Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget  
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3508 times:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9794LL81&show_article=1

Quote:

WASHINGTON (AP) - A Senate defense committee chairman says Pentagon budget will include large, painful cuts. Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Carl Levin said Tuesday that major program cuts will not be pushed off until the 2011 budget, but will be included when Defense Secretary Robert Gates sends his spending plan to the president later this month.

Levin's comments confirmed what many contractors and military leaders have expected, but he offered no details on which programs may be axed. He said Pentagon officials have indicated they will not be able to submit the much-anticipated spending plan by April 21, as initially hoped.

Called it:

http://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...searchid=2000757&s=Obama#ID2000757

Reply 174:

Quote:
I've effectively lost my job (defense contractor.) So share the wealth my way guys, I'll be jobless in less than two years.

And nobody believed me.


Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
111 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 1, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3494 times:

This is sad. The military has been giving the most and getting the least for a while now. Everyone whines about how all of those science/technology/engineering jobs are going overseas but some healthy defense spending could do wonders for that. Meanwhile, Obama has a trillion dollars circling the drain as we speak and getting next to nothing for it.

This is a disturbing trend at best.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineDragon6172 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 1202 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 4 hours ago) and read 3483 times:

That is the way the defense department lives. Do more and more with less and less... until one day we do everything with nothing.


Phrogs Phorever
User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19365 posts, RR: 58
Reply 3, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 3 hours ago) and read 3450 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 2):
That is the way the defense department lives. Do more and more with less and less... until one day we do everything with nothing.

Does that explain cost-plus contracts? Or financing units based on how much equipment they use? Tons of stories about people being ordered to destroy perfectly good equipment because if they don't, then their funding will get cut.

I bet we could cut a double-digit percentage out of the DoD budget by eliminating those practices alone without in any way reducing the resources available to the military.


User currently offlineYellowstone From United States of America, joined Aug 2006, 3071 posts, RR: 4
Reply 4, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3427 times:



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 2):
That is the way the defense department lives. Do more and more with less and less... until one day we do everything with nothing.

Less and less doesn't mean much when you're currently spending more than the next 20 countries on the list combined.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Everyone whines about how all of those science/technology/engineering jobs are going overseas but some healthy defense spending could do wonders for that.

Which do you suppose is more productive for the country in the long run?
a) Spend billions of dollars developing a fighter jet to sit on the ground and occasionally blow up other countries' fighter jets and stuff.
b) Spend billions of dollars developing a modernized energy system that provides every American with clean, reliable energy.



Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 5, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3425 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
Which do you suppose is more productive for the country in the long run?
a) Spend billions of dollars developing a fighter jet to sit on the ground and occasionally blow up other countries' fighter jets and stuff.
b) Spend billions of dollars developing a modernized energy system that provides every American with clean, reliable energy.

When did this become an either/or question? It's always no money this, too expensive that but tossing a trillion into the wind? Sure let's do it.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineKen777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8181 posts, RR: 8
Reply 6, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 3417 times:

And then there is the EOY Dash. End of the financial year coming up and the spending increases to ensure they spend their entire budget. Instead of cuming in under budget and being rewarded they get shafted unless they spend it all.

Several things have to happen before you see any real progress on the EOY Dash.

First Congress & the President need to understand that "under budget" is a good think and should not be punished. That would require considering the money "saved" as having been spent in terms of the next year's budget.

There should also be some flexibility in shifting funds around within the DoD during the year as issues arise.

You could also encourage better financial management towards the EOY by establishing a "reserve pool" and the funds saved in one year would be moved into this pool. That pool could be tapped for delayed deliveries and also for unexpected needs.

Finally, financial management - especially in terms of the EOY Dash - should be considered during the evaluation of all officers O-4 and above. Maybe even O-3s if they are responsible for a certain level of financial management.

In other words, if you want that bird or star (or another star) you should start looking at your financial management.

