Hagel Proposes Defense Budget cuts.

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by quagmire, Feb 24, 2014.

  1. quagmire macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #1
    http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2014/...reshape-military-after-longest-war/?hpt=hp_t1

    While I am all for getting the Defense Budget under control, I don't know if I agree with the way they are doing it per se. They are going to retire the A-10 which is still a very capable aircraft for close air support while still fully funding the POS F-35 that is massively over budget. Not to mention the cost of the Ford Class has skyrocketed to $12 billion and Zumwalt to $4 billion. And in testing there are questions if the Ford can even perform like the Navy said it would in development( whether the issues are design flaws or just bugs in the system, who knows).

    And this is coming from a person who loves the Navy and loves the aircraft carrier, but the rising costs of these ships is ridiculous and the fact Congress doesn't bring in Lockhead, Northrop, and General Dynamics to tear them a new one over these issues is even more staggering.

    Also, the Air Force should look into the F-15 Silent Eagle if they do not intend to order more Raptors.
     
  2. jnpy!$4g3cwk macrumors 65816

    jnpy!$4g3cwk

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2010
    #2
    All Republicans in favor of increasing taxes to save the A-10 please step forward now.
     
  3. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #3
    They wouldn't need to raise taxes if they just didn't blindly throw money at troubled programs. That $3.5 billion savings cited by Hagel by retiring the A-10 could be saved if they could get the cost of each Ford down to $8 billion( the Ford's initial cost), Zumwalt down to $1-2 billion, etc.

    Be smarter with the money vs just throwing more at the problem.
     
  4. noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #4
    Something that's been bugging me more and more lately…our disposable Air Force. We are still manufacturing upgraded versions of the f15, f16, and f18s. All seemingly from a by-gone era. Yet the 117, dead. The 22, gone. And all this money being poured into the 35. Which I'm betting will have a similar 10-15 year production span before attention and trillions are devoted to the next must-have fighter. And all the while, capable 15/16/18 upgrades will likely still be coming off the lines.

    Something's not right here...
     
  5. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #5
    Sad fact is the Eagle, Falcon, and Super Hornet( or at least the Eagle and Super Hornet) are better aircraft than the F-35 outside of not being stealthy( which the Silent Eagle fixes the F-15's issues, but right now is an int'l model only).
     
  6. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #6
    The F-35 will service the Air Force,Navy and Marines. With 3 different varieties designed for short take off,long take off and carrier based.

    This is why some of the other aircraft are being EOL'd. The F-35 should replace all the old ones with newer stealth ones.
     
  7. alent1234 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2009
    #7
    f15 dates to the 60's
    the f16/f18 to the 70's
    in 10-15 years the f-35 will probably be due to hardware upgrades, not replacement.
     
  8. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #8
    Question is if the F-35 is superior to the planes it will be replacing. And I am not convinced that it is superior to the F-15 and F-18. Sure it is a stealth aircraft, but the F-35 is a compromise plane where the F-15 and F-18 have clear mission objectives. I could be convinced the Raptor is better than the Eagle, but not the Lightning.

    Hell, the F-15 can fly on one wing....

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #9
    While a lot of that is true the older aircraft do not have the ability to fly to a target undetected like the F-35. That in and of itself is a huge step up in technology and could decrease the number of aircraft shot down during a conflict.

    That saves money.
     
  10. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #10
    LOL. You mean the project that is already 70% over initial budget estimates, over a billion dollar cost overrun for the first 63 planes (392 billion estimate for 2,443 planes), with persistent nagging software problems?

    Back in 2013, there was a RAND report posted by Bloomberg that stated the "inter service commonality" they were hoping to achieve to keep maintenance costs down is actually going to be MORE expensive than had they built separate aircraft for each of the services.
     
  11. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #11
    Boeing is developing the F-15E Silent Eagle for international sale.
     
  12. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #12
    That doesn't mean the other variations are too. There are different variations being made. For both the U.S. Military and international sales.

    Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying I support the Military-Industrial Complex. Money could be saved but not by discontinuing the F-35.
     
