How long can we continue to support a trillion dollar military?

[kentuck]

We are friggin' broke. And our military is stretched to all the corners of the earth. The Romans had nothing on us. At the present time, we are spending about $1 1/2 trillion dollars every two years on the military industrial complex. We are still buying weapons to fight the old Soviet Union. If the Republicans want to cut government spending, it seems this would be the first option. These trillions of dollars are not protecting our country. If we are all being asked to sacrifice, then why make exceptions, simply to satisfy political ideologies?

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. That depends on how many employed by the military/industrial complex you wish to see out of work.EOM

[kentuck]

3. What's the difference?

Me out of work or someone in the military out of work?

But, the average peon in the military is not receiving these trillions of dollars. They go to big contractors like Halliburton and Bechtel and GE and others. It is corporate welfare at its worst. No one can argue with a straight face that we need all this money for our military.

[Warpy]

6. Military jobs are a net loss

because they don't employ anybody else. Weapons and gear are stockpiled to be used when necessary, not shipped around the country to be sold and used by other people. In fact, it's the industry that produces things that most of us hope will never be used.

Taking that money and rebuilding an industrial base largely based on non petroleum energy sources is a far better use for that money. Rebuilding our national infrastructure, crumbling from years of neglect, would be a better use.

We can no longer afford Empire. We the people are tapped out and the wealthy show no sign of wanting to support their own imperial endeavors.

It's time to take stock of who we are in the world and what we want.

A bloated military can't be part of any realistic future.

[DCKit]

31. What Warpy said.

The definition of "swords" vs "plowshares" - "swords" are manufactured then contribute nothing further, "plowshares" are an investment that keeps on producing.

How many more weapons do we need after we've already stockpiled enough to kill everything on the planet several times over? Heavy machinery, infrastructure and manufacturing, on the other hand....

[bdab1973]

32. Not everything the military buys is designed to kill

A third of the Air Force fleet is airlift capability. Much of that capability was used in natural disaster relief as well, such as the tsunami, Katrina and other disasters. I've personally delivered aid to Pakistan during the earthquakes...the military has other missions and uses besides simply bombing things.

[DCKit]

33. Is Katrina *really* an example you want to use?

So sure, keep those things, but cut the science fiction weapons programs, advanced weapons we don't (and won't ever) need and stop building $250 million dollar fighter jets and trillion dollar ships.

Seriously, just how much technology do you need to build into a jet, tank or boat before it's just too damn expensive to risk by putting it to use?

[bdab1973]

35. Sure I will...

FEMA dropped the ball but the US military didn't. We had our airplanes on the ramp at KMSY (New Orleans Intl) literally as soon as the weather allowed. I know for a fact that while FEMA fumbled, our airplanes flew out hundreds of medical patients and refugees, and the helicopters rescued thousands.

As far as the cost to build aircraft, it's simply a fact that aircraft are not cheap, unless you want junk that will crash (and cost more in the long term). But think about this...I believe the new C-130Js that we're trying to buy to replace our 1960s C-130Es cost about $70 million...it's not much more expensive than the much smaller business jet that Citibank was going to buy...and it can carry 8 cargo pallets and operate out of dirt airstrips. Those aircraft are also made by AMERICANS in Georgia, along with much of the subcomponents.

I agree that we need to limit the purchase of the very expensive F-22...although it's made in the US, it is very cost prohibitive, and it will be better if we focus buying the cheaper F-35, also made by the same company in Ft Worth.

Speaking of costing too much to risk...you need to understand that the trucks the fire department uses are extremely expensive, along with the police helicopters, fire-fighting aircraft and a host of other stuff that is used for emergency use. The reason why any of that stuff is expensive is because a ton of R&D is put into designing and making it, and then since not everyone needs a fire truck, cargo airplane or other piece of equipment, the unit costs are higher. Aircraft are particularly expensive to make, given all the engineering effort that goes into them to make them efficient and safe.

Russians and Chinese can make airplanes way cheaper than we can...but I really wouldn't want to be on a Russian-made aircraft...I see those guys around here all the time, and sometimes it's just scary what kind of shape those aircraft are in.

Bottom line...our military is worn out. If we don't invest in it now, it's going to get worse, and it'll just cost more down the road.

[unhappycamper]

47. I'll disagree with you on the F-22 / F-35 arguement.

Current costs as near as I can tell:

F-22 - $355 million each
F-35 - $239 million each

The F-35 is an interesting bird. AFAIK, it

a) hasn't flown above 40,000 ft. yet
b) is underpowered
c) has 11 million lines of computer code (the F-22 has around 4 million lines). I've seen some articles in the military rags that many are expecting the F-35 to exceed the cost of the F-22 by time the dust settles
d) prompts the question --> 'Do we really need another Cold War aircraft?'


All of the above is documented in the Veterans forum from articles taken from the following military rags: Army Times, Navy Times, Marine Corps Times, Air Force Times, stripes.com and military.com.

Besides breaking the piggy bank, do we really need a $239+ million dollar aircraft to shoot down _________? Or to dogfight _____________? Can someone fill in the blanks for me?

[bdab1973]

54. Unit costs...

The reason why the F-22 costs so much is because when the program originally started, the USAF was supposed to buy several hundred of them (we have about 750 F-15s, which the F-22 is supposed to replace). That number is now down to about 180 or so. All the R&D costs are spread over 180 units instead of several hundred airframes, thus the F-22 costs a lot.

The reasoning behind the F-22/F-35 mixture is the F-22 is supposed to be a top-level air superiority fighter. It can do ground attack, but that's not what it's optimized for. The F-35 is supposed to be more for ground attack versus air superiority. It has an air-to-air capability, but less capable than the F-22. However, it's ground attack abilities are greater than the F-22. Moreover, the F-35 is a joint initiative, replacing combat aircraft in three branches of the US military (AF, Navy and Marines), and there are also international partners that are going to purchase the aircraft (mostly NATO countries).