Unfortunately this approach depends on some level of wisdom in Congress.  expressionless 


User currently offlineStarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3392 times:

I find it truly amazing that most of those that complain about defense spending have NEVER been in the military or the department of defense, nor have they been overseas and seen the people that want to destroy us and those who want so much to come to America and be free and well defended with no worries.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
Tons of stories about people being ordered to destroy perfectly good equipment because if they don't, then their funding will get cut.

I would like to hear some of these stories? In my 20 years in the Navy I have never once been ordered to destroy anything, in fact, we had to baby most of our equipment, especially the older stuff because we KNEW that we would never get replacements and have to make due with other older equipment.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
Which do you suppose is more productive for the country in the long run?
a) Spend billions of dollars developing a fighter jet to sit on the ground and occasionally blow up other countries' fighter jets and stuff.
b) Spend billions of dollars developing a modernized energy system that provides every American with clean, reliable energy.

If you look at history that are a lot of things invented for the military that are now used in the civilian world and vica versa, they work hand in hand.


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 8, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3373 times:



Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 7):
I would like to hear some of these stories? In my 20 years in the Navy I have never once been ordered to destroy anything, in fact, we had to baby most of our equipment, especially the older stuff because we KNEW that we would never get replacements and have to make due with other older equipment.

I don't know where that came from, I sure didn't write that. I know that the military takes good care of their stuff, but stuff wears out and others catch up.

Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 7):
If you look at history that are a lot of things invented for the military that are now used in the civilian world and vica versa, they work hand in hand.

Exactly. I had that in mind when I made my original post. Often government money for military equipment acts to subsidize research and development for civilian items.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13964 posts, RR: 63
Reply 9, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3365 times:



Quoting Starbuk7 (Reply 7):
I would like to hear some of these stories? In my 20 years in the Navy I have never once been ordered to destroy anything, in fact, we had to baby most of our equipment, especially the older stuff because we KNEW that we would never get replacements and have to make due with other older equipment.

A story from my own experience:
Back in 1989 I was living in cold war West Berlin near an US Army barracks (Andrews Barracks in Finkensteinallee). I had a good friend, who was a sergeant with the US Army Berlin brigade. One day he came late for an appointment. He told me that they spent the whole day out on the training range burning and destroying a lot of M151 jeeps, which were being replaced at this time by HMVEEs. I asked him if his commanders knew that the US army could make a lot of moneyby auctioning them of in the same way the British and French troops in West Berlin did with their surplus equipment (They had joint monthly auctions in a hangar on the French militaryside of Tegel (TXL) airport. A highschool classmate of mine bought an ex British Army Landrover at one of these auctions).
My friend told me that due to some law the US military were not allowed to sell these jeeps on the civilian market, apparently the manufacturers wanted to prevent the market from being flooded by cheap surplus vehicles.

Jan


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 10, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 3358 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
US military were not allowed to sell these jeeps on the civilian market, apparently the manufacturers wanted to prevent the market from being flooded by cheap surplus vehicles.

No. It was because the M151 suspension was arranged in such a way as to make them prone to rollovers. It was best to keep them out of civilian hands.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineFlighty From United States of America, joined Apr 2007, 8395 posts, RR: 3
Reply 11, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3345 times:



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Tons of stories about people being ordered to destroy perfectly good equipment because if they don't, then their funding will get cut.

Well those unit leaders should be prosecuted and jailed. It ain't their property. Cutting funding is the goal, anyway.


User currently offlineKingairTA From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 458 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 3 days ago) and read 3331 times:

From the Navy side the only EOY excess where money is "wasted" is hear-say on my part cause I never actually seen it but filling planes full of fuel launch em and dump the fuel to get through the annual fuel allowment.