  13. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #13
    You buy the Silent Eagle to replace the aging Eagle airframes.

    Right now the Silent Eagle is being developed for international markets only in mind.
     
  14. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #14
    I don't understand. What is your point ? The U.S. Military has been making specific kinds of Military equipment for export for a long time. Which the Silent Eagle is designed for.
    They aren't being made for the U.S. Military.

    It's a profit thing and the stealth technology is older generation.
     
  15. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #15
    That the US Air Force should be looking to buy the Silent Eagle as well instead of looking at the F-35 for its replacement( which the Raptor originally was the Eagle's replacement and was a fairly decent one at that).

    The F-15 is a vastly superior air superiority fighter compared to the F-35 and once stealth is defeated, the F-35 loses its huge advantage over a normal Eagle.
     
  16. Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #16
    You know, Eisenhower warned the American people about the military-industrial complex. No one listened.

    As far as the OP's comment about ripping these contractors a new one.... Heard about the LCS class of ships? The Littoral Combat Ship, shallow draft, easy to conduct shallow-water ops.... The thing is an abysmal failure and was deemed "not survivable" in combat.
     
  17. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #17
    And Independence and Freedom were supposed to be prototypes in competition that was supposed to determine which design was better for mass production.

    Nope, they decide to order both classes.....
     
  18. Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #18
    What would you have them do ? Sell the current stealth technology to foreign countries ?
     
  19. quagmire thread starter macrumors 603

    quagmire

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2004
    #19
    Have two versions of the Silent Eagle. One for US consumption and the other for international. That is why the US Air Force needs to get in on it now while it is still in development.

    That isn't a new concept. International models of the F-15, F-14, etc always lacked components, etc that the Air Force Eagles, Navy Tomcats, etc had.
     
  20. noisycats, Feb 24, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2014

    noisycats macrumors 6502a

    noisycats

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2010
    Location:
    The 'ham. Alabama.
    #20
    Which makes my point all the more astounding. 40 year old planes, with constant life cycle improvements and upgrades, are amazingly capable and proven aircraft.

    Recent history of the 117 and 22 suggest the 35 will not get upgrades, but simply mothballed after a small production run (comparatively speaking) as we pursue the next trillion dollar fighter.

    ----------

    Only the number of our planes being shot down has not been much of a problem in recent conflicts. Even so, one 35 will buy quite a few of the upgraded older planes.

    ----------

    So what are you suggesting? When the military-industrial complex has a competition, there can be no winner lest the loser sell his offering to a foreign entity?
     
  21. Wild-Bill, Feb 24, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014

    Wild-Bill macrumors 68030

    Wild-Bill

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2007
    Location:
    bleep
    #21
    I'm certain the bulk of the cuts will first come from trimming the total force numbers down. That I agree with. Next, they are going to chip away at the pay and benefits of those who are left. That, I do NOT agree with. And then they are going to artificially limit disability benefits (going forward) for those who become disabled in the line of duty, whether it was combat-related or not. (**Not those already on disability retirement**).
     
  22. Peace, Feb 24, 2014
    Last edited: Feb 24, 2014

    Peace macrumors Core

    Peace

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2005
    Location:
    Space--The ONLY Frontier
    #22
    Shoot me a PM and tell me what I don't know.

    Seriously.
     
  23. iJohnHenry macrumors P6

    iJohnHenry

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2008
    Location:
    On tenterhooks
    #23
    Defence is a misnomer. It's rarely about defence.
     
  24. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #24
    Whether or not you agree with the proposed cuts, it is insane that we have many politicians (mostly Rs but quite a few Ds) that want to increase defense spending. This on top of the increases due to 13 years of war. Insanity.
     
  25. bruinsrme macrumors 601

    bruinsrme

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2008
    #25
    History repeats itself.

    The disability costs will be shifted to the VA. Disability rating for the services differ from that of the VA.

    Benefits will be be cut. Military will be shifted to ACA.
    While riding subs I was always amazed at what a civilian gets paid for a day at sea compared to the sailor. Both paid by the tax payer.
     

Share This Page