Huh? Another step backwards. Crash, care to opine? Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 24, 2014, 04:13:51 PM
Huh? Another step backwards. Crash, care to opine? Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?
That would suck
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 24, 2014, 04:13:51 PM
Huh? Another step backwards. Crash, care to opine? Is there a better all purpose killing machine around?
Tom,
Slammed with work of late but suffice it to say the USAF has been trying to kill the Hawg for decades. In a crazy twist recently, the USAF Chief of Staff told Congress that it needs more Raptors and Strike Fighters and is willing to retire the Hawg to make that happen. The Army Chief of Staff then went to the Hill and told Congress that our ground forces
require the A 10. Service Chiefs always keep their sh1t fights behind the curtain so for Gen Odierno to call out the USAF shows how intense the Army appreciation for the A 10.
When ground pounders call for air support they always ask for A 10's by name - usually with the brevity code "Golf Uniform Echo" (Go Ugly Early.) When we are inside the wire and Gomers see our A 10 patches they will make a point of coming over and thanking us.
The paradigm of air power being about shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time has long since passed. F 22s cost $420 million each. Each F 35 costs the taxpayers $160 million. Both have had engineering problems and are still not yet fully operational. More importantly, to the war fighter on the ground, these platforms cannot provide the precision, payload, and loiter time needed for close air support.
Meanwhile the USAF wants to acquire more air superiority assets and will trade the world's most effective fixed wing close air support platform to pay for it. A 10s cost about $10 million per platform and are far easier and cheaper to maintain. The maintenance cycle of the A 10 allows for faster turns and a much higher sortie rate than for any other tactical air asset.
Congress agreed with the Army and Marine Corps last November and passed a resolution forbidding the USAF to stand down the A 10 through 2015, citing the proven combat effectiveness of the Warthog and the complete absence any other similar fixed wing capability. Mother Air Force was directed to develop a plan that specifically addresses how it proposes to replace the A 10s CAS capabilities.
Then this month, Hagel introduces another plan to pay for Strike Fighters by grounding the A 10. WTF?
Quote from: keefe on February 24, 2014, 05:02:29 PM
Tom,
Slammed with work of late but suffice it to say the USAF has been trying to kill the Hawg for decades. In a crazy twist recently, the USAF Chief of Staff told Congress that it needs more Raptors and Strike Fighters and is willing to retire the Hawg to make that happen. The Army Chief of Staff then went to the Hill and told Congress that our ground forces require the A 10. Service Chiefs always keep their sh1t fights behind the curtain so for Gen Odierno to call out the USAF shows how intense the Army appreciation for the A 10.
When ground pounders call for air support they always ask for A 10's by name - usually with the brevity code "Golf Uniform Echo" (Go Ugly Early.) When we are inside the wire and Gomers see our A 10 patches they will make a point of coming over and thanking us.
The paradigm of air power being about shooting down the enemy one aircraft at a time has long since passed. F 22s cost $420 million each. Each F 35 costs the taxpayers $160 million. Both have had engineering problems and are still not yet fully operational. More importantly, to the war fighter on the ground, these platforms cannot provide the precision, payload, and loiter time needed for close air support.
Meanwhile the USAF wants to acquire more air superiority assets and will trade the world's most effective fixed wing close air support platform to pay for it. A 10s cost about $10 million per platform and are far easier and cheaper to maintain. The maintenance cycle of the A 10 allows for faster turns and a much higher sortie rate than for any other tactical air asset.
Congress agreed with the Army and Marine Corps last November and passed a resolution forbidding the USAF to stand down the A 10 through 2015, citing the proven combat effectiveness of the Warthog and the complete absence any other similar fixed wing capability. Mother Air Force was directed to develop a plan that specifically addresses how it proposes to replace the A 10s CAS capabilities.
Then this month, Hagel introduces another plan to pay for Strike Fighters by grounding the A 10. WTF?
First JSF is the Aardvark re-incarnated just with a higher price tag. Second, the Chuckster is doing exactly what he was hired to do by this admin, gut military spending so that can be used as a "fiscal" responsibility flag. Watch, all the sexy programs will stay like F-22, JSF, CVX, and LRS-B but programs that are actually effective and needed like Stryker and modernization of the AFSOC inventory will be cut. The military may be asymmetrical and JIT but Congress and the Adminstration sure as heck aren't.
Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's. Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)
Next 5 years are a dangerous time for the grunts as it looks like we are going to unlearn all the lessons of the Carter administration.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 05:35:56 PM
First JSF is the Aardvark re-incarnated just with a higher price tag. Second, the Chuckster is doing exactly what he was hired to do by this admin, gut military spending so that can be used as a "fiscal" responsibility flag. Watch, all the sexy programs will stay like F-22, JSF, CVX, and LRS-B but programs that are actually effective and needed like Stryker and modernization of the AFSOC inventory will be cut. The military may be asymmetrical and JIT but Congress and the Adminstration sure as heck aren't.
Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's. Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)
Next 5 years are a dangerous time for the grunts as it looks like we are going to unlearn all the lessons of the Carter administration.
You said it...spot on.
Have to build it all up again in 2020.
(http://www.fritzthefox.com/images/warthog_toon_small.jpg)
If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here. Pretty clear that a this is just a device to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 24, 2014, 05:46:00 PM
If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here. Pretty clear that a this is just a device to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.
I'll just leave this here for everybody.....clearly a coincidence between these two things
http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-2015-budget-request-obama-will-call-for-an-end-to-era-of-austerity/2014/02/20/332808c2-9a6e-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/with-2015-budget-request-obama-will-call-for-an-end-to-era-of-austerity/2014/02/20/332808c2-9a6e-11e3-b931-0204122c514b_story.html)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
You said it...spot on.
Have to build it all up again in 2020.
Except that defense funding has gone up under Obama.
Just like he wants to take our guns away. More guns sold in Obama's 1st term than under any president ever.
Just like he is against big oil. Domestic production went
down every year under Bush and
up every year under Obama.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but BO doesn't sit in his office striking down programs. Ending any programs are done by the Pentagon and the services themselves and even you, I don't think, would call them liberals.
And we do know that the only reduction to any military spending came from the repubs with their sequestration bill.
Quote from: brandx on February 24, 2014, 05:53:16 PM
Except that defense funding has gone up under Obama.
Just like he wants to take our guns away. More guns sold in Obama's 1st term than under any president ever.
Just like he is against big oil. Domestic production went down every year under Bush and up every year under Obama.
Sorry to disappoint you guys, but BO doesn't sit in his office striking down programs. Ending any programs are done by the Pentagon and the services themselves and even you, I don't think, would call them liberals.
I don't think you know how appropriations work in DC. The Pentagon provides a budget with priorities that the SecDef ultimately creates/approves/modifies and then walks over to the Hill to get Congress to buy off on. A lot of political folks with key contracts in their home district on the line then have their say and then vote to fund.
Additionally, you can't look at the total budget as that includes funding for actual warfighting as well as long term appropriations. What we are talking about is infrastructure for the military over the next 10-20 years. Yes the overall budget went up under BO, but the majority was for fighting in A Stan and Iraq with a decrease in most long term appropriations.
It's like looking at the road budget after this year and saying it went up because long term projects stayed level but there was a vast increase in short term spending to fix all the potholes.
I am not going to speak to the Warthog. But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction. It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else. The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.
Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 06:00:02 PM
I am not going to speak to the Warthog. But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction. It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else. The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.
I in no way disagree with this statement. I also think smart budgeting would allow such things while retaining long term sustainability. However, I would make the same argument about every other piece of non-discretionary spending which clearly seems off the table....in fact we're doubling down.
I agree.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 06:01:57 PM
I in no way disagree with this statement. I also think smart budgeting would allow such things while retaining long term sustainability. However, I would make the same argument about every other piece of non-discretionary spending which clearly seems off the table....in fact we're doubling down.
It's always interesting when it comes to aircraft in the budget. the main problem is that besides having the biggest air force in the world, we also have the 2nd biggest air force in the world (Navy).
Between that and your point earlier on the congressional process (which encourages pork), we can see where there are going to be endless battles over a myriad of projects.
Quote from: ATWizJr on February 24, 2014, 05:46:00 PM
If Hagel had a shred of self respect, he would resign before carrying Obama's water here. Pretty clear that a this is just a device to find funds to pay for more of Obama's social agenda.
You sir sound like some kind military expert, would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically. Please enlighten me with your extensive background, so I can take these thoughts as fact.
Thanks!
Quote from: tower912 on February 24, 2014, 06:00:02 PM
I am not going to speak to the Warthog. But any long term debt reduction simply has to include military reduction. It is too large a percentage of the budget for anything else. The ways, means and types of reductions can be debated endlessly, but the military industrial complex must be shrunk or it will consume everything else.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhRGMZ6CMAA4iw3.jpg)
Just heard this morning on the radio that the military is being forced to cut solider wages, healthcare, etc to meet budget constraints. It just seems all so ridiculous to me, someone without the knowledge that keefe and others have. Maybe they can weigh in here. But I hear about tanks being manufactured that no one wants/asked for, aircraft that are beyond over budget and behind the timeline for development, excessive military research, etc. Yet we have the most expensive military in the world and we have to cut money from our troops? I'm one of the first to stand up and say we should reduce our international presence and we need to reign in military (non-discretionary bullcrap) spending, but I'm never for cutting money or benefits from the men who do the job.
Quote from: reinko on February 24, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
You sir sound like some kind military expert, would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically. Please enlighten me with your extensive background, so I can take these thoughts as fact.
Thanks!