Having been in VR for the past 17 years fuel money never went to waste because we were so busy supporting big Navy we always needed more. We always got it too. Because without VR the Navy loses it's a big portion of it's logitstics train. Air Force can't meet the needs of the Navy's short notice requirements. We never trashed anything in order to spend to max out the budget. If anything we'd buy stuff that would be nice to have. In regards to that all the MMCOs I've had have been very dilligent on what they would approve the spending on.

I too think that the current system of use or lose is out dated and unfairly looked upon when it comes to evaluating fiscal budgets and fit reps.

But on the other hand it does keep idiot bean counters who only care about fit reps from screwing their personell over by not giving them the tools to do the job safely and properly.


User currently offlineDXing From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3307 times:



Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 4):
Which do you suppose is more productive for the country in the long run?
a) Spend billions of dollars developing a fighter jet to sit on the ground and occasionally blow up other countries' fighter jets and stuff.
b) Spend billions of dollars developing a modernized energy system that provides every American with clean, reliable energy

or c) Having an out of work computer engineer filling pot holes on some highway?

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
And then there is the EOY Dash. End of the financial year coming up and the spending increases to ensure they spend their entire budget. Instead of cuming in under budget and being rewarded they get shafted unless they spend it all.

Correct but the dash is in no way limited to DOD.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
First Congress & the President need to understand that "under budget" is a good think and should not be punished. That would require considering the money "saved" as having been spent in terms of the next year's budget.

Correct. Unfortunately since the budgets are supposed to be passed prior to the start of the next FY there is no way to account year to year. Also there is another reason listed below.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
You could also encourage better financial management towards the EOY by establishing a "reserve pool" and the funds saved in one year would be moved into this pool. That pool could be tapped for delayed deliveries and also for unexpected needs.

Unfortunately the Constitution is not written with year to year rollovers factored in. Each appropriation is specific to the FY for which it is passed.

Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
My friend told me that due to some law the US military were not allowed to sell these jeeps on the civilian market, apparently the manufacturers wanted to prevent the market from being flooded by cheap surplus vehicles.

As stated those jeeps were not considered safe and since I rolled one when I was in the service, as well as got one stuck in the sand, I would agree with the decision to destroy them rather than sell them.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19365 posts, RR: 58
Reply 14, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 23 hours ago) and read 3299 times:



Quoting Flighty (Reply 11):

Well those unit leaders should be prosecuted and jailed. It ain't their property. Cutting funding is the goal, anyway.

Yet it's common practice because of the way that the funding works. If you don't use a piece of equipment, then they assume you don't need it.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
And then there is the EOY Dash. End of the financial year coming up and the spending increases to ensure they spend their entire budget. Instead of cuming in under budget and being rewarded they get shafted unless they spend it all.

See? I'm not the only one bringing this up. You could lead to a MAJOR budget cut without cutting a single thing. I'm talking about a budget cut that could fund every single high-speed rail project that's been proposed.


User currently offlineStarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 15, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 3268 times:

Sorry BMI727, I quoted the wrong person.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 3):
Tons of stories about people being ordered to destroy perfectly good equipment because if they don't, then their funding will get cut.

I would like to hear some of these stories? In my 20 years in the Navy I have never once been ordered to destroy anything, in fact, we had to baby most of our equipment, especially the older stuff because we KNEW that we would never get replacements and have to make due with other older equipment.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):
Yet it's common practice because of the way that the funding works. If you don't use a piece of equipment, then they assume you don't need it.

I have NEVER seen this practice, can you elaborate with any examples.

I currently work in defense logistics as well and haven't as of yet seen any of these supposed practices you are talking about.


User currently offlineDocLightning From United States of America, joined Nov 2005, 19365 posts, RR: 58
Reply 16, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 16 hours ago) and read 3235 times:

Ask Ken777. I know that funding in medicine works that way all the time. If you don't use enough of a supply, they cut your budget for it.

User currently offlineStarbuk7 From United States of America, joined Apr 2008, 599 posts, RR: 5
Reply 17, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 3186 times:

Doesn't work that way in aviation. 20 years as an Avionics Technician on Active Duty and now 10 years in Defense Logistics working with the same aircraft that I did while on active duty and never have I heard of such a thing.

