If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Generals warn of "geriatric Air Force," predict dramatic rise of military aircraft crashing into Old Country Buffets   (cnn.com) divider line 126
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

8168 clicks; posted to Main » on 18 Feb 2008 at 7:20 PM (6 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



126 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-02-18 08:14:34 PM
i189.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-18 08:15:17 PM
 
2008-02-18 08:18:18 PM
MickeyD;
She must've earned a crapload of flak for that. Surprised she passes the fitness test.

Getting my new ABU's this week.. psyched!
 
2008-02-18 08:18:43 PM
MickeyD

You forgot the CIA agent in the back row--shirt and tie with no headgear.
 
2008-02-18 08:21:14 PM
I'm not big on the gajillions wasted by the military, but the air force needs to have whatever the hell they need to be at least 2 steps ahead of Russia and China.
 
2008-02-18 08:21:27 PM
Give us billions more or YOU'LL DIE!

Sounds so farking familiar. Wasn't some other jerk using this technique to railroad legislation lately?
 
2008-02-18 08:22:46 PM
TFA: "There's no justification for it. Period. End of story," said Gordon Adams, a former Clinton administration budget official who specializes in defense issues. "Until someone constrains these budget requests, the hunger for more will charge ahead unchecked."

Yeah right Dumbass. The price of EVERYTHING has gone up since you raped MY Air Force.

/Remembers the Clinton Years
 
2008-02-18 08:24:22 PM
Maxor: Because congress is full of idiots, and the media is full of people who have absolutely no idea of how to run a defense department but insist on feeding congress all their ideas, It has become appearent that neither the F-22 buy nor the JSF buy will be in the numbers needed therefor some other thype of suggestion is needed. I'm not against purchasing some aircraft from the F-15 export line which is still open or a few new squardons of late block F-16's from the same source. This doesn't end the fact that the wings are cming off the transport aircraft adn the refuelers but It does help. In someways I respect the airforce top command for sticking with the buy of a min numbers of top notch airraft, but I also am pragmatic enough to see the benifiets of enough top notch planes to win at least localized air superiority and enough 2nd rate airframes to carry out all missions, if you can't get enough high end airframes.

I think that unmanned aircraft like the Predator have changed everyone's thinking about future aircraft. Maybe you don't need expensive stealth and electronic countermeasures if the planes are cheap and the pilots are not in danger since they are flying the plane (or planes) remotely.
It's an overused phrase, but there is a paradigm shift in the works.
 
2008-02-18 08:25:35 PM
RoxtarRyan: ABUs are ugly. Sticking with the flight suit and BDUs until 2012
 
2008-02-18 08:26:34 PM
She must\\\'ve earned a crapload of flak for that. Surprised she passes the fitness test.


The statue in the picture looks like a minute man statue which is the symbol of the national guard . So unless she tests on a weekend that don\\\'t care.
 
2008-02-18 08:26:58 PM
Problem is, our military is being outsourced waaaaay to much nowadays. We're using private companies for our food (we already have that in the military), fighting (blackwater, anyone? gotta be frickin' kidding me...), and even using private companies to guard most military installations (pinkerton, securitas for example).

We're spending too much dough on jobs that the military already has, but are now forced to pay 3x as much for a civilian to do what the common soldier can. Why this war costs so much? Where our tax dollars are going? So civilians can now play with soldiers overseas.

No. Nada. No likey. Civilians have no place in war, either fighting, or dying under a list of "casualties". Want to fight/ spend time overseas? Enlist. Seriously, guys... enjoy being here stateside, enjoy what precious little freedoms we have. Don't get a job where you will sent to the desert and not even have the right to wear the uniform.
 
2008-02-18 08:27:35 PM
Comrade438: You're right. The defense industry doesn't create jobs. Nope. Not a single one.

The question is whether the defence industry produces jobs that produce stuff that contributes to the prosperity of Americans. But it doesn't, it spends taxpayer money to create jobs that keep people from productive jobs by produce nothing of value. Well, of course they defend the US, which has some inherent value, but I question whether this is done efficiently.

Maxor: Because congress is full of idiots, and the media is full of people who have absolutely no idea of how to run a defense department but insist on feeding congress all their ideas, It has become appearent that neither the F-22 buy nor the JSF buy will be in the numbers needed therefor some other thype of suggestion is needed.

