JakeOrion
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:30 pm

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.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 5:54 pm

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?
 
dragon6172
Posts: 796
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 9:56 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:09 pm

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19756
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 6:49 pm



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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:33 pm



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.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:36 pm



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?
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budge

Tue Mar 31, 2009 7:43 pm

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 
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:19 pm

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.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:24 pm



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?
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:33 pm



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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 8:40 pm



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?
 
Flighty
Posts: 7681
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:13 pm



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.
 
kingairta
Posts: 454
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 2:24 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 9:41 pm

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.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm



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.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19756
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Tue Mar 31, 2009 11:04 pm



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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:17 am

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 avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19756
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Wed Apr 01, 2009 5:27 am

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.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
Starbuk7
Posts: 555
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2008 7:09 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Wed Apr 01, 2009 12:30 pm

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.
 
MD11Engineer
Posts: 13916
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2003 5:25 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:44 pm



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
Je Suis Charlie et je suis Ahmet aussi
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Wed Apr 01, 2009 7:47 pm



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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Thu Apr 02, 2009 12:16 pm



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!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Thu Apr 02, 2009 5:16 pm



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 avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Thu Apr 02, 2009 8:59 pm



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!
 
JakeOrion
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Fri Apr 03, 2009 1:06 pm

 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.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 2:35 am



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?
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 4:18 am

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 $6Billion and take care of Pelosi's rats near San Fran bay, but when it comes to National Defense, once again the shortsighted, left wingers cut and run.

It's really that simple. Really.

History proves it. Every time there's a Dem in the big chair the military suffers. Every time.

Whether it be by budgetary constraints or sent to combat without or both . . . .at least as long as I've been breathing it's been that way.

Shameful really.

Let's bail out the banks, the autocompanies (which should be allowed to fail), the housing market (if you bought a house that's more than you can afford you're a moron), et al, but lets cut and run on our Uniformed Services . . .

Well done PotUS.  Yeah sure
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 5:49 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 25):
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 $6Billion and take care of Pelosi's rats near San Fran bay, but when it comes to National Defense, once again the shortsighted, left wingers cut and run.

It's really that simple. Really.

History proves it. Every time there's a Dem in the big chair the military suffers. Every time.

Whether it be by budgetary constraints or sent to combat without or both . . . .at least as long as I've been breathing it's been that way.

Shameful really.

Let's bail out the banks, the autocompanies (which should be allowed to fail), the housing market (if you bought a house that's more than you can afford you're a moron), et al, but lets cut and run on our Uniformed Services . . .

Well done PotUS.

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 danger. All depends how
people outside are willing to underwrite new loans or not?
And spending it on the military isn´t exactly what lenders want the US to do.
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
ANCFlyer
Posts: 21391
Joined: Mon Nov 15, 2004 3:51 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:04 am



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 26):

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, and remember, military and $$$ ain't exactly a weakness of mine.
FOR THOSE THAT FOUGHT FOR IT, FREEDOM HAS A FLAVOR THE PROTECTED WILL NEVER KNOW OR UNDERSTAND
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:04 am



Quoting Alessandro (Reply 26):
like the Sovietunion, US has overspent on the military and is in grave danger.

This is not a great comparison because even in this condition, the US has a far stronger economic and industrial base than the USSR.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Alessandro
Posts: 4962
Joined: Wed Sep 12, 2001 3:13 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:06 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 28):
This is not a great comparison because even in this condition, the US has a far stronger economic and industrial base than the USSR.

Future will tell, if the economy and industry is as strong or weak as the USSRs?
From New Yorqatar to Califarbia...
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 1:48 pm

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 23):
rotfl

Ahh, more mockery. Two can play that game.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 23):
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?

So you expect daddy to dump mommy even though she's still a great wife?

You might think happiness comes from perky tits and a cute butt, but you're forgetting about the alamony payments and the mean hurt the new gf/wife will be putting on your credit cards.

