Sponsor Message:
Military Aviation & Space Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Obama's Effect On US Military Aviation  
User currently offlineMascmo From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 93 posts, RR: 0
Posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 4863 times:

What do you think President Obama's affect will be on United States military aviation? Do you think it will improve further, do you think it will be at a stand still, or do you think it will get worse since he wants to cut defense spending?

15 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineSilentbob From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 2054 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 4827 times:

The military budget will be cut significantly during his time in office. That does not bode well for aviation where each aircraft carries a very significant dollar value. The only branch I expect to be harder hit it the Navy, ships are even more expensive than airplanes to operate and develop.

User currently offlineKingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 4786 times:

Who's to say. If he cuts money for development and production won't that hurt his "create or save 4,000,000 jobs"?

User currently offlineEBJ1248650 From United States of America, joined Jun 2005, 1932 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 4776 times:



Quoting KingairTA (Reply 2):
Who's to say. If he cuts money for development and production won't that hurt his "create or save 4,000,000 jobs"?

You make a good point. I don't see development and new production being affected nearly as much as I see current production quite possibly being reduced. The F-35 program will go on. The F-22 program might be stretched out some to keep those jobs from being lost, though production would be at a slower rate. Reductions in military spending, I suspect, are aimed at reduced waste more than reduced force structure. The nation can't afford for the military to downsize as there's too many unemployed folks out there now and adding to that only increases our misery.

I'll probably get bashed for this, but a new tanker from NG would mean a new production facility in the south (Alabama, if that door didn't close completely) and more jobs for folks down there. I'm talking jobs here, so let's not get into a merit comparison between airplanes.



Dare to dream; dream big!
User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 4619 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
I'll probably get bashed for this, but a new tanker from NG would mean a new production facility in the south (Alabama, if that door didn't close completely) and more jobs for folks down there. I'm talking jobs here, so let's not get into a merit comparison between airplanes

I agree a new tanker would create more jobs, the only question is where the checks would be received. But as you say let's not get into a debate about which postal code will be best.

The low hanging fruit in DoD is always new acquisition programs, can't cut payroll, can't cut O&M too badly so this is the least painful place to make cuts for politicians...politicians who will not be risking their lives with old, obsolete, and sometimes ineffective weapons systems.

It's pretty clear that any cuts to new DoD acquisition systems will mean fewer new jobs and probably significant losses in some of the best paying hig tech jobs around. Ironic...seems like these are the jobs you would really want to save since these are the people who do most of the consumer buying in a nation.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15719 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 4610 times:

This is silly. The man is going to toss out almost a trillion dollars so we can go buy TVs to stimulate the Chinese economy, but is willing to gut our own military. Wouldn't buying more planes and ships create high tech/science/math professional jobs in the US that we have been complaining about going overseas?


Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineGalaxy5007 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 621 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 4434 times:

Even with defense budget cuts, it won't put the military at a stand still. Things still need to be done to protect the american people, even if we are living out of cardboard boxes. Bringing companies to the US is a must. The technology over in China, Japan, Korea, etc is definately a step above the US. What we need though is to make it competitive to move jobs here, instead of overseas. Its cheaper to manufacture stuff over there, but they are also using old equipment and very harmful to the environment stuff that is throwing all kinds of pollutants in the air. Back to the defense budget, the stuff that'll probably slow down the most are new base projects like new buildings, new vehciles every year, and energy conservation to cut energy costs.

User currently offlineCurt22 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 335 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (5 years 5 months 3 weeks ago) and read 4333 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
This is silly. The man is going to toss out almost a trillion dollars so we can go buy TVs to stimulate the Chinese economy, but is willing to gut our own military. Wouldn't buying more planes and ships create high tech/science/math professional jobs in the US that we have been complaining about going overseas?

I agree with you...the high tech defense jobs are a must save...but if you decide not to build new systems to replace the aging ones these jobs will not exist. Without getting too political, the last democrat in the White House was more moderate than the current one and Clinton's defense budgets were flat with next to zero new starts and a draw down of nearly a million active duty troops across all branches of the service...We now wonder what a REAL liberal democrat will do?

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 6):
The technology over in China, Japan, Korea, etc is definitely a step above the US

Really? Tell us of China's, Japan's and Korea's aerospace technology? Tell us of their lunar landings, space shuttles, stealth aircraft, and commercial aviation industry, tell us of the all the new drugs and medical procedures that come from these nations.

Yes...they manufacture many toys...but they don't INVENT them...they are good at mass production of stuff we invent and we're no good at production because our labor costs are too high...so we better keep inventing new STUFF if we want to have any dog in the fight at all...!