I recall a study done by the Soviets when they designed the T72. They calculated that the combat effectiveness vs cost of a tank was maximised for a combat life expectancy of something like 5 minutes in combat. So Sovit tanks were built on the cheap, with the expectation that they would suffer 1 to 10 kill loss ratios, but in the knowledge that Soviet Russia could afford to build 10 times more tanks than the Americans. Of course they were wrong because their GDP was 10% of America's.... but that is another story.

The US approach on the other hand is to make a military that is absolutely superior to all other militaries. Moreover, they want to do it with small numbers and minimal casualties. There is an enormous premium attached to this luxury, and that is the primary source of waste in the US defence industry.
 
2008-02-18 08:27:38 PM
Donald_McRonald: kilgorn: Nothing else says "bang for your buck" quite like a B-52

Contrary to rumors, Fred Schneider is not a cheap date.


That being said, a new B-52's album will be released in March!

/first new studio album in a dog's age
//"Funplex"
///very excited
////slasheriffic!
 
2008-02-18 08:28:02 PM
neocssck: RoxtarRyan: ABUs are ugly. Sticking with the flight suit and BDUs until 2012

They'll prolly grow on me. No more starching/pressing, and our commander has said not to bother getting the smurf boots if we already have the DCU's, as he thinks they are a joke.
 
2008-02-18 08:28:38 PM
Holy shiat dude, you're hilarious. I want to subscribe to your newsletter, as long as it isn't printed on the back of a Hardee's wrapper.

A++ world view, would read again.
 
2008-02-18 08:33:10 PM
EmperorTippy:

Actually the US military is pretty much the single reason that the US has the worlds leading economy and is considered a "safe" investment. People don't put there money in a bank in Columbia, they put it in a bank in NYC. Why? Because the odds of the bank refusing to give you your money back are a lot lower in NYC.

And it doesn't matter who owns the factory or any other "hard" asset in the US. You can't export a building to another nation. In the event that the US goes to war with China, the fact that a factory is owned by China won't matter at all because the US government will just seize it and use it to produce whatever it is that they need.

As for those debts, they only matter so long as the US government is willing to pay them off.

---------
And if the US ever goes to war with China I can guarantee you that when the US wins all of the US debt owned by China will be voided, and all US assets currently owned by the Chinese government or even most of its citizens will be seized and sold to other owners.




In one post you said that the US is an economic superpower because investment in our country is considered 'safe' and in the exact same post you make a threat about voiding the debts owned by other countries.

Wonder how safe it would be considered if we actually practiced what you preached.
 
2008-02-18 08:38:16 PM
Mr Logo:

The US approach on the other hand is to make a military that is absolutely superior to all other militaries. Moreover, they want to do it with small numbers and minimal casualties. There is an enormous premium attached to this luxury, and that is the primary source of waste in the US defence industry.



I'd say a good source of waste isn't that they want it to be superior, I'm fine with that. Tell me you want it to do A, B, and C and I'll damned well give it to you and probably come in at the cost I quoted.

But then you want it to do 'D', and when you said 'A' you really meant 'X'.
 
2008-02-18 08:38:42 PM
RoxtarRyan: Problem is, our military is being outsourced waaaaay to much nowadays. We're using private companies for our food

Yeah, the problem is that governments correctly realised that private business is more effective and efficient than government, and then on contracting everything out promptly stuffed it up like all good governments do.
 
2008-02-18 08:40:43 PM
You know, there is a reason that this stuff gets so expensive. It's not the equipment itself, although that certainly isn't cheap. It's the "military-industrial complex", as described by President Eisenhower. The procurement process is so difficult that by the time a new weapons system is fielded it's already 20-years-old technology, at least. Each update/upgrade is proprietary and costs a fortune.

Did you know that in some cases the aircraft maintainers aren't even allowed to maintain the aircraft? It's Remove-and-Replace, no matter how simple the fix might be. The engine/part/whatever is sent back to the manufacturer for rehabilitation. All of that costs money, and lots of it. What's even better is that some genius thought it would be a great idea: hey, let's lease the stuff and palm the responsibility off on the owners? One big catch: the price tag.