The C-47 is a non-starter. There's no comparing a plane that can carry 3 tons versus a plane that can carry 22 tons.

You do realize the KC-135s come back to base with tons of extra fuel, right?

The KC-135 is entirely suited to the task and has decades of airframe life left.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 23):
And many people wonder why the US military is still using mostly 60s, 70s, and early 80s technology.

For some things.

In fact, they are using 50's tech for the B-52. And guess what? It was perfectly suited to its task in the two Iraq wars and Afghanistan. Use the modern assets to secure air superiority, then bring in the bomb trucks.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
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?

Lots. The UK is still operating Nimrods, based on Comets, older than the 707/KC-135. France et al are also operating KC-135s. Dozens are operating C-130s.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 24):
For that matter, a 767 or A330 was bigger than a KC-135 last time I checked.

KC-135s almost always return to base with tons of fuel in the tanks.

It's about booms in the air, not about tanking capacity.

The AF tries to justify the larger plane due to cargo hauling, but if it's cargo hauling they are after, there are much cheaper ways to haul cargo.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 25):
History proves it. Every time there's a Dem in the big chair the military suffers. Every time.

If the Clinton administration was so terrible, there'd be no F-22 in the air now and F-35 coming next, lots of new carriers and air wings, subs and destroyers, etc.

And I know it probably doesn't matter to most people here, but the Clinton administration was the last one to deliver a balanced budget.

Now, explain to us how well the military and the country did under GWB and Rumsfeld, both Repblicans last time I looked.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 25):
Well done PotUS.

So, would you like PotUS GWB back?

The opinions of some people on this board are unbelievable. The military and the defense contractors can do no wrong. The job of Congress and the Administration is to give the military and the defense contractors whatever they want, no matter what it costs. Let the banks slice and dice mortgages into a million pieces and resell them so many times that no one can figure out what any of them are worth. Let AIG underwrite it all. Bale out AIG because it's too big to fail, let the auto industry crash. Make sure that the AIG executives can continue to collect huge bonuses. Don't worry about the folks who were promised a pension after working 40 years in an auto plant. Let's spend billions bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then pour billions more into bad attempts at rebuilding them, let's forget about New Orleans. Let's let ExxonMobile and ChevronTexaco work out our future energy policy, it'll turn out just fine.

This kind of great thinking got us where we are now.

[Edited 2009-04-04 06:52:30]

[Edited 2009-04-04 07:09:02]
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 3:06 pm



Quoting MD11Engineer (Reply 9):
Back in 1989

...1989.... there you go.

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.



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 14):

Yet it's common practice because of the way that the funding works.

For someone who has never served in the military, you like to make a lot of factual statements about the inner-workings.

Please, show us all of these "TON'S of stories." I have NEVER been told to destroy my equipment. In fact, my entire career, I have had to meticulously care for all the equipment I was signed for. If any of it was damaged or destroyed, then I better have a damn good reason for it... or the cost would be coming out of MY paycheck.

You need to listen more, talk less.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 6:54 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
The opinions of some people on this board are unbelievable.

Like people who advocate the wealthiest nation on earth continuing to fly 50 year old airframes when perfectly good replacements are available. That is just stupid. No matter how much they are upgraded there are still limitations. If this wan't the case, don't you think that Boeing would still be selling airlines stretched 707s? Why make a new plane if the old (as you are saying) are just as good? Why are all those 727s sitting in the desert? Toss PTVs in those babies and let's go. It has taken a ton of work to keep those planes flying this long, but the end is near. Even the best planes eventually become hangar queens. If it was really cheaper and more responsible in the long run to upgrade older planes, please explain why airlines (which, unlike the USAF, exist mostly to make a profit) have been buying new planes for years and rarely perform a comphrehensive upgrade program the way the Air Force does. Do you really think that in the last 50 years the aviation industry has not figured out how to make a better plane?

