Defense Spending "On the Table"
 

Of course, it has to be on the table, and it appears that there's a willingness to make it happen:

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...-for-cuts.html

The devil is always in the details, but I think the political atmosphere is now right to press forward. No political animal wants to trade cuts for lost votes, but I think some folks are starting to understand that the Federal budget issue is dire enough that defense and social programs must be part of any negotiations. Now, lets see if the will is there to push forward and make it happen.

However, in the meantime, we still have both sides looking to preserve their sacred cows. Like this bi-partisan effort to save tank production in SE Michigan. Do we even still use tanks?

http://www.house.gov/levin/Resources...tterMcHugh.pdf

As you say, seeing is believing.

As for whether we still use tanks. We used them fairly extensively in the opening days of the Iraq War. Just last year, we brought a limited number into the Afghan theater of operations to try to get a handle on the resurgent Taliban. So, yes we use them, but not in vast numbers.

Where's that dancing banana smiley?

It's about friggin' time. We needed to start cutting defense twenty years ago, maybe thirty years ago.

I can't wait. My area would be hit hard, if the cuts are sufficiently deep, and I hope they are. I want to see the look on their faces when unemployment skyrockets here. It'll be a bit of bitter-sweet revenge for all of the years of shit talking about Ohio I've had to listen to since 1986. Defense spending is nearly everything here. Without it, all they have is tourism.

Let's see just how smug these clowns are when Uncle Sam chokes off the government teet. (Tee, he, he, he........)

Dave

The Mi Abrams will outgun anything any other nation has, The F16, F18, hell even the F15 is superior to any other aircraft. We have more Carrier Groups than any ten nations combined.

So why are we building two new carriers, or the F35 fighter, or any other half dozen armaments?

Because over time, those most likely to engage us in combat, or at least test the ability of our military assets, adapt and start to render current assets obsolete.

http://www.airforce-magazine.com/Mag...0307force.aspx

One way to keep the price tag down on military assets in, for example, the Air Force and Naval aviation is to continue to deploy remote controlled drones. The drones are perfect for the search and destroy missions that have are part of our anti-terror efforts. However, over time, the enemy will likely adapt to these assets and tactics, and well need to go find another weapon to press the advantage against the enemy.

The other reason is that mechanical equipment is built with an intended life expectancy. After that point, maintenance becomes less cost effective, and replacement is required.

The last I heard was that China was having tio import their jet engines from Russia because their own designs could not last three months. Of course no doubt GE would be happy to sell to them.

Of course an airframe is only good for a certain length of time. It seems that the Comet has been forgotten. That is not to say that we can't build more F16s, F18s and improve their armament. They are proven designs - oh and they don't require two engines, one manufacturer does a good job.

Its not just the armament that would require an upgrade. These aircraft cannot be retrofitted with the latest detection and evasion technologies. No doubt that they are excellent aircraft - the F-16 is arguably the most successful military aircraft design ever - but it is already over 30 years old!

C'mon, Whell. "Even if the Air Force gets all the new fighters it needs—381 F-22 Raptors and 1,763 F-35 Lightning IIs—it will still have to field an unprecedentedly large number of older fighters for decades, in order to meet all the service’s obligations."

Boo-friggety-hoo. So the Air Force is whining that it may have to get by with over 2,000 of the newest generation fighters, even when the F-15 Eagle is superior to any other jet fighter on the planet (except for our own F-22). The F-15 has over 100 aerial combat victories with no losses in dogfights.

So, we need to cut health care for seniors and poor children and all sorts of worthwhile social programs to ensure we have enough money to buy all the new jets that the Air Force wants at $100 million per F-35 and over $350 million per F-22 when the F-15 Eagle is still the best fighter on the planet?

I think Eisenhower had something to say about this.

Jobs and technological advancement?

I think there are 8 decommissioned aircraft carriers -- some built in the 1940s -- that could ostensibly be modernized and used with most modern equipment (in austere refits for cheap) but we don't move technology forward and we don't maintain keel-up shipbuilding capacity.

We used to have multiple places to build carriers. Now, we have one...

C'mon, Finn. That's not my point at all. My response was about why we might need to replace the assets, not engage in the debate about "worthwhile social pograms."

Of course, if you want to go down that road, you'd also have to read the rest of the article, which talks about how the Air Force is retro-fitting some of its fleet where it will provide bang for the buck, so that they can maximize the usefullness of current assets so those assets can "multi-task." The Air Force is upgrading the newer F-16's in their inventory because the more recent production designs reflect upgrades that support how the F-16 is being used today, which is a bit different that the missions it was expected to support when it was originally introduced.

At the end of the day, due to creative upgrading and utiliztion, as well as top-notch maintennce and support, aircraft that was designed in the late 1960's and initially deployed in the mid 1970's (the F-15 and the F-16) will continue to be deployed until 2025 (F-16) and beyond (F-15). This will far exceed the aircraft's original expected shelf life, providing petty decent ROI, an allowing for a more gradual and cost effective phase - in of newer assets like the F-35....

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

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

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?

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Just like most civilized western nations?:rolleyes:

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