TropicBird
Topic Author
Posts: 432
Joined: Sat May 28, 2005 9:13 am

Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Sun Feb 01, 2009 8:39 pm

Now the real fun starts. What gets cut?

Defense Official: Obama Calling for Defense Budget Cuts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009...obama-calling-defense-budget-cuts/
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:46 am



Quoting TropicBird (Thread starter):
Now the real fun starts. What gets cut?

I'm not so sure. Obama want's to draw down operations in Iraq. There's your 10% and then some.
 
LAXintl
Posts: 20183
Joined: Wed May 24, 2000 12:12 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:01 am

Most Iraq and Afghanistan ops are funded thru supplemental appropriation bills, not the core DoD budget.

A 10% whack would be huge cut for many procurement projects especially at a time when more and more monies are going towards salaries and support services combined with a commitment to grow the Army by some 70,000 more troops over the next few years.
From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:46 am

The Marines can begin saving money in the Air Wing: reduce the MV-22 and F-35B buy! I mean come on, what would be so wrong with CH-71's, EA-18G's, and F/A-18F's? haha

http://64.34.169.161/ifolio_files/file_gallery/Screenshot_Gallery/Development_Screenshots/chUSMC1.jpg
 
User avatar
kc135topboom
Posts: 10997
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 2:26 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 1:53 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
The Marines can begin saving money in the Air Wing: reduce the MV-22 and F-35B buy! I mean come on, what would be so wrong with CH-71's, EA-18G's, and F/A-18F's? haha

The MV/CV-22 and F-35 programs will, most likely not get cut, those are the future jobs he is "promising". Don't look to hard for the CH-71, in any US military colors, it, along with the USAF CSAR-X (and KC-X) programs will be eliminated. The Marines won't buy and StupidBug F/A-18E/Fs. They may be forced to swallow some EA-18Gs, but there won't be to many of them, maybe only 2 squadrons.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 3:54 am



Quoting KC135TopBoom (Reply 5):
The MV/CV-22 and F-35 programs will, most likely not get cut, those are the future jobs he is "promising". Don't look to hard for the CH-71, in any US military colors, it, along with the USAF CSAR-X (and KC-X) programs will be eliminated. The Marines won't buy and StupidBug F/A-18E/Fs. They may be forced to swallow some EA-18Gs, but there won't be to many of them, maybe only 2 squadrons.

You guys are going way overboard, I think something like the Future Combat system is where they may be looking.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:07 am



Quoting LAXintl (Reply 2):
Most Iraq and Afghanistan ops are funded thru supplemental appropriation bills, not the core DoD budget.

Not really. About 175 billion is for operations and maintenance. A huge portion of that is due to operations in Iraq. That will wind down. I am not saying that programs won;t get cut but it's not the armageddon that some think. Axe KC-X, CSAR-X FCS, and DDG-1000 and you are almost there without losing a bit of capability. Obviously you would need substitutes for these programs (well maybe not FCS) such as KC-135 re-engine but you still will save big.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 4):
The Marines can begin saving money in the Air Wing: reduce the MV-22 and F-35B buy! I mean come on, what would be so wrong with CH-71's, EA-18G's, and F/A-18F's? haha

I really have to scratch my head when I read this. Why would you want to replace the Osprey with a helicopter. That is a huge step back in payload, range and speed. It looks like all the teething problems have been worked out and other then the trouble they still have with the Rolls Royce engines maintenance issues(which I am sure will get ironed out) the Marines seem to be well pleased with them. Other than that scratch all the F-35Bs for the Marines and use attack helicopters or armed versions of Ospreys.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:23 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 7):
Why would you want to replace the Osprey with a helicopter. That is a huge step back in payload, range and speed.

The V-22 is replacing the CH-46E and instead of buying all 450+ V-22's, the can cut that in half and buy H-71's to fill the other half. The Merlins have greater payload and range than a V-22, but then again with a refueling boom range is more a factor of endurance of the crew.

Quoting Alien (Reply 7):
he Marines seem to be well pleased with them.

The V-22's are still maintenance queens; the aircraft have even more moving parts than a helicopter so it's not like that should come to surprise anyone.

Quoting Alien (Reply 7):
Other than that scratch all the F-35Bs for the Marines and use attack helicopters or armed versions of Ospreys.

Less F-35B's that would otherwise replace F/A-18's and buy less expensive F/A-18F's and EA-18G's - they can get the job done and save a lot of money by doing so; some Marines just have to stop being so stubborn (or is it ignorant?)
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 4:38 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
Less F-35B's that would otherwise replace F/A-18's and buy less expensive F/A-18F's and EA-18G's - they can get the job done and save a lot of money by doing so; some Marines just have to stop being so stubborn (or is it ignorant?)

The Marines still need to replace the Harriers... and don't forget if you guys bail on F-35B, the Brits will be mightly angry about that.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:03 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 8):
The Merlins have greater payload and range than a V-22,

I think it's the other way around. Remember, Merlin's range is usually given in km whilst MV-22 is nmi. Nope, I think they ned to go all MV-22 and CH-56 for transport. If they need a utility copter they can always go with an S-76 variant. Mv-22s have speed and getting troops ashore fast is good.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
The Marines still need to replace the Harriers

Says who? What did the Marines do before the Harrier came along? No one has yet made an argument that Marine CAS cannot be effectively performed with attack helicopters, the occasional JDAM launched from Air Force or Navy assets and perhaps an armed version of the MV-22.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 9):
and don't forget if you guys bail on F-35B, the Brits will be mightly angry about that.

There is an awful lot of serious talk in the UK about dropping the F-35B. It seems they have to buy Typhoons and they have no money left over. I suspect Israel, Italy, Spain and India will wind up being F-35B users as well so there will be a viable run of F-35Bs without the Marines buying any.
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:12 am



Quoting Alien (Reply 10):
and CH-56 for transport.