Oh, and if you ever buy a new car, just know that makes you a hypocrite. If your dishwasher breaks, you'd better have it fixed and not replaced since according to you that is the responsible thing to do.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Let the banks slice and dice mortgages into a million pieces and resell them so many times that no one can figure out what any of them are worth.

It isn't their fault, we don't blame the bartender for someone's alcoholism. You want to know who is at fault, grab a phone book.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
let the auto industry crash.

Uh...yeah. They can't make a decent car cheaply enough to survive in the market so they die. It is the way capitalism works.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Let's spend billions bombing the shit out of Iraq and Afghanistan and then pour billions more into bad attempts at rebuilding them,

Let's not forget about the thousands of very bad people who are now six feet under.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
It's about booms in the air, not about tanking capacity

Not according to Airbus and the USAF. Airbus convinced the USAF to modify the requirements to favor the 330 by making size count.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
STT757
Posts: 13200
Joined: Tue Mar 28, 2000 1:14 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 7:35 pm

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 defense.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/wa...n/04defense.html?_r=1&ref=politics
Eastern Air lines flt # 701, EWR-MCO Boeing 757
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 9:12 pm



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 25):
when it comes to National Defense, once again the shortsighted, left wingers cut and run.

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. Much of it is put to good use, but some of it is not spent wisely. Cutting programs that are wasteful or not necessary is not cutting and running - it's financial responsibility.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
If it was really cheaper and more responsible in the long run to upgrade older planes, please explain why airlines (which, unlike the USAF, exist mostly to make a profit) have been buying new planes for years and rarely perform a comphrehensive upgrade program the way the Air Force does.

It is because airlines have to make a profit that they upgrade - they care far more about fuel costs than the military does. In the airlines, profit is priority #1, so if you can find an airplane that is cheaper to operate, you'll do it, even if it means giving up a bit of capability (i.e. replacing a 757 with a 321). In the military, getting the mission done is priority #1. The B-52 is getting the mission done - Afghanistan is testament to that. Could a newer plane get the mission done better? Undoubtably. Better enough to warrant the development costs? Very unlikely.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Airbus convinced the USAF to modify the requirements to favor the 330 by making size count.

Imagine that, a company trying to convince others to buy their product. What nerve.  Yeah sure

Quoting STT757 (Reply 33):
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 defense.

FCS is going to have to come at some point, but right now the priority should be anti-terrorism, so I'm ok with cutting back on that for the time being.

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
JakeOrion
Topic Author
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sat Apr 04, 2009 11:19 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):

So you expect daddy to dump mommy even though she's still a great wife?

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 doesn't work.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
The C-47 is a non-starter. There's no comparing a plane that can carry 3 tons versus a plane that can carry 22 tons.

But it is. The KC-767/A330 carry more than a KC-135, for obvious reasons. So, if I read you correctly:

Cargo aircraft that can carry more = OK
Tanker aircraft that can carry more = BAD JUJU

What the heck type of logic is this?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
You do realize the KC-135s come back to base with tons of extra fuel, right?

Fueling what? Fighters. Yeah, I can believe that. But how about the big boys such as the B-52, C-5, C-17 and so forth?

I would like KC135TopBoom's opinion on this, since this was his job after all.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
For some things.

C-5, B-52, C-130, F-15, F-16, CH-53s, CH-46s, Chinooks, Huey's, AH-1s, want me to continue?

The only thing that is different from all these aircraft from the original models is pretty much avionics. That will only take you so far.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 19756
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 1:43 am

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, honking military?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
User avatar
WarRI1
Posts: 8608
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2007 10:51 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 2:13 am



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 36):
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, honking military?

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 been since your Father dodged the Kamikazi in WW2. I do not see any alternative. Not many step up to the plate, except us and a few our more capable allies.
It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budge

Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:51 am



Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 25):
History proves it. Every time there's a Dem in the big chair the military suffers. Every time.

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 during WW II.

Then there was Truman, who not only had to make the decision on dropping two nukes to rapidly end the war, but also ordered the integration of the military. Not too shabby unless, or course, you're against the integration of the military.