The system is an abject disaster, and because it is so beholden to the manufacturers, it will never change.

/Tech Sergeant-Enlisted Aircrew
//Tired of having no flying hours because our guys can't fix stuff
///For the love of God, let's get it in gear, Air Force
 
2008-02-18 08:40:47 PM
Mr Logo: Yeah, the problem is that governments correctly realised that private business is more effective and efficient than government, and then on contracting everything out promptly stuffed it up like all good governments do.

Or our government expanded so fast that even it wasn't large enough to provide its own services.
 
2008-02-18 08:41:00 PM
Mr Logo: RoxtarRyan: Problem is, our military is being outsourced waaaaay to much nowadays. We're using private companies for our food

Yeah, the problem is that governments correctly realised that private business is more effective and efficient than government, and then on contracting everything out promptly stuffed it up like all good governments do.


So, you approve of paying civilians to go fight overseas?
 
2008-02-18 08:41:57 PM
The Air Force gets more for it's dollar than most branches. R & D alone are a boon for this country. Give 'em what they want.
 
2008-02-18 08:44:43 PM
kilgorn: Nothing else says "bang for your buck" quite like a 50 year old B-52

They'll have to be replaced sooner or later. And seeing as how it takes at least 15 years to bring a new aircraft online...
 
2008-02-18 08:47:27 PM
Mr Logo: An answer to you is that private companies charge out the ass to the government to do the same work as a $400/month airman/private
 
2008-02-18 08:47:40 PM
Emperor Tippy

My god your idiots.

Yeah, we're idiots.
 
2008-02-18 08:48:48 PM
 
2008-02-18 08:50:46 PM
neocssck: Mr Logo: An answer to you is that private companies charge out the ass to the government to do the same work as a $400/month airman/private

At least someone gets it.

Don't get me wrong, I in no way intend to put down people who aren't enlisted. I just feel they should not be guarding military installations or fighting over in Iraq/Afghanistan.
 
2008-02-18 08:54:14 PM
America spends more money on its military than the rest of the planet combined.

And you wonder why you're so misunderstood.
 
2008-02-18 08:55:42 PM
jbird71: America spends more money on its military than the rest of the planet combined.

And you wonder why you're so misunderstood.


Who else is going to take down Cthulu when he comes rolling around?
 
2008-02-18 09:00:23 PM
The_OcO: I'm not big on the gajillions wasted by the military, but the air force needs to have whatever the hell they need to be at least 2 steps ahead of Russia and China.

Why the fark would China or Russia go to war with the US? Seriously why didn't you just say "space aliens" instead?
 
2008-02-18 09:00:43 PM
RoxtarRyan: So, you approve of paying civilians to go fight overseas?

Not really, and I was agreeing with you. What I mean is that outsourcing, in certain circumstances, if done properly, can be a very good way of doing things, especially technical things. But the government has outsourced poorly and in the wrong situations.

I was in the infantry where they outsourced our cooks. We ended up paying 10 times more for cooks who looked and cooked like they had just gotten out of prison, instead of our fairly motivated and experienced military cooks. It was a loose-loose situation.
 
2008-02-18 09:02:14 PM
It took about 6 years total time to go from the A-12 to the SR-71, that's including the initial design time for the A-12. That was without computers to do all the myriad calculations on the fly, computer simulations to handle stress tests and the like. Still, 6 years for three design iterations, construction of aircraft and first flights. How long is the F-35 project been going now? How long between the YF-22 and YF-23 fly off and when the F-22 entered service?

And let's not even get into the details of the YF-22 and YF-23 fly off, save to say it wasn't done right.
 
2008-02-18 09:04:56 PM
RoxtarRyan: We're spending too much dough on jobs that the military already has, but are now forced to pay 3x as much for a civilian to do what the common soldier can. Why this war costs so much? Where our tax dollars are going? So civilians can now play with soldiers overseas.

Two words. End Strength.

The military has not really changed size in decades. It apparently takes about 4 million people to run the US military. Used to be way more uniforms than civilians. That has changed. And in a lot of ways, for the better. DO we really need a combat trained private to be cutting the grass? Or can some random lawncare company do it?