Yeah I think they called it simply the S-56, never had the "CH" identifier.


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Reinhardt Rolf



You really think the Marines could use that? Interesting.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 12:59 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):
Yeah I think they called it simply the S-56, never had the "CH" identifier.

Well that looks good and maybe they could drive a jeep through the front door but what I really meant (I suspect you knew it but just wanted to share the love) was CH-53. Oooops!
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 2:02 pm



Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 10):

Yeah I think they called it simply the S-56, never had the "CH" identifier.

CH-37 "Mojave", USMC used them in Vietnam.

Man I'd love to have seen/heard that thing fly!
The last of the famous international playboys
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 8):
The Marines still need to replace the Harriers... and don't forget if you guys bail on F-35B, the Brits will be mightly angry about that.

The Royal Navy's new carriers will be able to field F-35C's and quite frankly that's what they should just do from the onset.

Quoting Alien (Reply 9):
There is an awful lot of serious talk in the UK about dropping the F-35B. It seems they have to buy Typhoons and they have no money left over. I suspect Israel, Italy, Spain and India will wind up being F-35B users as well so there will be a viable run of F-35Bs without the Marines buying any.

I would agree in the sense that the AV-8B never even earned it's useful wings in the USMC and thereby doesn't really even rate a replacement. When we went into Macedonia for Kosovo ops the Marine Harriers in our MEU were told "thanks, but no thanks" and subsequently went to Israel where they sat around for a month in a safety recall for their RR engines; something about a newb in the production line and a missing cotter pin.
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 7:12 pm

Senator Levin appears to favor "reset" (i.e., refurbishment) over "modernization" (i.e., new procurement). Granted he doesn't call all the shots, but he gets a vote--a very powerful one at that.
http://www.dodbuzz.com/2009/01/30/re...wins-over-modernization-sen-levin/

Quote:
In a policy declaration that will reverberate through the Pentagon and defense industry, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee made clear today that when he has to pick whether to approve funding for a new program or for one that needs rebuilding he’ll pick the existing program.

“I think there is a tension there and the reset will have to prevail,” Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.) said in response to my question about the choices he will have to make as authorizers look for sustainable cuts to the defense budget.

Perhaps some new thinking WRT the real threat would help?
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/gener...0In%20Upcoming%20Pentagon%20Budget

Quote:
“While the DOD is still committed to two nearly simultaneous major regional conflicts, [the] evolving force structure construct anticipates that only one of those conflicts will be a platform-intensive major combat operation while the other conflict will be a long-duration-irregular-warfare-campaign,” McAleese said.

Trying to retain the major-combat fighting capability while keeping up the capacity to provide a rotational forward presence needed to battle insurgents is going to put the services at odds with their own internal needs, McAleese said.

The Army will still have to make sure it has enough money to pay operational bills while trying to fund procurement, he said.

The Navy will likely favor its Littoral Combat Ships, DDG-51s/CG-47s and Virginia-class submarines, he said, at the expense of its top shelf surface ships.

The Air Force will have to invest more to fulfill airlift and aerial refueling requirements, he said — probably at the expense of some of its tactical air needs.

The services will have to focus much more on the affordable, McAleese said, which will likely constrain recapitalization.

"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:39 pm



Quoting Alien (Reply 1):
I'm not so sure. Obama want's to draw down operations in Iraq. There's your 10% and then some.

More accurately, he wants to continue the reductions Bush and the Iraqis already agreed to
months before the election. The military has won the war just in time for Obama to get the credit. The financial crises and the presidential election relegated our progress in Iraq to the
back pages. Iraq may have been an election issue, but there is little to argue about now. We were going to leave no matter who won the election, and at about the same timetable.
 
Alien
Posts: 416
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 8:00 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 8:57 pm



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 15):
More accurately, he wants to continue the reductions Bush and the Iraqis already agreed to
months before the election.

Agreed, but you risk taking this thread off topic considering there are some who cannot seem to grasp this reality.
 
MCIGuy
Posts: 1445
Joined: Sun Mar 26, 2006 8:15 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Mon Feb 02, 2009 10:16 pm

I just hope Raptor production extends past 2012.  Wink
Airliners.net Moderator Team
 
Ken777
Posts: 9024
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:54 am

It's been years since I've had to worry about budgeting, but I clearly remember the end of year spending to avoid budget cuts the next year.

If you had unspent funds at the end of the year then your budget for the following year would be cut as "you didn't need the money"

An intelligent review of end of year spending would probably find a good chunk of that 10%.

There also needs to be some hard looks at capital investments. The DDG-1000? From what I understand it's too delicate to go into harm's way. KC-X will be the poster boy for a suddenly unnecessary project.

And after the CEO's of the Big 3 auto makers caught hell for flying in on their corporate jets the DoD needs to review VIP travel expenses for guys & gals wearing stars.
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:25 am



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
KC-X will be the poster boy for a suddenly unnecessary project.

I've heard this argument before and I just can't find the logic? Now, if they wanted to cancel CSAR-X because the Army would be better off with the mission using HH-47's, I could buy that but how can we prolong our aerial refueling fleet any longer - the USAF set out back in '02 to get those replaced; their entire force is predicated around aerial refueling?!
 
ThePointblank
Posts: 2466
Joined: Sat Jan 17, 2009 11:39 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 7:03 am



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
The Royal Navy's new carriers will be able to field F-35C's and quite frankly that's what they should just do from the onset.

It's not just the RN, it's the RAF as well that needs F-35B. Don't forget the Spanish, the Italians also need replacements for their Harriers otherwise their carriers won't have any strike capability.

Quoting Alien (Reply 9):
Says who? What did the Marines do before the Harrier came along? No one has yet made an argument that Marine CAS cannot be effectively performed with attack helicopters, the occasional JDAM launched from Air Force or Navy assets and perhaps an armed version of the MV-22.

