Military spending, we need a lot...

[billc]

Here is a story about a father and son in the military who flew the same fighter aircraft...the exact same fighter aircraft...thirty years apart...

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/05/...her-son-flew-same-fighter-jet-30-years-apart/

Deptula uses the term “geriatric aviation force” to describe the current state of affairs. He has firsthand experience. He earned his wings and flew an F-15 for the first time in 1977. Thirty years later, another Deptula boarded the aircraft. His son, Lt. David A. Deptula II, flew the same F-15 at Kadena Air Force Base in Japan.
The Wall Street Journal documented the amazing father-son storylast fall to illustrate the challenges facing the aging force. The elder Deptula recounted how the fighter was originally designed for a 4,000-hour service life. That was later extended to 8,000 hours.
“We have really flown these aircraft well beyond what originally would be believed as their replacement lifetime,” Deptula said of the F-15s. “And now, because of some of the fiscal constraints that are being imposed on the Department of Defense, there is consideration being given to extending the lifetime even further.”

Deptula worries that fiscal constraints imposed on the military — including more than $492 billion of mandatory defense cuts on the horizon — will result in future challenges.
“I hear people talk about, well you know, the U.S. military spends more money than the next 17 nations combined,” Deptula said. “Well, the next 17 nations combined are not committed to maintaining peace and stability around the world. We are.”

 

[Sukerkin]

Don't panic or faint but, on this issue, I happen to agree with the principle behind your post here. Are you okay? Sit down if you feel a bit dizzy :lol:

One of the problems (amongst many) that opened the door to the start of the Second World War was that the Royal Navy, the force that had kept the global lid on the pot since the First World War, had slowly become an empty shadow of itself. Keeping a globe spanning navy of top line ships costs such a large fortune that the budget was trimmed and slimmed again and again so that other necessary things could be paid for.

For a decade or so, the facade played the role just as well as a truly combat effective force would have done - 'reputation' is a unit of force in it's own right after all. But eventually, despite all that was done (via treaty and economics) to hamstring them, the German's not only saw through the charade but also built up a naval force of their own that was world class. The confidence that they could stand up to and probably 'see off' the Royal Navy was one of the irons in the fire of the decision that they were no longer going to dance to the tune set by the Empire or the American's.

Whilst people often speak of deterrence, I don't think they always properly understand how much it costs to have one and if they find out they complain bitterly about it. In such cases I sometimes ponder to myself if they further understand how much it costs not to have one?

As we say of ourselves in the martial arts, it is of paramount importance not to look like a victim, for that is often the trigger for an attack by those with malfeasance on their mind. The same applies to countries.

 

[billc]

Sukerkin, don't worry, I won't faint, I mean, you can't be wrong all the time can you...:angel:

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: John (Twin Fist) used to say much the same thing when our opinions converged on matters of importance.

 

[mmartist]

Probably the only silver lining on this cloud is the fact that the air forces of other countries are experiencing the same problems. At least, the countries that can be counted among the major players on the world scene.
The Chinese have increased their military spending tremendously over the past 10 years or so. Because of that, their territorial claims and harsh stance they have taken on many matters they have caused a minor arms race in the South Asia Region. But their air fleet is still very outdated and comprised mainly by Chinese hardware. And despite their improvements in some areas , Made in China is not yet a stamp of quality.
The Russians have been pouring money in re-armament too, since Putin replaced Yeltsin. But they have a big land border with China, they’ve had some border clashes with them in the 70es and the Russian Far East is really exposed to the Chinese military if they decide to reclaim the territories they’ve lost to the Russian Empire centuries ago.
Overall I think that United States Air Force is still the best in the world.

 

[CanuckMA]

We need the right kind. Is a 35 year old airframe due for replacement? yes it is. Does it need to be replaced by a wildly expensive piece of tech like the F-22 or F-35? likely not. Brand new F-15 or F18s may very well be able to do the job.

 

[sfs982000]

Being currently serving military member (U.S.A.F), we care being told constantly to do more with less which is scary. Our budgets are getting smaller and smaller every year. As far as the aging airfleet goes, our maintainers do an outstanding job of working with what they have to keep our planes in the air.