They're just anxious to get rid of guys like Hagel and Kerry - guys who, you know, served their country when asked.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 24, 2014, 09:22:19 PM
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BhRGMZ6CMAA4iw3.jpg)
Just heard this morning on the radio that the military is being forced to cut solider wages, healthcare, etc to meet budget constraints. It just seems all so ridiculous to me, someone without the knowledge that keefe and others have. Maybe they can weigh in here. But I hear about tanks being manufactured that no one wants/asked for, aircraft that are beyond over budget and behind the timeline for development, excessive military research, etc. Yet we have the most expensive military in the world and we have to cut money from our troops? I'm one of the first to stand up and say we should reduce our international presence and we need to reign in military (non-discretionary bullcrap) spending, but I'm never for cutting money or benefits from the men who do the job.
I would much rather a large chunk of our expenditures go to the military than a number of other areas in the budget. Here's the reason why. The military expenditures often lead to innovations that lead to mainstream products and services that generate jobs, wealth, etc. Yes, we spend a ton, we're also the world's cop. I don't like it, many people don't, but someone has to do it. If someone doesn't do it, the crapstorm that is created is just that..a crapstorm. We've tried to deemphasize this in the past, and it bit us hard and cost us plenty to build back up. When a vacuum is created, someone will try to fill it and it typically is someone that we don't want to fill it. We're going down the same path again. Some people just don't like the old history taught lessons I guess.
The defense budget is 19% of our total budget. Big, but still far behind Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other discretionary items which combined account for over 65% of the budget.
Quote from: brandx on February 24, 2014, 10:29:50 PM
They're just anxious to get rid of guys like Hagel and Kerry - guys who, you know, served their country when asked.
x
ATWiz wore the uniform during wartime. He did so as a volunteer, too.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2014, 10:49:47 PM
I would much rather a large chunk of our expenditures go to the military than a number of other areas in the budget. Here's the reason why. The military expenditures often lead to innovations that lead to mainstream products and services that generate jobs, wealth, etc. Yes, we spend a ton, we're also the world's cop. I don't like it, many people don't, but someone has to do it. If someone doesn't do it, the crapstorm that is created is just that..a crapstorm. We've tried to deemphasize this in the past, and it bit us hard and cost us plenty to build back up. When a vacuum is created, someone will try to fill it and it typically is someone that we don't want to fill it. We're going down the same path again. Some people just don't like the old history taught lessons I guess.
The defense budget is 19% of our total budget. Big, but still far behind Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, and other discretionary items which combined account for over 65% of the budget.
I'm not trying to argue anything in your post. But as for the bolded, so did NASA, and that went in the tank, sadly.
Like you point out with regards to other topics, it's the wasteful spending, the inefficiencies, the obvious contracts/kickbacks, etc. that really irk me in regards to the military. And then to turn around and take money/benefits from the people doing the job. Terrible, IMO.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 24, 2014, 11:30:21 PM
I'm not trying to argue anything in your post. But as for the bolded, so did NASA, and that went in the tank, sadly.
Like you point out with regards to other topics, it's the wasteful spending, the inefficiencies, the obvious contracts/kickbacks, etc. that really irk me in regards to the military. And then to turn around and take money/benefits from the people doing the job. Terrible, IMO.
On that we agree. Wasteful spending, etc, drives me nuts.
On the other hand, despite the expenditures I feel like I'm actually getting something as a taxpayer with the military far more than some of the other stuff that we spend on. Whether it is defense of this country, defense of allies, new technology and new industries, a trained workforce that actually does something when they get out, a place where sometimes lost souls find themselves, etc. I find that a lot more productive than some of the programs we have out there that pay people to do nothing. Nothing infuriates me more.
Quote from: keefe on February 24, 2014, 11:13:02 PM
x
ATWiz wore the uniform during wartime. He did so as a volunteer, too.
You know I'm just tweaking you on this - it's to be expected as we are about 180 degrees apart on politics.
I absolutely respect your opinions on this and am glad to read them, as well as ATWiz. You have every right to talk the talk since you already walked the walk. You have all the cred you need as far as I'm concerned.
Quote from: reinko on February 24, 2014, 08:19:36 PM
You sir sound like some kind military expert, would love love here your credentials to speak so emphatically. Please enlighten me with your extensive background, so I can take these thoughts as fact.
Thanks!
Just a simple enlisted man who served. But you don't have to be a War College grad to realize a few basic things:
1. Current proposal is to reduce our forces to below pre WW II levels.
2. The world is not getting safer.
3. Current administration is proposing an end to "austerity" and new spending on social welfare programs.
I don't advocate for funding this new spending on the backs of the military.
Hope this helps.
just my 2c.
-As a military, we need a robust Air Force and Navy.
-Boots on ground is great, but it puts a lot of men in harms way.
-Blow em up from hundreds of miles away, out of harms way.
-Increase the reserves and decrease the enlisted men and give everyone a pay raise and the very best in equipment.
-What is the point of the new planes if we have drones and cruise missles?