The USMC is pushing the over the horizon concept; the next and current USMC assets, the new America class amphibious assault ships, the V-22 Osprey, the LCAC's, and the EFV all push this concept of an over-the-horizon attack. With the distances involved, I don't think attack helicopters have the speed nor range to carry a useful load, and I also doubt the Navy will risk one of their carriers so close to shore. Also, the Air Force cannot be counted at times if the area is far enough away from the nearest airbase for support.

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 13):
I would agree in the sense that the AV-8B never even earned it's useful wings in the USMC and thereby doesn't really even rate a replacement. When we went into Macedonia for Kosovo ops the Marine Harriers in our MEU were told "thanks, but no thanks" and subsequently went to Israel where they sat around for a month in a safety recall for their RR engines; something about a newb in the production line and a missing cotter pin.

Desert Storm is the counter argument; the Harriers were the first Marine tactical strike platform to arrive in theatre. During the ground war, Harriers were based as close as 35 nautical miles from the Kuwait border, making them the most forward deployed tactical strike aircraft in theatre. It was one of the Marine's premiere aircraft against Iraqi armour and artillery, effectively helping to neutralize Iraqi artillery from being a force. The Marines accumulated 4,083 flight hours while maintaining a mission capable rate in excess of 90%.
 
ebj1248650
Posts: 1517
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2005 6:17 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:30 pm

Why would a new tanker program be cut when it's long been established that new tankers are needed to replace the KC-135E?
Dare to dream; dream big!
 
Lumberton
Posts: 4176
Joined: Fri Jul 29, 2005 7:34 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:08 pm



Quoting EBJ1248650 (Reply 21):
Why would a new tanker program be cut when it's long been established that new tankers are needed to replace the KC-135E?

There are those (and some of "those" are in the Congress) who feel that the 135Es could be refurbished and re-engined with JT8Ds or brought up to KC-135R standard. Although its not the USAF's preferred option, it remains an option nonetheless.

Also, the number of tankers is driven to a large extent by the services roles and missions. Reduce the latter and the numbers of tankers required in a support role should (theoretically) decrease.

Much has changed since the tanker RFP. Very difficult choices need to be made.
"When all is said and done, more will be said than done".
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 1:47 pm



Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
There are those (and some of "those" are in the Congress) who feel that the 135Es could be refurbished and re-engined with JT8Ds or brought up to KC-135R standard.

Bingo!

People really should be paying closer attention to the E-8 reengine project, as the main problem with the KC-135E is corrosion in the ex civvie 707 pylons that were robbed for the -E conversion. Someone will argue for a new low low price the -Es can be brought out of the boneyard and into service for another 30 years, and make the need of the KC-45 vanish. Look for Pratt to lobby this hard.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 2:31 pm

http://wikimapia.org/#lat=32.1549234&lon=-110.8157015&z=17&l=0&m=a&v=2

It seems that there are roughly 100 KC135 and 23 B707 at DMA which presumably will enable the present fleet to operate for some years to come.

I was surprised to see so many B707 as I had assumed that they would have been parted by now.

Another surprise was that some areas did not allow High Res photos, particularly where slightly Lower Res indicated any empty space or an old B707, which hardly seemed to merit secrecy at all.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13759
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:18 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
It's been years since I've had to worry about budgeting, but I clearly remember the end of year spending to avoid budget cuts the next year.

If you had unspent funds at the end of the year then your budget for the following year would be cut as "you didn't need the money"

Yep, my boss's mindset is underspending is just as bad as overspending: in either case, it shows you can't project costs well.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 18):
KC-X will be the poster boy for a suddenly unnecessary project.

 checkmark 

Someone should tell Murtha he can come home now, there's no money to be spent.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
There are those (and some of "those" are in the Congress) who feel that the 135Es could be refurbished and re-engined with JT8Ds or brought up to KC-135R standard. Although its not the USAF's preferred option, it remains an option nonetheless.

Putting those American-French CFM56s from the KC-135Rs on the wings could be sold as a political win-win.

In any case, we really do have another 20 or so years to make a decision, and it seems to be a really bad time to be making a decision, both economically and technically. We should wait to see how CFRP pans out on the 787 and A350 before committing to buy what may be the last generation of metal airframes.

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
Much has changed since the tanker RFP. Very difficult choices need to be made.

 checkmark 
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
AirRyan
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 9:57 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 3:48 pm

You know it's rather pathetic and very telling of this Barrack Huesein Obama administration - liberals like to say they are behind the troops but they usually have a hard time showing it - and this no exception. With all of the pork in the near $1 trillion dollar spending bill, I never realized that the entire US military's annual budget was only about $550 billion, so Obama is asking for $55 billion reduction in spending.

If I didn't like the VH-71 so much I'd say they could start there. But seriously, A) what a crock of our government to try and pass such a needless and ultimately worthless pork spending bill and then have the audacity (of hope) to ask the military who has been actively engaged in two fronts for the last six plus years to make a 10% reduction in their next years spending bill. For all you who voted for Obama or really any Democrat be a patriot, pull your lip over your head, and swallow.

Quoting ThePointblank (Reply 20):
It's not just the RN, it's the RAF as well that needs F-35B. Don't forget the Spanish, the Italians also need replacements for their Harriers otherwise their carriers won't have any strike capability.

Still, I've never so much been opposed to the F-35B in it's outright, just don't use it to replace carrier-borne F/A-18's. I don't like the Marines paying extra for an all F-35B fleet with the associated sacrifices in performance relative to the F-35C's who will be better optimized to operate off of Navy CVN's. And if the Marines really wanted to get fiscally prudent, they could save a bunch of money buying F/A-18F's to replace their F/A-18D's as opposed to F-35B's, as well as EA-18G's to replace the EA-6B's just as the Navy is - now that would just make too much common sense?!

