Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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.

(The New York Times)   Defense Secretary Hagel plans to shrink Army to Pre-WWII level. But wait, there's more. A-10, buh-bye. Hello F-35. U-2, buh-bye. Hello Global Hawks   (nytimes.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8483 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



248 Comments   (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2014-02-24 01:39:24 AM  
FTFA: some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move

10 to1 that those are the same asshats pushing for austerity, deficit reduction,"fiscal responsibility", and "small government".
 
2014-02-24 02:43:11 AM  
When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.
 
2014-02-24 05:58:09 AM  
Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.
 
2014-02-24 07:02:46 AM  

slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.


Oh come on. There are better SSOs than CAS.
 
2014-02-24 07:04:06 AM  
FTFA:  "In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk."

This is very shortsighted. It goes to show if you have you hands in the pants of those in the capitol (I'm looking at you Northrop Grumman), your less capable and unreliable aircraft will make it through downsizing.
 
2014-02-24 07:08:57 AM  

slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.


I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.
 
2014-02-24 07:10:56 AM  
I'm OK with this.
 
2014-02-24 07:14:33 AM  
He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.
 
2014-02-24 07:15:10 AM  
I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.
 
2014-02-24 07:16:03 AM  

whistleridge: and viola! It stays


???

donrathjr.com
 
2014-02-24 07:17:47 AM  

onyxruby: He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.


Don't worry, America always gets into some conflict with a pissant dictator or two where we can "prove" the technology.
 
2014-02-24 07:18:47 AM  
Good plan. Then we need to shift more of the $2B/day defense spending onto the multinational corporations, where it belongs. But none of it will happen.
 
2014-02-24 07:19:58 AM  
Good bye Thornbirds hello Goldie Hawns!

/Private Benjamin 1980
 
2014-02-24 07:24:22 AM  
Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

And God knows the only thing the Army is good for is breaking things and killing people.  Just ignore all the MEDCAP, humanitarian assistance, security assistance,  nation building in Latin America, military to military contacts, disaster relief....

 I do so look forward to the drama and outrage when Congress or the President says "Heyworth Army, could you just-"  "No can."  "What have we been budgeting?"  "Not enough to roll out of the base gates."  "WARRGGLLLEBARRGLE!"

I get it, we go to war with the Army we have, not the Army we'd like to have.  But why not have the Army we'd like to have on no notice?
 
2014-02-24 07:25:27 AM  
I heard this and Cuomo's multi-billion dollar pre-K education plan on NPR this morning. My first thought was "what country did I get teleported into while I slept?" Seriously, this is good news all around.
 
2014-02-24 07:25:28 AM  

RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.


I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.
 
2014-02-24 07:26:27 AM  
Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!
 
2014-02-24 07:30:49 AM  

slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.


The A-10 sucks for close air support man.  SUCKS.   Its like trying to set tiny diamonds into an engagement ring with a #7 ballpeen.    The missions it performed in GW1 and 2 can be performed by a GH with hellfires and a gulfstream with two vulcans.

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it.  No armor, no need for armor busters.
 
2014-02-24 07:32:27 AM  
YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!
 
2014-02-24 07:33:13 AM  
We should be able to drown the military in a bath tub, like the rest of the federal government
 
2014-02-24 07:33:16 AM  
Shrink the army? Yes, as long as the eliminated units are the ones that haven't deployed under their own TOEs in the last 15 years.

Retire the A-10? Current airframes are pretty beat up, but we were complete idiots for not ordering new ones. That should have happened immediately in 2003, when it became clear how valuable that airframe's mission still is. See next comment.

Hello F-35? Oh, for fark's sake. Each F-35 will cost more than $200,000,000. Israel has bought brand-new F-16s in the last decade for around $22,000,000 each. We could fire up the A-10 assembly line again, improve the engine and avionics, and still build them for less than $30,000,000 each. There is absolutely nothing I've read about the multi-role F-35 that justifies its immense cost compared to previous-generation aircraft. We could field twice as many wings of F-16 and A-10s, and doubling the personnel cost still would be cheaper than buying the F-35. This project has turned into a huge shiat sandwich, but nobody is willing to take a bite out of it.

Replace the U2 with the Global Hawk? Sounds fine to me. I'd much rather lose a UAV than a living spy pilot.


Bigdogdaddy: Don't worry, America always gets into some conflict with a pissant dictator or two where we can "prove" the technology.


Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?

img.fark.net
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2014-02-24 07:33:50 AM  

slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.


So?  Soldiers are expendable and it doesn't do much for Lockheed's bottom line.

You have to keep your priorities straight.
 
2014-02-24 07:34:15 AM  

Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!


It's as big as a whale!
 
2014-02-24 07:36:37 AM  
The fiscal 2015 budget will also call for slowing the growth of tax-free housing allowances for military personnel and would reduce the $1.4 billion direct subsidy provided to military commissaries, which would most likely make goods purchased at those commissaries more expensive for soldiers.
The budget also proposes an increase in health insurance deductibles and some co-pays for some military retirees and for some family members of active servicemen.


That's some good priorities, there.
 
2014-02-24 07:38:00 AM  

prjindigo: The A-10 sucks for close air support man. SUCKS. Its like trying to set tiny diamonds into an engagement ring with a #7 ballpeen. The missions it performed in GW1 and 2 can be performed by a GH with hellfires and a gulfstream with two vulcans.

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it. No armor, no need for armor busters.


A guy I work with served in Iraq an Afghanistan and has told me...the Apache is awesome...but the A-10?  He loves it.  A-10's bailed them out more times than the Apache...and the farking thing is intimidating.

If the USAF doesn't want it, give it to the Army.
 
2014-02-24 07:39:48 AM  
www.washingtonpost.com

This is really good, BTW.
 
2014-02-24 07:40:18 AM  

slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.


This.

I've seen it and the B-1 in action.  Both of those "old" airframes are far superior to anything that our two "modern" aircraft can achieve, and do it far more economically.
And achievement is a lot more than just being sexy at the air show.
You've got to be able to do it over, and over, and over, and not be crippled by some bug in software.
The A-10 is simply resilient.
And it's sexy.  But I like ugly sexy, so there's that.
 
2014-02-24 07:44:45 AM  

DrPainMD: When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.

Ooooh what a shot. You're right though. I use to  wonder what it would be like if Redstone closed and Marshall was all that was left. Huntsville is built around the two and losing the two would destroy North Central Alabama.

/On the cool side I'd have fewer neighbors and more privacy though.

 
2014-02-24 07:45:33 AM  
His reasoning on eliminating the A-10 makes sense but that aircraft has been a favorite of mine for 25 years.
 
2014-02-24 07:45:38 AM  

Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....


A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.
 
2014-02-24 07:47:46 AM  

slayer199: If the USAF doesn't want it, give it to the Army.


Per inter-service agreements, the only fixed-wing aircraft the Army is allowed to have are small utility aircraft.  Combat and larger cargo aircraft aren't allowed.

/Army can have all the helicopters it wants, though.
 
2014-02-24 07:48:38 AM  

rolladuck: The A-10 is simply resilient.
And it's sexy.  But I like ugly sexy, so there's that.


The euphemism I like for an attractive ugly girl is "peasant beauty".
 
2014-02-24 07:49:42 AM  

The top 20 countries ranked by global military expenditure in 2007, in millions of constant 2005 US dollars:

i.imgur.com



I think we'll be okay. Just a hunch.
 
2014-02-24 07:50:18 AM  
The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.
 
2014-02-24 07:52:51 AM  

MrBallou: FTFA: some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move

10 to1 that those are the same asshats pushing for austerity, deficit reduction,"fiscal responsibility", and "small government".


No bet.
 
2014-02-24 07:53:48 AM  

dittybopper: The euphemism I like for an attractive ugly girl is "peasant beauty".


I'm adding that to my repertoire.  Thanks!
 
2014-02-24 07:58:54 AM  
The A-10 is better at CAS than the F35 will ever be, and far cheaper to maintain and operate. It's also a proven asset, and like others have mentioned, it's one of the few weapons that scares the enemy. If you don't believe me hit up YT or liveleak and try to find that one where some coalition country (Great Britain maybe) that calls in danger close a little too close. The Air Force has always hated the A-10 because it's not fast and cannot into dogfighting. Pilots in GW1 had first gen planes that didn't have upgraded navigation or night capabilities. They used the thermal cams on newer ATG missiles to navigate at night and score kills. Whatever benefit we get from the F35's stealth is a moot point for CAS, because we're not going to risk ground troops somewhere we don't have total air superiority. The F35 is terrible and worse at everything the A-10 does./TLDR, A-10 is cheap, kills durkas, doesn't afraid of anything. Also dat gun.
 
2014-02-24 08:00:39 AM  

clkeagle: Hello F-35? Oh, for fark's sake. Each F-35 will cost more than $200,000,000. Israel has bought brand-new F-16s in the last decade for around $22,000,000 each. We could fire up the A-10 assembly line again, improve the engine and avionics, and still build them for less than $30,000,000 each. There is absolutely nothing I've read about the multi-role F-35 that justifies its immense cost compared to previous-generation aircraft. We could field twice as many wings of F-16 and A-10s, and doubling the personnel cost still would be cheaper than buying the F-35. This project has turned into a huge shiat sandwich, but nobody is willing to take a bite out of it.


A-10s and F-16s can't take-off from carrier decks, much less amphibs.

That having been said, they screwed-up the F-35 (though not the way people usually complain about). It was supposed to be a Swiss-Army knife - but one of those small ones, not one that includes scissors and a magnifying glass. And that pretty much hoses it for the Navy.

I blame the Marines.
 
2014-02-24 08:01:29 AM  

antron: whistleridge: and viola! It stays

???

[donrathjr.com image 500x200]


I think he meant "walla!".

/pet peave
 
2014-02-24 08:01:37 AM  

clkeagle: Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?


That was arrogant stupidity on our part and clever work on the Serbs' part. It's not the aircraft that failed. It worked as advertised.
 
2014-02-24 08:03:03 AM  

onyxruby: He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.


Once upon a time that proven technology also was  unproven. Besides, there is thing called an "arms race". Technology that might have been great 10 years ago may be obsolete now for a variety of reasons.
 
2014-02-24 08:05:14 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.


Why would we do that? It's not like we have failing schools, hungry children, people who need healthcare and any number of other issues that need attention.
 
2014-02-24 08:05:50 AM  

Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.


Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 08:09:06 AM  
boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.
 
2014-02-24 08:09:52 AM  

spamdog: That's some good priorities, there.


Well because of the last decade of wars, we've kinda generated a great amount of vets than we had in 2003. Vets cost a shiatload. Something has to give, better to drop a percentage than to cut a pension program entirely.

slayer199: If the USAF doesn't want it, give it to the Army.


I've heard that there are calls to get rid of the USAF and merge them into both the Navy and Army as respective air wings within those branches. I'd be curious if that idea gets any traction.
 
2014-02-24 08:11:25 AM  

Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.


Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.
 
2014-02-24 08:12:04 AM  
I would just like to say that my experience from living under occasional A-10 flight patterns is that the damn things would be utterly terrifying if I thought they were gunning for me.  They're big, ungainly, screech like a banshee, and have enough firepower to take out small nations.  Given its reputation and proven performance, it's probably one of the best military investments we've made.

If the AF doesn't want them, as others have said, give 'em to the Army.  I'm sure the Army would see the value and keep them operating.
 