 

[cdunn]

We need the right kind. Is a 35 year old airframe due for replacement? yes it is. Does it need to be replaced by a wildly expensive piece of tech like the F-22 or F-35? likely not. Brand new F-15 or F18s may very well be able to do the job.

The correct question to ask is not "Can the previous generation of equipment to the job?", it is "What is the job that needs done, and how do we do it best?" Most Americans, I think you'll find, are 100% for a military that is fully able to respond to current, and reasonably predictable threats. That threat is mostly limited to Middle Eastern and North African states, which do not have large fleets of advanced aircraft. The major jobs of the US military, at the moment, are twofold: to fight bushfires & terrorist cells, which call for surveillence, ably supplied by UAV, close ground attack against targets with little to no radar, ably supplied by UAV, and small forces movement, and to occupy Afghanistan while we hand over government to the locals... which calls for basically the same thing with many, many more policing troops.

Right now, there simply is no point in maintaining a large supply of fighter jets and strategic bombers or enormous naval fleets; those few countries which have the resources to overcome a reduced force are highly unlikely to find it in their interest to do so. Meanwhile technology is once again changing, and the basic weapons we want to use to win a war are different than what they were before.

So spend it - but think carefully about what what you spend it on... and be prepared to open your wallet at home for it. The flyaway cost for 1 F-18E/F is $0.70 per taxpayer. 1 F-35A is $2. And that's not counting the pilot, the fuel, the maintence, etc. And we're not supposed to raise taxes or let the government spend money, remember?

 

[Master Dan]

Don't panic or faint but, on this issue, I happen to agree with the principle behind your post here. Are you okay? Sit down if you feel a bit dizzy :lol:

One of the problems (amongst many) that opened the door to the start of the Second World War was that the Royal Navy, the force that had kept the global lid on the pot since the First World War, had slowly become an empty shadow of itself. Keeping a globe spanning navy of top line ships costs such a large fortune that the budget was trimmed and slimmed again and again so that other necessary things could be paid for.

For a decade or so, the facade played the role just as well as a truly combat effective force would have done - 'reputation' is a unit of force in it's own right after all. But eventually, despite all that was done (via treaty and economics) to hamstring them, the German's not only saw through the charade but also built up a naval force of their own that was world class. The confidence that they could stand up to and probably 'see off' the Royal Navy was one of the irons in the fire of the decision that they were no longer going to dance to the tune set by the Empire or the American's.

Whilst people often speak of deterrence, I don't think they always properly understand how much it costs to have one and if they find out they complain bitterly about it. In such cases I sometimes ponder to myself if they further understand how much it costs not to have one?

As we say of ourselves in the martial arts, it is of paramount importance not to look like a victim, for that is often the trigger for an attack by those with malfeasance on their mind. The same applies to countries.

While I agree with much of what you have said I would also ask the question did not the fall of the USSR come from economic bankruptcy due to the cold war and we just out spent them? and now everything we get thanks to no taxes for corporations and deregulation all our defense spending comes form barrowing more money from the Chinese which at some point comes to an end and guys like speaker Boner want to shut government down by not allowing the debt ceiling to be increased how does that look when our troops don't get a pay check when the government shuts down?????????????

To me a good deterent is lets get some value out of all those nukes we made and start wiping a city or two out in countries that continue to foster and shelter teroists to harm the US regardless of the flak I see alot of countries and people waving flags Oh America you friend we love you I just don't get the nation building crap didn't work in Vietnam not going to change cultures or tribal peoples and our track record for supporting dictators and despots that served our corporate interest is not good and the 99% do the dying?

I live and can really see Russia from my house and they for the most part shut down 90% of our National Guard post here a serious financial hit to the community, Pakistan Jerks pull all our support and let them and India nuke it out? why do our young guys have to keep dying and getting maimed in wars that cannot be won? There is alot of sense in what you say but it seems our country financially is circling the drain which is a bigger threat to our defense?

 

[Tez3]

While I agree with much of what you have said I would also ask the question did not the fall of the USSR come from economic bankruptcy due to the cold war and we just out spent them? and now everything we get thanks to no taxes for corporations and deregulation all our defense spending comes form barrowing more money from the Chinese which at some point comes to an end and guys like speaker Boner want to shut government down by not allowing the debt ceiling to be increased how does that look when our troops don't get a pay check when the government shuts down?????????????