Quoting Lumberton (Reply 22):
There are those (and some of "those" are in the Congress) who feel that the 135Es could be refurbished and re-engined with JT8Ds or brought up to KC-135R standard. Although its not the USAF's preferred option, it remains an option nonetheless.

Shouldn't even be an option...

Quoting Spacepope (Reply 23):
People really should be paying closer attention to the E-8 reengine project, as the main problem with the KC-135E is corrosion in the ex civvie 707 pylons that were robbed for the -E conversion. Someone will argue for a new low low price the -Es can be brought out of the boneyard and into service for another 30 years, and make the need of the KC-45 vanish. Look for Pratt to lobby this hard.

Now if that were to happen there should be a lawsuit against the decision makers for pissing away taxpayer monies.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 25):

Putting those American-French CFM56s from the KC-135Rs on the wings could be sold as a political win-win.

In any case, we really do have another 20 or so years to make a decision, and it seems to be a really bad time to be making a decision, both economically and technically. We should wait to see how CFRP pans out on the 787 and A350 before committing to buy what may be the last generation of metal airframes.

While I agree that Boeing should only be offering a KC-787 here and if they did, I'd be all for they to win, but I still don't think we need to spend another dime of taxpayers money further deliberating the KC-X bid and just start funding NG and the KC-30.
 
deskflier
Posts: 525
Joined: Mon Jan 01, 2007 9:59 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 4:41 pm

I recall reading an article i Air International magazine back in 2007, which boiled down to the fact that at the current rate (2007 that is) it would take the USAF 100 years to replace all its aircraft. If the new administration in the White House cuts defence spending by 10% it has to have some effect on this time frame. So it's not just current operations and current training that is affected, but the long-term quality of the Number One military power in the world. The USAF, US Army, USN, and USMC has to downsize or go to future wars with hopelessly obsolete equipment, probably both. This bothers me, yes it even scares me. I might not agree on everything US politicians think or say, or even what some US A.netters are posting here, but I realize this: What is good for USA is most of the time good for the rest of the Worlds Democracies. And if USA (and possible allies) lose a major war in the future, it will be the terrorists and totalitarians of that era who wins. That in turn could be the end of free internet chatting, free elections, a free press and so on.
How can anyone not fly, when we live at a time when we can fly?
 
cloudy
Posts: 1613
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:23 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Tue Feb 03, 2009 11:02 pm



Quoting Deskflier (Reply 27):
I recall reading an article i Air International magazine back in 2007, which boiled down to the fact that at the current rate (2007 that is) it would take the USAF 100 years to replace all its aircraft.

The pentagon typically does not replace aircraft one for one, because the replacement nearly always is too expensive for that.

When they can get away with it Democrats cut defense spending, raise taxes and put more money into social programs. I doubt that most of the people who voted for Obama expected anything else from him. There are exceptions but that is the rule. A lot of people voted for Clinton because he deceived them into believing he was different. Obama did not campaign this way. He presented himself as a liberal(or "progressive') and was elected as one. A large part of the country believes that the war on terror is essentially over, and that Iraq had nothing to do with it. They do not think about China or Russia at all, or even North Korea. Because of this, they have no problem with reductions in defense spending. I disagree with this line of thinking, but one can't really accuse Obama of deceiving people.

Any change to defense, whether it involves more or less money or just policy changes, takes awhile to be felt. The first gulf war happened the way it did because of weapons developed during the Reagan era, and policies changed at about the same time. A lot of the intelligence failures that plagued us before 9/11 and up to the war in Iraq can be fairly blamed on the Clinton administration. Politically correct idealists have a hard time doing intelligence well. This is especially true for the kind of dirty, human intelligence one needs to deal with terrorist organizations. Now that we have finally begun to recover from that, I'm afraid some of the same kind of people are going to come back and screw things up again.
 
Spacepope
Posts: 3140
Joined: Tue Dec 28, 1999 11:10 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 1:36 am



Quoting Cloudy (Reply 28):
Any change to defense, whether it involves more or less money or just policy changes, takes awhile to be felt. The first gulf war happened the way it did because of weapons developed during the Reagan era, and policies changed at about the same time. A lot of the intelligence failures that plagued us before 9/11 and up to the war in Iraq can be fairly blamed on the Clinton administration.

I disagree with a lot of that. The weapons we went to war with in the first gulf war were for the most part developed in Vietnam or before (Smart bombs, F-4, A-6, A-7, AV-8B, C-130, C-141, C-5, KC-135, F-111, B-52 with MK-117 bombs, AIM-7/9, M-113, M-60, most artillery, M-16, TOW missile). Even the M-1 was a pre-Reagan project.

In fact much of the whiz-bang stuff was started before Reagan, he just continued to fund it. I'm talking about F-117, MLRS, AH-64/Hellfire, M-2 Bradley.

The intelligence failures harken back to before Clinton as well, with Bush 1's cutbacks and the often reported issues of agencies computer systems not being able to talk to each other. Computer systems for CIA, NSA, FBI, local law enforcements were largely standardized (though not to each other) way before the 90s, and not corrected much till the GWOT.

If you're looking for money to save, GWB has done it for us already. The MK-117 750 pound bomb is now out of service, used up so no need to decomission/store. Sprint missile decomissioning is going ahead. M-113 is being completely retired from the desert so no money needed to reset. F-117 is retired as is the C-141. USAF has retired its MH-53 fleet. The C-130Es are headed to the boneyard quickly, as were over a dozen C-5s. C-23s are also about gone.

I'd expect the UH-60 fleet to shrink, AC-130H reductions, same with TH-57s and OH-58s. Cuts will be made to the MC-12s that the USAF wants. C-130Es will continue to be flown into the ground with no replacements. Expect to see a few dozen F-16Cs be grounded for running out of airframe hours. Ditto F-18 C/Ds with no traps left.