2014-02-24 08:12:24 AM  

Bigdogdaddy: onyxruby: He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.

Don't worry, America always gets into some conflict with a pissant dictator or two where we can "prove" the technology.


Like helicopters in Afghanistan? Lol
 
2014-02-24 08:17:03 AM  

vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.


The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.
 
2014-02-24 08:17:14 AM  

dittybopper: The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need


Not to mention it doesn't have the weapons capabilities, simplicity, or survivability of the A-10.
 
2014-02-24 08:18:23 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.


well, not so much that dictators will have free reign, it's that they'll have to deal with a chinese or russian police force, not american.

Skail:If the AF doesn't want them, as others have said, give 'em to the Army.  I'm sure the Army would see the value and keep them operating.

Except that the Army isn't allowed to have combat aircraft or they'd be stepping on the AF's toes. It boils down to politics and the AF tend to act like holier than thou dicks when it comes to that, despite being the youngest branch
 
2014-02-24 08:18:32 AM  
I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad
 
2014-02-24 08:18:42 AM  

dejavoodoo64: DrPainMD: When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.

Ooooh what a shot. You're right though. I use to  wonder what it would be like if Redstone closed and Marshall was all that was left. Huntsville is built around the two and losing the two would destroy North Central Alabama.


So? The important part is bolded/underlined, above.
 
2014-02-24 08:23:27 AM  
I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way
 
2014-02-24 08:26:19 AM  
U-2 is not needed. However, think about what is happening in the world. Russia getting its groove back, US backing down everywhere. A strong, tough, cheap ground attack aircraft is very much needed.

That being said, Dems are happy to cut the military, but think nothing of trillions of dollars for worthless wealth redistribution schemes and keeping and increasing welfare recipients all the time, not smart economically.

But heh, at least more people can focus on their painting (Pelosi actually said this).
 
2014-02-24 08:26:21 AM  
I'm sure the AF won't mind as long as they keep control of the Stargate.
 
2014-02-24 08:26:44 AM  

generallyso: The top 20 countries ranked by global military expenditure in 2007, in millions of constant 2005 US dollars:

[i.imgur.com image 590x417]

I think we'll be okay. Just a hunch.


Reminds me of that "Help! We're being oppressed!" pie graph of religions in the USA....
 
2014-02-24 08:27:03 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.


Whatever.
Democratically elected leaders, the President and Congress, sent the Army off to do bad things to bad people.  You did not like some of the politicians and some of the operations.
Noted.
Because God knows, that is a good reason to be incapable of a future combat operation you might approve of.

Let's just ignore hurricane relief, tsunami relief, famine relief, UN peacekeeping, medical assistance, de-mining, immunization programs, construction projects, the diplomatic value of military training, assistance, military-to-military contacts, and a bunch of other stuff no one cares about.  Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do.  We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away.  Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.
 
2014-02-24 08:28:44 AM  

vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.


anti-aircraft defenses are easily dismantled. No aircraft in the world will pose a threat to the 4th gen aircraft flown by American pilots. Until there is a true F-22 like enemy plane, with trained pilots, going to stay that way. We really need the F-22 to clear the skies, and regular old timer planes to kill stuff on the ground. I am not a fan of the F-35.
 
2014-02-24 08:30:58 AM  

Laobaojun: Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do. We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away. Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.


Well that used to be up to the department of state, until militarists gutted it in favor of defense spending....

But have fun with the "the military is doing God's work" thing, that'll work out great.
 
2014-02-24 08:31:01 AM  
I bet we could convert A-10's into drones.
 
2014-02-24 08:31:22 AM  

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way


That kind of thinking allowed the North Koreans (with a little help from China) to survive past 1953. The problem with nukes as deterrent is that it only deters nukes, not any lesser incursion.  And if we nuke someone over a lesser incursion, some crazy people think that makes us the bad guy.
 
2014-02-24 08:32:38 AM  
The Army drawdown has been planned for years.   Nothing new there.    Savings in manpower will get spent on new toys.   Expensive toys.       The budget for 2016 will probably spend as much as this year, if not more.
 
2014-02-24 08:36:19 AM  

spamdog: Laobaojun: Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do. We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away. Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.

Well that used to be up to the department of state, until militarists gutted it in favor of defense spending....

But have fun with the "the military is doing God's work" thing, that'll work out great.


Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries.  The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.
 
2014-02-24 08:36:54 AM  

Laobaojun: juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way

That kind of thinking allowed the North Koreans (with a little help from China) to survive past 1953. The problem with nukes as deterrent is that it only deters nukes, not any lesser incursion.  And if we nuke someone over a lesser incursion, some crazy people think that makes us the bad guy.


Who cares about appearances to others?  As long as we have as huge a stockpile of nukes as we do, we can afford to sprinkle a couple of them about to minimize those lesser incursions.  We don't have to be like North Korea- we can keep our domestic policies just as they are now- but we promise absolute annihilation to anyone who tries to hurt us.  Global isolationism.  The deterrent also works both ways.  It deters anyone from attacking, but also deters us from using our military as glibly as we have over the past 60 years.
 
2014-02-24 08:37:32 AM  

Laobaojun: HotWingConspiracy: Laobaojun: Frakking Brilliant!  Because we'd never need to grow the Army again within a few years of declaring a "peace dividend".  This is not a repeat from 1939, 1950, 1963, 1981, 1991, 1999, 2001....

A lot of these wars were completely elective and had little to do with national defense. We could pick our fights better and have gobs of money.

Whatever.


Poignant.


Democratically elected leaders, the President and Congress, sent the Army off to do bad things to bad people.  You did not like some of the politicians and some of the operations.
Noted.


I made no value judgement, I just said they had little to do with defense.

Because God knows, that is a good reason to be incapable of a future combat operation you might approve of.

Yeah man, this is it, the end of the military.

Let's just ignore hurricane relief, tsunami relief, famine relief, UN peacekeeping, medical assistance, de-mining, immunization programs, construction projects, the diplomatic value of military training, assistance, military-to-military contacts, and a bunch of other stuff no one cares about.  Or at least no one cares until the military says, "Nope, no can do.  We are not manned, trained, or equipped for that since the money went away.  Because medical assistance, infrastructure development, and humanitarian assistance for third world countries is for losers anyways.

How much medical assistance do we deliver via A-10s and U2s?
 
2014-02-24 08:38:12 AM  
If the commanche was built I would say the Airforce would not need the A-10 anymore. The commanche would of been a stealthy recon helicopter that would of excelled in CAS roles for ground troops. Problem with the A-10 is age isn't doing it a favor, the battlefield is shifting as it always does.
Were not going to fight hundreds of tanks like the Gulf War showed us. However, anyone like Iran with hundreds of tanks in reserve is going to pose a serious problem for the F-35. It simply does not carry the weapon load to perform a long enduranced CAS let alone the fuel.

The F-35 is designed to replace a few aircrafts in the inventory, the A-10 simply isn't one of them. The Commanche and Apache could of been readily available for CAS support which would work closer along the troops rather then the Airforce.

I can see unmanned drones doing the CAS role now, with the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons enough to perform a variety of missions. Not sure how these aircrafts perform in CAS roles, but it can be tested.

The F-22 was never needed, we could continue to upgrade the aging F-16 and F-15's with newer packages of radar/avionics and it still is better then 90% of the worlds fleet of aircrafts.

This reminds me of Vietnam where they said the "Gun" on fighter planes was not needed, missiles were the future - except for a small vietnam airforce that kicked our ass.
 
2014-02-24 08:38:51 AM  

jso2897: vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.

The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


There was some scuttlebutt about the F-35 perhaps being the last manned combat aircraft, but it is a minority view and no one is putting money on it. Aviators, as imperfect a blue-on-blue machine as they are, are still necessary.
 
2014-02-24 08:39:12 AM  

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.


The problem may be that drones have crept further into the close air support role, lessening the need for a dedicated aircraft.  The F-35 (which is already replacing the F-16) takes what's left of the ground pounding job.

I'd also love to see a new generation of A-10's, but the cost of reopening a factory to make them isn't justified when you've got reapers-a-plenty to go around.
 
2014-02-24 08:39:15 AM  

Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!


Bring back? Did they ever leave?
 
2014-02-24 08:40:12 AM  

Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries. The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.


How much gay porn do you have, exactly?
 
2014-02-24 08:40:23 AM  

Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad


Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.
 
2014-02-24 08:42:59 AM  
it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.
 
2014-02-24 08:43:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: How much medical assistance do we deliver via A-10s and U2s?


Pretty sure U2 performed at Live Aid.
 
2014-02-24 08:44:21 AM  

Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?


yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.
 
2014-02-24 08:45:04 AM  
When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.  When you have a very expensive hammer that requires constant expensive upkeep and is laying unused, you start looking for nails that don't need hammering...and if you can't find any, you start making your own.

I have no doubt that returning to a pre-war military will reduce the number of conflicts the US enters into and lower US and foreign casualties, costs, and hatred significantly.

Poor gazillion dollar defense contractors will just have to get used to it.
 
2014-02-24 08:46:22 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?

yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.


You may have heard of it. It's a little old place where they can get together.
 
2014-02-24 08:48:57 AM  

vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.


that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.
 
2014-02-24 08:48:58 AM  

Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.


And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.
 
2014-02-24 08:49:52 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


pfft. let me guess, you sleep with your gun beside the bed at night too?
 
2014-02-24 08:50:16 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?
 
2014-02-24 08:50:49 AM  

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.


They just envision using drones for CAS. No pilot, carries missiles, and they have some other neat toys to help. The Navy (in particular) has been testing testing some fun things CIWS can do if you let it target more than missiles and change the ammo.
 
2014-02-24 08:55:08 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?


Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.
 
2014-02-24 08:56:05 AM  

inglixthemad: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.

The A-10's?  Well, *THAT* I think might be a mistake.  Maybe there is room to upgrade it, start cranking out new ones with upgraydded avionics and targeting systems, but the basic airframe itself can't be beat for what its job is:  Close Air Support.

The F-35 is just too slick (ie., fast) for the kind of "low and slow" CAS that ground forces need.

They just envision using drones for CAS. No pilot, carries missiles, and they have some other neat toys to help. The Navy (in particular) has been testing testing some fun things CIWS can do if you let it target more than missiles and change the ammo.


one thing that would be cool is using quadcopters for recon and to paint targets for artillery and other ordinance. they could spot the target and light it up or feed telemetry back to the delivery system in real time for some very accurate shooting.
 
2014-02-24 08:56:36 AM  

Hobodeluxe: vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.

that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.


LOL I hope that's not an implication you'll get Americans off their hoverounds parked in front of Fox News to run outside with poorly spelled and overtly racist signs.
 
2014-02-24 08:57:35 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.


I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.
 
2014-02-24 08:57:58 AM  

whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.


YEah, I hope it doesn't get cut.  It can do so many things, and ones that the opposition gets to see up close and personally.  I'm not 100% sure what they mean by not being able to dogfight.  Is that a knock against its inability to go supersonic?  I would think being able to out-corner a fighter would have some advantages?
 
2014-02-24 08:58:19 AM  
The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons


The global hawk can't carry weapons.
 
2014-02-24 08:58:32 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it.


I do, that's why you're such an embarrassment. You know I have to actually explain why people like you exist when I travel? It's farking tedious.

 Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.