I have seen some waste in my time but never like that, and that has all changed in the last 10 to 15 years. As I stated earlier, we had to really baby a lot of old equipment because there was no new replacement equipment coming. But that to, has changed a bit.

Procurement procedures have change and us Logisticians are being taught to do things a lot different and get good quality items for less dollars. We are allowed to work with manufactures more and procure items used commercially to adapt to military use which makes things a lot cheaper.


User currently offlineMD11Engineer From Germany, joined Oct 2003, 13964 posts, RR: 63
Reply 18, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3126 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 10):
Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
US military were not allowed to sell these jeeps on the civilian market, apparently the manufacturers wanted to prevent the market from being flooded by cheap surplus vehicles.

No. It was because the M151 suspension was arranged in such a way as to make them prone to rollovers. It was best to keep them out of civilian hands.

Well, any true 4x4 with a high ground clearance and narrow profile is prone to roll over if driven the wrong way (I have been driving such vehicles, e.g. the Suzuki Samurai and more recently a Landrover Defender since more than fifteen years). You have to drive them like a truck or farm tractor and not like a sports car. This means that you'll have to slow down in curves. On the other hand I can well understand that in the typically litegious societies existing today it will not be the driver who gets blamed, but the manufacturer or seller of the car.

Jan


User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 19, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 2 days 2 hours ago) and read 3124 times:



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 18):
Well, any true 4x4 with a high ground clearance and narrow profile is prone to roll over if driven the wrong way

Yes, but it was way easier to drive the M151 the wrong way than any of its counterparts.



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 20, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 3062 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 1):
This is a disturbing trend at best.

As is the trend for VIP helicopters that cost as much as does VC-25A (Air Force One) and replacing 500 tankers that have decades of life left in them with end-of-life 767s/A330s.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 6):
And then there is the EOY Dash. End of the financial year coming up and the spending increases to ensure they spend their entire budget. Instead of cuming in under budget and being rewarded they get shafted unless they spend it all.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 16):
Ask Ken777. I know that funding in medicine works that way all the time. If you don't use enough of a supply, they cut your budget for it.

 checkmark 

Happens in private industry too.

If you don't spend your budget, you are accused of being incompetent by asking for too much money. The fix, of course, is to give you less money next time.

The penalty for being over budget and under budget is pretty much the same.

The solution for being under budget is easy (just spend it!), the solution for being over budget is painful (cutbacks).

This means the trend is to always ask for more money than you absolutely need. The senior managers know this, so they always cut back your budget. The junior managers know this, so they always inflate their budget by some percentage. Each year it's a guessing game as to what the magic percentage will be.

In these difficult times, management has given us zero discretionary budget next quarter. All corporate travel and expense credit cards taken away. No new capital budget. Should be interesting to see how that goes.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 3035 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
replacing 500 tankers that have decades of life left in them with end-of-life 767s/A330s.

And the C-130 represents wasteful government spending since the C-47s are perfectly capable of doing the job.  Yeah sure



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
User currently onlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12322 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 3015 times:



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 21):
And the C-130 represents wasteful government spending since the C-47s are perfectly capable of doing the job.

Not even close.

C-47B:
* Payload: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) (8,000 lb/3,700 kg - war emergency)
* Maximum speed: 224 mph (195 knots, 360 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 160 mph (140 knots, 260 km/h)
* Range: 1,600 mi (1,400 nm, 2,600 km)
* Service ceiling: 26,400 ft (8,050 m)

C-130H:
* Payload: 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
* Maximum speed: 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
* Range: 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
* Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)

Almost a 20 ton difference in payload between the two.

I guess when you don't have a good factual argument you resort to mockery?