One can approach this issue without sounding like a partisan hack. Leave that for congress.
The last of the famous international playboys
 
tak
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 23, 2006 9:41 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:26 am

Just one thing to note about this 10% cut in the pentagon budget:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493

It's actually $14 billion more than last year...

So this $55 billion cut is actually an increase of 14 billion compred with Mr. Bush's budget. So lack of a $67 billion increase is a 10% cut. I think spin is at play here big time!

Ciao
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 3:49 am

The US is in deep trouble with a mountain of debt and deficits.
Even with a 10% cut to the DoD budget the US will spend more on defense than the next 10 other countries combined! Sure its great and a nice thing to have a big powerful military, but there comes a point where if the country is facing a threat of a financial kind then big military spending needs to be put aside. The problem the US military faces is partly due to corruption in congress. A lot of congressmen have military bases (that the military wants to close down to save money) in their state and they force the military to keep them open. The DoD could quite possibly save $30b p.a. if it were able to shut down the bases it wanted and modernize the remaining bases. Spending multi-billions on programs then deciding to only order a handful or so of planes/ships etc is very wasteful, does little to modernize the military and then more is spent just a few years later to make up for the shortfall caused by not enough procurement previously. The single most expensive piece of military hardware is of course the Navy's Aircraft Carriers. Does the US really need to have so many of them in active service at once? Sure they are mighty handy to rapidly project power, but at what cost? Might it be better to have 2 of the fleet (not quite mothballed, but kept in a minimal state of readiness... (perhaps rotate through the fleet) but to not have to spend so many man-hours on them for example.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
rwessel
Posts: 2448
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2007 3:47 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:51 am



Quoting Tak (Reply 30):
Just one thing to note about this 10% cut in the pentagon budget:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493

It's actually $14 billion more than last year...

So this $55 billion cut is actually an increase of 14 billion compred with Mr. Bush's budget. So lack of a $67 billion increase is a 10% cut. I think spin is at play here big time!

To be a bit more precise, the $527B being proposed for 2010 is $40B more than the $487B allocated for 2009 (although there seems to be a consensus that 2009 will go about $8-10B over budget, so it's more like a $30B effective increase). This is basically the same number that the Bush Administration was proposing for 2010. Last fall the JCS came up with a draft budget request of $584B for 2010 - any "cut" is off that fantasy number.
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13174
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 4:49 pm

Yeah I think this is just playing with the numbers a bit to throw a bone to some liberal supporters, I really don't see this as some kind of agenda to kill major projects. On the contrary, some of the biggest supporters of military spending are Democrats. With the whole focus being creating jobs right now, cutting projects like the F-22, F-35 and C-17 production is not something I think they are pursuing.

I know that most Iraq funding comes from separate spending bills than the Defense budget but there are some related items in the Defense Budget. NBC correspondent Richard Engel who has been doing some great coverage of the Iraq war since 2003 just interviewed General Ray Odierno (fellow New Jersey resident) about the future of US forces in Iraq, citing the recent successful and largely peaceful elections the General commented that he has indeed recommended to begin significant draw down of US troops in Iraq this year. He stated it was time, and that they already have begun moving large pieces of very expensive equipment back to the US which combined with a reevaluation of the contractors they have in Iraq means significant cost savings are starting to be realized.
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13759
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 5:13 pm



Quoting Deskflier (Reply 27):
The USAF, US Army, USN, and USMC has to downsize or go to future wars with hopelessly obsolete equipment, probably both.



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 26):
You know it's rather pathetic and very telling of this Barrack Huesein Obama administration - liberals like to say they are behind the troops but they usually have a hard time showing it - and this no exception.



Quoting Tak (Reply 30):
Just one thing to note about this 10% cut in the pentagon budget:

http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=news-000003022493

It's actually $14 billion more than last year...

So this $55 billion cut is actually an increase of 14 billion compred with Mr. Bush's budget. So lack of a $67 billion increase is a 10% cut. I think spin is at play here big time!



Quoting STT757 (Reply 33):
Yeah I think this is just playing with the numbers a bit to throw a bone to some liberal supporters

Spin indeed.

It's sad so many on both sides react to the first piece of red meat tossed into the cage.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Wed Feb 04, 2009 6:09 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 31):
The problem the US military faces is partly due to corruption in congress. A lot of congressmen have military bases (that the military wants to close down to save money) in their state and they force the military to keep them open.

Congressmen wanting to keep a base open in their district is not really corruption. It's more of a case of congressmen wanting to stay in office. Especially if that base is a major or thee major employer in their district. Those in congress might yell and scream when a base is on the BRAC list. When the final BRAC list is sent to congress they can either accept it or reject it, but they cannot make any changes to it.

Since BRAC was started ninety seven bases have been closed. That's not including those that were on the 2005 BRAC list.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 31):
Does the US really need to have so many of them in active service at once? Sure they are mighty handy to rapidly project power, but at what cost?

That's a decision the elected officials in D.C. have to make. Right now the Navy has eleven; ten when you take into account in will be a couple years before CVN-77 is ready for its first deployment. So the powers that be have a choice. They could reduce the numbers further. This means the either reducing the number of deployments or keeping them the same.

Reducing deployments means there would be times when no carriers are available in certain areas. That of course leaves a dilemma, where would you have those gaps? You could keep deployments the same with a reduced number of carriers. However the problem with that is it would mean either longer deployments or a shorter period of time between them. The end result is the same. More wear and tear on equipment and increased stress on personnel.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 31):
Might it be better to have 2 of the fleet (not quite mothballed, but kept in a minimal state of readiness... (perhaps rotate through the fleet) but to not have to spend so many man-hours on them for example.

How much money would the Navy actually save by doing this? To keep a ship at a minimum state of readiness you would have to have a crew on board. Would it be a full complement or a skeleton crew? A full complement would not be a good use of man power. With a skeleton crew if the ship were to be deployed it would have to be manned somehow. Where would the extra crew come from?