Then there was Ike, who was a Republican, but was the President who warned us about the military-industrial complex. Hit that one on the head he did, but he did leave office with the top tax rate at 90%.

Followed by JFK who not only cut the top tax rate down to 75%, but also got NASA and the rest of the country onto a trip to Mars. I'm willing to bet that the military has benefited from NASA's work all these years.

Carter? He was a Nuke. From my experience on the USS Long Beach (where we had a lot of Nukes) they do tend to be a bit different.

Old Bill got into a lot of trouble because be believed that an American should be able to serve their country regardless of their private preferences. My first ship had a manning count of about 1,250. That was in the last half of the 60's and I find it hard to believe that there were no gays aboard that ship. They were serving and kept their private life private.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 30):
Now, explain to us how well the military and the country did under GWB and Rumsfeld, both Repblicans last time I looked.

Add the KIA to the WIA and multiply that number by 6 and you'll have a good idea at the minimum number of people directly or indirectly impacted. Then throw in the vets and the funding they will need during their life time.

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 31):
I have NEVER been told to destroy my equipment.

I only served 4 years, and we never destroyed equipment. There was the EOY Dash in some departments to ensure maintenance of funding levels.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Like people who advocate the wealthiest nation on earth continuing to fly 50 year old airframes when perfectly good replacements are available.

And even better replacements are just around the corner. I see no reason to buy a plane that is at the end of it's production life, except if there is a national interest to keep certain workers in place.

And, by the way - as a country we're not that rich any longer. We could shift funds to a special tanker acquisition program by pulling those funds from other areas. Funding universities and providing financing for students might cover the cost of tanker purchases. The AF would only need the money until the country gets back on it's feet again. And who was Pell anyway?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Not according to Airbus and the USAF. Airbus convinced the USAF to modify the requirements to favor the 330 by making size count.

And by creating a FUBAR that got caught by the ATO.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:27 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Like people who advocate the wealthiest nation on earth continuing to fly 50 year old airframes when perfectly good replacements are available.

Yes, but not for free.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Why are all those 727s sitting in the desert?

Last time I checked, FedEx is still flying 80 of them, lots of DC-10s and MD-10s too.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
If it was really cheaper and more responsible in the long run to upgrade older planes, please explain why airlines (which, unlike the USAF, exist mostly to make a profit) have been buying new planes for years and rarely perform a comphrehensive upgrade program the way the Air Force does.

Southwest has 185 737-300s and 25 737-500s. Tell me how poorly they are run. FedEx converted DC-10s to MD-10s. Tell me how poorly they are run. LH is just now retiring their last A300 and is running their 747-400s for many more years. Tell me how poorly they are run.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Do you really think that in the last 50 years the aviation industry has not figured out how to make a better plane?

Sure, but not for free.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Oh, and if you ever buy a new car, just know that makes you a hypocrite.

I do exactly what I'm advocating: I buy a new car that's suitable for the purpose, and run it till it has no life left in it, or till it's no longer suitable for its purpose. And I do my homework so I'm sure to get a quality car that will be worth keeping, and negotiate hard on price.

Oh, and thanks for the name calling.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Let's not forget about the thousands of very bad people who are now six feet under.

And several thousand good Americans too. Why should we forget them? Shouldn't they factor into the discussion too? What about tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens too? Collateral damage, right?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 32):
Not according to Airbus and the USAF. Airbus convinced the USAF to modify the requirements to favor the 330 by making size count.

And the USAF can do no wrong.

Me: It's not about age, it's about suitability for a given purpose, and spending money wisely.

You: The military and the defense contractors can do no wrong, let's give them whatever they want, and not worry about the cost.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
UH60FtRucker
Posts: 3252
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 9:15 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 3:32 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):

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 forum devoted to this: Mil-Av.

