Enjoy an Ads-Free Jets Insider - Become a Jets Insider VIP!
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 69

Thread: What Govt. Spending are Democrats/Liberals Supporting of Cutting?

  1. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4006739]I did serve but I don't mind those who didn't offering an opinion. To them, their opinion is fact. I was never President but I offer an opinion relative to his performance.
    BTW, despite being very pro military, I do see waste on a monumental scale. Not in the number of lower ranking people but the number of the highest rank. They are merely being kept in many cases to get their pensions. It's the buddy system - West Point, Annapolis, AF Academy.
    Also waste in programs which in many cases the military does not want. Congressman do for their districts.[/QUOTE]

    The military is budget is more or less a jobs bill. Aside from servicemen salaries, you have the jobs created by weapons, equipment and vehicle manufacturers. Not to mention tech R&D jobs that go along with them. No congressman (Republican or Democrat) is going to cut anything that will eliminate jobs in their district. Those jobs equal votes.

  2. #22
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4006739]I did serve but I don't mind those who didn't offering an opinion. To them, their opinion is fact. I was never President but I offer an opinion relative to his performance.
    BTW, despite being very pro military, I do see waste on a monumental scale. Not in the number of lower ranking people but the number of the highest rank. They are merely being kept in many cases to get their pensions. It's the buddy system - West Point, Annapolis, AF Academy.
    Also waste in programs which in many cases the military does not want. Congressman do for their districts.[/QUOTE]

    Great post.:yes:

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Trades;4006743][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Being an Air Force vet I am pro-military but there is definitely room to cut. We could probably find 10-20% savings just based on efficiencies and minor cuts of duplicated services and reducing our presence in Europe and other more stable areas by 25% without losing much if anything in our quick mobility.[/FONT][/COLOR][/QUOTE]


    I directionally agree with you. On another JI thread I indicated there are inefficiences. Relative to outsourcing, top heavy rank structure, presence in just too may places and just plain waste because nobody is accountable at lower levels. Would not recommend a force reduction because we are grossly thin but it's cheaper to support the military in the U.S. than foreign based.
    Also, I did not know this until a retired admiral friend told me - we actually have foreign students enrolled at our three military academies. Those slots should go to qualified Americans.

  4. #24
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;4006770]The military is budget is more or less a jobs bill. Aside from servicemen salaries, you have the jobs created by weapons, equipment and vehicle manufacturers. Not to mention tech R&D jobs that go along with them. No congressman (Republican or Democrat) is going to cut anything that will eliminate jobs in their district. Those jobs equal votes.[/QUOTE]


    Pretty true. Surprisingly, a number of years ago, Rumsfeld as Sec of Def, cancelled an artillery cannon program at Picatinny Arsenel. As an ex artillery officer it was a boondoggle. Too big to air tranasported. The NJ pols were up in arms. As were they with the planned closure of Fort Monmouth.

  5. #25
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4006814]Pretty true. Surprisingly, a number of years ago, Rumsfeld as Sec of Def, cancelled an artillery cannon program at Picatinny Arsenel. As an ex artillery officer it was a boondoggle. Too big to air tranasported. The NJ pols were up in arms. As were they with the planned closure of Fort Monmouth.[/QUOTE]

    I remember that.

  6. #26
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    WOW


    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4006686]LHA/LHDs are used to deliver Marines to a combat situation. The aircraft they carry can not hold their own in a against even a marginal opponent. They are ground support. Comparing a LHA to a super carrier is like comparing a rifleman to a tank..[/QUOTE]


    LHA/LHDs are basically what any other Navy has. So therefore they should "hold their own". They are equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II. This plane has received lots of praise.

    [QUOTE=palmetto defender;4006686]
    There was s crew the military attitude before WWII. That didn't work out well for a couple years.
    [/QUOTE]



    We [B]won [/B]WWII because we had an awesome manufacturing base AND we had not loaded up with weapons designed for the last war we were involved in.

    not sure are you talking about?
    For the USA WWII was [U]only [/U]a couple of years.
    Last edited by Buster; 04-22-2011 at 01:01 PM.

