats.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

And, it wouldn't be cheaper to leave them with the Weekend Warriors?

Aircraft aren't used up and tossed. They are maintained. Phase maintenance, TBO parts, etc.

I work on 80s model Black Hawks all the time, and these air frames see more time in the air than those in Afghanistan. Don't assume training helicopters have it easier than those in combat, either! :lol:

RPD, there is a need for tinfoil hats, if that means observe the pieces and contemplate how they can come together to make a bad puzzle. How many times has that been uttered as other pieces of the puzzle were fabricated and put together?

Sometimes the fabrication of the piece can be fought, such as the Patriot Act. The same thing was suggested, then, to those who saw through the fear mongering and lies. Some things, such as this, is not up to a vote. It is just something to consider as a possibility, giving those who look to survive the final assembly of a bad puzzle. Maybe there is no surviving, but maybe watching and trying to see the final puzzle helps give those who are watching a time line.

In any event, I am going to miss the little 58. I enjoyed working on them, and planned on going back to that airfield after the proposed block upgrade had happened. So much for that, now.


----------



## James m (Mar 11, 2014)

The story is that the national guard needs them for natural disasters. But every time there is a natural disaster the governor decides not to call them.


----------