Yes, clearly the adults in the room need to speculate about being invaded by Canada because we're discontinuing some aircraft. That's a very important adult conversation.
 
2014-02-24 08:58:54 AM  

Crotchrocket Slim: Hobodeluxe: vygramul: Ruiizu: I'd like to say "it's about damn time" to reduction of military budget but I'm not holding my breath. We'll need a reduction is stupidity in management from DC to make any reduction in spending even relevant. Either way, the military spending in the US is waaaay out of hand when there are issues at home that need addressing before running around playing Captain America on the rest of the globe.

/need to take care of our own people first
//bringing more military personnel home makes a big difference since they'll spend their money here instead of abroad

Before we can make significant cuts, we have to articulate a strategic posture that can be supported by the new budget. Just slashing it is just begging for trouble.

that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays. there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.

LOL I hope that's not an implication you'll get Americans off their hoverounds parked in front of Fox News to run outside with poorly spelled and overtly racist signs.


there will have to be a sharp decline in bread and circuses I will admit but it could happen.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:06 AM  
All these people in love with the A-10 and for what? It's really good at blowing away farmers on the side of the mountains? The A-10 has no place in the pacific pivot strategy. The lack of range and limited role would truly be a waste in such a vast AOR. Apaches and predators can easily handle the CAS role on its own. And if you are going again ya country that has capable air defense, you are going to need range and speed.

As for giving the A-10 to the army like that would be some capable feat. So in light of shrinking the army's ground force (which you know..the reason it exists), you magically want to shiat out money for the Army to train and equip it's own pilots and maintainers, construct and maintain its own airfields, construct, man and equip their own ATC towers, build hangers and air operations centers JUST because you like the BBBRRRTT and you've seen it do very well at killing a bunch of guys armed with AKs and absolutely no anti air.

Sounds smart guys.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:24 AM  

jso2897: The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


With good reason:  If we no longer have "skin in the game", then going to war, even if just from the air, is that much easier to sell.

We (the US public in genergal) don't really care about the people we're shooting at.  We never have. But we *DO* care about our own military men, and if don't have to put them in any danger at all in a military action, then what you've done is made a military that can sustain a bunch of material losses without losing people, which will make bombing brown people all the more palatable to the American public.

Now, I come from a military family.  This is my familial military background:

Me:  US Army.
Younger Brother:  USMC.
Youngest Brother:  US Army
Father: US Army
Father-in-law:  US Air Force
Stepfather-in-law:  US Navy
Maternal Grandfather:  US Army
Paternal Grandfather: Civilian worker at Frankford Arsenal

So as you can see, all the males in my family for the last three generations have been either in the military, or in military-like jobs like at an arsenal or in the Air Force.

And from my perspective, the military is something that should only be used when necessary, and taking US lives off the table makes it more likely that the public can be convinced to go along with whatever military adventure comes down the pike.

So yeah, I'd like to keep pilots in the cockpits of combat aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:01:52 AM  

Hobodeluxe: one thing that would be cool is using quadcopters for recon and to paint targets for artillery and other ordinance.


Paint them for other pieces of legislation enacted by a municipal authority?
 
2014-02-24 09:02:41 AM  
Keep the A-10, the rest is OK.
 
2014-02-24 09:03:46 AM  

Hobodeluxe: I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.


Wait, do you mean the stupid recent shoot-em-up Red Dawn, or the classic 1984 anti-war film Red Dawn?
 
2014-02-24 09:04:39 AM  
I'm OK with this and they need to up the funding for the injured troops that paid the price for the US.
 
2014-02-24 09:04:42 AM  

RoxtarRyan: Hobodeluxe: Arkanaut: Pick: Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!

Bring back? Did they ever leave?

yeah they went to the love shack for a bit.

You may have heard of it. It's a little old place where they can get together.


yeah, but the tin roof is rusted.
 
2014-02-24 09:04:53 AM  
My next pet is going to be named Peave.
 
2014-02-24 09:06:24 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


Hey buddy, don't go revealing all our cunning plans.
 
2014-02-24 09:09:42 AM  

Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries.  The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.


That goes back to a long term thought I've had - split off 33% or so of the military and give it to the state department. Let them have hundreds of horizontal and vertical construction units, dozens of water purification, civil affairs, and field medicine units, a few units of architectural/civil engineers, etc. The military is designed from top-to-bottom to fight wars - not to build nations. If that's a role that we need people fulfilling, it should be done by a State-department equivalent of the military instead of some international contracting firms.


vygramul: A-10s and F-16s can't take-off from carrier decks, much less amphibs.
That having been said, they screwed-up the F-35 (though not the way people usually complain about). It was supposed to be a Swiss-Army knife - but one of those small ones, not one that includes scissors and a magnifying glass. And that pretty much hoses it for the Navy.
I blame the Marines


This. Amphibs were designed for helicopters, not planes. We should use them that way. The Harrier was never reliable and the Osprey is a farking death trap. As far as carriers go - it's still more financially sound to buy new off-the-line F-18s than continue throwing money at the F-35s.

The A-10 mission could definitely go to a heavy drone - as long as it can take the same level of punishment as the A-10.
 
2014-02-24 09:12:39 AM  

spamdog: Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries. The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.

How much gay porn do you have, exactly?


None.  I'm not from State Department.
 
2014-02-24 09:16:33 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.


Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.
 
2014-02-24 09:16:55 AM  

clkeagle: The A-10 mission could definitely go to a heavy drone - as long as it can take the same level of punishment as the A-10.


I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost? Can't seem to find any info for it, but haven't there been drones shot down or lost (including the one over in Iran)? As much as we value human life and would like to remove the potential for that loss in our combat aircraft, in reality, we just do not have the ability to replace a flesh and blood pilot sitting in the cockpit right now.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:43 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.


Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:53 AM  
I would think that the gun nuts would want reduced military. Just the outside chance of beind invaded should keep them hard nonstop. Then they could actually have someone to use their guns on.
 
2014-02-24 09:18:33 AM  

clkeagle: Laobaojun: Dept of State gutted themselves by not wanting to get their soft, delicate, little, PhD holding hands dirty for those people in third world countries.  The military has the man-power, the competence, and the tolerance for people not wearing three-piece suits that is required for the heavy lifting of all that warm and fuzzy stuff that State wants to see happen. but won't actually lift heavy things to make happen.

That goes back to a long term thought I've had - split off 33% or so of the military and give it to the state department. Let them have hundreds of horizontal and vertical construction units, dozens of water purification, civil affairs, and field medicine units, a few units of architectural/civil engineers, etc. The military is designed from top-to-bottom to fight wars - not to build nations. If that's a role that we need people fulfilling, it should be done by a State-department equivalent of the military instead of some international contracting firms.


Functionally, DoD has kind of done this, but the chain of command is military up to the Cabinet/JCS level.

Re:  "The military is designed from top-to-bottom to fight wars - not to build nations.", not as much as many people would like.  The Civil Affairs thing has little to to with war fighting, and much to do with assistance in peace and rebuilding post conflict.

I absolutely concur that contractors are a bad idea.  That guarantees that spending will go up in response to lobbying for pork-barrel projects.
 
2014-02-24 09:19:45 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend


you really should get that looked at
 
2014-02-24 09:22:36 AM  

spiritplumber: YOU CAN'T CUT BACK ON FUNDING! YOU WILL REGRET THIS!


 I hated that guy so much.
 
2014-02-24 09:24:03 AM  

RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:01 AM  

liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.


A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:04 AM  

Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend

you really should get that looked at


It appears I'm encouraging a dumbass.
 
2014-02-24 09:25:32 AM  

dittybopper: Per inter-service agreements, the only fixed-wing aircraft the Army is allowed to have are small utility aircraft. Combat and larger cargo aircraft aren't allowed.

/Army can have all the helicopters it wants, though.


What I've been reading is that the Army desperately wants to keep the A-10 around so if they can work that out, it would be better.
 
2014-02-24 09:26:17 AM  

Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.


Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?
 
2014-02-24 09:28:10 AM  

Tannhauser: Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.


absolutely. the eurofighter typhoon costs way less and can do almost as much. so i'm sure we can build one that doesn't cost nearly what the F35 costs. plus that whole marines thing of VTOL is just insane for this plane. why not just bring back the harrier?
 
2014-02-24 09:28:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: HotWingConspiracy: Joe Blowme: boy, this wont encourage any dumbasses. Hello world, your on your own.

Yes, I'm sure the world will simply explode in to war if there is any shift in bloated US military spending.

The neo conservative world cop scenario has been shown to be a failure. You guys had your shot and blew it.

Wow you really think that? I was just saying it will be alot less safe but you went all tin foil hat, then tried to blame others for your conspiracy theories.... man you need help.

Herpa dee dum dee doodies, friend

you really should get that looked at

It appears I'm encouraging a dumbass.


Self encouragement  is normally a good thing
 
2014-02-24 09:29:48 AM  

Smokey the Bare: FTFA:  "In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk."

This is very shortsighted. It goes to show if you have you hands in the pants of those in the capitol (I'm looking at you Northrop Grumman), your less capable and unreliable aircraft will make it through downsizing.


what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk? The job it was designed for is gone, all it is now is a bridge between on-the-ground intel and the time it takes for a satellite to move into position. A job that can capably be done by other aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:30:03 AM  

dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.


button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.
 
2014-02-24 09:30:05 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.

Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?


Nope, we've got them hemmed in with the Tim Horton's donut ring.  Don't let Tim Horton's come south or we're all doomed.
 
2014-02-24 09:31:05 AM  

dittybopper: First two that came to mind.


Gracias. One suicide, one flew a bit too low during an exercise...  Still shame for the loss of the lives involved, but it looks good for the combat survivability of the aircraft.
 
2014-02-24 09:31:38 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: liam76: The A-10 is better at CAS then the F-35, but the Apache, Cobra and Kiowa are better than the A-10.

All of them (and predators) are capable of taking out tanks from futher away than the A-10 with it's 30mm however the A-10 is in better shape if they have air superiority and the tanks are in columns (not soemthing we are really worried about).

Misconduc: the Global Hawk and others that are large enough to carry a variety of weapons

The global hawk can't carry weapons.

A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge.

Is that what is keeping expansionist Canada at bay?


Yup, A-10s and assault-murder rifles. Take those away, and we will all be drinking skunk beer and saying "eh".
 
2014-02-24 09:32:30 AM  
Hey, Ima let you finish but Digital Combat Simulators A-10C is the best A-10 simulator of all time. OF ALL TIME.
www.simhq.com
 
2014-02-24 09:33:36 AM  

dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.


My bad, they did find the wreckage.  Went from memory at first, I guess I should have read some of the wiki.
 
2014-02-24 09:33:43 AM  

Thunderpipes: A-10 can carry missiles too you know. Loiter time, survivability is also huge


That is why I called out it's 30 mm, when using missles it has the same standoff.

The reason peopel are saying to keep it CAS (not as good as helicopters) and anti-tank (plenty fo other platforms have the capabilities now) don't cut it.
 
2014-02-24 09:34:20 AM  

SeaMan Stainz: I would think that the gun nuts would want reduced military. Just the outside chance of beind invaded should keep them hard nonstop. Then they could actually have someone to use their guns on.


Except that you fail to realize that the US gun culture is heavily represented in the US Military.

Because if you like to shoot guns, and you want to get paid to do it (and paid to shoot the "good stuff" like machine guns), where do you go?   The military, obviously.

