Defense Spending "On the Table"

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by whell

...all of which will help stretch the taxpayer dollar to help buy grandma more health care...

Just like most civilized western nations?

[finnbow]

Sorry about the knee-jerk response, Whell. It just comes natural.

What got me about the article is the notion that we actually need thousands of combat aircraft. Specifically, it says we needed 86 combat wings. Combat wings are defined as follows:

In determining the size of a fighter wing equivalent, Air Force planners use as a baseline the typical active duty wing, composed of three squadrons of 24 mission-ready aircraft each, or 72 combat-coded fighters. This formula still works reasonably well for legacy fighters—F-15s, F-16s, and A-10s. However, the system breaks down when it is applied to newer, fifth generation fighters such as the advanced F-22 and F-35.

“It is important to note that we expect a squadron and wing in the future to consist of fewer aircraft with greatly increased capability,” Clarke said. An F-22 squadron, say, may contain 18 Raptors, but that squadron would be at least as potent as a more-traditional squadron of 24 F-15Cs. “You’re looking to measure a degree of capability,” said Clarke. “An F-22 is more capable than an F-15, and, therefore, counting that by tail numbers just doesn’t make sense.”

That's almost 6,200 legacy fighters (F-15, F-16's) or over 4,600 New Generation fighters (or a combination thereof somewhere between those two numbers).

So, we over 5,000 (combined legacy and New Generation) fighters to fulfill the AF's "obligations," when not a single F-15 has ever been lost in a dogfight? Somehow, I see these "obligations" as meeting the AF's desire to retain its bloated force structure, along with hundreds of high ranking officers, rather than protecing the country as economically and efficiently as possible (or needn't economy and efficiency enter the equation when it comes to DoD?). Or is it about keeping Lockheed Martin and General Dynamics (and the politicians who feed at their troughs) fat, dumb and happy?

[piece-itpete]

Remember the better equipment the safer the troops....

While I have no doubt many in the various services are empire building, the hard reality is the US military is probably the single most important element in the federal government, in todays small interconnected world, and further, has the clear responsibility to take care of this obligation, unlike many social programs.

Just because today we're fighting a strange scattered enemy with few hard assests doesn't mean that will be the enemy of the future.

Plus, weapons drive technology. Always.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Remember the better equipment the safer the troops....

Not necessarily. Sec. Gates is still trying to fix the mess that Rumsfeld caused through his focus on high-falutin' high tech weaponry at the expense of the stuff that actually keeps the troops safe.

I heard an interview with Gates (an absolutely terrific SecDef, IMHO) the other day in which he stated that the toughest part of his job is fighting all the vested interests with their big, useless (in terms of real national defense) spending programs.

He said that, despite his best efforts, DoD still spends billions on programs/initiatives/contract support that do little, if anything, to support the troops or our nation's defense and fighting to eliminate/reduce them is the toughest part of his job.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by finnbow

Not necessarily. Sec. Gates is still trying to fix the mess that Rumsfeld caused through his focus on high-falutin' high tech weaponry at the expense of the stuff that actually keeps the troops safe.

I heard an interview with Gates (an absolutely terrific SecDef, IMHO) the other day in which he stated that the toughest part of his job is fighting all the vested interests with their big, useless (in terms of real national defense) spending programs.

He said that, despite his best efforts, DoD still spends billions on programs/initiatives/contract support that do little, if anything, to support the troops or our nation's defense and fighting to eliminate/reduce them is the toughest part of his job.

I saw that interview as well, magnificent.

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Remember the better equipment the safer the troops....

Pete

You mean like the fact that the first troops in Iraq were not given body armour because all the money went on other shit?

[piece-itpete]

I don't doubt it, my view of the Feds as fat bloated powermongers bent on their own aggrandisement should be well known

Have to be really, really careful though.

Rumsfeld, well, he tried something new. He's been crucified for it. Good luck anyone sticking their neck out again. That said our advanced weaponry does matter.

Pete

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by piece-itpete

Rumsfeld, well, he tried something new. He's been crucified for it. Good luck anyone sticking their neck out again. That said our advanced weaponry does matter.

Not exactly. It's really Gates who is sticking his neck out, taking on the vested interests in the military-industrial complex. Rumsfeld was just feeding more money into the complex, at the expense of the troops on the ground and their safety.

[merrylander]

We currently have nine carrier groupd deployed where most nations have one , maybe two at most - or maybe none. Have you any idea what each group costs?

Plus the Chinese are developing a missile expressly for the purpose of taking out a carrier - anyone remember that destroyer that was taken out by an Exocet in the Gulf? Carriers are rapidly becoming obsolete, not due to age but technology. Never mind re-commisioning the old ones, Admiral ?? complained that the decks were too thin to support heavier modern aircraft. Might just as well piss the money down a rat hole.