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineJakeOrion From United States of America, joined Oct 2005, 1253 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (5 years 3 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2972 times:

 rotfl 

Let me get this straight; first you say:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 20):
As is the trend for VIP helicopters that cost as much as does VC-25A (Air Force One) and replacing 500 tankers that have decades of life left in them with end-of-life 767s/A330s.

Then you say:

Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
Not even close.

C-47B:
* Payload: 6,000 lb (2,700 kg) (8,000 lb/3,700 kg - war emergency)
* Maximum speed: 224 mph (195 knots, 360 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 160 mph (140 knots, 260 km/h)
* Range: 1,600 mi (1,400 nm, 2,600 km)
* Service ceiling: 26,400 ft (8,050 m)

C-130H:
* Payload: 45,000 lb (20,000 kg) including 2-3 Humvees or an M113 Armored Personnel Carrier
* Maximum speed: 329 knots (379 mph, 610 km/h)
* Cruise speed: 292 knots (336 mph, 540 km/h)
* Range: 2,050 nm (2,360 mi, 3,800 km)
* Service ceiling: 33,000 ft (10,000 m)

Almost a 20 ton difference in payload between the two.

So, its ok to continue to use a aging tanker that could be replaced by a better tanker, but its not ok to do the same for a cargo aircraft?

And many people wonder why the US military is still using mostly 60s, 70s, and early 80s technology.  sarcastic 



Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
User currently offlineBMI727 From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 15709 posts, RR: 26
Reply 24, posted (5 years 3 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 2940 times:



Quoting Revelation (Reply 22):
I guess when you don't have a good factual argument you resort to mockery?

My good factual argument is in fact nothing more than common sense. How many airlines or air forces are flying around in 50 year old planes?

For that matter, a 767 or A330 was bigger than a KC-135 last time I checked.
 Yeah sure



Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
25 ANCFlyer : Shameful, but to be expected. Let's spend a couple TRILLION $$$ on everything but that which matters. We'll build a waterpark in Florida, give ACORN $
26 Alessandro : Shameful? A trillion US$ is about 260-270 days added debt today for the US, like the Sovietunion, US has overspent on the military and is in grave da
27 ANCFlyer : You sure you got that right? US has 'overspent' on the Military? I dont think your calculator is working properly . . . or at all. . . . Try it again
28 BMI727 : This is not a great comparison because even in this condition, the US has a far stronger economic and industrial base than the USSR.
29 Alessandro : Future will tell, if the economy and industry is as strong or weak as the USSRs?
30 Revelation : Ahh, more mockery. Two can play that game. So you expect daddy to dump mommy even though she's still a great wife? You might think happiness comes fr
31 UH60FtRucker : ...1989.... there you go. For someone who has never served in the military, you like to make a lot of factual statements about the inner-workings. Pl
32 BMI727 : Like people who advocate the wealthiest nation on earth continuing to fly 50 year old airframes when perfectly good replacements are available. That
33 Post contains links STT757 : Latest reports indicate the F-22 is safe for production up to 243 airframes, they are looking to make cuts in certain FCS programs as well as Missile
34 Mir : The charge of cutting and running doesn't make much sense until we find out what's being cut. We spend an obscene amount of money on the military. Mu
35 JakeOrion : WTF??? You cannot compare a person to an aircraft. That's equivalent of saying you're dumping a girlfriend for the vacuum cleaner. The argument just
36 DocLightning : So here's a question: Canada seems to have not much of a military. Nor does Australia. Costa Rica doesn't even have one. Why do we need such a big, ho
37 WarRI1 : I guess you could ask the question, who provides the umbrella that covers the ones without any? I think that is the answer. That is the way it has be
38 Ken777 : First one in my life was FDR and he wasn't too bad working out the Lend/Lease with Churchill. And he did a decent job working with the military durin
39 Revelation : Yes, but not for free. Last time I checked, FedEx is still flying 80 of them, lots of DC-10s and MD-10s too. Southwest has 185 737-300s and 25 737-50
40 UH60FtRucker : Can we get back on subject? If we want to talk about the suitability of the A330, or the B767, or the C17... or the M1 eyeball... there is an entire
41 Post contains links Revelation : It's mockery, get it? I even gave you all the clues you needed to recognize that, sigh... You keep talking about "more", but never seem to pick up on
42 Revelation : I think the subject is how to best spend our defense dollars. What do you think it is? Not sure what you think is so obtuse about the A330, or the B7
43 Revelation : And he inherieted a FUBAR'd economy from a Republican, Herbert Hoover. And the post-WWII "GI Bill" gave us the brain power we needed for all that tec
44 BMI727 : I know that. Revelation doesn't. He seems to think that cheaper is better. His entire argument is that keeping the KC-135s is the financially respons
45 Revelation : Obviously you think senior USAF leadership is can do no wrong. Great for you. Flying F-117s over Baghdad through AAA hoping the tech works is stressf
46 Mir : You're not understanding the difference between the priorities of the Air Force and the airlines. Financially responsible for one is not necessarily
47 BMI727 : I think that the USAF leadership knows more than either of us. I feel sorry for your doctor having to deal with you second guessing him all the time.
48 Mir : No, he thinks that the government should take acquisition costs in mind when deciding what equipment to purchase, and that the fact that a certain sy
49 Ken777 : It's all about allocation of funds. Congress and the President have more departments to fund than just Defense. Within defense there is also fund all
50 DocLightning : I have a great use of military dollars: develop a renewable source of fuel to power every aircraft and ground vehicle. We're depending on the friggin'
51 BMI727 : Not specifically, but the Air Force obviously thinks so. The thing that is necessary to understand about the Air Force is that they do not like to sp
52 Post contains links Aaron747 : Details from Secretary Gates' spending plan today: Gates said he is gearing Pentagon buying plans to the smaller, lower-tech battlefields the military
53 Charles79 : I agree, it's a sound compromise that maintains our air superiority (nearly 200 F-22s will still be produced plus a decent amount of F-35s), provides
54 Mir : Right now, and for the forseeable future, the battle is about terrorism and radical groups. The F-22 is of limited advantage there, if any, compared
55 ANCFlyer : What we really need is more airlift. I think the decision on the F22 is the right choice. But it's still shortsighted - or perhaps Hamstring from the
