This years military spending is increased over last year, especially ehn you consider that there is already over $100 billion in discretionary spending earmarked for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money is coming out of a whole differnt pot, so it is unlikely to have any effect on navy and air force programs.
Most of the program level reductions mentioned in the article seem to be aimed at updating the military to meet the kind of war we fight today. Fighter planes are largely inconsequential. The days when we planned for Russian invasions and massive dogfights are over. The new paradigm is "Use your multi billion dollar stealth bombers to take out enemy aircraft while still on the ground".
The F-15s that are so quickly dismissed int he article are still the worlds premier air superiority/multi purpose fighter. True, most of them were originally built in the 70's and 80's. Most army helicopters are over 20 years old. They have been retrofit and rebuilt so many times that you would be hard pressed to finde even a single part on the entire plane that dates to the 80's. Even the airframes have been updated over the course of the years.
Cuts in the F-22 program make sense. Nothing currently flying can match the F-15, nor is there anything currently in development internationally that is likely to. Why spend billions on new fighters when the old ones are still the best on the planet? You order enough to ensure that your pilots get some stick time on them, and your maintenance people are familir with their operation, then you ensure that you production contractor is in line to produce them fairly quickly if they are ever needed (i.e we find that somebody has come up with something better than the F-15.
Flat tops are a fine example of outdated military equipment. The amount of money required to maintain and protect and air craft carrier is incredible (and aircraft carrier has basically no defenses of its own, the defenses rely almost wholly on surrounding it with so many ships and subs that nothing can possibly get through). For all the expanse of the things, they are not all that useful. They are too slow to act as a rapid response platform, no longer useful as a fighter platform since with the new fuel capacities and engines on the F-15 we can land base them and still hit anywhere on the planet, and frankly we have better things to do with all those support ships than to have them surround and protect a worthless floating runway.
People threw a fit when we did away with development on the sidewinder. Then we introduced the AMRAAM and people looked rather silly for being concerned. This is the same thing. Removing outdated, antiquated, weapons system,s or weapons systems that are no longer useful in todays geopolitical climate is not "gutting" anything. If you have an old el camino towed off to make room for a new Vette, you have not "gutted" your vehicle collection. You have just gotten rid of the junk.
Boyish-Tigerlilly wrote:How does the miltary cut in another thread jive with an 4.8% pentagon budget increase? I was told the aritcle wasn't reliable.
It isn't at all and whoever wrote it is just a moron and outright lying about the F-15. Far from being the premier fighter in the world it is now quite dated and outclassed by several existing designs such as the Su-30 and Typhoon. Those are existing aircraft right now, the F-22 will be in service for decades during which the rest of the worlds fighter designers will not be standing still.
"This cult of special forces is as sensible as to form a Royal Corps of Tree Climbers and say that no soldier who does not wear its green hat with a bunch of oak leaves stuck in it should be expected to climb a tree"
— Field Marshal William Slim 1956
This years military spending is increased over last year, especially ehn you consider that there is already over $100 billion in discretionary spending earmarked for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. That money is coming out of a whole differnt pot, so it is unlikely to have any effect on navy and air force programs.
Most of the program level reductions mentioned in the article seem to be aimed at updating the military to meet the kind of war we fight today. Fighter planes are largely inconsequential. The days when we planned for Russian invasions and massive dogfights are over. The new paradigm is "Use your multi billion dollar stealth bombers to take out enemy aircraft while still on the ground".
The F-15s that are so quickly dismissed int he article are still the worlds premier air superiority/multi purpose fighter. True, most of them were originally built in the 70's and 80's. Most army helicopters are over 20 years old. They have been retrofit and rebuilt so many times that you would be hard pressed to finde even a single part on the entire plane that dates to the 80's. Even the airframes have been updated over the course of the years.
Cuts in the F-22 program make sense. Nothing currently flying can match the F-15, nor is there anything currently in development internationally that is likely to. Why spend billions on new fighters when the old ones are still the best on the planet? You order enough to ensure that your pilots get some stick time on them, and your maintenance people are familir with their operation, then you ensure that you production contractor is in line to produce them fairly quickly if they are ever needed (i.e we find that somebody has come up with something better than the F-15.