Various presidents and congresses have touted their work in reducing the size of the military, but in real terms, all we did was move jobs and functions from uniforms to GS. t still takes the same number of people.

Like my job. Literally...the same job, working for the same boss. Used to be an active duty position, now GS.
 
2008-02-18 09:05:01 PM
Beemer: In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together. (new window)
blogs.abcnews.com

To late brah...too late
 
2008-02-18 09:09:43 PM
MickeyD FTW

/even if you are a squid
// a cute one though
 
2008-02-18 09:09:58 PM
logruszed: The_OcO: I'm not big on the gajillions wasted by the military, but the air force needs to have whatever the hell they need to be at least 2 steps ahead of Russia and China.

Why the fark would China or Russia go to war with the US? Seriously why didn't you just say "space aliens" instead?


But don't you see!?!?! Its not just Russia anymore its China AND Russia. China AND Russia are out to get us. Oh shiat, I forgot about Al Qaeda, That makes 3. shiat shiat... IRAN too?



Five, are you freaking happy now? 5 of them are out to get us, and not only that. When you put them together they turn into this:

upload.wikimedia.org

And Voltron IS from space. So yeah, its freaking space aliens.
Are you happy now? Aliens, space farking aliens.

Just because you didn't want the F-35. Anal probes and crop circles. Gee THANKS.
 
2008-02-18 09:10:17 PM
I have no problem with a geriatric Air Force who have children and grandchildren...and want to see them free of the hell of noookular war.
 
2008-02-18 09:11:42 PM
Mr Logo: The question is whether the defence industry produces jobs that produce stuff that contributes to the prosperity of Americans. But it doesn't, it spends taxpayer money to create jobs that keep people from productive jobs by produce nothing of value. Well, of course they defend the US, which has some inherent value, but I question whether this is done efficiently.

Really? Perhaps we should define value. If by value you mean one of the few commodities which cannot be transfered to a cheap labor market like China, such as advanced military hardware and machinery, then it certainly does have value. In fact, nearly every company which continues to manufacture in this country is somehow intertwined with the defense industry. The avionics, hardware and machinery which are sold as civil products by companies like Boeing are heavy reliant on the subsidies provided to said organizations for products relating to the military.

The advances made in spaceflight, rocketry, avionics and other defense-related industries is vital to maintaining America's edge over her rivals; that this technological progress can then be transfered into the civil field only further illustrates the importance of these government subsidies.
 
2008-02-18 09:14:58 PM
i168.photobucket.com
 
2008-02-18 09:21:26 PM
a very active US Air Force = an uber-expensive business
 
2008-02-18 09:32:10 PM
Donald_McRonald: I was an air force soldier, so let me just say that you guys have no idea what you're talking about.

FAIL

/Good eyes, Thorsen
 
2008-02-18 09:39:18 PM
From the latter half of World War II until today the US has mainly had air superiority in the areas it fought, and we have had one of the lowest casuality rates because of it. But at the beginning of WWII the US had sub standard aircraft (compared to Japan and Germany) and we paid for it with the lives of both soldiers and civilians in the areas that were over-run. Both Germany and Japan proved that without air superiority you lose.

There are nations trying to develop aircraft better than what we are using now. Since they've had 30 years to do it the aircraft are pretty good. Most people in the US were surprised by how good Japan's aircraft were at the start of the WWII. We had no fighters that could match the Zero. This is for all the people who belittle Russia and China (and India and Iran, all producing 5th generation jet aircraft). We've been over-confident before.

People need to go back and read about the start of procurement of the F-15. It was too complex, too big, and too expensive. The F-4 was fine, we didn't need a new plane. The same arguments heard today about the F-22 and F-35.

I am NOT a supporter of the Iraq war. I argued against it when it started because our government did not prove that Saddam was still a threat. And it has taken a toll on all military equipment. Tanks, trucks, Humvee's, Bradley Fighting vehicles have all had a lot more use with less maintenance than they should have had for the last 7 years. And most of it is not being replaced, only patched. In part, THIS is what destroyed the Soviet Union. The cost of fixing and replacing their war machine during a prolonged war that provided no economic benefit for being there (in their case it was Afghanistan).