-Increase R&D budget
-Increase NASA budget to moon launch levels
and of course the unpopular one
-maintain social safety net programs (see I can call them biased names too!) but increase oversight and evolve the programs to incentivise participants to become contributors to the tax base.
Didn't pass my Nam era physical so I didn't earn my stripes but I see the irony here: military pay and benefits are to be cut while welfare payments increase.
Shoddy treatment for our lads and lassies in uniform.
While drug dealers are expanding well into the Pacific to avoid detection and expand to Northern Cal, the Coast Guard has had to decrease the number of ships available for patrols.
Something is out of whack in Washington.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 25, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
just my 2c.
-As a military, we need a robust Air Force and Navy.
-Boots on ground is great, but it puts a lot of men in harms way.
-Blow em up from hundreds of miles away, out of harms way.
-Increase the reserves and decrease the enlisted men and give everyone a pay raise and the very best in equipment.
-What is the point of the new planes if we have drones and cruise missles?
-Increase R&D budget
-Increase NASA budget to moon launch levels
and of course the unpopular one
-maintain social safety net programs (see I can call them biased names too!) but increase oversight and evolve the programs to incentivise participants to become contributors to the tax base.
Nope - totally wrong. You're trying to be reasonable and we know how well that works. ;D
Quote from: elephantraker on February 25, 2014, 11:40:24 AM
Didn't pass my Nam era physical so I didn't earn my stripes but I see the irony here: military pay and benefits are to be cut while welfare payments increase.
Shoddy treatment for our lads and lassies in uniform.
While drug dealers are expanding well into the Pacific to avoid detection and expand to Northern Cal, the Coast Guard has had to decrease the number of ships available for patrols.
Something is out of whack in Washington.
If you don't have a good argument make something up and argue against it.
The current cuts to the Pentagon budget were passed by Republicans. It's called sequestration - it's easy to Google.
The budget calls for a
pay increase for most troops, although generals and admirals would receive a one-year pay freeze. Hagel said he wants to require active-duty and retired members of the military to
make a larger contribution to their health care costs in the TRICARE program. This is absolutely what repubs have called for for everyone.
You do realize the military is part of the 47% that Romney and his ilk detest? I believe he called them the "takers"
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 25, 2014, 11:36:12 AM
just my 2c.
-As a military, we need a robust Air Force and Navy.
-Boots on ground is great, but it puts a lot of men in harms way.
-Blow em up from hundreds of miles away, out of harms way.
-Increase the reserves and decrease the enlisted men and give everyone a pay raise and the very best in equipment.
-What is the point of the new planes if we have drones and cruise missles?
-Increase R&D budget
-Increase NASA budget to moon launch levels
and of course the unpopular one
-maintain social safety net programs (see I can call them biased names too!) but increase oversight and evolve the programs to incentivise participants to become contributors to the tax base.
Boots on the ground is ultimately where wars are won and lost.
Increase oversight.....been hearing that for decades....more fraud now (according to 60 Minutes) than ever before.
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 11:51:13 AM
If you don't have a good argument make something up and argue against it.
You do realize the military is part of the 47% that Romney and his ilk detest? I believe he called them the "takers"
I'll place these statements right next to each other and let you hang out in the irony.
Members of the military receive a paycheck, healthcare, a retirement (if they go 20 years), and some tax reduced purchase opportunities (BX, commissary tax free purchases, etc)....in exchange they spend whatever time they have in service sacrificing for the betterment of the country. Are you REALLY sure they are taking anything?
Could you please enumerate for me the things that those on social safety net programs have to provide in exchange for those benefits?
I'm neither arguing that military benefits are sacrosanct at current levels, or that safety nets are terrible and should not be provided. However, I find it incredibly disheartening that you as an intelligent and contributing member of our republic cannot recognize the difference and how policies should be different.
Additionally, no one is talking about the current cuts via sequestration.....we are talking about the planned cuts that Hagel just rolled out. Go back and look at the US readiness and capabilities from 1975-1981, based on the SecDef plan we are heading back into that era....some because of cuts that are balancing on the backs of the troops and some because of very poor decisions about what programs to cut because of hometown politics. Meanwhile the vast majority of the budget issues remain untouched or are even planned for expansion.
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 11:51:13 AM
If you don't have a good argument make something up and argue against it.
The current cuts to the Pentagon budget were passed by Republicans. It's called sequestration - it's easy to Google.
The budget calls for a pay increase for most troops, although generals and admirals would receive a one-year pay freeze. Hagel said he wants to require active-duty and retired members of the military to make a larger contribution to their health care costs in the TRICARE program. This is absolutely what repubs have called for for everyone.
You do realize the military is part of the 47% that Romney and his ilk detest? I believe he called them the "takers"
By the way, I agree with an increase in contribution to healthcare costs (except those that are service induced) and I'm for the COLA adjustment that was called for in the Ryan budget compromise. However those things can't happen in a vacuum, and must be part of a larger adjustment of all social nets.