Now, you might look at the average civilian gun person and see an overweight middle-aged man, but you're not seeing the fit 20 year old he was several decades ago when he was carrying a rifle for Uncle Sam, and you're not seeing his son or nephew who is currently serving.

I went to the range yesterday to adjust the sights on my flintlock*, and I'm willing to bet, based upon demeanor and hair cut, etc., that at least half of the people I saw were ex-military (including myself).

*Which involved a lot of filing down of the front sight, because I'm trying to use less powder for target shooting and opening up the point-blank range for hunting with full-power loads.  Note to self:  Next time, bring a more aggressive file.
 
2014-02-24 09:35:19 AM  
F35:

lh6.googleusercontent.com
 
2014-02-24 09:35:45 AM  

Dr Jack Badofsky: dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.

button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.


"shot down or lost".

Button's plane was "lost", in both senses of the word.
 
2014-02-24 09:37:33 AM  

dittybopper: Dr Jack Badofsky: dittybopper: RoxtarRyan: I dunno... When was the last time an A-10 got shot down or lost?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Craig_D._Button

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Remscheid_A-10_crash

First two that came to mind.

button's plane was not shot down, as he crashed somewhere in the mountains.  Until,they find the plane, no one knows what happened, but things point towards suicide.

"shot down or lost".

Button's plane was "lost", in both senses of the word.



Poor phrasing on my part. I should've specified "lost" as in the circumstances in which we lost the drone over Iran.
 
2014-02-24 09:37:37 AM  
who needs an army when we have all these militarized police departments
 
2014-02-24 09:37:57 AM  

RoxtarRyan: dittybopper: First two that came to mind.

Gracias. One suicide, one flew a bit too low during an exercise...  Still shame for the loss of the lives involved, but it looks good for the combat survivability of the aircraft.


Oh, they are notoriously survivable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)
 
2014-02-24 09:38:30 AM  
I'm ok with pretty much all of these cuts; the A10 troubles me somewhat, but we have measurewes that can do that job, and who knows what drone-tastic solution may effectively replace it. the F-35 is proof that the entire government procurement system needs to be tossed.  Its impossible to for legitimate buisnesses to navigate it easily, and darned hard to take action against poor performers.
 
2014-02-24 09:40:30 AM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


they stopped making them, but they still fly them.  Part of the issue is that they can't produce replacement parts for them anymore
 
2014-02-24 09:41:52 AM  
I suggest instead of cutting pay for the top brass, they effectively gut the top ranks of every service. An overall reduction by 33% to 50% in the number of generals and admirals, and their staffs.

I guarantee the military wouldn't suffer a bit from it.
 
2014-02-24 09:42:06 AM  
yes, let make more people unemployed while we legalize 20 million laRaza tards
 
2014-02-24 09:45:19 AM  
A rather unattractive design, but looks like it bristles with firepower.

www.fas.org
 
2014-02-24 09:45:57 AM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


We did. They are great aircraft that simply can't be killed. They're like my grandpa's old pickup truck. By all rights, it should have bit the dust ages ago, but he likes it and puts a little effort into patching it up and it just keeps running.

To be honest, there's no real way to improve upon the A-10 in its niche role. As long as we do iterative updates to it, like avionics, they will always be useful in any conflict. We don't need a fast, stealthy fighter with a few missiles in a role that demands a bullet-proof bomb truck with a big-ass gun in the nose.
 
2014-02-24 09:46:19 AM  

RoxtarRyan: Poor phrasing on my part. I should've specified "lost" as in the circumstances in which we lost the drone over Iran.


You know what would be cool?  Flying an A-10 in the Land of the Lost.  But not the Will Ferrell version, the 1970's TV version, because a Maverick would truly fark up a stop-animated foam rubber tyrannosaur.
 
2014-02-24 09:46:39 AM  
Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

graphics8.nytimes.com
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.
 
2014-02-24 09:47:25 AM  

cgraves67: We don't need a fast, stealthy fighter with a few missiles in a role that demands a bullet-proof bomb truck with a big-ass gun in the nose.


It would be even more intimidating with a big ass-gun in the nose.
 
2014-02-24 09:48:17 AM  

drxym: Technology that might have been great 10 years ago may be obsolete now for a variety of reasons.


10 years ago?  The thing has been out of production for 30 years now.
 
2014-02-24 09:48:47 AM  
Probability that this will happen: 0%
 
2014-02-24 09:48:50 AM  

dittybopper: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Campbell_(pilot)


I still get goosebumps reading about that. That plane was tore the fark up!

But, this backs up the statement I made about replacing local pilots with remote pilots in the A-10 series. With the condition her plane was in, it may have lost communications, camera feed, etc.
While remote pilots are good for drones, I believe we are a long ways off before we see remote pilots for our assault or fighter aircraft that can pilot them on par with pilots sitting in the cockpit.
 
2014-02-24 09:50:32 AM  
Also, this gem from the article:
The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk - a workhorse transport helicopter - to use in domestic disaster relief.

Seriously, why weren't we doing this to begin with?
 
2014-02-24 09:52:22 AM  

onyxruby: He wants to get rid of proven and respected technology that the military has used for decades and replace it with unproven tech that is much more expensive. Guy is an idiot.


Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

We may need to keep them mind you, but to call your "reasoning" as to why idiotic is to insult the intelligence of idiots the world over. And it shows clearly why we can't seem to ever cut our damn defense budget. We are letting emotions cloud reason.
 
2014-02-24 09:53:53 AM  

jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.


Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.
 
2014-02-24 09:55:51 AM  

jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.


Honestly, I don't think pre-WWII military levels are sustainable for the US.

Back then, you could have a relatively small cadre of trained soldiers that could rapidly train a sudden influx of new recruits that could be matched up with equipment that was relatively easy to manufacture fairly quickly.

Today, however, there is a heck of a lot more to learn, and ramping up production like that probably isn't possible to a large degree because everything is more complex, and in fact we have less "per unit" manufacturing capability then we had back then.  So you have to maintain a certain amount of equipment, and a certain amount of manpower to maintain it.

The problem is, you've got to be looking towards the sort of war you're going to be fighting in 20 years, and even the best prognosticators often get it wrong.
 
2014-02-24 09:56:48 AM  

IamAwake: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.


That's not my chart. That's the DoD's actual data for active service members they are paying. I have no idea about the other data you're asking about.
 
2014-02-24 09:58:43 AM  

RoxtarRyan: I still get goosebumps reading about that. That plane was tore the fark up!


I get one big goosebump just looking at her.

www.americanvalor.net

I'd hit it like AA fire over Baghdad.
 
2014-02-24 09:58:49 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Smokey the Bare: FTFA:  "In addition, the budget proposal calls for retiring the famed U-2 spy plane in favor of the remotely piloted Global Hawk."

This is very shortsighted. It goes to show if you have you hands in the pants of those in the capitol (I'm looking at you Northrop Grumman), your less capable and unreliable aircraft will make it through downsizing.

what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk? The job it was designed for is gone, all it is now is a bridge between on-the-ground intel and the time it takes for a satellite to move into position. A job that can capably be done by other aircraft.


The cost of a GH after all the R&D is in the neighbourhood of $250,000,000. The AF has around 20-ish of thes compared to about 80 U2's.  The operating costs about the same ($35K an hour) however the GH will likely have the advantage here soon (Northrup Grumman think the operating cost will drop closer to $20K soon. This is also the same company that listed the original price-tag for the GH at 35M). Satellites are only overhead of certain areas at certain times and I would bet any capable adversary knows where each of our spy satellites will be months out. However, the GH has an OUTRAGEOUS time airborne of more than 30 hours under ideal conditions compared 10-12 for the U2. The SIGINT and sensor package the U2 is far superior to what the GH can carry.

As a weather troop in the AF, I will tell you that weather is a HUGE factor for the GH and a much smaller one for the U2. The operational ceiling for the GH is 60K-ish and the U2 is around 70K-ish. The GH also cannot take any icing. The ceiling of the GH prevents it from flying over certain areas of thunderstorms, thus limiting where it can fly.

If hope elected officials would realize the GH was a bad investment, cut their losses, and invest in a better replacement for the U2.

/a lot of info was found  here and  here
//DoD costs do have to be cut though
///please don't take away my retirement
 
2014-02-24 10:00:13 AM  

dittybopper: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Honestly, I don't think pre-WWII military levels are sustainable for the US.

Back then, you could have a relatively small cadre of trained soldiers that could rapidly train a sudden influx of new recruits that could be matched up with equipment that was relatively easy to manufacture fairly quickly.

Today, however, there is a heck of a lot more to learn, and ramping up production like that probably isn't possible to a large degree because everything is more complex, and in fact we have less "per unit" manufacturing capability then we had back then.  So you have to maintain a certain amount of equipment, and a certain amount of manpower to maintain it.

The problem is, you've got to be looking towards the sort of war you're going to be fighting in 20 years, and even the best prognosticators often get it wrong.


If I could even add something on top of that idea, what is world population then compared with now? US population comparison? As a percentage, the military keeps getting smaller, however more efficient. But I agree with the training aspect.
 
2014-02-24 10:18:48 AM  

CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!


The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.
 
2014-02-24 10:22:48 AM  
bluenovaman [TotalFark]

Why would we do that? It's not like we have failing schools, hungry children, people who need healthcare and any number of other issues that need attention.
The same reason the democrats gave for killing the Superconducting Super Collider.
 
2014-02-24 10:29:03 AM  

This text is now purple: CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.


Yes, and how would that work in a  2000-2014 context? Not so hot, except in incredibly limited circumstances. The point is that weapon systems do become obsolete, and arguing that something has worked in the past does not mean that it is worth keeping for the future. Particularly if keeping it means that you cannot also invest in the future due to budgetary constraints.

Another example would be both the F-14 and A-6, each of which was more capable at its dedicated mission than the first generation of F-18s that replaced both of them. In fact, in raw terms of payload delivered, the A-6 remains superior to the F-28 even today, but we could not afford to replace the A-6 with a dedicated strike aircraft and could not afford to stop development on a new naval fighter.

The defense budget needs to go down. What do you suggest eliminating?
 
2014-02-24 10:32:49 AM  
The new Super Tucano looks promising. It is a lot cheaper to fly, build and maintain, has all the modern bells and whistles, and looks super fun fly.  It is not the A-10, but I think it is more practical for taking out our current threats.
 
2014-02-24 10:33:02 AM  

RediixOne: All these people in love with the A-10 and for what? It's really good at blowing away farmers on the side of the mountains? The A-10 has no place in the pacific pivot strategy. The lack of range and limited role would truly be a waste in such a vast AOR. Apaches and predators can easily handle the CAS role on its own. And if you are going again ya country that has capable air defense, you are going to need range and speed.

As for giving the A-10 to the army like that would be some capable feat. So in light of shrinking the army's ground force (which you know..the reason it exists), you magically want to shiat out money for the Army to train and equip it's own pilots and maintainers, construct and maintain its own airfields, construct, man and equip their own ATC towers, build hangers and air operations centers JUST because you like the BBBRRRTT and you've seen it do very well at killing a bunch of guys armed with AKs and absolutely no anti air.

Sounds smart guys.


Shut up! Shut up! Shut up! Shut up!
Why do you have America!
9-11! Support the Troops!
Wharrrrrrrrrr-garble!
 