From an operational standpoint something there are issues as well. A carrier is the most complex system the Navy has. In order to keep it a certain state of readiness you have to practice with it. Having two ships not being fully utilized means the crew gets rusty.
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Thu Feb 05, 2009 3:40 am



Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35):
Congressmen wanting to keep a base open in their district is not really corruption.

It is when they get given campaign money to do so (although there is a legal loophole of course). The BRAC is interesting of course.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35):
That's a decision the elected officials in D.C. have to make. Right now the Navy has eleven; ten when you take into account in will be a couple years before CVN-77 is ready for its first deployment. So the powers that be have a choice. They could reduce the numbers further. This means the either reducing the number of deployments or keeping them the same.

Reducing deployments means there would be times when no carriers are available in certain areas. That of course leaves a dilemma, where would you have those gaps? You could keep deployments the same with a reduced number of carriers. However the problem with that is it would mean either longer deployments or a shorter period of time between them. The end result is the same. More wear and tear on equipment and increased stress on personnel.

Does the US really have to have the entire world covered? Sure its the worlds policeman but really? 1 for Asia, 1 for the Gulf, 1 for Europe, 2 in transit to those locations, 1 West Coast, 1 East Coast (both doing workups in a state of rediness), 1 in maintenance, 2 could be in ready storage as I suggested, and 1 under construction.
Yes it would mean reducing deployments, it would also mean a significant reduction of cost. No other country on earth has a prescense in every ocean, let alone having a full CBG/CSG! I didn't even mention previously about the Marine Corps own minicarriers! Those alone constitute more of a carrier force than any other country! The main point being that you don't have to have every gap covered... you just need to be able to deploy a carrier there within 2 weeks... during that 2 week period it is easy enough to have a submarine or destroyer firing off missiles at the target... or have the Air Force (it claims to be able to strike anywhere in the world) do a few long range missions with B-2s and the like.
In reality the reason for having such a large carrier force is to be able to counter the likes of China. By having carriers in a state of rediness storage they could be brought out in the event of a conflict in relatively quick time and sent there.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 35):
How much money would the Navy actually save by doing this? To keep a ship at a minimum state of readiness you would have to have a crew on board. Would it be a full complement or a skeleton crew? A full complement would not be a good use of man power. With a skeleton crew if the ship were to be deployed it would have to be manned somehow. Where would the extra crew come from?

From an operational standpoint something there are issues as well. A carrier is the most complex system the Navy has. In order to keep it a certain state of readiness you have to practice with it. Having two ships not being fully utilized means the crew gets rusty.

It is called "Crew Rotation". Many other navies around the world do this as do other organizations. What you do is have enough crews for all the ships but since some of the ships are not being deployed you rotate the crew through the active ships. It would also solve some of the problems the Navy has with retention of crew. Instead of 6month+ deployments, the ship could infact have an 8 month deployment... half way through the deployment the crew swaps out (obviously not in a battle zone). This could be done whilst in transit from one zone to another with workups being conducted during that time (these would be more for the crew than the ship as the ship has already been brought up to full rediness). The result would be a 4 month deployment for each crew with another deployment perhaps overlapping each year. Less time away from families, the Navy still has its 10-11 strong carrier fleet (with crews all current and not rusty).
The 2 ships in ready storage could be maintained by a much smaller crew (400 rather than 6000). Perhaps every 2 years those ships get swapped out with 2 active ones, it gives time for those recently used active ones to have proper maintenance done and gets the reserve ones back out there. End result is that it increases the life expectancy of the carriers and/or reduces the amount of wear and tear and costs.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
PPVRA
Posts: 7865
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Thu Feb 05, 2009 5:31 am

Any old equipment the DoD could just retire or sell? Ships, Helos, fighters. .?
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Thu Feb 05, 2009 11:59 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
Instead of 6month+ deployments, the ship could infact have an 8 month deployment... half way through the deployment the crew swaps out (obviously not in a battle zone). This could be done whilst in transit from one zone to another with workups being conducted during that time (these would be more for the crew than the ship as the ship has already been brought up to full rediness).

OK, lets think about this. Carrier itself has somewhere around 5000, add in the rest of the ships of the strike group and you are probably talking about moving 6000-7000 people half way around the world to and from. So now you are chartering about 40-50 flights on 777 (rough estimate) just to do a crew swap? What is this... some ploy to get the Air Force to buy some A380s? Not to mention... what ports that the US uses around the world could house an influx of that many people for a couple weeks at a time. Then we have to bring up the fact that each carrier (except Enterprise) is Nimitz class, they are all slightly different. Bringing in a new crew that is not entirely familiar will decrease readiness of the deployed carrier.
Phrogs Phorever
 
LMP737
Posts: 4800
Joined: Wed May 08, 2002 4:06 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Thu Feb 05, 2009 2:56 pm



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
It is when they get given campaign money to do so (although there is a legal loophole of course). The BRAC is interesting of course.

Who exactly is giving money to keep a base open? These are federal instalations, not private. Most people on those bases are military personel who will follow whatever orders they are given. Any Congressman knows that if a base is closed in their district, especially in a district heavily dependant on that base, the chances of getting relected go down.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
Does the US really have to have the entire world covered? Sure its the worlds policeman but really? 1 for Asia, 1 for the Gulf, 1 for Europe, 2 in transit to those locations, 1 West Coast, 1 East Coast (both doing workups in a state of rediness), 1 in maintenance, 2 could be in ready storage as I suggested, and 1 under construction.
Yes it would mean reducing deployments, it would also mean a significant reduction of cost.

That's the sort of question the elected officials in D.C. have to ask themselves like I said in my previous post.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
I didn't even mention previously about the Marine Corps own minicarriers!

Those actually belong to the USN. Besides those have a very limited power projection capability.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
It is called "Crew Rotation". Many other navies around the world do this as do other organizations.