But like it or not, we need a dominating air force. That means new planes. And at this point, it would cost more to re-tool factories to produce old F-15's than to keep making F-22's. There are all sorts of special jigs and fixtures used to build aircraft, and these have been destroyed. Yes they can be rebuilt, but then these 'new' F-15's would be matched against new Russian and Chinese aircraft. And both of these nations have stealth aircraft in development.
 
2008-02-18 09:40:02 PM
cefm: Maybe they should be building NEW F-16's instead of wasting huge amounts of cash on F-22's and F-35's that aren't even necessary because nobody can touch an F-16 as it is now!

F-16s are completely touchable.

F-22s are not. F-16 drivers say they're the most frustrating things to fight.
 
2008-02-18 09:40:46 PM
Geriatric Air Force? No problem!

airferg.com
Just load 'em up and drop 'em on target.
 
2008-02-18 09:40:48 PM
Stinger Missile

Unit cost US$38,000
(Raytheon Missile Systems)

FTA
Each F-22 Raptor costs about $160 million. The Air Force says it needs 381 of the radar-evading planes and is fighting to keep the production line from being shut down too soon.
$60+ Billion for 381 planes (with no cost over runs)

or

1,604,210 Stinger missiles


We DO spend more than the the rest of the world on weapons. We are also the largest seller of weapons (China is coming up quick) and we give away the most weapons...mostly to "our" dictators.
 
2008-02-18 09:55:49 PM
Keep dreaming. Once the AF boned Northrop on the F-20, there was no hope for cost constraint. Suck it up, AF, you screwed the pooch and you're not getting all your toys until you genuflect to the contractors and tell them you need them and love them and you'll suck them for a change.
 
2008-02-18 09:56:59 PM
Comrade438: Really? Perhaps we should define value. If by value you mean one of the few commodities which cannot be transfered to a cheap labor market like China, such as advanced military hardware and machinery, then it certainly does have value. In fact, nearly every company which continues to manufacture in this country is somehow intertwined with the defense industry. The avionics, hardware and machinery which are sold as civil products by companies like Boeing are heavy reliant on the subsidies provided to said organizations for products relating to the military.

The advances made in spaceflight, rocketry, avionics and other defense-related industries is vital to maintaining America's edge over her rivals; that this technological progress can then be transfered into the civil field only further illustrates the importance of these government subsidies.


You did a poor job of defining value. The military produces hardly anything of value other than defence. Most of the money spent on the military is blown up, burnt, depreciated in equipment, spent on researching specific systems (e.g. weapons systems) that will never have civilian use, or spent on paying people to do the former.

The fact is that the military is a huge money sink, which pretty much only produces defence.

As for transfering technology to civilian use, that is very over rated. It might have been true in the firts half of this century, when a period of enormous technical development coincided with two world wars but would have happened anyway. These days most civilian use technology is developed by private business. This is evidenced by the fact that, military technology is generally redundant by the time it is declasified.

There are few possible exceptions. In aviation for example there might be some overlap in materials technology that is used to decrease aircraft weight. Spaceflight has traditionally been the domain of government, but it is not clear whether private business would have done a better job had governments not had a monopoly on space flight.

Otherwise, if you look at the industries in which technology is advancing at the greatest rate, consumer electronics, the automotive industry, medicine (even with its problems), and communications, agriculture, etc, all of these are driven by private industry and public demand.
 
2008-02-18 10:00:01 PM
The F-22 is a cost effective weapon. You must consider the threats it will be facing 15 years from now.

So, yeah, let's rest on our laurels and let the rest of the world catch up to us. It's not like another Hitler or Stalin is going to ever exist. And, dammit, war is so much better when it's a fair fight.

/Not saying our military can't be more efficient.
//The air force needs to keep the A-10.
///the AF also handles cyber-warfare.
////Who will police the world if we go down? If you answer the UN (or any other global gov't that should ever try to exist), remember Iran and similar despotic gov'ts are the majority in the world.
 
2008-02-18 10:02:49 PM
Happy we can nuke anyone who messes with us back to the stone age. Our nation is going bankrupt because of the massive spending. Who is going to take us down again?
 
2008-02-18 10:11:10 PM
Fly a geriatric F-15C and A-10 Thunderbolt II in Lock On.

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

fototime.com

/Lock on (new window)
 
Displayed 50 of 126 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report