To me a good deterent is lets get some value out of all those nukes we made and start wiping a city or two out in countries that continue to foster and shelter teroists to harm the US regardless of the flak I see alot of countries and people waving flags Oh America you friend we love you I just don't get the nation building crap didn't work in Vietnam not going to change cultures or tribal peoples and our track record for supporting dictators and despots that served our corporate interest is not good and the 99% do the dying?

I live and can really see Russia from my house and they for the most part shut down 90% of our National Guard post here a serious financial hit to the community, Pakistan Jerks pull all our support and let them and India nuke it out? why do our young guys have to keep dying and getting maimed in wars that cannot be won? There is alot of sense in what you say but it seems our country financially is circling the drain which is a bigger threat to our defense?

Really? You want to kill millions of innocents just because you can. Says a lot that.

 

[Master Dan]

I would like to add another key point to our defense should be the national infrastructure at all levels including military manufacturing ships planes ect if roads water power fuel bridges ship yards continue to degrade even disapear are we really going to some day have labels on our weopons and equipment made in Korea made in China??

Fixing all of this with defense spending could reemploy our country does not security begin at home?

 

[Master Dan]

Really? You want to kill millions of innocents just because you can. Says a lot that.

Not milions necessarily? but the only way you stop a country or enemy with an ideology that you your country has no right to live or be free is the ultimate realization of total destruction. We did that to Japan to save our mens lives end the war and demonstrate to future enemies that we would if needed.

There are no innocents each countries people are subject to the eventual judgment or condition by allowing thier government or harboring nurturing hate or offensive life styles that condone or promote eventual warefare and all war kills people.

We invaded to free France but to this day thier are communities never rebuilt and some who hate us there becasue they were doing ok under German rule and we killed thier famly members destroyed thier homes and cities to force the
Germans out. People die its the purpose of war until one side surrenders. Why should our young men die daily and be maimed have no job no homes when they return when for less money we can change our energy policies put people to work here and if need send in drones what ever?

The protracted nation buildig crap is a business not a clear winable objective and still inocent people die for profit?

 

[Tez3]

Not milions necessarily? but the only way you stop a country or enemy with an ideology that you your country has no right to live or be free is the ultimate realization of total destruction. We did that to Japan to save our mens lives end the war and demonstrate to future enemies that we would if needed.

There are no innocents each countries people are subject to the eventual judgment or condition by allowing thier government or harboring nurturing hate or offensive life styles that condone or promote eventual warefare and all war kills people.

We invaded to free France but to this day thier are communities never rebuilt and some who hate us there becasue they were doing ok under German rule and we killed thier famly members destroyed thier homes and cities to force the
Germans out. People die its the purpose of war until one side surrenders. Why should our young men die daily and be maimed have no job no homes when they return when for less money we can change our energy policies put people to work here and if need send in drones what ever?

The protracted nation buildig crap is a business not a clear winable objective and still inocent people die for profit?

I really think you don't know what you are actually talking about.
America didn't 'invade' France to free them, the Allied forces including French troops landed on the Da Day beaches to defeat the Germans, it wasn't an invasion! What communities in France haven't been rebuilt? These days I doubt anyone hates American just because of the last World war which ended 67 years ago. A good many French are very grateful which you can see by their war memorial services, I have attened some of them and believe they don't hate the Americans, they know they gained their freedom with Allied help.

Your soldiers die because your government have sent them to fight in a war. The debates come from that not specious arguments about the French etc. I think you need to look deepr into the hisotry of the Middle East to understand what is going on there, you need to look at Americans role in what has happeneded there too, starting with the end of the First World War. I am aware btw of the British role in all of this but as Dan is talking about America's soldiers etc I'll keep my comments confined to just that for now.

 

[CanuckMA]

I would rather not try to imagine what would happen in the afrtermath of the US dropping a nuke on a Middle Eastern country. It would make 9/11 look like a joke. You would, in literaly a flash, radicalize the Muslim world. No westerner would be safe, anywhere.

 

[billc]

At the same time, you can't allow yourselves to arm yourselves for the last war. Sure, now we are fighting against light infantry forces, but that won't stay that way forever. Remember when the war started and the armor on the humvees had to be upgraded because of the nature of i.e.d.s. Russia, China are arming with the most advanced weapon systems they can afford and build, we have to be prepared for them down the road. The middle eastern countries may not always be military 3rd raters, and we have to be prepared for that as well. I want the best equipment at the best price for our men and women to fight with. I would rather be in a position where no one even thinks to challenge us rather than play catch up because we were stingy in the present.

Arming for the last war has always been a mistake. In my history class on Britain from the Boer war to the 1930's, the British went into WW1 with the equipment and tactics to fight the lightly armed Boers. That equipment and those tactics were completely irrelevant in the trench warfare that they ended up in against the Germans. They had to retool on fly to deal with the new methods of warfare. I'd rather not learn on the fly.

In that class, the professor also spoke about the new ship canons that were developed which changed the naval balance of power between the British and the Germans. The Germans were able to build a new navy, with the latest weapons, because they could start from scratch. Much like the 3rd world countries that are skipping the land line phone systems and going straight to cellular phones.

 

[WC_lun]

I understand the need to have a military that is effective. We indeed do need to spend enough to keep ourselves relevant mlitarily. However, we have outspent every other country for years, even before we became involved in two wars. We are the best military in the world, even with some older pieces of equipment, such as the f-15 and f-16. In fact, many countries still buy those planes from us as an upgrade to thier own military. Now that we are winding down our involvement in Afganistan and Iraq, we NEED to spend much of that money on our infrastructure, instead of on defense for a war that is unlikley. If we do not start spending more money on things like bridges, roads, and government services, it won't matter how good our military is because we'll have collapsed from the inside out. Think of something like the fall of Rome.

For many of those in congress pushing for large defense spending, it is more to bring money to thier home districts, be oppositional to the admiistrations efforts to reduce spending, and/or satify the lobbyist that have given them money. None of those are sufficient reasons to increase military spending at the expense of repairing our infrastructure.

 

[billc]

The administration is only trying to reduce spending on the military. They are spending like drunk sailors, on leave, everywhere else, with the exception that drunk sailors spend their own money. The infrastructure projects didn't receive the promised money, but the government unions did, right before the 2010 elections. Also, the list of obama cronies that recieved billions of tax dollars for "green" energy scams also was huge. So the whole, "spend money on our infrastructure," isn't going to get done by obama and his crew, regardless of what they say.

this article discusses obama's record on "public" spending projects...the link below can't be reached without subscribing to the washington post, but Rush read a large part of the article on his show today...that link is below the following one...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html

Rush reading from the article...

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2012/05/25/obama_s_public_equity_failures

The highlight of this piece...

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill.

And this is what the American taxpayer recieved for all of obama's "investments"...

So back to Thiessen's piece. "Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity -- and that record is not pretty. Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters -- leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:
"Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes."
Here's Obama, trying to tell us that the people at Bain are still in business and still doing what they're doing, and the number one guy at Bain right now is an Obama fundraiser, by the way. The head honcho at Bain is an Obama bundler. Bain is still in business. Bain's doing well. Obama is the one that doesn't know what he's doing. Obama is the one that's a disaster. Obama's the one that picks losers. Obama is the one who gives your money away to people that go bankrupt and fire employees.

"ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, 'We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.'"
Okay, he's two-for-two in failures, but he's gotta like this. ECOtality says they may not sustain profitability. Sustain? They may not even get there. And this guy's in Michelle Obama's box. He's being held up as an example of stimulus success. Another Obama bankruptcy on the verge of happening. "According to CBS News the company is 'under investigation for insider trading,' and Karner has been subpoenaed 'for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.'
"Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in 'financial turmoil' and that '[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was "significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern."' First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company 'fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.'"
So a solar firm given three billion, losing $401 million because they fired 30% of the workforce. "Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees. Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon -- a green-energy storage company -- a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, 'Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of "CCC-plus."' In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy."
These are just tip of the iceberg. Everything Obama's touched in terms of public equity has gone bankrupt. They've laid people off. And it's not been his money. It's been ours that he has lost.

So this is where funding our infrastructure money is going...