Were not talking about a frigate or destroyer with around 200-300 crew. What we are talking about is a ship with around 5000.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
Instead of 6month+ deployments, the ship could infact have an 8 month deployment... half way through the deployment the crew swaps out (obviously not in a battle zone). T

That would mean having two complete crews for the carrier. That would mean doubling the manpower requirments for those ships. That is not going to be cheap. And where exactly would you swap out those crews? Obviously you could not do it at sea. That means moving thousands of personel to another country. How would you do that and how long would it take?

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
The 2 ships in ready storage could be maintained by a much smaller crew (400 rather than 6000). Perhaps every 2 years those ships get swapped out with 2 active ones, it gives time for those recently used active ones to have proper maintenance done and gets the reserve ones back out there. End result is that it increases the life expectancy of the carriers and/or reduces the amount of wear and tear and costs.


Where would you get the crews to fully man those two ships? The crews have to come from somewhere. And it's not as simple as taking a ship with a skelaton crew fully manning it and then throwing it out there on deployment. You have to have workups in order to get the full crew ready for deployment. Otherwise you are asking for an accident to happen. Why do you think it takes several years before a new carrier to make it's first deployment?

Also what of the Air Wing? Without an Air Wing an aircraft carrier is nothing more than a very expensive nuclear powered floating parking lot. Do you have two crews for the Air Wings as well?
Never take financial advice from co-workers.
 
Curt22
Posts: 334
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 11:43 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Thu Feb 05, 2009 10:39 pm



Quoting AirRyan (Reply 19):
I've heard this argument before and I just can't find the logic? Now, if they wanted to cancel CSAR-X because the Army would be better off with the mission using HH-47's,

Transferring the mission to the Army accomplishes nothing.,..you still have to BUY the acft to do the mission. The only army helo's capable of accomplishing the CSAR spec missions are the MH-47G's, and Army SOF is too busy to just absorb the mission with a more than doubling the fleet (to say nothing of the fact that SOF doesn’t WANT to be burdened with this mission).

Quoting AirRyan (Reply 7):
The Merlins have greater payload and range than a V-22, but then again with a refueling boom range is more a factor of endurance of the crew.

No, the Merlin is not even close to the range, speed or payload of any V-22 variant and AR capability doesn't promise unlimited range since there are many places where tankers cannot support you.

CV-22 Specs:
Maximum Vertical Takeoff Weight: 52,870 pounds
Maximum Rolling Takeoff Weight: 60,500 pounds
Range (Unrefueled): : 2,100 nautical miles with internal auxiliary fuel tanks
Cruise Speed: 241 knts

Source: http://www.af.mil/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=3668

AW-101 Specs:
Max Takeoff Weight: 34392 pounds
Range (Unrefueled): 750 nm (military utility configuration, Naval version is 500 nm)
Cruise Speed: 150 knts

Source: http://www.agustawestland.com/products01_02.php?id_product=7&id=7
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 12:56 am

New A330 or B767 tankers are definitly not afforded by the US, perhaps get hold of the remaining RAF Tristar tankers which is supposed to get out of service 2011 and add some
MD-11s as conversion.
V-22 is very costly, how well they preform in Afghanistan will definitly determine the future of
how many will be ordered.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
User avatar
Zkpilot
Posts: 3679
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:21 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 2:34 am



Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 38):
Carrier itself has somewhere around 5000,

Actually carriers these days are closer to 6000 but point taken about flying crews out. Thats not to say it couldn't be done in place like Guam or Perth, Australia. Other options might be to rotate out not all at once. As for the other ships in the group, they are quite a different story and don't necessarily have to have the same length of deployment as the carrier or even stick with the same carrier group... they can be rotated in and out quite easily.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 39):

Who exactly is giving money to keep a base open? These are federal instalations, not private. Most people on those bases are military personel who will follow whatever orders they are given. Any Congressman knows that if a base is closed in their district, especially in a district heavily dependant on that base, the chances of getting relected go down.

The money for the base comes from the DoD. I'm talking about the Congressmen getting money from local companies etc "campaign money". In many countries such funding is considered to be corrupt as if a politician doesn't do as his fundraisers wish then next time he doesn't get any of their money....

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 39):

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 36):
I didn't even mention previously about the Marine Corps own minicarriers!

Those actually belong to the USN. Besides those have a very limited power projection capability.

Yes I know they belong to the navy, however they go where the USMC need them to go and the aircraft onboard are USMC aircraft. Very Limited is a bit strong... limited yes.... the harriers and apache helos don't have the range of fighter jets but they are still more than a match for many opponents (just look at the Fawklands conflict the RN Harriers took out much greater numbers of Argentine Fighter Jets). Of course the USMC is to get F-35 fighters which will be better than most other countries can field... this effectively takes the USN from a 10/11 strong carrier force to 15+

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 39):
That would mean having two complete crews for the carrier. That would mean doubling the manpower requirments for those ships. That is not going to be cheap. And where exactly would you swap out those crews? Obviously you could not do it at sea. That means moving thousands of personel to another country. How would you do that and how long would it take?

No it wouldn't require a doubling of manpower. The crews would deploy more than once per year and since there would be 2 carriers not being used you have 2 full sets of crew that are spare to be rotated through the fleet. As mentioned above, they could be swapped out in places like Guam, Perth. Or places like England. If it wasn't a full crew rotation then it could be done in other locations. I agree it could be messy but the cost savings of not having 2 carriers in use, plus less sea duty pay add up.

Having said all that, if the navy were to speed up its modernization program it would actually need 1000 less crew per carrier to operate and would be more capable at the same time... so perhaps that is a better way to go.

Quoting LMP737 (Reply 39):
Also what of the Air Wing? Without an Air Wing an aircraft carrier is nothing more than a very expensive nuclear powered floating parking lot. Do you have two crews for the Air Wings as well?

