Defense Spending "On the Table"

[whell]

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

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

[BlueStreak]

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

[merrylander]

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?

[whell]

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.

[merrylander]

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.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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!

[finnbow]

Originally Posted by whell

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.

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.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by merrylander

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

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...

[whell]

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...