2014-02-24 10:34:19 AM  

jayphat: IamAwake: jayphat: Reading that chart, TIL that the Army is at about the same size as it was pre-WWII. Seriously, the way people talked you would have thought we had 2-4 million active service members. Even though this lacks numbers, let me lay the image down for everyone.

[graphics8.nytimes.com image 600x960]
That little line all the way across? That's current levels at 500K. The dark bar at the end? That's the proposed rate at 440-450K.

Are you counting all the civs on the ground in support these days?  Blackwater, Haliburton, etc?  A vast majority of what the military used to do is now outsourced.

That's not my chart. That's the DoD's actual data for active service members they are paying. I have no idea about the other data you're asking about.


We all know you didn't make the graph.  I'm simply pointing out that, despite what you think, you don't know how to read it.  If you do not know what data is represented - as you're stating - then why are you using it?

That chart doesn't, for example, cover those who are in the Reserves but who are activated.  It doesn't cover the private military and security companies.  We have private companies escorting active military personnel in combat zones quite frequently now - something that prior to a couple decades ago would be unthinkable.  Then we have civilian workers here in the US doing support roles which used to be done in the military, but aren't - just because they're not in a combat zone doesn't mean it isn't skewing those numbers.  Heck, with just the reserves that are activated, plus the regulars, there are 1.4million military personnel - now add the private companies (~200k from the ones who have to report, but that's a small chuck of the roles), the outsourced roles back on home soil here (nearly impossible to quantify...I'm one myself, however).  In the end, if you leave in the civs who are doing roles which the earlier numbers included, then yeah - we're at 2m.
 
2014-02-24 10:34:58 AM  

vygramul: clkeagle: Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?

That was arrogant stupidity on our part and clever work on the Serbs'Chinese part. It's not the aircraft that failed. It worked as advertised.


FTFY.  That is also the reason the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed.

Stealth aircraft can be detected the same way submarines are detected.  You listen for the spot that is TOO quiet.

Pilots are cheap compared to $200,000,000 aircraft.  Keep cranking out F-15, F-16, and F-18s since they are proven planes that are super cheap, even including pilot replacement costs.  Even if a bunch are shot down, it is still cheaper than buying F-35s.  farking zoomies always needing new toys, and Congresscritters buying them.
 
2014-02-24 10:36:32 AM  
Gotta get rid of the A-10 from the military and give it to Homeland Security.  They will be involved in the next war.
 
gja
2014-02-24 10:36:47 AM  

MrBallou: FTFA: some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move

10 to1 that those are the same asshats pushing for austerity, deficit reduction,"fiscal responsibility", and "small government".


I'll take your bet. And side-bet that it will include a lot of congess-critters you wouldn't think would be on this bandwagon because if you bothered to read and quote the FULL entry it might change the way that very selective bit you chose is viewed.

FTFA:
"For example, some members of Congress, given advance notice of plans to retire air wings, have vowed legislative action to block the move, and the National Guard Association, an advocacy group for those part-time military personnel, is circulating talking points urging Congress to reject anticipated cuts. State governors are certain to weigh in, as well. And defense-industry officials and members of Congress in those port communities can be expected to oppose any initiatives to slow Navy shipbuilding."

Take a look at port towns ion the US. Lots of them are in deep blue territory states. Expect much teeth gnashing from them.
 
2014-02-24 10:37:19 AM  

Joe Blowme: yes, let make more people unemployed while we legalize 20 million laRaza tards


Wow. I was infromed that there are no racists on Fark.
 
2014-02-24 10:38:31 AM  
prjindigo 2

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it. No armor, no need for armor busters.

So the A-10 is so good it wins battles without ever leaving the ground.

By all means, let's cancel this boondoggle.
 
2014-02-24 10:40:22 AM  
I need Close-Air-Support!  Send in the F-35's!  Said NO ground-pounder EVER.

There's a special warm feeling you get when you hear an A-10 let rip with the GAU-8.  Of course, I may be biased...
 
2014-02-24 10:47:08 AM  

incrdbil: I suggest instead of cutting pay for the top brass, they effectively gut the top ranks of every service. An overall reduction by 33% to 50% in the number of generals and admirals, and their staffs.

I guarantee the military wouldn't suffer a bit from it.


I was reading somewhere that the Navy has more Admirals than they do ships, which buying submarines and surface ships at the rate they are really surprises me.

Along with the reduction in hardware, I completely agree that there's plenty of fat to be trimmed from the upper echelons.
 
2014-02-24 10:54:11 AM  
A result, the officials argue, will be a military capable of defeating any adversary, but too small for protracted foreign occupations.

A military that can't occupy a foreign country for prolonged drawn out wars, why that is just un'murican.  How can we be the savior of democracy and justice if we can't overthrow a government and occupy another country.  What's next, our ability to kidnap and torture suspected militants?
 
2014-02-24 10:58:19 AM  
"That would be the smallest United States Army since 1940. "

So, that's factually not pre-WW2, as that started in 1939. And the army of USA in 1940 would obviously reflect that.
 
2014-02-24 11:01:07 AM  
Well, if Hagel is talking about cutting the number of general officers down to pre-WW II levels, please proceed.  Efficiency of the military will skyrocket (if we can keep the retired generals someplace where they can't meddle with things).

Even WWII levels would be a huge improvement (we have roughly double the number of GOs for a military a quarter the number of troops we had in WW II).
 
2014-02-24 11:07:57 AM  

Wrath of Heaven: Hey, Ima let you finish but Digital Combat Simulators A-10C is the best A-10 simulator of all time. OF ALL TIME.
[www.simhq.com image 700x394]


I love this sim...especially with a TrackIR!
 
2014-02-24 11:09:49 AM  
Probably too late for this, but:

Putting the A-10 on the list is a good negotiation ploy.  Hagel can take it off the table to scrap the rest of the deadbeat stuff.
 
2014-02-24 11:12:14 AM  

Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.


What's it like to live in constant unjustified fear? It doesn't sound fun.

Nobody else is even CLOSE to the USA. We could cut military spending in half and STILL be the world's hyperpower.

mediamatters.org


Maybe you just need to stop listening to news sources that primarily exist to keep you afraid.
 
2014-02-24 11:12:54 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

pfft. let me guess, you sleep with your gun beside the bed at night too?


He's worried about Mexico invading.

I am guessing he showers with his gun.
 
2014-02-24 11:14:05 AM  

Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.



So you equate having a job with living in pants-wetting fear of an invasion by Mexico or Canada?

24.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-24 11:15:59 AM  

Hobodeluxe: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.

I got news for you buddy. most people work and love their country here too. they just don't lie awake at night with Red Dawn running on a loop in their head.



THIS

Although Red Dawn is accurate. The local rubes head to the hills with their guns and hide. They manage to pull off a few token strikes, but in the end most of them are dead and it's the actual trained military that liberates them.
 
2014-02-24 11:29:06 AM  

HotWingConspiracy: Yes, clearly the adults in the room need to speculate about being invaded by Canada because we're discontinuing some aircraft. That's a very important adult conversation.

 
2014-02-24 11:32:56 AM  

Emposter: When you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.


Ah, Jeremy Clarkson goggles

img.fark.net
 
2014-02-24 11:47:07 AM  

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way


You need something between strong words and nuclear weapons. Are you going to nuke Canada if they start charging more for drinking water? Are you going to nuke China if they occupy some no name island in the Phillipine Sea? People will call you bluff more often than if the threat was to send in the marines.
 
2014-02-24 11:56:16 AM  

SpectroBoy: Although Red Dawn is accurate. The local rubes head to the hills with their guns and hide. They manage to pull off a few token strikes, but in the end most of them are dead and it's the actual trained military that liberates them.


Most people really don't realize how accurate Red Dawn (1984) would be.

The Soviets invade in September, and the "Wolverines" head for the hills.  They are there for at least a month before they ever fire a shot at anything other than a deer.

So that brings us to October/November, when they start actually attacking what are actually Cuban "REMF" occupation troops, political indoctrination troops, and perhaps Soviet troops sent to the rear for rest/regrouping.   Those aren't active front-line trigger pullers, for the most part.

So a group of kids who has knowledge of the local area, and help from local people, could indeed have some "victories" against the troops who are there just to hold the "passes in the Rockies", which it's implied by the train in the end of the movie that Calumet is a strategic pass for shipping purposes (probably a railway transit point).

This is especially true after they get help from Col. Tanner.

Then, when the Soviets get *SERIOUS* about going after the Wolverines in January, they send in a Spetznaz unit under Col. Strelnikov, and the Wolverines actually are down to just 20% after a month, and those two survivors only do so by running away.

The whole movie only spans about 6 months or so, from September to March.

So, the amount of time they are actively fighting against the Cubans (mostly) and Soviets is about 4, maybe 5 months, tops.
 
2014-02-24 11:58:05 AM  
Not the A-10s!

(violent curses)
 
2014-02-24 12:02:45 PM  

juvandy: I think we should just go full nuclear deterrent.  Get rid of 99% of the active duty military and maintain a fleet of subs and nuke silos only.  Have a conscripted reserve like Switzerland that every person must be a part of as a last-ditch defense in the worst case scenario that we've nuked the rest of the earth yet are still somehow being invaded.  Make a straight-up statement that if any nation gets out of line, we will nuke you.  If group of humans (nation or not) attacks us, we will nuke you, the country you are a citizen of, and the country that is protecting you.  We don't need to invade, we don't need to take over, we don't need to do a thing but press a button.

/bring a nuke to a gun fight, that's the new American way



Evil Overlord list, #150:

I will provide funding and research to develop tactical and strategic weapons covering a full range of needs so my choices are not limited to "hand to hand combat with swords" and "blow up the planet".

I believe we have found the account Ming the Merciless posts under.
 
2014-02-24 12:06:55 PM  

vygramul: not to mention competing aircraft.


Our 187 F-22s will shot down everything else for the next 50 years

a/c spending at this point is primarily just welfare for LM
 
2014-02-24 12:09:59 PM  
The problem with cuts to the defense budgets is that they never seem to cut things that actually should be cut.  In my little scope of things I have seen so much wasted on O-6s needed that wall of TV's because it looks cool and hey that computer is two years old and you only use to check email, but here you go here's fifty new ones.  We have different weapon systems that cover the the capability of the four branches but could be covered by one system for all four branches.  The AF could dominate the skies with F-15s and F-16s, the Navy doesn't need 11 active aircraft carriers,  I don't work with the Army or Marines enough to comment on what could be cut from from them. But I am sure they have more than enough waste, that could be cut from them as well.
 
2014-02-24 12:21:11 PM  

DrPainMD: dejavoodoo64: DrPainMD: When your local economy is nothing more than a parasite on the national economy, you deserve to be reduced to a ghost town.

I'm looking at you, Huntsville.

Ooooh what a shot. You're right though. I use to  wonder what it would be like if Redstone closed and Marshall was all that was left. Huntsville is built around the two and losing the two would destroy North Central Alabama.

So? The important part is bolded/underlined, above.


A lot of meaningful patent work comes out of that most beautiful corner of the red dirt south.  Do you think all those technological developments would have happened without the money being spent somewhere?  Is it that you object to all federally funded applied research, or just this federally funded applied research?  Also, this is Alabama we are talking about.  Alabama receives more in federal moneys than it pays in.  Is Alabama the parasite? TVA a parasite?  Tell us more, enquiring minds want to know.
 