We need to be honest, in the current demographic model, programs as they are currently structured are completely unsustainable. It also means a more intelligent foreign policy that takes into account our force projections....right now it is essentially abdication to Russia and some squawking about a pivot to the AP theater
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 11:51:13 AM
You do realize the military is part of the 47% that Romney and his ilk detest? I believe he called them the "takers"
Detest? Please.
The issue is more in terms of people having to pay twice, for themselves and the other guy. Everyone should have some skin in the game. It's easy to ask for stuff when you don't have to pay for it, easy to elect officials that give you stuff when you don't have to pay for it. It is also unhealthy, creates a great divide. The 47% number is higher than in other decades and is problematic. Detest? No. That is an unfair statement. Let's put it this way, if it was pitched to someone that you can get X and it won't cost you a thing, in fact we're going to charge your neighbors for it a lot of folks will say YES. If that same X is now going to cost you something, even if it is a fractional cost and your neighbors will have to pay for most of it, at least there is SOME skin in the game. Some of those YES' become "do we really need it". That's what the other side is asking for. A little accountability and everyone participating...it takes a village I'm told yet in practice, it seems like only half the village. Let's get the whole village involved.
Ironically, the majority of those military folks in that group supported him.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2014, 11:53:10 PM
On that we agree. Wasteful spending, etc, drives me nuts.
On the other hand, despite the expenditures I feel like I'm actually getting something as a taxpayer with the military far more than some of the other stuff that we spend on. Whether it is defense of this country, defense of allies, new technology and new industries, a trained workforce that actually does something when they get out, a place where sometimes lost souls find themselves, etc. I find that a lot more productive than some of the programs we have out there that pay people to do nothing. Nothing infuriates me more.
I agree with you here as well. But it's a cultural and societal ideal that we'll never get rid of. We could never bring ourselves just to let people waste away with no assistance. So, what's the solution? I have no idea. I've always been partial to an infrastructure bank. Dunno how realistic that is.
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 25, 2014, 02:46:41 PM
I agree with you here as well. But it's a cultural and societal ideal that we'll never get rid of. We could never bring ourselves just to let people waste away with no assistance. So, what's the solution? I have no idea. I've always been partial to an infrastructure bank. Dunno how realistic that is.
I think it comes down to at least forcing SOMETHING, some kind of work, volunteerism, something. You watch some of the stuff that Real Time did on HBO with Alexandra Pelosi (yes, that same family) and it crazy. She opened up a lot of eyes and I give her credit and kudos of the bravery she put forth because I'm sure she took a ton of heat for it from her side.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 25, 2014, 02:22:59 PM
Could you please enumerate for me the things that those on social safety net programs have to provide in exchange for those benefits?
off the top of my head: sales taxes, gas taxes for many, heavy Sin taxes, there are some that DO pay income tax (Mrs. Waldo Jeffers does for starters) as well all of the payroll taxes (SS) when she was able to work
mu03eng, I'm not calling you out just a lot of people rip on 'safety nets' .... until they need one themselves, not everyone is abusing the system but many make out like they are
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 25, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
I think it comes down to at least forcing SOMETHING, some kind of work, volunteerism, something. You watch some of the stuff that Real Time did on HBO with Alexandra Pelosi (yes, that same family) and it crazy. She opened up a lot of eyes and I give her credit and kudos of the bravery she put forth because I'm sure she took a ton of heat for it from her side.
Agreed. I guess we just have slightly different lenses when we view the situation. I accept that there are going to be those types of people when we live in a human society.
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 05:35:56 PM
First JSF is the Aardvark re-incarnated just with a higher price tag. Second, the Chuckster is doing exactly what he was hired to do by this admin, gut military spending so that can be used as a "fiscal" responsibility flag. Watch, all the sexy programs will stay like F-22, JSF, CVX, and LRS-B but programs that are actually effective and needed like Stryker and modernization of the AFSOC inventory will be cut. The military may be asymmetrical and JIT but Congress and the Adminstration sure as heck aren't.
Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's. Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)
Next 5 years are a dangerous time for the grunts as it looks like we are going to unlearn all the lessons of the Carter administration.
I have heard the comparison of JSF as the new Vark only more expensive and less capable. The Vark was designed for one mission - low level penetration with supersonic dash for suppression of tactical targets. It was never meant to fly air-air engagements because the MiG 21 would kick its ass every time.
The problem with making multi-role platforms is that they do many things though nothing exceptionally well. And trying to force 3 services with different missions to employ the same platform further erodes combat capability. The argument has been made that PGMs have obsoleted dedicated CAS assets but the truest test is to ask the Ground Pounders what they want in CAS and 110% will say the A 10 without question. I can think of no better testimonial than from those who stake their lives on the choice.