  7. #27
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=sourceworx;4006770]The military is budget is more or less a jobs bill. Aside from servicemen salaries, you have the jobs created by weapons, equipment and vehicle manufacturers. Not to mention tech R&D jobs that go along with them. No congressman (Republican or Democrat) is going to cut anything that will eliminate jobs in their district. Those jobs equal votes.[/QUOTE]



    A legacy of President Reagan's 500 ship Navy.

    How do you get Senators and Congressmen from land locked Iowa to vote for a 500 ship Navy?

    Build parts for those ships in land locked states.

  8. #28
    All League
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    East of the Jordan, West of the Rock of Gibraltar
    Posts
    4,686
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Revi$_I$l@nd;4006693]I didn't serve so I try to stay out of questioning what the military needs and doesn't need.

    I'd imagine Buster/Bit should do the same.[/QUOTE]



    Nice copout


    Have you ever collected Unemployment, Medicaid or Medicare?

    If the answer is no then using your logic you'd best stay out of those discussions, too.

  9. #29
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    When it comes to cutting Millitary spending, I'd MUCH rather do so by reductions in needless, losing Wars (Afghanistan), Nation Building (Iraq) and...."Humanitarianism" (Libya Civil War).

    Then, I'd prefer to cut from Political Force Projection (U.S> Forces in South Korea, Germany, etc, etc, etc, etc.....)

    And then I'd prefer to have a top to bottom housecleaning for efficiency (in both millitary AND all Govt. Operations).

    But No, I do not want to stop funding Research and Development. Apart from maintaining our security, being technologicly ahead of the opposition (any potential oposition) is something I strongly support, for both the usual "my gun is better than your gun" reasons, and for the trickle-down of millitary tech into comsumer hands that invarably follows.

  10. #30
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Long Island
    Posts
    13,518
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4006846]When it comes to cutting Millitary spending, I'd MUCH rather do so by reductions in needless, losing Wars (Afghanistan), Nation Building (Iraq) and...."Humanitarianism" (Libya Civil War).

    Then, I'd prefer to cut from Political Force Projection (U.S> Forces in South Korea, Germany, etc, etc, etc, etc.....)

    And then I'd prefer to have a top to bottom housecleaning for efficiency (in both millitary AND all Govt. Operations).

    But No, I do not want to stop funding Research and Development. Apart from maintaining our security, being technologicly ahead of the opposition (any potential oposition) is something I strongly support, for both the usual "my gun is better than your gun" reasons, and for the trickle-down of millitary tech into comsumer hands that invarably follows.[/QUOTE]

    I agree completely. Good post.

  11. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    2,489
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4006845]Nice copout


    Have you ever collected Unemployment, Medicaid or Medicare?

    If the answer is no then using your logic you'd best stay out of those discussions, too.[/QUOTE]

    I'll agree if you can go the next 4 weeks without mentioning Christie once on this site :yes:

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    In transit
    Posts
    6,057
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=bitonti;4006046]military cuts- there's no need for cold war weaponry when our enemies live in caves. There's no need for 11 active aircraft carrier groups when no other army has more than 1.

    medicare cuts - change the coverage, what is covered, what isn't. Plan D wtf is that? we can talk about everyone paying into the system but the system has been bloated over 40 years.

    [B]SS cuts - raise retirement age, this is a no brainer. [/B]
    tax break expires - there's a reason why it's called a tax break. like spring break it's fun but it eventually has to end. Saying that's raising taxes is crying in the soup, it's not raising taxes it's expiring a break. When the thing was passed it was written to expire.[/QUOTE]

    How about just eliminate SS.

    I love how my Dad paid into that for 44 years, only to collect it for 2 whole years before dying. Great R.O.I. on that one.

  13. #33
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,932
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4006846]...and for the trickle-down of millitary tech into comsumer hands that invarably follows.[/QUOTE]

    That doesn't happen anymore.

    In fact, the reverse is true. See body armor and anti-RPG systems on Humvees.

  14. #34
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like

    Lockheed Martin F-35 Operating Costs May Reach $1 Trillion

    Ouch!!!!!!

    [QUOTE]It may cost as much as $1 trillion to operate the military’s fleet of Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT) F-35 aircraft for several decades, according to a preliminary Pentagon estimate sent to Congress.

    The figure is 9.3 percent more than the $915 billion estimate by the Defense Department in its 2009 Selected Acquisition Report to Congress.

    The long-term cost estimate, which includes inflation, was submitted to Congress on April 15 in a report obtained by Bloomberg News. It assumes 8,000 hours of flying time for each of the 2,443 aircraft over a 30-year period. The Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps have their own variations of the aircraft, with the last in the fleet to be produced in 2035.

    The estimate was calculated by the Pentagon’s independent cost analysis group based on models using historical data from other fighters, David Van Buren, Air Force service acquisition executive, said in an interview today.

    “We are taking the challenge” posed by the $1 trillion estimate and “saying we’ve got to drive this down fast,” said Van Buren, who oversees F-35 management. “Do we drive down it down based on reliability projections? Do we drive it down based on technologies that we developed for the F-35” that reflect lessons learned from the F-22, he said?

    Older Aircraft

    For example, the latest estimate assumes that F-35 components will break more frequently than older aircraft, he said. The Pentagon is trying to develop “a more refined number,” he said.

    The $1 trillion estimate is in addition to an estimated $382 billion in development and production costs.

    The long-term maintenance estimates were projected based on costs incurred to support the military’s fleet of F-16s, F/A- 18s, and AV-8B Harrier jets, the Pentagon said in its report

    Almost all government, analyst and media attention on the Pentagon’s biggest program has focused on cost growth and technical issues in the $54 billion systems-engineering phase.

    The Pentagon’s top weapons official, without citing figures, said yesterday that the military must start focusing on controlling the long-range costs.

    Sustaining the Fighter

    “It’s not too early to think of sustainment for the Joint Strike Fighter,” Undersecretary for Acquisition Ashton Carter said yesterday. “Most of the cost of our programs is in ‘having’ them, not in ‘acquiring them,” he said at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

    “We are at the point with the Joint Strike Fighter where we have wrestled with the development issues,” Carter said. “We are trying to manage down some of the cost associated with the production, and it’s not too early to look at sustainment, because the projected bills also have increased.”

    The Pentagon’s Cost Analysis and Program Evaluation group is updating its $1 trillion figure for a major F-35 review next month intended to revise all of the program’s costs, including overrun estimates on the first three low-rate aircraft production and engine contracts, according to the report to Congress.

    Operations and support costs, when calculated in base-year 2002 dollars, were estimated at $420 billion, according to the document.

    Baseline Review

    “This is the year to focus on sustainment costs,” Vice Admiral David Venlet, the F-35 program executive officer, told reporters today. The estimates thus far “have all been predictions without any actual” data to back up the figures, he said.

    The program office will begin a so-called baseline review of the sustainment cost, similar to the F-35 design and production review conducted last year, Venlet said.

    The review will examine “all aspects of sustainment, from repair to transportation and illuminate the consequences” for the U.S. and the international partners, he said.

    The Pentagon will look for ways to maintain the F-35 fleet with work split between military depots and performance-based logistics contracts with Lockheed, Venlet said.[/QUOTE]

    To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at +1- [email]acapaccio@bloomberg.net[/email].

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at [email]msilva34@bloomberg.net[/email]

    [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-21/lockheed-martin-f-35-operating-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html[/url]

  15. #35
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4007089]Ouch!!!!!!



    To contact the reporter on this story: Tony Capaccio in Washington at +1- [email]acapaccio@bloomberg.net[/email].

    To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mark Silva at [email]msilva34@bloomberg.net[/email]

    [url]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-21/lockheed-martin-f-35-operating-costs-may-reach-1-trillion.html[/url][/QUOTE]

    So 1 Trillion for "several decades"? (btw, How many years is "several decades", three at least? I thought it was "single (one)", "pair (two)", "few (three)" and "several (four or more)".)

    So lets meet in the middle, and say three decades, or 30 years. 1 Trillion/30 Years = 33 Billion a Year. Or about 2% of our current Federal Deficit of 1.4 Trillion/Year.

    Well, one can say thats too much for an ultra-modern, hopefully reliable, multi-purpose/multi-mission Fighter Aircraft.

    I wouldn't be among them. The F-35 is supposed to be our Air Power for quite a while (supposed, because as with all things, you can't know if it will live up to expectations, a la F-22 Raptor).

    If I had to cut 33 Billion in spending a year, especially since by that point we'd already have purchased the planes themselves and paid all that cost, I'd look a lot of other places before I'd look at shutting down/decomissioning out top-end Millitary aircraft.

    Whats the alternative? I guess we could stay with the old F-15's, F-16's, A-10's, etc. Thats the alternate opinion. Of course, in factoring that 33 Billion/year in upkeep, one should reduce that total by whatever the upkeep would be if we pick the alternative above.

    So thats what I'd liek to know, what is the cost of upkeep (and wasted dollars thus far) of scrapping teh F-35 and staying with the legacy technology planes vs. scrapping the legacy and upkeeping the F-35's.

  16. #36
    Hall Of Fame
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Van down by the river
    Posts
    21,932
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Warfish;4007149]So thats what I'd liek to know, what is the cost of upkeep (and wasted dollars thus far) of scrapping teh F-35 and staying with the legacy technology planes vs. scrapping the legacy and upkeeping the F-35's.[/QUOTE]

    Privatize it. Free market, brah....free market it

    [IMG]http://www.todaysblackhair.com/images/dreadlock.jpg[/IMG]

  17. #37
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    Fish, the problem is that the makers of the jet continue to move the goal posts on the costs of the jet.

    Even in this story, the price scales north. Either they severely underestimated the costs or they are dragging their feet in constructing it at a time when we do need to have fixed costs

  18. #38
    JetsInsider.com Legend
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    36,677
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Jetdawgg;4007164]Fish, the problem is that the makers of the jet continue to move the goal posts on the costs of the jet.[/quote]

    I am a consitent supporter of responsabillity and efficientcy in Govt. So if there is real malfeaseance going on, stomp it.

    But I would guess the project, like almost every large capital project, simply changes as they further in, and realize it'll cost more to do X, or someon e in the Govt. side decides they want Y as well.

    [quote]Either they severely underestimated the costs or they are dragging their feet in constructing it at a time when we do need to have fixed costs[/QUOTE]

    You will never have fixed costs in lreg capital projects, they simply don't work that way. Be it a Bridge, a Building or a Bomber.

    And again, the number that counts is cost of legacy vs. cost of F-35, in both financial terms, and capabillity (and in fairness, need) terms.

  19. #39
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    6,884
    Post Thanks / Like
    Even Gates thinks that the costs are out of control:

    [url]http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1975139,00.html[/url]

    Furthermore, even if we buy 100 of these jet fighters, how many will we actually use in a combat situation? 20? 30?.

    We just don't fight these kind of wars anymore. The price is too high. Another part of this is that most of the nations that buy the jets from the US are our allies, GBR, Fr....

  20. #40
    All League
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    4,850
    Post Thanks / Like
    [QUOTE=Buster;4006840]WOW





    LHA/LHDs are basically what any other Navy has. So therefore they should "hold their own". They are equipped with the AV-8B Harrier II. This plane has received lots of praise.





    We [B]won [/B]WWII because we had an awesome manufacturing base AND we had not loaded up with weapons designed for the last war we were involved in.

    not sure are you talking about?
    For the USA WWII was [U]only [/U]a couple of years.[/QUOTE]


    Sorry. This is an area I know about. The aircraft on LHAs CAN NOT hold their own against ANY even so so airforce. The aircraft are basically close air support - a very specific function. It's not navy against navy. It's our naval air against others ground based air. Supercarriers have competitive air power but they are not generally used for close air support. The Harrier is a nice plane. It can not stand up to a late model MIG or even anything China has.
    As far as WWII we got our ass kicked up front becausd we were totally unprepared. See the Phillippines - we lost an entire ill equipped Army. Our Navy had the worst garbage for planes, the Marines had worse (my father was a Marine pilot). The Army - joke for planes.
    We got by barely because of some very smart Navy commanders, some amazing bravery by pilots and a whole lot of luck. See Midway.
    It took a long time for our industrial might to get us up to speed. It did take two years before we could put a decent fighter in the air. We had the B17, but they took a terrible beating without fighters - we didn't have any.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us