2014-02-24 12:24:51 PM  

CheatCommando: This text is now purple: CheatCommando: Yeah, like the guys who kept ordering battleships instead of those newfangled carriers, and horse cavalry instead of breakdown prone tanks!

The joke about the Poles using horse cavalry instead of tanks early in WWII?

1. It wasn't really true. Poland also had tanks -- they were just outclassed by both the German and the Soviet tanks.
2. In the muddy battlefields of eastern Europe, especially in a 1939-1941 context, horses often worked better. Those mounted Polish divisions made for a really effective mechanized infantry/light armor force and often devastated lighter German armored divisions and played havoc in behind-the-front raiding. They only really suffered against heavy armor -- but everyone suffered against German heavy armor in those years.

Yes, and how would that work in a 2000-2014 context? Not so hot, except in incredibly limited circumstances. The point is that weapon systems do become obsolete, and arguing that something has worked in the past does not mean that it is worth keeping for the future. Particularly if keeping it means that you cannot also invest in the future due to budgetary constraints.


The idea is to learn from history. Time and again, we have prematurely disposed of old assets we presumed were obsolete, only to discover after a lot of unnecessary casualties that they weren't actually obsolete, or that their replacement wasn't as adequate as we had thought.

Hence the return of the dog-fighter with guns in Korea, the survival of the BAR into Vietnam, that the 1911 is still around, the existence of the B-52, etc.

This doesn't mean that one does not innovate. Mechanized infantry did mostly eliminate the horse from the military by the end of WWII, but there are still edge cases where horses are damned useful. Sometimes it's worth keeping some presumably replaceable stuff behind, just in case you find you need it.

Not all weapon systems need remain -- you don't need to keep everything. But it's perhaps worthwhile to keep the existing, proven-successful system, until you prove the replacement can also do the job. Because sometimes, it can't.
 
2014-02-24 12:48:16 PM  

whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.


It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.
 
2014-02-24 12:51:32 PM  
Pretty excited, since this means my taxes are going to go down.
 
2014-02-24 12:59:32 PM  
Meh, something needs to change.  We live in an era when large-scale conflicts between superpowers don't make sense for anybody, and they're more easily avoided than at any time in history.

Going forward, we need to adapt to a world of asymmetrical warfare and international law-enforcement actions.  The need for a brute force military filled with 18 year old kids is gone, we need to professionalize and specialize;  more highly-trained special forces, fewer weekend warriors and the support systems they require.
 
2014-02-24 01:00:10 PM  

prjindigo: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

The A-10 sucks for close air support man.  SUCKS.   Its like trying to set tiny diamonds into an engagement ring with a #7 ballpeen.    The missions it performed in GW1 and 2 can be performed by a GH with hellfires and a gulfstream with two vulcans.

The trick is the world KNOWS their armor can't win so they're not gonna use it.  No armor, no need for armor busters.

They know they can't win because we have armor busters.
No armor busters, no need to hide your armor. Your argument is invalid.
 
2014-02-24 01:00:36 PM  
WWII never really ended anyway.  We've been fighting a war for global resources ever since.   How else can you justify a massive military defending a continent that hasn't been invaded in so long that you'd have to pick up a history book to find evidence of it.
 
2014-02-24 01:01:23 PM  

base935: Pretty excited, since this means my taxes are going to go down.


No, we only cut taxes on rich people when we START a war, sir.
 
2014-02-24 01:12:11 PM  

clancifer: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

Oh come on. There are better SSOs than CAS.


That was a long way to go for an authentication joke.
 
2014-02-24 01:19:51 PM  

dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.



There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.
 
gja
2014-02-24 01:23:45 PM  

obamadidcoke: Let's cut it down to pre-ww1 levels.

The next time we have a war all we have to do is put a few buses at malls, nascar races, and Toby Keith concerts and anyone who supports the war can just get on the bus. We can take them down to the local MEPS and give them a physical. If they pass we send them to war of they don't we take 75% of their salary to fund the war.


Cute. How about fark you? At 52 I could pass it easily, but I know perfectly well they would pat me on the head and say "go easy gramps".
 
2014-02-24 01:31:24 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: HotWingConspiracy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like being a sentient parody of the 50's?

Pretty cool, since I actually work and take some pride in my country. Might want to try it. Change out of your PJs and put the hot chocolate down, go to work.


So you equate having a job with living in pants-wetting fear of an invasion by Mexico or Canada?

[24.media.tumblr.com image 220x157]


The man is terrified that they'll introduce a single payer healthcare system.
 
2014-02-24 01:34:41 PM  
I see the charts of what the US spends compared to others in the world.  What I am curious about is if the US actually gets value for what it spends.  Do all other nations pay 400 dollars for a hammer and more than 600 for a toilet seat?  Is the pentagon still missing vast amounts of money?
 
2014-02-24 01:50:21 PM  

jayphat: Also, this gem from the article:
The Guard's Apache attack helicopters would be transferred to the active-duty Army, which would transfer its Black Hawk helicopters to the Guard. The rationale is that Guard units have less peacetime need for the bristling array of weapons on the Apache and would put the Black Hawk - a workhorse transport helicopter - to use in domestic disaster relief.

Seriously, why weren't we doing this to begin with?


Politics (and dick size). The Guard doesn't just want to be the HADR force, they want to be killers too.
 
gja
2014-02-24 01:51:05 PM  

obamadidcoke: gja: obamadidcoke: Let's cut it down to pre-ww1 levels.

The next time we have a war all we have to do is put a few buses at malls, nascar races, and Toby Keith concerts and anyone who supports the war can just get on the bus. We can take them down to the local MEPS and give them a physical. If they pass we send them to war of they don't we take 75% of their salary to fund the war.

Cute. How about fark you? At 52 I could pass it easily, but I know perfectly well they would pat me on the head and say "go easy gramps".

So, you would go?

I think that we should send people exactly like you. You have the wisdom and experience to fight a "smart war." You have lived and probably contributed to society, you have had the opportunity to have a family and a career. You have also been the recipient of the benefits of our society, so why shouldn't you fight.

And if the unthinkable happened your sacrifice would not only bring glory to your family and nation but it would save save society the cost of caring for you in your decline.

So think about it.


I would gladly go again. I have, however, no delusions they would say "welcome aboard". Not at this age.
And o suggest my earning be redirected as a consequence of not being taken is asinine.

As  far as 'glory' I know you are in jest. War brings no man glory. In war there is no glory and no winners. Only those who survive.
"Death be not proud" young fella. Whatsoever a man does in death, was better he lived and did many times over in life.
 
2014-02-24 02:11:46 PM  

Tsar_Bomba1: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.


There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.


The reason the U-2 needed to fly as high as it does was to make it survivable in an era when you needed a pilot, and having one come down in hostile territory was a bad thing.

That extra height dictated that the camera needed to be higher resolution, so it was bigger than prior reconnaissance cameras.

In other words, the reason the U-2 can carry more is that it needs to fly higher, because it's got a pilot in it.  If you can fly lower, you don't need as big of a camera:  That's just simple physics.

Now, it's true that you may well end up with some of them getting destroyed, but you're not putting any lives as risk, so you may well feel that the risk of losing a $222 million Global Hawk is worth it to get some vital information (that's streamed back live, btw) that you might not want to have risked sending a piloted U-2 getting, especially if there was a chance that the pilot could be captured.

A remotely piloted aircraft can't the people who pick up the pieces of wreckage what it was looking for, but a pilot can.
 
2014-02-24 02:12:25 PM  

Hobodeluxe: that's bullshiat and you know it. who is going to challenge us? the world is too economically intertwined nowadays.


You know who else said we were too economically intertwined? Most economists in 1912, that's who. Don't underestimate the power of stupidity. And who else is going to challenge us? Didn't stop people from lobbing SAMs at us before. Think having a smaller military will make that harder?

there's more of a threat on the domestic side than from foreign armies. we've seen in the past decade a lot of the world's peoples rising up against their govts. challenging the status quo. that's what the new world order really fears. that one day all the people of the world gets sick and tired of their shiat.

Maybe so, but also irrelevant. And why is coming up with a new philosophy seen as such a hurdle? But I've seen the navy capabilities and where they're headed, and deciding how we're going to interact with the rest of the world so we have a cohesive plan seems like a good idea rather than just cutting and expecting us to do the same stuff with less. That won't work.
 
2014-02-24 02:15:53 PM  

incrdbil: I'm ok with pretty much all of these cuts; the A10 troubles me somewhat, but we have measurewes that can do that job, and who knows what drone-tastic solution may effectively replace it. the F-35 is proof that the entire government procurement system needs to be tossed.  Its impossible to for legitimate buisnesses to navigate it easily, and darned hard to take action against poor performers.


I got to peek into the acquisition process for a research project I was working on for the Navy.

I think one is more likely to retain ones sanity reading the Necronomicon.
 
2014-02-24 02:17:07 PM  

dittybopper: I'd hit it like AA fire over Baghdad.


In other words, not at all?
 
2014-02-24 02:19:19 PM  

clear_prop: vygramul: clkeagle: Because that's always worked so well for us in the past?

That was arrogant stupidity on our part and clever work on the Serbs'Chinese part. It's not the aircraft that failed. It worked as advertised.

FTFY.  That is also the reason the Chinese embassy was 'accidentally' bombed.

Stealth aircraft can be detected the same way submarines are detected.  You listen for the spot that is TOO quiet.

Pilots are cheap compared to $200,000,000 aircraft.  Keep cranking out F-15, F-16, and F-18s since they are proven planes that are super cheap, even including pilot replacement costs.  Even if a bunch are shot down, it is still cheaper than buying F-35s.  farking zoomies always needing new toys, and Congresscritters buying them.


The Chinese had nothing to do with it being shot down.
 
2014-02-24 02:20:23 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like to live in constant unjustified fear? It doesn't sound fun.

Nobody else is even CLOSE to the USA. We could cut military spending in half and STILL be the world's hyperpower.

[mediamatters.org image 559x337]


Maybe you just need to stop listening to news sources that primarily exist to keep you afraid.


Note that spending != size.
 
2014-02-24 02:21:09 PM  

Detinwolf: vygramul: not to mention competing aircraft.

Our 187 F-22s will shot down everything else for the next 50 years

a/c spending at this point is primarily just welfare for LM


Does an F-22 come with a hook?
 
2014-02-24 02:23:10 PM  

codenamewizard: I see the charts of what the US spends compared to others in the world.  What I am curious about is if the US actually gets value for what it spends.  Do all other nations pay 400 dollars for a hammer and more than 600 for a toilet seat?  Is the pentagon still missing vast amounts of money?


When we shoot at a transmitter on an apartment building, we don't level the entire block. Also, we get shot down a whole lot less. So, yes, if you value life, then there's a huge difference.
 
2014-02-24 02:23:58 PM  

udhq: Meh, something needs to change.  We live in an era when large-scale conflicts between superpowers don't make sense for anybody, and they're more easily avoided than at any time in history.


Problem is that the current stalemate was created by those massive forces.
Superpowers duking it out had the side effect of creating stability (such as it is) in many parts of the world. Having power in reserve meant that we could quickly become involved in many things at once, which helps our foreign policy and the bottom line back home.

If you suddenly scale down those "unnecessary" forces then you'll probably find new warlords stepping up to fill the vacuum, starting new fires in the process. Disasters will happen and you won't have an extra dozen ships to throw at a relief effort.