Unless we get into a shooting war with Mother Russia or the PRC we simply have no need for so many air superiority assets. Going forward, post OEF, the preponderance of warfare will be asymmetrical which requires purpose-built assets and not air superiority airframes. Ask any Eagle Driver how much combat he's getting lately and he'll tell you to eff off because there is no mission for F 15s these days.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 24, 2014, 05:42:34 PM
You said it...spot on.
Have to build it all up again in 2020.
(http://www.fritzthefox.com/images/warthog_toon_small.jpg)
Nothing makes a Haji sh1t his pants faster than the sight of a Hawg rolling in hot on his starboard delta. Why we would eliminate the one platform that has killed more Tangos than any other airborne platform defies explanation.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnkhjNvZto_SuccIEpOSsAkWtVD0ZcmNS-jpFzJyRMS2Z3Rjatig)
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 25, 2014, 02:17:57 PM
Boots on the ground is ultimately where wars are won and lost.
Increase oversight.....been hearing that for decades....more fraud now (according to 60 Minutes) than ever before.
Military may even be worse than Corps. for waste. I worked for a wire rope company many years back and we made the cable for aircraft carriers that is used to catch the planes coming in. We requested over and over to be able to use wooden reels (made in-house at almost no cost, but the navy insisted on steel reels at $2,000+ per. Once the cable was used - the reels went over the side. At $2,000+ per as opposed to less than $100 per. Just because.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 25, 2014, 02:43:15 PM
Detest? Please.
The issue is more in terms of people having to pay twice, for themselves and the other guy. Everyone should have some skin in the game. It's easy to ask for stuff when you don't have to pay for it, easy to elect officials that give you stuff when you don't have to pay for it. It is also unhealthy, creates a great divide. The 47% number is higher than in other decades and is problematic. Detest? No. That is an unfair statement. Let's put it this way, if it was pitched to someone that you can get X and it won't cost you a thing, in fact we're going to charge your neighbors for it a lot of folks will say YES. If that same X is now going to cost you something, even if it is a fractional cost and your neighbors will have to pay for most of it, at least there is SOME skin in the game. Some of those YES' become "do we really need it". That's what the other side is asking for. A little accountability and everyone participating...it takes a village I'm told yet in practice, it seems like only half the village. Let's get the whole village involved.
Ironically, the majority of those military folks in that group supported him.
As did the majority on SS and Medicare
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 25, 2014, 02:58:25 PM
I think it comes down to at least forcing SOMETHING, some kind of work, volunteerism, something. You watch some of the stuff that Real Time did on HBO with Alexandra Pelosi (yes, that same family) and it crazy. She opened up a lot of eyes and I give her credit and kudos of the bravery she put forth because I'm sure she took a ton of heat for it from her side.
Why? I have no doubt that a huge majority of Libs would favor something in return for money that is given out for those on welfare.
Quote from: ChicosBailBonds on February 25, 2014, 02:17:57 PM
Boots on the ground is ultimately where wars are won and lost.
I don't disagree that boots in the sand is how wars are usually won. I finished reading Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank and he makes a compelling case for the necessity of nuke employment for ending the Pacific War. His evidence regarding Japanese military elite and Imperial intransigence for surrendering and the guaranteed bloodbath that would result from Operations Torch and Olympus was spot on. And it was the first war that was decided ultimately through the application of overwhelming air power.
It was a tough decision and I think Harry Truman was better equipped for making that call than FDR. Fascinating read on decision making that involves the most difficult political and ethical choices ever made by an American President. Truman was one of very best, for many reasons. We could use his common sense today.
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 03:34:51 PM
Why? I have no doubt that a huge majority of Libs would favor something in return for money that is given out for those on welfare.
Well, they'll never get that if they keep electing Libs to the presidency.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 03:47:45 PM
I don't disagree that boots in the sand is how wars are usually won. I finished reading Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank and he makes a compelling case for the necessity of nuke employment for ending the Pacific War. His evidence regarding Japanese military elite and Imperial intransigence for surrendering and the guaranteed bloodbath that would result from Operations Torch and Olympus was spot on. And it was the first war that was decided ultimately through the application of overwhelming air power.
It was a tough decision and I think Harry Truman was better equipped for making that call than FDR. Fascinating read on decision making that involves the most difficult political and ethical choices ever made by an American President. Truman was one of very best, for many reasons. We could use his common sense today.
There's been alot of misinformation over the decades about
1. estimated casualties - Truman's own estimates somehow grew many times in later years
2. Japan wanted to surrender because they feared a Russian invasion even more than the A bomb since the war in Europe was over
3. we were already bombing the crap out of Japan killing hundreds of thousands with conventional bombs
4. we knew they wanted to surrender and were agreeable to all of our terms except for insisting the Emperor surrender and of course then we allowed the Emperor to stay anyway
how many lives would have been saved if we had allowed Japan to surender as early as April 1945 when they sought terms we later accepted before the Potsdam Declaration?
