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 96
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

8433 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Feb 2014 at 7:05 AM (31 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

2014-02-24 01:39:24 AM
16 votes:
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 05:58:09 AM
10 votes:
Getting rid of the A-10 is a huge mistake.  There's nothing else like it for CAS.
2014-02-24 07:25:28 AM
7 votes:

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 07:45:38 AM
6 votes:

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 07:40:18 AM
6 votes:

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 02:43:11 AM
6 votes:
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 07:49:42 AM
5 votes:

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 07:14:33 AM
5 votes:
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 07:04:06 AM
5 votes:
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 09:01:24 AM
4 votes:

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 08:58:32 AM
4 votes:

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 08:05:14 AM
4 votes:

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 07:50:18 AM
4 votes:
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 07:38:00 AM
4 votes:

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 07:17:47 AM
4 votes:

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 07:10:56 AM
4 votes:
I'm OK with this.
2014-02-24 11:14:05 AM
3 votes:

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 11:12:14 AM
3 votes:

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 09:41:52 AM
3 votes:
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 08:23:27 AM
3 votes:
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 08:11:25 AM
3 votes:

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 07:25:27 AM
3 votes:
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 05:25:27 PM
2 votes:
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 04:25:55 PM
2 votes:

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 04:20:08 PM
2 votes:

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 10:34:58 AM
2 votes:

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 09:01:06 AM
2 votes:
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 08:57:35 AM
2 votes:

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 08:17:14 AM
2 votes:

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 08:17:03 AM
2 votes:

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 08:09:52 AM
2 votes:

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 08:00:39 AM
2 votes:

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 07:58:54 AM
2 votes:
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 07:47:46 AM
2 votes:

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 07:33:16 AM
2 votes:
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
2014-02-24 07:18:47 AM
2 votes:
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 07:16:03 AM
2 votes:

whistleridge: and viola! It stays


???

donrathjr.com
2014-02-24 07:15:10 AM
2 votes:
I thought we quit making the A-10 at least a decade ago.
2014-02-24 07:08:57 AM
2 votes:

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 06:26:54 PM
1 votes:

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 05:21:10 PM
1 votes:

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 04:13:48 PM
1 votes:

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 02:05:26 PM
1 votes:

gja: 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.


As a veteran I no longer support this country's military industrial complex. I do not want to see another person die in these futile dick measuring contests and I do not want to pay for more needless death and suffering.

I am only extending the idea of the volunteer army to it's logical conclusion. Take the power out of the hands of politicians and put it in the hands of the people. This way if the war is really something that we as a nation want it will be adequately funded and staffed, if not then no war.
gja [TotalFark]
2014-02-24 01:51:05 PM
1 votes:

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 01:31:24 PM
1 votes:

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 01:12:11 PM
1 votes:

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 01:00:36 PM
1 votes:
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 12:59:32 PM
1 votes:
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 12:48:16 PM
1 votes:

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 12:21:11 PM
1 votes:

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 11:29:06 AM
1 votes:

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 11:15:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:12:54 AM
1 votes:

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 11:09:49 AM
1 votes:
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 11:01:07 AM
1 votes:
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 10:40:22 AM
1 votes:
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 09:56:48 AM
1 votes:

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 09:53:53 AM
1 votes:

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 09:50:32 AM
1 votes:
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 09:48:47 AM
1 votes:
Probability that this will happen: 0%
2014-02-24 09:46:39 AM
1 votes:
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 09:46:19 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:45:19 AM
1 votes:
A rather unattractive design, but looks like it bristles with firepower.

www.fas.org
2014-02-24 09:42:06 AM
1 votes:
yes, let make more people unemployed while we legalize 20 million laRaza tards
2014-02-24 09:37:57 AM
1 votes:

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 09:34:20 AM
1 votes:

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 09:09:42 AM
1 votes:

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 08:56:36 AM
1 votes:

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 08:50:49 AM
1 votes:

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 08:50:16 AM
1 votes:

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 08:48:57 AM
1 votes:

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 08:45:04 AM
1 votes:
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 08:43:38 AM
1 votes:

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


Pretty sure U2 performed at Live Aid.
2014-02-24 08:39:15 AM
1 votes:

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


Bring back? Did they ever leave?
2014-02-24 08:39:12 AM
1 votes:

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 08:36:54 AM
1 votes:

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 08:32:38 AM
1 votes:
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 08:31:22 AM
1 votes:

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 08:30:58 AM
1 votes:

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 08:26:21 AM
1 votes:
I'm sure the AF won't mind as long as they keep control of the Stargate.
2014-02-24 08:18:32 AM
1 votes:
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 08:12:04 AM
1 votes:
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 08:05:50 AM
1 votes:

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 08:03:03 AM
1 votes:

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 08:01:37 AM
1 votes:

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 07:53:48 AM
1 votes:

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


I'm adding that to my repertoire.  Thanks!
2014-02-24 07:52:51 AM
1 votes:

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 07:48:38 AM
1 votes:

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 07:44:45 AM
1 votes:

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 07:41:17 AM
1 votes:
Hellllooooooooo Nurrrssssssseeeee!
2014-02-24 07:39:48 AM
1 votes:
www.washingtonpost.com

This is really good, BTW.
2014-02-24 07:33:13 AM
1 votes:
We should be able to drown the military in a bath tub, like the rest of the federal government
2014-02-24 07:30:49 AM
1 votes:

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 07:26:27 AM
1 votes:
Bring back the B-52's, I say!!!!
2014-02-24 07:02:46 AM
1 votes:

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.
 
Displayed 96 of 96 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report