User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16828 posts, RR: 51
Reply 8, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 4185 times:

Lets go straight to the source, the White House.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda/defense/

Quote:
Preserve Global Reach in the Air: We must preserve our unparalleled airpower capabilities to deter and defeat any conventional competitors, swiftly respond to crises across the globe, and support our ground forces. We need greater investment in advanced technology ranging from the revolutionary, like Unmanned Aerial Vehicles and electronic warfare capabilities, to essential systems like the C-17 cargo and KC-X air refueling aircraft, which provide the backbone of our ability to extend global power.

More C-17s, KC-X as well as UAV's

Quote:
Maintain Power Projection at Sea: We must recapitalize our naval forces, replacing aging ships and modernizing existing platforms, while adapting them to the 21st century. Obama and Biden will add to the Maritime Pre-Positioning Force Squadrons to support operations ashore and invest in smaller, more capable ships, providing the agility to operate close to shore and the reach to rapidly deploy Marines to global crises.

More Littoral combat ships.

Quote:
Expand to Meet Military Needs on the Ground: Obama and Biden support plans to increase the size of the Army by 65,000 soldiers and the Marine Corps by 27,000 Marines. Increasing our end strength will help units retrain and re-equip properly between deployments and decrease the strain on military families.

Increase the troop strength of the Army and Marine Corps.

Quoting Galaxy5007 (Reply 6):
Even with defense budget cuts, it won't put the military at a stand still.

The announced Defense Cuts (10%) are just a slight adjustment to reflect a reduced role in Iraq, while most of the Iraq funding comes from Supplemental other support equipment and repairs come from the Defense Budget. Also they are playing with the numbers a bit to appease Liberal supporters, President Obama and especially Vice President Biden are big military supporters. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates would not have agreed to serve if he felt he was going to oversee the degradation of the US Armed forces.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMascmo From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 9, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 4173 times:

Yes but just like you said the numbers are played with a bit to appease liberal supporters. I just can't believe anything this guy says until I see it happen. In fact he promised the world to everyone in America and on his acceptance speech he started backing down saying he doesn't know if everything he promised could happen in four years. Now to me that says "I am looking for another four years after this." Sorry Mr. President you were elected for four years if you can prove something to us in those four years then we might elect you again...but he sure has a lot of proving to do. I know every politician promises everything under the sun but this guy has brought that to a whole new level! With all that being said I hope those are the plans for military aviation. The C-17 is only one plane, there are many aging aircraft out there in the US inventory that need to be upgraded or replaced. Also lets not forget about one important asset that does not get it's fair amount of money for the multi-missions it is asked to do...the US Coast Guard. They also have a strong aviation program that needs to be kept up too.

[Edited 2009-02-13 12:40:56]

User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16828 posts, RR: 51
Reply 10, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4136 times:



Quoting Mascmo (Reply 9):
Also lets not forget about one important asset that does not get it's fair amount of money for the multi-missions it is asked to do...the US Coast Guard. They also have a strong aviation program that needs to be kept up too.

The Democrats had a $124 Million in the Economic stimulus to buy the Coast Guard new Ice Breakers, anyone following the geopolitical situation realizes the Arctic is about to become a disputed region with Russia, Canada and the US vying for access to the vast natural resources in the area.

The Coast Guard desperately needs new Ice Breakers for the Arctic, and the Republicans removed the funding from the Stimulus.

Dumb.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineSTT757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2000, 16828 posts, RR: 51
Reply 11, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 4135 times:



Quoting Mascmo (Reply 9):
The C-17 is only one plane, there are many aging aircraft out there in the US inventory that need to be upgraded or replaced

Also note their support for the KC-X, that addresses some of the oldest Aircraft in the Air Force Fleet.



Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
User currently offlineMascmo From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 4122 times:



Quoting STT757 (Reply 10):


The Coast Guard desperately needs new Ice Breakers for the Arctic, and the Republicans removed the funding from the Stimulus.

Dumb.

Agreed...very very dumb! America needs to have a very strong presence in the Arctic and that is a must, but $124 million wouldn't even pay for one ice breaker. That might be enough to pay for two C-130J's which they are acquiring to replace the C-130H.


User currently offlineKC135TopBoom From United States of America, joined Jan 2005, 12128 posts, RR: 51
Reply 13, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 23 hours ago) and read 4014 times:



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 3):
I'll probably get bashed for this, but a new tanker from NG would mean a new production facility in the south (Alabama, if that door didn't close completely) and more jobs for folks down there.