There's alot of waste to be trimmed from the budget, but most often we end up in a cycle of trashing our existing force just so we can buy it all back in a few years. I doubt it will be much different this time.

/The threat of war is never going away.
/The day that it becomes more than a threat is a bad time to start rebuilding.
 
2014-02-24 02:31:40 PM  
What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything. They believe in government funded pensions. Military does all of that and actually provides a service to the country, unlike welfare. So why the hell would libs be anti-military? Makes no sense. Is it because the military has guns and guns are bad? Why are you all anti-military, but will rejoice as more and more people get food stamps, unemployment, section 8 housing, and methadone?
 
2014-02-24 02:35:47 PM  

Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.


For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.
 
2014-02-24 02:45:43 PM  

GameSprocket: I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.


You don't create new jobs in your district by not building new planes.
 
2014-02-24 02:54:36 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.


Like the B-52? Let's face it, unless libs really get their way, air superiority will never be an issue again, ever. How many times have we heard an aging technology is obsolete? We will never need guns on aircraft again... never need tanks again.... never need heavy bombers again.... we keep doing the same damn thing, new, expensive stuff, then we just go right back to what works.

During the Gulf war, for instance, there was no competition to the A-10 in terms of damage dealt to ground vehicles. The F-16 and F-15 simply cannot do what the A-10 does nearly as well. Low speed and low altitude maneuverability is unmatched in the A-10. Been plenty of instances where a pilot has to get way down, and use his eyes. Going to be hugely exposed to ground-fire. This has not changed since WW II. Dedicated ground attack planes like the Stuka and Sturmovik always do their job better than a fighter-bomber will.
 
2014-02-24 03:07:21 PM  

Thunderpipes: Born_Again_Bavarian: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

For good reason.  The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority.  If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds.  Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.  For the Air Force F-15's and F-16 are doing the majority of the heavy lifting.  If you are a grunt on the ground taking fire the last thing you want to hear ist hat air support is 30 minutes away because the A-10s can't get there any faster.

I am a former Air Force Crew Chief.  I like the A-10, but in an age of more limited budgets the airframe just doesn't make any sense.

Like the B-52? Let's face it, unless libs really get their way, air superiority will never be an issue again, ever. How many times have we heard an aging technology is obsolete? We will never need guns on aircraft again... never need tanks again.... never need heavy bombers again.... we keep doing the same damn thing, new, expensive stuff, then we just go right back to what works.

During the Gulf war, for instance, there was no competition to the A-10 in terms of damage dealt to ground vehicles. The F-16 and F-15 simply cannot do what the A-10 does nearly as well. Low speed and low altitude maneuverability is unmatched in the A-10. Been plenty of instances where a pilot has to get way down, and use his eyes. Going to be hugely exposed to ground-fire. This has not changed since WW II. Dedicated ground attack planes like the Stuka and Sturmovik always do their job better than ...


If that were true then the A-10s would be doing most of the CAS work............but they're not.  If the budget was bigger then you can easily justify the modest expense of the A-10.  But going forward budgets are going to really matter and with that the A-10 makes very little sense.
 
2014-02-24 03:09:01 PM  

valivian: whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.

It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.


I will continue to disagree. They are incredibly cost-effective for what they do, they're almost impossible to shoot down, they have ridiculous loiter time, they have very low cost of maintenance, they're dirt cheap, and they have a cult following.

I understand what you're saying, but I think the 'come on...they're so cheap, just keep them on' argument will win out. I could be wrong, but I think they survive one more round of budget cuts.
 
2014-02-24 03:14:45 PM  
Considering that the A-10 was already on its way out no matter what, and the F-35 was on its way in no matter what, and the U-2 is very old and easily replaced now, this is surprisingly sensible coming from Hagel...  I also would have chosen to take out most of the budget cuts on the army.  the Navy and the Airforce does the vast majority of power projection for the US, and the Army is much easier to re-size in a short period of time than the Air force or Navy, which takes years to commission new ships and planes...
 
2014-02-24 03:16:08 PM  
We're going more lean which means that a one trick pony like the A-10 is actually a liability in the field. While there is no question the A-10 is a good tank buster in low intensity type conflict against unsophisticated enemies the truth is the F-35 can do many other things that the A-10 simply can't.

In this day and age where fiscal responsibility is key, we need a platform that can can deliver maximum efficiency and flexible enough to  adapt to various mission requirements.

The A-10 has proven it;s worth in the past but it is quite obvious unfortunately that even with upgrades, she just can't be networked (netcentric) with other aircrafts  for 21st century warfare. Her lack of stealth will be proven fatal against enemy with modern day air defense assets while the F-35 has a high rate of survivability in even the highest threat environment.
 
2014-02-24 03:18:23 PM  

dittybopper: Tsar_Bomba1: dittybopper: RedPhoenix122: I'm OK with this.

I'm certainly OK with replacing manned U-2's with unmanned (but remotely piloted) Global Hawks.


There was just an article in Wired about the updating of the current U-2s.  The Global Hawk can't fly as high (and I'm guessing not as fast) nor carry the amount of gear/imaging equipment that the U2 does.  This would be stupid and a big mistake.

The reason the U-2 needed to fly as high as it does was to make it survivable in an era when you needed a pilot, and having one come down in hostile territory was a bad thing.

That extra height dictated that the camera needed to be higher resolution, so it was bigger than prior reconnaissance cameras.

In other words, the reason the U-2 can carry more is that it needs to fly higher, because it's got a pilot in it.  If you can fly lower, you don't need as big of a camera:  That's just simple physics.

Now, it's true that you may well end up with some of them getting destroyed, but you're not putting any lives as risk, so you may well feel that the risk of losing a $222 million Global Hawk is worth it to get some vital information (that's streamed back live, btw) that you might not want to have risked sending a piloted U-2 getting, especially if there was a chance that the pilot could be captured.

A remotely piloted aircraft can't the people who pick up the pieces of wreckage what it was looking for, but a pilot can.


The GH cannot carry an OBC (high resolution camera) payload that the U2 can. Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.
 
2014-02-24 03:18:56 PM  

jso2897: vygramul: Tannhauser: The Air Force has always hated the A-10.  It's unglamorous and isn't a sleek fighter jet.  But it is un-paralled in its role.  They've tried to kill it for thirty years.

Fark the F-35.  I say that as an ex-AF man who loves fighter jets.  Fark that boondoggle.  Keep researching fighter jets that's fine, but don't produce any when the F-16 and Super Hornet are still more than capable.

Depends on how many aviators you're willing to lose. Politicians understand low body-counts keep them safe. So even if the F-35 was only 10% better at keeping the aviator safe, they'd go for it.

The F-15,16, and 18s are all darn fine 4th gen aircraft. But they're 4th gen. And the SAMs have only gotten more dangerous, not to mention competing aircraft.

The best way to keep aviators safe is to not put them in aircraft to begin with. I realize the service, especially the AF, have a strong emotional attachment to the act of flying - but there is less and less reason for warplanes to haul meat around with them every year. We could save a lot of money and get the jump on the competition if we accepted that now, rather than later. But we won't - the very idea invokes apoplectic rage in some quarters.


Why do I get the feeling the first uploaded consciousnesses, in the science fiction sense, will be installed to pilot drones :(
 
2014-02-24 03:23:10 PM  

generallyso: The top 20 countries ranked by global military expenditure in 2007, in millions of constant 2005 US dollars:

[i.imgur.com image 590x417]

I think we'll be okay. Just a hunch.


To be fair, when that graph was made we where in the middle of 2 wars...  I would like to see this graph re-made with the projected post-cuts defense budget...  keeping in mind that china's defense spending is going up every single year...  the graph is likely to noticeably change.
 
2014-02-24 03:26:19 PM  
We can't get rid of the A-10s, how else will we fight the giant alien robots?

js.defencetalk.com
 
2014-02-24 03:47:45 PM  

SuperNinjaToad: We're going more lean which means that a one trick pony like the A-10 is actually a liability in the field. While there is no question the A-10 is a good tank buster in low intensity type conflict against unsophisticated enemies the truth is the F-35 can do many other things that the A-10 simply can't.

In this day and age where fiscal responsibility is key, we need a platform that can can deliver maximum efficiency and flexible enough to  adapt to various mission requirements.

The A-10 has proven it;s worth in the past but it is quite obvious unfortunately that even with upgrades, she just can't be networked (netcentric) with other aircrafts  for 21st century warfare. Her lack of stealth will be proven fatal against enemy with modern day air defense assets while the F-35 has a high rate of survivability in even the highest threat environment.


Once again, this is always the argument. First of all, it can be networked just as easily as anything else. not sure why you think the shape of an aircraft determines what electronics it can have. lack of stealth has been gone over time, and time again. A stealth aircraft during the day having to provide CAS will not be as safe as you think. An aircraft that can take a pounding and is extremely agile will survive. "we won't need the B-52, we have the B2 and B1!" How about that? B-52 has a shot at being the only aircraft to have a service life of 90-100 years. F-35 is not going to shrug off the hits an A-10 can. All that technology comes with a steep price in reliability and toughness.
 
2014-02-24 04:06:02 PM  
cdn.follw.it
 
2014-02-24 04:06:21 PM  

Born_Again_Bavarian: For good reason. The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority. If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds. Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.


In WW2, most of the really effective CAS support planes were repurposed shiatty fighters. So long as you also deploy actual fighters along with CAS, they can hold off the enemy's fighters while the CAS deals with ground problems.

This is how the Navy turned the crap-ass P-39 from a liability into an asset. The P-39 strafed infantry while the (better) Wildcats provided cover from the Zeros.
 
2014-02-24 04:08:11 PM  

Smokey the Bare: Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.


This is the same U2 that used to overfly the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, right?
 
2014-02-24 04:09:38 PM  

This text is now purple: Born_Again_Bavarian: For good reason. The A-10 cannot operate in an environment where we don't have 100% air superiority. If the Cold War had ever turned hot the life span of these things would have been measured in seconds. Furthermore, as much as people love the A-10 it actually plays only a small role in our CAS action today.

In WW2, most of the really effective CAS support planes were repurposed shiatty fighters. So long as you also deploy actual fighters along with CAS, they can hold off the enemy's fighters while the CAS deals with ground problems.

This is how the Navy turned the crap-ass P-39 from a liability into an asset. The P-39 strafed infantry while the (better) Wildcats provided cover from the Zeros.


They used the P51 for CAS a lot, something Yeager said (in his book) was stupid.
 
2014-02-24 04:13:11 PM  

Smokey the Bare: The GH cannot carry an OBC (high resolution camera) payload that the U2 can. Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.


Did you not read what I said?

A lower resolution camera from a lower height can have the same practical resolution as a higher resolution camera up higher.

Duh.

And the entire raison d'etre for the U-2, that it can fly above any effective anti-aircraft response, is no longer necessary:  They aren't survivable against a "modern" opponent with access to effective SAMs, and you don't really need that much height against targets that don't have them, because if they can't hit you at 70,000 feet, it's unlikely that they can at 35 or 40,000 feet.  And since you are only half the distance away from your target, the camera doesn't need as high a technical resolution to achieve the same *PRACTICAL* resolution.

And I say this as a person who thinks the U-2 is one of the most beautiful and graceful military aircraft ever.
 
2014-02-24 04:13:48 PM  

vygramul: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: Hobodeluxe: it's a good start. let's take that money and use it to fix our crumbling infrastructure and change our energy to renewable sources.

And then have Russia, or heck, Mexico/Canada waltz in and take it all over. Smart. Figure you will have gotten rid of all our guns by then too.

What's it like to live in constant unjustified fear? It doesn't sound fun.

Nobody else is even CLOSE to the USA. We could cut military spending in half and STILL be the world's hyperpower.

[mediamatters.org image 559x337]


Maybe you just need to stop listening to news sources that primarily exist to keep you afraid.

Note that spending != size.



Good point.

We also have the best training, best equipment, and most modern weapons. Unlike some of the other larger countries that have piles of old crap.
 
2014-02-24 04:15:25 PM  

This text is now purple: Smokey the Bare: Do you really think the U2 can't stream back live images? And both aircraft are only useful in an area where the US already has air superiority.

This is the same U2 that used to overfly the Soviet Union during the height of the Cold War, right?


They've been upgraydded since then.

But they don't overfly denied areas anymore (at least, USAF ones don't).  Too risky.
 
2014-02-24 04:16:56 PM  

Voiceofreason01: what does the U2 do that can't be done by satellite or the Global Hawk?


probably fly at a higher altitude than a global hawk.
 
2014-02-24 04:20:08 PM  

Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.


Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.
 
2014-02-24 04:25:55 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.


You can't spell Thunderpipes without derp.
 
2014-02-24 04:32:58 PM  

SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.


It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!
 
2014-02-24 04:55:25 PM  

Thunderpipes: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.

It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


Corporate subsidies?

School vouchers?

Agricultural subsidies?

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-02-24 04:57:38 PM  
My biggest concern is that it would put 40,000 to 50,000 people on unemployment.  This is really just another one of our annual budget exercises.  The President presents a budget that he knows Congress won't pass but allows him to make a statement.  In this case it appeases the liberal wing of the party but, as you can tell from the reactions already, these military cuts will never happen anytime soon.
 
2014-02-24 05:10:22 PM  
They might close Fort Dix.
 
2014-02-24 05:21:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: SpectroBoy: Thunderpipes: What I don't understand is -- liberals want government to spend money, supposedly that creates jobs. They want government to run everything.

Or at least that's what you imagine all "libs" think.

It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


You're apparently a caricature who only sees caricatures around him. You're the kind of person us reasonable and grounded people are constantly apologizing for. Congrats.
 
2014-02-24 05:25:27 PM  
Military spending beyond requirements is not "creating jobs" or "a public service," it's setting fire to $100 bills. Broken window fallacy and all that. Every dollar the military uses came from at least one dollar of tax revenue stripped from gardeners and bakers and teachers. The efficiency of military spending is somewhere between 0 and 1.

Now I'm not going to be dumb and say we didn't need to go world police on some asses at some point since WWII but I'm curious if our 5T dollar war only saved us 2.5T in oil prices or something. You always have to compare the consequences of one action v the other.

Stupid people work on the "editor" principle, evaluating every change as an attack on the status quo. Enlightened people reevaluate the situation with a blank slate without regard to the rigid concepts of the past. The truly genius walk the middle road with an open mind to rethink with a respect for the efforts of the past and humility in their new solution's value.

The A-10? I don't think we need it, but we need something like it. It's old and falling apart. Build something new that's cheaper and retains the A-10's good qualities and improves on it. I like the F-35, but hate how it's been made. Unmanned flight, especially ISR is the farking future, deal with it.
 
2014-02-24 05:47:52 PM  

valivian: whistleridge: slayer199: Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.

I doubt it winds up getting cut. Air Force has always hated it because it can't dogfight, but it's just too cheap and too good at what it does. All Congresscritters who don't want to lose the jobs associated with it need to do is trot a few soldiers out, have them testify about how strong it is and how it is one of the few weapons we have that enemies truly fear, and viola! It stays.

It's dead.  There's A-10s on my base.  They just can't anything besides CAS and there are other airframes that can do more.


https://medium.com/war-is-boring/124c8839989e
 
2014-02-24 06:26:54 PM  

Thunderpipes: It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!


When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US budget.

1.bp.blogspot.com

Now I fully believe we should do more to support our current and future veterans, but the reality of the situation is that we've entered a period of stable peace. We have no major nation enemies and currently spend more on defense than the next top 10 nation's combined. We are absolutely, unequivocally the world's sole military super power and have more nuclear defense capabilities than any other nation. For the past decade, the only worry we have to national security is illegal immigration and a handful Muslim terrorists (who are now mostly dead, via drone attacks).

We're more than capable of cutting our military budget in half and balance our national budget overnight. Remember when conservatives were for balancing the budget?
 
2014-02-24 06:35:31 PM  

MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: It is. This forum is a perfect example. Every time the Messiah comes up with new government spending, you guys orgasm.... unless it gives money to the military, then it is bad. More Obamacare! More stimulus! More food stamps! More unemployment! Mandatory wages! Yay!!! Military pay? No!

When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US budget.

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 640x436]

Now I fully believe we should do more to support our current and future veterans, but the reality of the situation is that we've entered a period of stable peace. We have no major nation enemies and currently spend more on defense than the next top 10 nation's combined. We are absolutely, unequivocally the world's sole military super power and have more nuclear defense capabilities than any other nation. For the past decade, the only worry we have to national security is illegal immigration and a handful Muslim terrorists (who are now mostly dead, via drone attacks).

We're more than capable of cutting our military budget in half and balance our national budget overnight. Remember when conservatives were for balancing the budget?


I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.
 
2014-02-24 06:37:47 PM  
I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter and high altitude precision bomber, but I think most pilots would be more comfortable at low alt. in rage of small arms and AA fire in an A-10 than a thin skinned F-35.

Plus there's the jack-of-all-trades/master of none factor in the F-35. The F-15 is designed for one thing, air superiority and has around a 200-0 record world wide (all operators) against everyone else's best.  Not saying the F-22 is a bad plane or that we don't need to keep up with technology, but there's a reason the Navy is going for the LCS. The big budget, big war stuff is too valuable to send into close combat.

The A-10 is the expendable equivalent of a USN frigate/LCS or Army LAAV, the F-22 and F-35 are equivalent to Aegis cruisers or M-1A1s.

Not saying we can't stand to cut the military budget some, but the last time we gutted the military some small unpleasantness happened in 1914 and 1939.
 
2014-02-24 06:51:19 PM  
We can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions.
 
2014-02-24 06:59:45 PM  

Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.


You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.
 
2014-02-24 07:05:47 PM  

MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.

You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.


Carrier usefulness is not linear. When asked how many carriers we would need to cover three MTWs rather then two, the number went to 34.
 
2014-02-24 09:17:02 PM  

vygramul: MrSteve007: Thunderpipes: I like how you only choose "discretionary" spending. Because protecting the country and the world is discretionary, but hot chocolate for liberal kids in PJs is mandatory.

Typical libtard.

You really need to brush up on your basic understanding of the US Government and your civics classes.

Like it or not, military spending is considered discretionary. Always has been, since the founding day of the Union. That means it comes up as part of budget negotiations on an annual basis. It doesn't require a change in law to adjust the money sent to that area - unlike parts of the budget that are considered mandatory and "non-discretionary."

And like it or not, military spending is also by far the largest single part of the US budget that comes up for annual budget negotiations.

The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.

Carrier usefulness is not linear. When asked how many carriers we would need to cover three MTWs rather then two, the number went to 34.


The carrier fleet is one of the last places I would cut anything.   America has defense treaties with nations all over the world, and without the ability to back up those pieces of paper they might as well be worthless...    And that leads to war, and war is more expensive than preserving the peace through a credible threat of force.  Never forget that equation.
 
2014-02-24 10:34:38 PM  
I don't want the A-10 to go away!

:(
 
2014-02-24 11:37:47 PM  

MrSteve007: The difference between you and I is that I'm not a sociopath. I can recognize the difference between cutting the military budget to support *only* 4 carrier groups vs. 6 during a period of prolonged global peace has a much smaller national impact than cutting promised retirement or medicare benefits for millions of Americans.


Retirement benefits don't need to be cut.  They need to increase the medicare and soc sec tax people pay.  Increasing benefits without increasing the payment is a bad idea.

Social security should also be optional.  Payment to t-bills for pussies, or 12.5% into your IRA.  Stop stealing from black men and people unfortunate enough to get hit by a bus when they are 58.
 
2014-02-25 04:48:55 AM  

Gleeman: I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter...


The F-35's canopy offers a limited view all around.  shiat for CAS, shiat for dogfighting.

BOONDOGGLE.
 
2014-02-25 07:11:52 AM  

blindio: You can't spell Thunderpipes without derp.


mysoftwarequality.files.wordpress.com
internet high five
 
2014-02-25 07:31:54 AM  

Thunderboy: Gleeman: I'm sure the F-35 will eventually be a good dog fighter...

The F-35's canopy offers a limited view all around.  shiat for CAS, shiat for dogfighting.

BOONDOGGLE.


That's what the helmet's for. You don't need the canopy.

The canopy is not what's wrong with the F-35.
 
2014-02-25 09:34:21 AM  
canopy..

hard to see out of that shiatter.   really?
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-02-25 12:11:16 PM  

MrSteve007: When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US discretionary budget.


All told, thought, it's less than a quarter of the total budget.


BTW, the only non-discretionary spending for the federal government should be the overhead of the federal government itself:  Salaries, the electricity bill at the various government buildings, etc.

Everything else is ultimately discretionary.  There is no constitutional requirement that the federal government pay, say, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid.  Those types of programs are only about 80 years old at the most, meaning that they weren't around for 2/3rds of the history of this country.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow gutting all those programs, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.  So that spending isn't "non-discretionary", not in a real sense.  It's only non-discretionary in the Orwellian Newspeak sense where it gains that label in order to make cutting or dropping it seem beyond the pale.
 
2014-02-25 02:20:53 PM  

dittybopper: MrSteve007: When you look at US discretionary budget, military + veterans' benefits account for nearly 2/3rds of the US discretionary budget.

All told, thought, it's less than a quarter of the total budget.


BTW, the only non-discretionary spending for the federal government should be the overhead of the federal government itself:  Salaries, the electricity bill at the various government buildings, etc.

Everything else is ultimately discretionary.  There is no constitutional requirement that the federal government pay, say, Social Security, or Medicare/Medicaid.  Those types of programs are only about 80 years old at the most, meaning that they weren't around for 2/3rds of the history of this country.

Congress could pass a law tomorrow gutting all those programs, and it would be perfectly legal for them to do so.  So that spending isn't "non-discretionary", not in a real sense.   It's only non-discretionary in the Orwellian Newspeak sense where it gains that label in order to make cutting or dropping it seem beyond the pale.


No. It's non discretionary because it is a specific tax for a specific purpose.  If you look at your pay stub (assuming you're employed via w-2), you'll see a line item for federal taxes, you'll see a line item for social security, and you'll see a line item for medicare.  This is because the money taxed for social security can be spent only on social security*, likewise for medicare, and the line item for federal taxes collected can be spent on whatever is deemed necessary in the budget.  That is why it's called discretionary, because it's allocation is at the discretion of congress.

*which is why money taken from the SS pool is borrowed rather than re-allocated, it cannot just be raided out of hand.
 
Displayed 248 of 248 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report