Quote"We call upon the government of Japan to proclaim now the unconditional surrender of all Japanese armed forces and to provide proper and adequate assurance of good faith in such action. The alternative for Japan is prompt and utter destruction."
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
Military may even be worse than Corps. for waste. I worked for a wire rope company many years back and we made the cable for aircraft carriers that is used to catch the planes coming in. We requested over and over to be able to use wooden reels (made in-house at almost no cost, but the navy insisted on steel reels at $2,000+ per. Once the cable was used - the reels went over the side. At $2,000+ per as opposed to less than $100 per. Just because.
I can speak for aerospace. I've seen a lot of things come through that could easily have cost cut out of the assembly price through in many cases a simple redesign. The problem is qualification. There's a large number of very costly tests that product has to go through before being deemed flight worthy. If a change is made these costly tests have to repeated and since many of these parts are low volume it's extremely difficult to justify payback. The money saved will rarely be more than the testing and engineering cost.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 03:47:45 PM
I don't disagree that boots in the sand is how wars are usually won. I finished reading Downfall: The End of the Imperial Japanese Empire by Richard Frank and he makes a compelling case for the necessity of nuke employment for ending the Pacific War. His evidence regarding Japanese military elite and Imperial intransigence for surrendering and the guaranteed bloodbath that would result from Operations Torch and Olympus was spot on. And it was the first war that was decided ultimately through the application of overwhelming air power.
It was a tough decision and I think Harry Truman was better equipped for making that call than FDR. Fascinating read on decision making that involves the most difficult political and ethical choices ever made by an American President. Truman was one of very best, for many reasons. We could use his common sense today.
Harry Truman also wanted to show the Russians who had the real firepower.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 03:30:45 PM
Nothing makes a Haji sh1t his pants faster than the sight of a Hawg rolling in hot on his starboard delta. Why we would eliminate the one platform that has killed more Tangos than any other airborne platform defies explanation.
(https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSnkhjNvZto_SuccIEpOSsAkWtVD0ZcmNS-jpFzJyRMS2Z3Rjatig)
Keefe,
I noticed last week that a local bookstore is now selling greeting cards with New Yorker cartoons on the cover. They had a whole rotating rack to choose from.
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
Military may even be worse than Corps. for waste. I worked for a wire rope company many years back and we made the cable for aircraft carriers that is used to catch the planes coming in. We requested over and over to be able to use wooden reels (made in-house at almost no cost, but the navy insisted on steel reels at $2,000+ per. Once the cable was used - the reels went over the side. At $2,000+ per as opposed to less than $100 per. Just because.
There could have been reasons that were not apparent. I did a lot of work early in my career to reduce the fire load on Navy ships. The less wood, the more ability to put out keep fires under control and stay on the line to fight.
Quote from: Archies Bat on February 25, 2014, 04:33:39 PM
There could have been reasons that were not apparent. I did a lot of work early in my career to reduce the fire load on Navy ships. The less wood, the more ability to put out keep fires under control and stay on the line to fight.
Additionally wood has a nasty habit of disinigrating and inviting corrosion...which is a huge problem when you have cables that have to stop 54,000 lbs of screaming aircraft going 134 knots.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 03:22:36 PM
I have heard the comparison of JSF as the new Vark only more expensive and less capable. The Vark was designed for one mission - low level penetration with supersonic dash for suppression of tactical targets. It was never meant to fly air-air engagements because the MiG 21 would kick its ass every time.
The problem with making multi-role platforms is that they do many things though nothing exceptionally well. And trying to force 3 services with different missions to employ the same platform further erodes combat capability. The argument has been made that PGMs have obsoleted dedicated CAS assets but the truest test is to ask the Ground Pounders what they want in CAS and 110% will say the A 10 without question. I can think of no better testimonial than from those who stake their lives on the choice.
Unless we get into a shooting war with Mother Russia or the PRC we simply have no need for so many air superiority assets. Going forward, post OEF, the preponderance of warfare will be asymmetrical which requires purpose-built assets and not air superiority airframes. Ask any Eagle Driver how much combat he's getting lately and he'll tell you to eff off because there is no mission for F 15s these days.
Ironically I think the best role for the Aardvark was the one role it wasn't "designed" but retrofit into, the EC role when it became the Raven. The JSF took on one too many airframe roles....the VTOL role should be a dedicated airframe, too many compromises went into ramming that into the JSF. As en example, the JSF could have used the engine out of the F-22 producing pretty significant economies of scale and reduced logistics cost but it wasn't feasible with the VTOL requirements. Now you don't have economies of scale AND you don't have SuperCruise on the JSF, creating mismatch in escort and attack aircraft. It's like having Tomcat's escort Intruders all over again.
One positive I did see is they are retrofitting the HMDS from the JSF to the F-22. As a CAS guy I would think that would be something very worth to put into the Hog and really blow out it's capabilities. Hell, I'd love to see them put it in the Viper and blowout at the Wild Weasel mission capabilities.