IIRC, Alabama voted for McCain, Washington voted for Obama. Which state will Obama want to reward with the new tanker contract?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 5):
This is silly. The man is going to toss out almost a trillion dollars so we can go buy TVs to stimulate the Chinese economy, but is willing to gut our own military. Wouldn't buying more planes and ships create high tech/science/math professional jobs in the US that we have been complaining about going overseas?

Its all about the number of votes. Obama won by over 4,000,000 votes. The most the US Military can give him (or his opponent, if everyone in the military voted for the same candidate) is 2,250,000 votes. He will let each of us buy our new TV (made in China) with the $13 we save each week in our taxes.

Quoting STT757 (Reply 10):
The Coast Guard desperately needs new Ice Breakers for the Arctic, and the Republicans removed the funding from the Stimulus.

Actually, the USCG doesn't need any polar ice breakers. They need new ice breaker tugs for the Great Lakes, and for winter ice in harbors like Boston, NYC, Bangor (ME), and Portsmouth (NH).


User currently offlineMascmo From United States of America, joined Mar 2008, 93 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 3997 times:



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 13):

Actually, the USCG doesn't need any polar ice breakers. They need new ice breaker tugs for the Great Lakes, and for winter ice in harbors like Boston, NYC, Bangor (ME), and Portsmouth (NH).

Actually, the USCG does need new polar ice breakers! They only have three currently and that is three for all of America. Russia has something like 27 polar ice breakers. (check the numbers i'm not sure the exact amount and some are even nuclear powered) The Coast Guard has one fairly new one, the Healy. The other two are getting old, the Polar Sea was commissioned in 1978, and the Polar Star was commissioned in 1976. I have personally talked to people from the Seattle ship yard who say those two ships are very beat up. If America wants to be a strong contender for the Arctic the Coast Guard needs new and better ice breakers...and most likely will need more than just three.


User currently offlineAlessandro From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (5 years 5 months 2 weeks 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 3969 times:



Quoting Curt22 (Reply 7):
Really? Tell us of China's, Japan's and Korea's aerospace technology? Tell us of their lunar landings, space shuttles, stealth aircraft, and commercial aviation industry, tell us of the all the new drugs and medical procedures that come from these nations.

Yes...they manufacture many toys...but they don't INVENT them...they are good at mass production of stuff we invent and we're no good at production because our labor costs are too high...so we better keep inventing new STUFF if we want to have any dog in the fight at all...!

Japan is definitly a player in aerospace industry, but mainly as a subcontractor, not necessary so that US invent everything within aerospace. Japan been to the moon yes.


Top Of Page
Forum Index

Reply To This Topic Obama's Effect On US Military Aviation
Username:
No username? Sign up now!
Password: 


Forgot Password? Be reminded.
Remember me on this computer (uses cookies)
  • Military aviation related posts only!
  • Not military related? Use the other forums
  • No adverts of any kind. This includes web pages.
  • No hostile language or criticizing of others.
  • Do not post copyright protected material.
  • Use relevant and describing topics.
  • Check if your post already been discussed.
  • Check your spelling!
  • DETAILED RULES
Add Images Add SmiliesPosting Help

Please check your spelling (press "Check Spelling" above)


Similar topics:More similar topics...
Are US Military A/c Allowed To Transit Taipei FIR? posted Wed Aug 6 2008 08:41:02 by Ryu2
Current State Of US Military Fleet. posted Mon Jan 14 2008 12:27:23 by CX747
US Military Exectutive Transport Fleet? posted Sat Dec 8 2007 19:22:58 by Flighty
US Military In Dogfight Over Drones posted Mon Aug 20 2007 03:48:02 by Halls120
Best Military Aviation & Naval Museums? posted Sat Mar 31 2007 15:46:40 by KC135TopBoom
Military Aviation In Colombia. posted Mon Jul 24 2006 10:06:47 by CV990
US Military Plane Down In Japan posted Tue Jan 17 2006 04:10:53 by AR1300
US Congress Removes Ban On US Mil Buying Airbus posted Fri Dec 30 2005 15:16:01 by UAL747-600
A380, US Military Cargo posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:10:25 by 777D
Tail Hooks On All Military Jets? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 17:42:38 by KhenleyDIA
US Military Plane Down In Japan posted Tue Jan 17 2006 04:10:53 by AR1300
US Congress Removes Ban On US Mil Buying Airbus posted Fri Dec 30 2005 15:16:01 by UAL747-600
A380, US Military Cargo posted Mon Nov 14 2005 22:10:25 by 777D
Tail Hooks On All Military Jets? posted Thu Oct 27 2005 17:42:38 by KhenleyDIA

Sponsor Message:
Printer friendly format