Flat tops are a fine example of outdated military equipment. The amount of money required to maintain and protect and air craft carrier is incredible (and aircraft carrier has basically no defenses of its own, the defenses rely almost wholly on surrounding it with so many ships and subs that nothing can possibly get through). For all the expanse of the things, they are not all that useful. They are too slow to act as a rapid response platform, no longer useful as a fighter platform since with the new fuel capacities and engines on the F-15 we can land base them and still hit anywhere on the planet, and frankly we have better things to do with all those support ships than to have them surround and protect a worthless floating runway.
People threw a fit when we did away with development on the sidewinder. Then we introduced the AMRAAM and people looked rather silly for being concerned. This is the same thing. Removing outdated, antiquated, weapons system,s or weapons systems that are no longer useful in todays geopolitical climate is not "gutting" anything. If you have an old el camino towed off to make room for a new Vette, you have not "gutted" your vehicle collection. You have just gotten rid of the junk.
The article's assertions don't seem to fit with what I've read and heard from most other sources. The F15 while still a great asset, IS outclassed by many of the next generation foreign jets such as the SU37.
As far as Carriers go, I don't see how the author can make that assertion given the role that Aircraft carriers played in recent comflicts. They are essentially floating airbases. They may be expensive, but they are still incredibly useful.
And, oh yes, we didn't stop development on the Sidewinder. We're just about to introduce the AIM-9X, which massively increases the capabilities of every bird it's loaded onto. And the AMRAAM isn't a replacement for the Sidewinder, but rather for the Sparrow.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
Beowulf wrote:And, oh yes, we didn't stop development on the Sidewinder. We're just about to introduce the AIM-9X, which massively increases the capabilities of every bird it's loaded onto.
The performance increase over AIM-9M is dependent on the aircraft. Some aircraft won't be able to use the AIM-9X to it's full potential, though it will still offer an improvement in guidance and tracking.
Beowulf wrote:And, oh yes, we didn't stop development on the Sidewinder. We're just about to introduce the AIM-9X, which massively increases the capabilities of every bird it's loaded onto.
The performance increase over AIM-9M is dependent on the aircraft. Some aircraft won't be able to use the AIM-9X to it's full potential, though it will still offer an improvement in guidance and tracking.
In conjunction with the HMCS, it can do very far off boresight shots, which is a great thing to have in a dogfight, since you no longer have to be able to point your nose at them. Massive increase in capabilities.
"preemptive killing of cops might not be such a bad idea from a personal saftey[sic] standpoint..." --Keevan Colton
"There's a word for bias you can't see: Yours." -- William Saletan
Aircraft carriers are outdated. When aircraft carriers were key to strategic planning, fighter planes had a maximum range of only 600 miles. Now that range is generally 2400 miles, the exception being specialised aircraft (like the navies carrier defense groups. Aircraft carriers cost several billion per year to maintain PER SHIP. Find somebody in the military (any branch will do) who is at all involved in strategic planning and they should be able to get a worldwide force coverage map. We already have fighter cover for the entire world, with the exception of Antarctica and Australia, from ground bases. There is simply no longer a need for air craft carriers. There is a need for subs and surface warfare ships (missile cruisers, etc...). Currently, over half our sub fleet and over 80% of our surface warfare fleet is busy protecting aircraft carriers.
At one time, Aircraft carriers were good force projection tools. They are now just redundant floating junk. Most of them need an out of water overhaul, and they serve no real purpose since we already have arial coverage of the entire planet.
Whoever wrote that article is an idealogue retard. He knows nothing about the military, military functions, or the capabilities of other militaries. His entire article is a mishmash of false premises leading to erroneous conclusions, and can be safely dismissed as such.
"Sometimes I think you WANT us to fail." "Shut up, just shut up!" -Two Guys from Kabul
Latinum Star Recipient; Hacker's Cross Award Winner
"one soler flar can vapririze the planit or malt the nickl in lass than millasacit" -Bagara1000
The idea that the F-15 is unmatched and no one even has anything in development is pure wanking. And what modern fighter can reach 2400 miles with a weapons payload?
"You know, I was God once."
"Yes, I saw. You were doing well, until everyone died."