I think the big driver of so many of these issues is there is a need for an F-22 airframe, but probably only 100 of them....however to drive the price down per airframe they have to purchase in higher quantities so the overall price tag goes up squeezing out other programs. The acquisition process is so hosed as to make the Gordian knot look like a tight rope
Quote from: Waldo Jeffers on February 25, 2014, 04:20:13 PM
There's been alot of misinformation over the decades about
1. estimated casualties - Truman's own estimates somehow grew many times in later years
2. Japan wanted to surrender because they feared a Russian invasion even more than the A bomb since the war in Europe was over
3. we were already bombing the crap out of Japan killing hundreds of thousands with conventional bombs
4. we knew they wanted to surrender and were agreeable to all of our terms except for insisting the Emperor surrender and of course then we allowed the Emperor to stay anyway
how many lives would have been saved if we had allowed Japan to surender as early as April 1945 when they sought terms we later accepted before the Potsdam Declaration?
I highly recommend Richard Frank's book on this subject. Meticulously researched, it is the definitive work on the Pacific War end game. I think he would refute many of your statements.
Quote from: brandx on February 25, 2014, 03:30:50 PM
Military may even be worse than Corps. for waste.
One peculiarity of DoD budgeting is that you need to spend all of your allocation for OpTar (Operations and Training) or you will get less the next budget cycle. So squadrons hoard money for two months then go on a spending spree in the last few weeks of every quarter. As the DO of a squadron I was applying PepsiCo budgeting principles on our OpTar spend plan until the Commander ripped me a new one for not spending every last cent.
And if a squadron doesn't spend everything the Group Commander will be on the horn looking for answers. This goes all the way up to the MajCom/Numbered AF level. This is not AF policy as every service does the same thing. Stupid way to run a railroad.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 05:17:22 PM
One peculiarity of DoD budgeting is that you need to spend all of your allocation for OpTar (Operations and Training) or you will get less the next budget cycle. So squadrons hoard money for two months then go on a spending spree in the last few weeks of every quarter. As the DO of a squadron I was applying PepsiCo budgeting principles on our OpTar spend plan until the Commander ripped me a new one for not spending every last cent.
And if a squadron doesn't spend everything the Group Commander will be on the horn looking for answers. This goes all the way up to the MajCom/Numbered AF level. This is not AF policy as every service does the same thing. Stupid way to run a railroad.
Same thing happens all over the US. Schools, DOT, DOJ... you name it. Spend it, or have your funding reduced for the next budget.
Totally asinine.
Quote from: keefe on February 25, 2014, 05:17:22 PM
One peculiarity of DoD budgeting is that you need to spend all of your allocation for OpTar (Operations and Training) or you will get less the next budget cycle. So squadrons hoard money for two months then go on a spending spree in the last few weeks of every quarter. As the DO of a squadron I was applying PepsiCo budgeting principles on our OpTar spend plan until the Commander ripped me a new one for not spending every last cent.
And if a squadron doesn't spend everything the Group Commander will be on the horn looking for answers. This goes all the way up to the MajCom/Numbered AF level. This is not AF policy as every service does the same thing. Stupid way to run a railroad.
Yep my dad told stories of boring holes in the sky in the late 70s during the gas shortage because they had fuel budgets they had to burn up otherwise they wouldn't see them again the next year.
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 25, 2014, 06:09:42 PM
Same thing happens all over the US. Schools, DOT, DOJ... you name it. Spend it, or have your funding reduced for the next budget.
Totally asinine.
Not an econ or finance guy here... isn't there a better way to organize budgets?
Quote from: jesmu84 on February 25, 2014, 06:33:36 PM
Not an econ or finance guy here... isn't there a better way to organize budgets?
Absolutely, zero sum budgeting for one...but because most organizations punish for going over budget and don't reward for going under budget it promotes sandbagging and over budgeting to protect against risk.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-based_budgeting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-based_budgeting)
Quote from: Hards_Alumni on February 25, 2014, 06:09:42 PM
Same thing happens all over the US. Schools, DOT, DOJ... you name it. Spend it, or have your funding reduced for the next budget.
Totally asinine.
I used to do business with VA hospitals and it was the same thing. They had to spend x Amount by the end of the quarter. Had no bearing on what they did or did not need. Just spend it or lose it. Disgraceful
Quote from: mu03eng on February 24, 2014, 05:35:56 PM
Heard the other day someone said the Hogs could be back-stopped/replaced effectively with Spetre's. Clearly they didn't know A) they are rapidly running out of those airframes too without replacement and B) never heard what happens to gunships in a high threat environment (Spirit 03)
Biggest problem with Fat Alberts is reaction time. They need to be mission-dedicated in order to play. Hawgs get to where the action is a lot faster. But Spectres put out a prodigious amount of lead and are almost always devastating immediately. A true difference maker that has saved lots of lives.