Otherwise, make your point, but try not to be so obtuse about it.
Your men have to follow your orders. They don't have to go to your funeral.
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:00 pm



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
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 doesn't work.

It's mockery, get it?

I even gave you all the clues you needed to recognize that, sigh...

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
But it is. The KC-767/A330 carry more than a KC-135, for obvious reasons. So, if I read you correctly:

Cargo aircraft that can carry more = OK
Tanker aircraft that can carry more = BAD JUJU

You keep talking about "more", but never seem to pick up on "enough".

C-47: Not enough.
KC-135: Enough.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
Fueling what? Fighters. Yeah, I can believe that. But how about the big boys such as the B-52, C-5, C-17 and so forth?

So I guess these planes don't refuel at all, or only refuel from KC-10s? Funny, I seem to recall lots of B-52s refuelling from KC-135s even before KC-10s were invented. Same for C-5s.

Quote:
I would like KC135TopBoom's opinion on this, since this was his job after all.

Google is your friend. I think you'll find KC135TopBoom was one of the biggest advocates of having many booms in the air.

Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 35):
C-5, B-52, C-130, F-15, F-16, CH-53s, CH-46s, Chinooks, Huey's, AH-1s, want me to continue?

The only thing that is different from all these aircraft from the original models is pretty much avionics. That will only take you so far.

Yes, but giving billions of dollars to a defense contractor isn't going to give you a substantially better C-5, B-52, C-130, etc.

We have given defense contractors billions of dollars to come up with replacements for F-15 and F-16, namely F-22 and F-35.

Hopefully you are catching on to the difference between "more" and "enough". Also, many times "more" is great, but "more" is never free. You do understand that defense contractors expect to get paid, right?

And you do understand what a "high value asset" is, right? That it doesn't make much sense having new tankers when they get shot down because you have obsolete fighters, right? Thus we invest in high value assets in favor of lesser valued assets. I suppose we could have all-new everything if we had infinite resources, but that just ain't the case.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:04 pm

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 40):
Can we get back on subject?

I think the subject is how to best spend our defense dollars. What do you think it is?

Quoting UH60FtRucker (Reply 40):
Otherwise, make your point, but try not to be so obtuse about it.

Not sure what you think is so obtuse about the A330, or the B767, or the C17.

[Edited 2009-04-05 09:13:02]
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 4:11 pm



Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38):
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 during WW II.

And he inherieted a FUBAR'd economy from a Republican, Herbert Hoover.

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 38):
And, by the way - as a country we're not that rich any longer. We could shift funds to a special tanker acquisition program by pulling those funds from other areas. Funding universities and providing financing for students might cover the cost of tanker purchases. The AF would only need the money until the country gets back on it's feet again. And who was Pell anyway?

 checkmark 

And the post-WWII "GI Bill" gave us the brain power we needed for all that technological innovation of the 50's, 60's and 70's.
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:53 pm



Quoting Mir (Reply 34):
In the military, getting the mission done is priority #1.

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 responsible option but other players who exist solely to turn a profit do not follow suit.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
Yes, but not for free

None of this is free. But it would certainly be prudent to upgrade many very old airframes.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
I think you'll find KC135TopBoom was one of the biggest advocates of having many booms in the air.

That's great for him. But the USAF disagrees. If they wanted as many booms in the air as possible then why not have a KC-40.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
Last time I checked, FedEx is still flying 80 of them, lots of DC-10s and MD-10s too

OK then, let's run the Air Force like FedEx. Becuase fighting a war is no more stressful on aircraft than flying a load of Christmas gifts into Portland.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
Funny, I seem to recall lots of B-52s refuelling from KC-135s even before KC-10s were invented. Same for C-5s.

But if larger tankers are such a waste of money, why was the KC-10 even built?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
And several thousand good Americans too. Why should we forget them? Shouldn't they factor into the discussion too? What about tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi and Afghani citizens too? Collateral damage, right?