56 Aaron747 : Are you talking about moving troops, equipment, or both? I wonder how much troop movement is actually covered by outsourcing to the various carriers
57 BMI727 : Airlift doesn't seem to be that big of an issue for them at the moment. A few more C-17s would be nice, but the C-5s have life left and most equipmen
58 Aaron747 : Name one reason or plausible scenario that justifies the F-22 program remaining at the levels originally envisioned instead of what Gates laid out to
59 BMI727 : There are plenty of them. Iran, N. Korea, China. There are plenty of scenarios out there that could result in war. And wherever there is a war, there
60 UH60FtRucker : Well aside from silly arguments about apocalyptic wars, or silly patriotic flag waving, let me answer your question on a logical, military based view
61 Post contains links Revelation : Send 174 (or a large fraction thereof) F-22s at the enemy, along with hundreds of F15/F16/F18/F35s? So now DecDef and ChmJCS are hopeless optimists?
62 BMI727 : Exactly. Let's remember that the current fleet of US fighters was built in the '80s, and designed in the '70s to meet challenges from the '60s. Right
63 Post contains links Revelation : The F-35s won't be, and they will be backed up with 187 F-22s. Other than you and Tom Clancy, who can cook up a scenario where this isn't enough? You
64 FlyPNS1 : No, it isn't. These "grand wars" are no more likely today than before. The only ones dreaming of these grand wars are the defense contractors who sta
65 BMI727 : The North Koreans, the Iranians, the Venezuelans, maybe the Russians, and whoever else wants to go on a power trip in the next few years. Gates is a
66 Revelation : Yeah, right. Yeah, right. Former USAF, 26 years in the CIA, member NSC, former Director CIA. Total acedemic paper pusher, no insight whatsoever on mi
67 BMI727 : Not enough to be SecDef anyway. They wouldn't know any more than Gates. Considering that the Secretary of Defense is responsible for the military it
68 Revelation : And seeing that the President is Commander in Chief of the military, he/she better be an ex-general too, right? And seeing that Congress has to vote
69 BMI727 : They get a lot of good (and bad) advice from a lot of advisors. Plus Congress and the President have many other duties besides military affairs. When
70 Revelation : Since you think of Gates as a businessman who bought his post, there's no use arguing with you.
71 Ken777 : I believe that economic relations will be far more important to countries like Russia and China. Why would they want to start a war, especially China
72 JakeOrion : This is such a non-arguement I'm not going to worry about it. You say this, then go on to say this: So what was even the point of developing the KC-1
73 Mir : Who is it going to be? Who will wage a "grand war" against us? Nobody has nearly enough means to do that anymore. Not China, not Russia, and certainl
74 Yellowstone : Yeah, about that... Germany and Japan both had strong economic and industrial bases, and were in the process of massive military development projects
75 FlyPNS1 : Your comparison is ridiculous. It's 2009, not 1939. Iran, North Korea, Venezuela (and similar countries) do not require a "grand war." A few strategi
76 JakeOrion : What about Russia? What about China? Libya and Syria? Hell, there could be another nation under the radar that could attack us (ala Japan 1941). Can'
77 Mir : Russia and China do not have the ability to project conventional power the way we do. Not by a long shot. To say that the militaries of Libya or Syri
78 Post contains links JakeOrion : Not air force but I think the example is sufficient: The uninvited guest: Chinese sub pops up in middle of U.S. Navy exercise, leaving military chief
79 Yellowstone : Japan was hardly under the radar. They had already invaded another major country, and relations between us and them were deteriorating well before Pe
80 FlyPNS1 : Easily. Germany and Japan were modern, industrial nations that were capable of waging large-scale wars. Iran, North Korea, Syria, Venezuela are not.
81 JakeOrion : OK, so you want several thousand more military/civilian personnel to die before we get our act together should the need arise. I love your priorities
82 JakeOrion : But if Germany and Japan became modern, doesn't this mean Iran, North Korea, Syria and whoever else can also? You're saying they never will? Wow, tha
83 Yellowstone : Where did I say that? We'll have 150 to 200 F-22s, plus hundreds of F-35s, F-15s, and F-16s. Not to mention that a war would not come out of the blue
84 FlyPNS1 : But they only way to be a modern nation today is to become a part of the global economy. This means you have to have trade and do business with the r
85 Post contains links Starbuk7 : Nobody Huh?? Here is your answer for China. http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE52O5PX20090325 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific
86 Starbuk7 : Yep, nothing out of the blue, Pearl Harbor didn't come out of the blue, the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole didn't come out of the blue, 9/11 didn't come
87 Post contains links Revelation : To throw McDonnell-Douglas a bone. The DC-10 crashes and DC-9 production screw-ups nearly bankrupted them. The KC-10 gave them enough orders to stay
88 FlyPNS1 : The GAO's report is for the period of 2000-2008. Then why are most major programs grossly over budget and years behind schedule? Yet, despite these f
89 Revelation : One can infer from the decision to not order any more F-22s and the decision to dump the VH-71 that the DoD may be particularly unhappy with LM. Gran
90 Yellowstone : You're trying to be sarcastic, but that only works if the sarcastic statements you make aren't true. The Pearl Harbor attack? Yes, the time and locat
91 Aaron747 : Thanks for that UH. I'll have to look into it more before I can give a more reasoned opinion.
92 DocLightning : Now you pull that out? Did the last President serve his country? Air National Guard. Right. Did he run a business?
93 UH60FtRucker : Honestly... I wouldn't put a whole lot of stock into some of the things being said in this thread. A lot of uninformed people, with little-to-no real
94 Aaron747 : Fully understood. I'm just trying to get a better feel for what the real strategic implications are of the F-22 remaining as-is. In the larger scheme
95 UH60FtRucker : It is/was so high profile, that is attracted endless amount of public attention. And again, like a lot of other problems, the F-22 issues are deeply
96 Post contains links Revelation : SecDef Gates says: So I think it's fair to say he disagrees with you about the "too small" F-22 fleet. As for CSAR-X, So yest, it is in essence start
97 Starbuk7 : So, how many defense contracts have you written or been involved in?? Didn't think so. You will again take the words of politicians of whom have no i
98 Starbuk7 : So, continuing terrorist attacks are not a clear signal that something is about to start? They keep hitting us but we should not prepare to hit back,
99 UH60FtRucker : You're cherry picking my argument. I spoke towards the F-22 fleet as being "too small", in the context that the final fleet which will eventually be
100 BMI727 : As I said before, cabinet positions are purely politcal. If you want to find experts go to the department heads. It is. That is how we end up with th
101 Mir : So they're not being as transparent as we'd like them to. A matter of concern, sure, but when you look at where China is now, they'd have to do a lot
102 Sv7887 : As usual you are one of the best posters on military matters. It's not a question of patriotism, it's a question of practicality. We have what 500 or
103 FlyPNS1 : I'm not taking the words of politicians. I'm taking the word of the GAO which is not a political body and is probably the most non-partisan entity we
104 Starbuk7 : Actually, no. They are on the hook to deliver those items at that price and that is the risk that they take when entering the contract. The items get
105 Revelation : That was the thinking when the ATF program was started in 1981. The DoD is saying that times have changed since then. If you try to replace F-15s one
106 BMI727 : Problems arise quickly and it is not likely that we will see them coming years away. The whole point is that the military needs to be ready for anyth
107 Sv7887 : You make a good point. IIRC, Saddam had a French built system so the Allies were able to get their hands on the detailed specs and blow it to hell on
108 BMI727 : I'm sure someone has an idea. Most people don't realize just how classified most of this stuff is. (Did you know the F-15 has a service ceiling of 60
109 Revelation : Nor will a fleet of F-22s. If those NKs are crazy enough to launch a missle at the USA and aren't concerned about our subs and ICBMs, they aren't goi
110 Yellowstone : Terrorist attacks, while dangerous and a threat the military should address, do not constitute a war. And for the purposes of conducting anti-terror
111 BMI727 : Battling terrorist groups relies more on intelligence and surveillance than it does on high tech weapons systems. Not that new weapons won't help, bu
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Colombian Senator Says Cocaine Dealers In Congress posted Fri Aug 26 2005 09:13:54 by Virgin744
This Dem Senator Will Defeat Bush In 2004 posted Tue Jul 8 2003 05:36:03 by Airworthy
Gephardt To Eliminate Tax Cuts, In Favor Of..... posted Thu Apr 24 2003 02:01:22 by Jcs17
New Study: Obama Most Liberal Senator In 2007 posted Thu Jan 31 2008 14:21:50 by Diamond
Fed Cuts Rates By 3/4 Point In Bid To Calm Markets posted Tue Jan 22 2008 05:52:28 by Wingnut767
Hidden Gems In The Bush Budget posted Tue Feb 6 2007 21:15:30 by AirCop
Former Senator Torch In Oil 4 Food Probe posted Sat May 20 2006 06:16:15 by Jetjack74
Military Budget Cuts posted Sun Apr 30 2006 23:35:21 by Jafa39
Guy Cuts His Ferrari In Two Going 200+ Mph. posted Wed Feb 22 2006 06:36:16 by FXramper
What To Do And Expect In Greece? posted Wed Dec 7 2005 03:16:19 by Mkeflyer717