The Air Wing is one of the easier parts to transfer out as they often already do so. The Air Wing don't have to be tied to the rest of the crew and could rotate out on their own schedule. For cohesiveness however I guess it would be preferable to have the same plane captain etc.

I have also already said that the ship wouldn't have to go through a full workup as the ship is already ready to go having been already deployed. It is just the crew that need to work on their rediness.
56 types. 38 countries. 24 airlines.
 
User avatar
Tugger
Posts: 5973
Joined: Tue Apr 18, 2006 8:38 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 6:33 am



Quoting Spacepope (Reply 29):
I disagree with a lot of that.

Nice rebuttal, clear, concise, informed.

Quoting Curt22 (Reply 40):
Range (Unrefueled): : 2,100 nautical miles with internal auxiliary fuel tanks

Well, that is with the internal tanks, and I don't know how much room they take up or how much they reduce the operational effectiveness of the Osprey. Without the extra tanks the range is 879 nm (still more than the Merlin).

Tugg
I don’t know that I am unafraid to be myself, but it is hard to be somebody else. -W. Shatner
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 10:57 am

Alessandro

Firstly, there are only 9 RAF Tristar tankers which will leave service closer to 2016.

Secondly, there are not that many MD-11s available for conversion either. Most have only recently been converted to cargo and are not available. The only that cpme to mind are ex AZ.
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 11:36 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 42):
As for the other ships in the group, they are quite a different story and don't necessarily have to have the same length of deployment as the carrier or even stick with the same carrier group... they can be rotated in and out quite easily.

Swapping out ships like that is not good for unit cohesiveness. To use a sports analogy, the teams that do the best are ones that keep the same players for several seasons. They know each other and do not always have to focus on the basics of teamwork and learning each others capabilities.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 42):
apache helos

Marine Corps flies AH-1W Cobras actually.

Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 42):
plus less sea duty pay add up.

If you are deploying your personnel more often (twice a year you said), you will not save any money in sea duty. Sea duty pay goes up the more career sea time you have. Deploy more often, your career sea time goes up... and the Navy bill for sea duty pay will go up. Not saving any money there.
Phrogs Phorever
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Fri Feb 06, 2009 7:51 pm



Quoting Bennett123 (Reply 44):
Alessandro

Firstly, there are only 9 RAF Tristar tankers which will leave service closer to 2016.

Secondly, there are not that many MD-11s available for conversion either. Most have only recently been converted to cargo and are not available. The only that cpme to mind are ex AZ.

Sure, so you reckon it´s harder to convert a cargo MD-11 to a tanker than a passenger one?
I admit, got the 2011 from Wiki, whats your source?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
Knid
Posts: 8
Joined: Sat Aug 06, 2005 4:04 pm

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Sat Feb 07, 2009 12:09 am



Quoting Zkpilot (Reply 31):
Sure its great and a nice thing to have a big powerful military, but there comes a point where if the country is facing a threat of a financial kind then big military spending needs to be put aside.

Don't forget that for the US the military acts as a from of work for the dole, however excessive modernisation reduces the effectiveness of this. Also more $$ in many cases = stimulation of the local economy.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 38):
OK, lets think about this. Carrier itself has somewhere around 5000, add in the rest of the ships of the strike group and you are probably talking about moving 6000-7000 people half way around the world to and from. So now you are chartering about 40-50 flights on 777 (rough estimate) just to do a crew swap?

I would very much doubt that there would be a need for a single swap over, two or three major ones would do it, perhaps doing this may actually be better for crew, more time on boat, but less long stretches.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 45):

Swapping out ships like that is not good for unit cohesiveness. To use a sports analogy, the teams that do the best are ones that keep the same players for several seasons. They know each other and do not always have to focus on the basics of teamwork and learning each others capabilities.

Sports may be a bad example in cases where swaps can be detrimental to the team is generally in sports where there is no single standard way of doing things.
Provided a training standard is established crew should be able to fill the roles assigned to them. Granted such a scheme would change the culture somewhat, but if it was implemented thought out the navy, a large reduction in force could be achieved with only minimal loss in capacity.

Quoting Dragon6172 (Reply 45):

If you are deploying your personnel more often (twice a year you said), you will not save any money in sea duty. Sea duty pay goes up the more career sea time you have. Deploy more often, your career sea time goes up... and the Navy bill for sea duty pay will go up. Not saving any money there.

Did you factor in the 8,000 odd reduction in force from parking up two boats?
 
dragon6172
Posts: 795
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:28 am



Quoting Knid (Reply 47):
I would very much doubt that there would be a need for a single swap over, two or three major ones would do it, perhaps doing this may actually be better for crew, more time on boat, but less long stretches.

Do all at once or split it up three different ways, you still have to move the same number of people.

Quoting Knid (Reply 47):
Did you factor in the 8,000 odd reduction in force from parking up two boats?

You can't really reduce the force though. What is the point of having a reserve ship if you can't ever use it because you do not have the manpower. It is like having a savings account for a "rainy day" but never putting any money in it. There is no point. Everyone can argue that the carrier force needs to be reduced, and thats fine with me. But these crazy crew swap ideas are far fetched and will have a very adverse effect on readiness and morale.
Phrogs Phorever
 
bennett123
Posts: 7426
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 12:49 am

RE: Obama - Cut FY10 DoD Budget Over 10%

Sat Feb 07, 2009 10:36 am

Alessandro

http://www.airtanker.co.uk/

Seems that you were correct about EIS date. However, my understanding is that Airtanker have still got to raise the finance. I am still sure that I recall much later dates from somewhere.

As for availability of MD11's. Those in passenger service are likely to be disposed of in the near future. Those that are converted to Cargo are not.

FEDEX/UPS etc would be crazy to sell off their MD11F's given that in a few years the economy will turn up again. IMO there is little point the USAF buying up a handful of MD11's.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests