Gates to cut several major weapons programs

[Marcus Bryant]

The defense budget is often nothing more than a massive government works/en lement program. Remember what a drawn out affair it was to shut Kelly down, even though it was painfully obvious that it was superfluous?

The administration is doing something right with this move. Too bad the savings won't go to deficit/debt reduction.

[Cry Havoc]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.

That we put even more blue caller workers out of work?

Wow. It's blue COLLAR. Learn the reference. And you're saying that spending $65,000,000,000 on a plane plus $135,000,000 per aircraft purchased is a good way of putting "blue collar" workers to work, you have a very poor understanding of the process behind this. This is a guaranteed government contract to make millions of dollars for LM, and you're suggesting that it's American jobs at stake. At this point, you have so little credibility that I cannot really bother to respond to you any further. Stop opening your mouth when you are completely ignorant of the subject. Just stop.

[AFBlue]

The defense budget is often nothing more than a massive government works/en lement program. Remember what a drawn out affair it was to shut Kelly down, even though it was painfully obvious that it was superfluous?

The administration is doing something right with this move. Too bad the savings won't go to deficit/debt reduction.

Superfluous? It's not like the jobs went away when Kelly shut down. They transferred the majority of the workload (i.e. C-5 & C-141) to Robins AFB in Georgia and I personally know about 30 people who relocated in order to keep their positions...though I'm sure the actual number was in the hundreds.

And I don't see how people working in defense of this country is viewed as a government works/en lement program. Having worked around these people for years I can tell you...they actually do work.

[AFBlue]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.

If this was addressed in any way to me, then you're talking to the wrong guy. See, my perspective is that it's the main priority of the government to protect its citizens. Not to place financial resources in programs that make this nation a welfare state.

Don't get me wrong, I don't lack compassion for the less fortunate...but if you're asking me whether the government should spend trillions on defense programs, then I'll say "whatever it takes to keep this nation and its citizens safe is priority #1".

[Wild Cobra]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

I'm all for stopping unnecessary spending. When are we going to stop subsidizing the lazy asses who refuse to work? We need to get a handle on the welfare programs we have. A strong military is important. Redistribution of wealth isn't.

[LnGrrrR]

So you guys think we should dump trillions into a military budget that we cannot afford, and risk further debt just in case someone tries to pick a fight?

Are you daft? No country in the WORLD would attack the United States right now. It would be the most colossal military error of all-time. Not only would we absolutely wipe the floor with any other country's military right now, but any open, or even indirect attack against the U.S. would immediately place us into the favor of the rest of the world. The internationally viewed blunders of Iraq and Vietnam would be instantly pushed aside as most of the world rushed to advocate for a combined response.

We do NOT need the ability to completely dominate the rest of the world with our military. It's ridiculous to even think about that. Even without the F-22, what country even has a chance to gain air superiority over the United States? What country even has a third of the number of fighters we have?

We have a military built for Rome in a time that, short of World War III, will never be utilized. And it's sitting there wasting money.



Wow. It's blue COLLAR. Learn the reference. And you're saying that spending $65,000,000,000 on a plane plus $135,000,000 per aircraft purchased is a good way of putting "blue collar" workers to work, you have a very poor understanding of the process behind this. This is a guaranteed government contract to make millions of dollars for LM, and you're suggesting that it's American jobs at stake. At this point, you have so little credibility that I cannot really bother to respond to you any further. Stop opening your mouth when you are completely ignorant of the subject. Just stop.

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with all the cuts. I'm not sure if 180 or whatever the number of F-22s that the AF wanted is necessary. However, as AFBlue said, these planes last a LONG time. Some of the planes we have right now are only running due to the fact that they are constantly repaired, with airmen coming up with smart fixes in alot of cases. Plus I understand getting rid of the helicopters, among other things.

I'm just saying that's it wrong to assume we WON'T need F-22s because we're currently fighting terrorists. Sure, we're the strongest military now, but that's cause we take pains to keep our stuff up-to-date. We will always have some sort of a 'classic warfare' need.

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

[LnGrrrR]

Also, that's why I'm for isolationism in most cases. Let's us keep a strong defense while spending less.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm all for stopping unnecessary spending. When are we going to stop subsidizing the lazy asses who refuse to work? We need to get a handle on the welfare programs we have. A strong military is important. Redistribution of wealth isn't.

PLEASE provide data for the people you claim are "lazy asses who are unable to work". My goodness, we should just let the poor people starve, because clearly they deserve to be poor and have no desire to put in an honest 9-5 job every week. It's such and old, tired argument that the poor are just lazy. Give it up.

If this was addressed in any way to me, then you're talking to the wrong guy. See, my perspective is that it's the main priority of the government to protect its citizens. Not to place financial resources in programs that make this nation a welfare state.

Because protecting our citizens means going so far into debt that we cannot even afford to continue putting money in things that are obviously less important than defense. Like education. And medicine. Gotcha.

Don't get me wrong, I don't lack compassion for the less fortunate...but if you're asking me whether the government should spend trillions on defense programs, then I'll say "whatever it takes to keep this nation and its citizens safe is priority #1".

The fact that we had thousands of aircraft and fleets of carriers around the world definitely protected us from 9/11. You're totally right. Throwing more money into the military is the best way to keep our nation from being safe.

[Cry Havoc]

I'm not saying I necessarily disagree with all the cuts. I'm not sure if 180 or whatever the number of F-22s that the AF wanted is necessary. However, as AFBlue said, these planes last a LONG time. Some of the planes we have right now are only running due to the fact that they are constantly repaired, with airmen coming up with smart fixes in alot of cases. Plus I understand getting rid of the helicopters, among other things.

I'm just saying that's it wrong to assume we WON'T need F-22s because we're currently fighting terrorists. Sure, we're the strongest military now, but that's cause we take pains to keep our stuff up-to-date. We will always have some sort of a 'classic warfare' need.

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

[Marcus Bryant]

Superfluous? It's not like the jobs went away when Kelly shut down. They transferred the majority of the workload (i.e. C-5 & C-141) to Robins AFB in Georgia and I personally know about 30 people who relocated in order to keep their positions...though I'm sure the actual number was in the hundreds.

And I don't see how people working in defense of this country is viewed as a government works/en lement program. Having worked around these people for years I can tell you...they actually do work.

ROFL. Obviously someone wasn't working in Kelly's maintenance wing.

[LnGrrrR]

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

Well, first off, the F-22 is already produced, and the F-35 is near production, so we don't need a fighter upgrade NOW. It's just a question of how many we put into production. (And I'm not a commander, and haven't seen research, on how many fighters they think they need. Of course commanders will fluff that number up as much as they can.)

Also, you're throwing strawmen my way. Just because I am for keeping our air force and other technology ahead of our enemies, does not mean I don't think it's ok for the budget to be cut in some areas. For instance, I'm ok with the BRAC process, including overseas areas. I would rather see us less involved with international incidents in order to spend less. I'm alright with the presidental helicopters not being updated. Etc, etc.

Finally, countries don't dare to threaten us because we DO have that much superiority. If we didn't, we'd be more at risk. (Obvious, I know.) It's a balancing act to see exactly how much we should spend. We do spend alot, yes, and I'm ok with some reductions. But also don't forget that funding does not just go to war machines, but also to new medical procedures, new communication methods, etc etc that find real use in the civilian world.

[LnGrrrR]

Also, I'm active duty AF, so of course there's a slight conflict of interest there. I'm a homer.

[AFBlue]

ROFL. Obviously someone wasn't working in Kelly's maintenance wing.

Worked on the program office side and with the maintenance wings at both Robins AFB and Hill AFB on multiple platforms and systems.

And I guess you missed the point I was trying to make. Those jobs at Kelly didn't just go away...they weren't superfluous. They consolidated the workload to three Air Logistics Centers because of BRAC and shut down a couple bases, but the workload stayed the same.

And if depot maintenance wasn't done on the aircraft, wherever it may be, then we'd have no planes to fly. Those jobs are important.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure. Those jobs were important and were sent somewhere else where a better job was being done.

[Marcus Bryant]

And $500+ ing billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

[AFBlue]

Because protecting our citizens means going so far into debt that we cannot even afford to continue putting money in things that are obviously less important than defense. Like education. And medicine. Gotcha.

I didn't say anything about debt. I'm actually a fiscal conservative that believes in spending restraint. I simply stated my opinion on what a government's priorities should be with regard to spending.

The fact that we had thousands of aircraft and fleets of carriers around the world definitely protected us from 9/11. You're totally right. Throwing more money into the military is the best way to keep our nation from being safe.

That's a pretty short-sighted look at the global situation. Just because it's urban warfare and suicide bombers right now doesn't mean it always will be. Just look at the shift that's about to take place....from a ground campaign with large urban areas to an open moutainous regions. Don't you think the fighters and bombers are going to play a big part in that campaign?

[AFBlue]

Sure. Those jobs were important and were sent somewhere else where a better job was being done.

Still with the government.

[AFBlue]

And $500+ ing billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

The amount spent and how they choose to employ the military forces isn't part of my debate with you. You made a comment about government work basically being a handout to keep people employed...that I disagree with. There are plenty of people who work for the government and do meaningful work in defense of this country.

As for the congressmen, I don't control their agendas and I know the vast majority of contractor selections are made without political pressure/involvement.

[Marcus Bryant]

Not every position survived.

[AFBlue]

The F22 will be in use until about 2040/50 I'm guessing. Look at the F16. Production started in 1976 on those, and they're still being flown today (33 years later), and scheduled to remain in service until 2025, making a total lifetime of 50 years for the planes.

Again, I'm not saying we need ALL the fighters we have. I'm just pointing out that I think it's wrong to say we shouldn't continuously upgrade our fighters/tanks/etc etc. The Air Force is saving money now by placing civilians/contractors in the place of military. Also, the AF is very technology-focused, and often looks to eliminates jobs through better equipment. (My shop has gone from 15 people to 9 in the five years I've been at Keesler.)

On the F/A-22, think 2050/60....F-15E came into service around '85 and is currently scheduled to go out to 2035, which is probably more similar than the F-16.

And I don't know if the 180+ is the right number either. Funny thing is that the 180+ came from the last Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) under Rummy, down from a proposed 380+...and this defense budget holds to that. So in retrospect, this move was a long time coming...it just got solidified with the SECDEFs comments.

[AFBlue]

Not every position survived.

I'm not justifying every government position, but the vast majority are not still around just to keep people employed. That's my opinion and you can choose to agree or disagree.

[AFBlue]

Well, first off, the F-22 is already produced, and the F-35 is near production, so we don't need a fighter upgrade NOW. It's just a question of how many we put into production.

One final thought on the F/A-22 v. F-35...

I'm not sure if people realize that 70% of the overall life cycle costs associated with a weapon system are in the sustainment phase. I mean, all the hoopla over $50M/unit in cost difference up front means what when you're sustaining 1,000 F-35s versus a few hundred F/A-22s for 40 or 50 years?

Just a thought...

[sabar]

Why do we need fighter upgrades? What country is going to even pose a potential threat to our military superiority, let alone dominance in the air? The United States currently accounts for 45% of the WORLD's military budget. But yes. Putting enough money into the military to ensure we have 10x the arsenal of all of Europe combined is more important than making sure our economy doesn't completely collapse.

The world isn't going to wait for us.


There are, in fact, countries with the technology to compete with us. Namely, China and Russia.

Any 5th generation fighter should beat a 4th generation fighter, so holding onto our F-15s isn't going to help if we get into a fight with Russia or China over the next century.

The F-22 can take any current or planned fighter. The F-35 may or may not, it depends on how good Russia's new Su fighter ends up being.

We could probably save money by getting rid of our ridiculously sized nuclear arsenal and all the maintenance that goes into it instead of pulling back our edge in air superiority. Small tactical nuclear weapons aren't even used in war, what's the point in keeping them?

[Cant_Be_Faded]

I like this move. Surprising to see us actually scaling back. In Gates' words, he's actually sticking to original contracts, but just not buying as much as the private industry hoped we would.

The media twist about it impacting more jobs at home is incredible. I don't think I've ever heard defense expenditures so quickly tied to job loss in cons uent states.

[LnGrrrR]

And $500+ ing billion a year to maintain this standing army around the globe?

It is a public works program when congressmen advocate weapons programs simply because jobs with contractors are tied to those. Nevermind if this nation actually needs $500+ bil a year to defend itself.

Sure, alot of projects are probably pork. But I think it's silly to reject ALL weapons projects/programs as pork.