Bender and God, Futurama
Let him land on any Lyran world to taste firsthand the wrath of peace loving people thwarted by the myopic greed of a few miserly old farts- Katrina Steiner
Well, he didn't mention the erroneous $250 million price tag for the Raptor but the article is bullshit nonetheless for the aforementioned reasons.
The F-15 is still viable because of traditionally superior American avionics packages and pilots. These can change over time though. What has already changed is that the F-15 is no longer top dog by many measures. He simply lied on this part or is simply an idiot.
Oh, he also forgot to mention how stealthy the F-15 was. Idiot, that's one reason why it is so quickly dismissed. And WTF does he mean by this:
The new paradigm is "Use your multi billion dollar stealth bombers to take out enemy aircraft while still on the ground"
So does he support more B-2's? That would mean an increase in the defense budget. We only have so many.
We already have fighter cover for the entire world, with the exception of Antarctica and Australia, from ground bases. There is simply no longer a need for air craft carriers.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha ....
That's just comedy gold
"It's not evil for God to do it. Or for someone to do it at God's command."- Jonathan Boyd on baby-killing
"you guys are fascinated with the use of those "rules of logic" to the extent that you don't really want to discussus anything."- GC
"I do not believe Russian Roulette is a stupid act" - Embracer of Darkness
"Viagra commercials appear to save lives" - tharkûn on US health care.
Aircraft carriers cost several billion per year to maintain PER SHIP. .
As the Bunker Hill's annual operating budget is on the order of $5 million, I find it unlikely a CVN is going to cost "several billion". Maybe sheer personnel costs, but even then I can't see it breaking a billion.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Aircraft carriers cost several billion per year to maintain PER SHIP. .
As the Bunker Hill's annual operating budget is on the order of $5 million, I find it unlikely a CVN is going to cost "several billion". Maybe sheer personnel costs, but even then I can't see it breaking a billion.
I think a documentary on the USS George Washington said that the daily operating cost was 2 million. It might have been monthly. I don't recall.
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
I think a documentary on the USS George Washington said that the daily operating cost was 2 million. It might have been monthly. I don't recall.
2 x 365
730 million
That would still be below "several billion a year PER ship." This retard has no idea what he's talking about.
As for 2 million a day..I wonder if that's an underway figure, seems a bit high for sitting in Norfolk doing nothing.
"The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles."
Kamakazie Sith wrote:
I think a documentary on the USS George Washington said that the daily operating cost was 2 million. It might have been monthly. I don't recall.
2 x 365
730 million
That would still be below "several billion a year PER ship." This retard has no idea what he's talking about.
As for 2 million a day..I wonder if that's an underway figure, seems a bit high for sitting in Norfolk doing nothing.
It was an underway figure. I posted it to show that this guy does not know what he's talking about. Even at 2mil per day, like you've shown, it's still quite a ways below even a single billion.
Cuts in the F-22 program make sense. Nothing currently flying can match the F-15, nor is there anything currently in development internationally that is likely to. Why spend billions on new fighters when the old ones are still the best on the planet? You order enough to ensure that your pilots get some stick time on them, and your maintenance people are familir with their operation, then you ensure that you production contractor is in line to produce them fairly quickly if they are ever needed (i.e we find that somebody has come up with something better than the F-15.
More fun crap. Apparently this moron doesn't think pilot training should be a fulltime occupation, when at war I pilots who have gratiously overtrained. There is no substitute for continious rigorous training.
I'm also enthralled with his conception that you can somehow quickly start the production line rolling and quickly produce exceptionally intricate birds. How frikking deep does he think the 'assembly lines' for these birds are?
Personally I think the US aught to buy enough F-22s and B-2s that nobody even bothers trying to arms race. It is an awful lot easier to stay ludicriously far ahead than to rebuild a lead once lost.
trying to win the arms race overwhelmingly hasnt worked in the past. they try to catch up.
you know, like in an arms race.
This day is Fantastic!
Myers Briggs: ENTJ
Political Compass: -3/-6 DOOMerWoW
"I really hate it when the guy you were pegging as Mr. Worst Case starts saying, "Oh, I was wrong, it's going to be much worse." " - Adrian Laguna