I am well aware of the sacrifices of my fellow American, and if you don't think that their sacrifices made America safer you are either a slave to politics or a fool. Oh yeah, and Saddam was first and foremost concerned with the welfare of innocent Iraqi citizens.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 39):
And the USAF can do no wrong.

They might know a thing or two about fighting a war. They have a plan in mind and are going to acquire whatever they need to carry it out. Right now, their plans call for a new tanker.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
KC-135: Enough

Not according to the Air Force who would know about such things.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
And you do understand what a "high value asset" is, right?

Of course I do.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
That it doesn't make much sense having new tankers when they get shot down because you have obsolete fighters, right?

Google is your friend too. Search the forums. I have made numerous posts advocating the purchase of the F-22 and F-35. For that matter let's look at this argument a different way. What good are those wonderful fighters if they can't get more than a few hundred miles from home because the tankers are hangar queens that can't carry enough fuel for the whole package?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 41):
Hopefully you are catching on to the difference between "more" and "enough". Also, many times "more" is great, but "more" is never free. You do understand that defense contractors expect to get paid, right?

I do. And the USAF does not believe that the F-15 or KC-135 is "enough" right now. I am not advocating blind spending, though that is the fashionable thing on the hill at the moment. I think that buying F-22s, F-35s, and a new tanker is money well spent at this point.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
User avatar
Revelation
Posts: 13828
Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2005 9:37 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:34 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
That's great for him. But the USAF disagrees.

Obviously you think senior USAF leadership is can do no wrong. Great for you.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
OK then, let's run the Air Force like FedEx. Becuase fighting a war is no more stressful on aircraft than flying a load of Christmas gifts into Portland.

Flying F-117s over Baghdad through AAA hoping the tech works is stressful. Dog-fighting a MIG is stressful. Doing tanking runs over controlled airspace, not so much.

Given how many FedEx MD-11s end up on fire on their backs, it may be more stressful.

When's the last time we lost a tanker in anger?

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
What good are those wonderful fighters if they can't get more than a few hundred miles from home because the tankers are hangar queens that can't carry enough fuel for the whole package?

That's so far from the truth, it's laughable
Inspiration, move me brightly!
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 6:55 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
His entire argument is that keeping the KC-135s is the financially responsible option but other players who exist solely to turn a profit do not follow suit.

You're not understanding the difference between the priorities of the Air Force and the airlines. Financially responsible for one is not necessarily financially responsible for the other. The airlines make money off of their flights. The Air Force does not. If the airlines thought that they could make more money with older aircraft, they'd keep them. But they can't - the fuel efficiency is a cost issue, and passengers like new airplanes. So they replace them. The Air Force, on the other hand, only cares whether their airplanes can do the job. If they can, then there is no need to replace them. In order to an airline to be financially responsible when buying a new airplane, the cost savings of the new airplane need to outweigh the acquisition costs. In order for the Air Force to be financially responsible when buying a new airplane, the operational benefits need to outweigh the costs. A new tanker would definitely deliver some operational benefits. But $35 billion worth of operational benefits? There is the question.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
OK then, let's run the Air Force like FedEx. Becuase fighting a war is no more stressful on aircraft than flying a load of Christmas gifts into Portland.

It isn't. In fact, it's less stressful. Air Force aircraft fly fewer cycles than those of the airlines and cargo carriers.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
But it would certainly be prudent to upgrade many very old airframes.

Only if the replacement can provide enough of a benefit to justify the cost.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 44):
But if larger tankers are such a waste of money, why was the KC-10 even built?

Larger tankers are not in themselves a waste of money. But since the KC-10s are still in service and can remain in service for a while, is there a need for another large tanker in the fleet?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
BMI727
Posts: 11099
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2009 9:29 pm

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 7:55 pm



Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
Obviously you think senior USAF leadership is can do no wrong. Great for you

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.

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
When's the last time we lost a tanker in anger?

Then why are you so concerned about having money left over for fighters to protect them?

Quoting Revelation (Reply 45):
That's so far from the truth, it's laughable

Of course it is, but it's the same logic you used.

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
You're not understanding the difference between the priorities of the Air Force and the airlines.

I totally understand the difference. But apparently Revelation thinks that the cheaper air force is the better air force. So under his logic, the USAF should emulate airlines, since the airline with the lowest costs is better.

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
The Air Force, on the other hand, only cares whether their airplanes can do the job.

Right, and the KC-135 is quickly approaching the point where it can't do the job anymore. If age as an absolute were an issue I'd be calling for a C-130 replacement too, but I'm not because those birds are just as effective today as before.

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
It isn't. In fact, it's less stressful. Air Force aircraft fly fewer cycles than those of the airlines and cargo carriers

Which is the only reason this conversation didn't happen twenty years ago.

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Only if the replacement can provide enough of a benefit to justify the cost.

Obviously the KCX is, otherwise it wouldn't have been a done deal - twice.

Quoting Mir (Reply 46):
Larger tankers are not in themselves a waste of money. But since the KC-10s are still in service and can remain in service for a while, is there a need for another large tanker in the fleet?

Remember that I wasn't the one who said large tankers are a waste of money and clearly they aren't.

Furthermore, the 767-200, which the tanker proposal is based on, is signifcantly smaller than the KC-10. The KC-135 can transfer 200,000lb of fuel and the KC-10 can do 356,000 lb. The 767 would fall just above the 135. The KC-330 would carry about 240,000lbs of fuel to offload. The KC-330 is 12 ft. longer than the KC-10 and has an MTOW 77,000 lbs. less, but the KC-10 has a fuselage width that is 1'3" more. The 767 is both significantly shorter and skinnier than either the Extender or KC-330.

Regardless of what we think, the USAF sees size as an advantage. The increased size was one of the reasons the USAF chose the 330 in the second bid.

Another factor is cargo, since to be cost effective the aircraft has to be versatile. The KC-135 can carry up to 83,000 lbs of cargo. The capacity of the new tankers is given in 463L pallets which can each hold up to 10,000 lbs. The 767 can take 19 for 190,000lbs. The 330 can take 32 for 320,000lbs. The KC-10 has a 27 pallet capacity but a max cargo load of 170,000lbs. Plus the wider cabin would make any of the other three more suitable for bulky items than the 135. I don't know how it would work out in practice for the new tankers, but neither number I gave would exceed MTOW.

Also, let's not forget that Boeing has already made a 767 AWACS and the E-10 MC2A for when the time comes, and I imagine that Northrop/Airbus could do the same. Keeping all of those functions on one basic airframe is quite efficient. Also, there is the fact that twins are inherently more fuel efficient than four engined jets.

So it seems that getting a new tanker to replace some very old airframes is not such a waste of money after all.
Why do Aerospace Engineering students have to turn things in on time?
 
Mir
Posts: 19093
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 3:55 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Sun Apr 05, 2009 10:57 pm



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
But apparently Revelation thinks that the cheaper air force is the better air force.

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 system is better does not mean that it should automatically be bought. And I agree with him about that.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
Obviously the KCX is, otherwise it wouldn't have been a done deal - twice.

If Washington were not under the influence of defense contractors, I'd agree. But unfortunately, that's not the case.

Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
the KC-135 is quickly approaching the point where it can't do the job anymore.

Can you provide a source for that?

-Mir
7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
 
Ken777
Posts: 9046
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: Senator: Expect Painful Cuts In Pentagon Budget

Mon Apr 06, 2009 12:41 am



Quoting BMI727 (Reply 47):
So it seems that getting a new tanker to replace some very old airframes is not such a waste of money after all.

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 allocation decisions that have to be made and within the funds for the AF there will be competing funds for various projects.

As far as the tanker goes, how many cycles have they gone through on average compared to a commercial aircraft? That might be the answer of how it competes with all the other needs for federal funding.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], coolian2, LittleFokker and 14 guests