Everyone keeps talking about "Cold War" aircraft. Folks, conventional militaries are not dead...they didn't go away with the end of the Cold War. Russia is not our best ally (although their military isn't on the best footing either). China's doctrinal enemy is the US (yes, their military doctrine and strategy is based on facing off with the US), so although they are trade-friendly, they are and have always been politically unfriendly. Who knows what will happen in the next 20 years, that's the point of being prepared.

I don't advocate replacing F-15s one-for-one with the F-22, mainly because there's no need for such a large force, and the F-22 is many times more capable than the F-15. However, developing a military designed only to fight small, lightly armed threats such as insurgencies is short-sighted.

The "Cold War" may be over, but the world didn't suddenly become safer either. For what it's worth, the USAF is about half the size of the Cold War USAF. At the height of the 1980s, the USAF had over 7,000 aircraft. We've now got around 4,000 or so aircraft, many of those are trainers, airlift and tankers, so they aren't combat-coded aircraft. I've seen and read in many instances where people say "we don't need a Cold War military", but we don't have the military we had in the Cold War, not even close.

[bdab1973]

55. Unit costs...

The reason why the F-22 costs so much is because when the program originally started, the USAF was supposed to buy several hundred of them (we have about 750 F-15s, which the F-22 is supposed to replace). That number is now down to about 180 or so. All the R&D costs are spread over 180 units instead of several hundred airframes, thus the F-22 costs a lot.

The reasoning behind the F-22/F-35 mixture is the F-22 is supposed to be a top-level air superiority fighter. It can do ground attack, but that's not what it's optimized for. The F-35 is supposed to be more for ground attack versus air superiority. It has an air-to-air capability, but less capable than the F-22. However, it's ground attack abilities are greater than the F-22. Moreover, the F-35 is a joint initiative, replacing combat aircraft in three branches of the US military (AF, Navy and Marines), and there are also international partners that are going to purchase the aircraft (mostly NATO countries).

Everyone keeps talking about "Cold War" aircraft. Folks, conventional militaries are not dead...they didn't go away with the end of the Cold War. Russia is not our best ally (although their military isn't on the best footing either). China's doctrinal enemy is the US (yes, their military doctrine and strategy is based on facing off with the US), so although they are trade-friendly, they are and have always been politically unfriendly. Who knows what will happen in the next 20 years, that's the point of being prepared.

I don't advocate replacing F-15s one-for-one with the F-22, mainly because there's no need for such a large force, and the F-22 is many times more capable than the F-15. However, developing a military designed only to fight small, lightly armed threats such as insurgencies is short-sighted.

The "Cold War" may be over, but the world didn't suddenly become safer either. For what it's worth, the USAF is about half the size of the Cold War USAF. At the height of the 1980s, the USAF had over 7,000 aircraft. We've now got around 4,000 or so aircraft, many of those are trainers, airlift and tankers, so they aren't combat-coded aircraft. I've seen and read in many instances where people say "we don't need a Cold War military", but we don't have the military we had in the Cold War, not even close.

[TwilightGardener]

57. Thanks for your posts in this thread, bdab1973--

Very informative, and I agree with you that preserving our military capabilities for the future isn't necessarily a Cold-War-relic way of thinking--it would be foolish to give up our long-developed military superiority now just because we don't happen to be fighting those kinds of wars at this moment. Very shortsighted to say, oh, we will never face threats from other militarily-powerful nations ever again, let's just stop developing new systems.

[RaleighNCDUer]

8. The money not going to the MIC would instead be going into the

public sector. Instead of building multi-billion dollar submarines for confrontations with non-existant enemies, we could be building deep-sea exploration vehicles. Instead of building fighter jets, we could be building wind turbines that would give us the power to get off of oil. Instead of sending tanks to Afganistan and creating enemies, we could be sending tractors and making friends.

The military produces NOTHING. We don't NEED to have 750 overseas bases - no country in the world has EVER had so many foreign bases during peacetime.

Those employed by the MIC could be as gainfully employed digging and refilling holes in the desert, for all the good they really do.

[arcadian]

9. Hey Fonzi, you just jumped DU over the shark.

Unless I misread your post and you aren't defending the military industrial complex.

[cherokeeprogressive]

22. Oh no, I wasn't defending the MIC. It was a poor attempt to point out that

tens of millions of people work for companies that have contracts with the government to make military hardware, or components thereof.

I'm just as hot for rolling back the military budget by an order of magnitudes, but what do we do with all those people it will put out of work? Have them start painting bridges? Fix potholes or electrical lines? What will they do with their degrees?

Every knee-jerk idea has its unintended consequence.

[arcadian]

28. I thought that might have been the case.

nt

[Greyhound]

36. The same as the rest of us find something else in a sector that has some chance

of making things better.

Are you saying that there is something wrong with painting, building, and fixing?

[bdab1973]

38. Painting and filling potholes doens't contribute to our national trade...

Building aircraft in our aerospace industry, once the greatest in the world but now sagging, does. Not all the aircraft have to be built for military uses...but often military programs will develop other civilian programs, and companies that make money in the military sector will inherently put that money into R&D in the civil sector as well. When it comes to aerospace, military and civil development have always been closely related. And aerospace is one of the cutting edge technologies that we can't afford to let slip away because we want to be all fuzzy and nice and do away with military spending so people can paint rocks and fixing potholes.

If we don't actually MAKE something in this country, we won't have any roads to fix in a few generations. Don't any of you understand that?

[Greyhound]

40. Yes we do have to make stuff, that is one of the biggest issues we have to face today,

and to do so, we will have to come up with some way to protect American workers from the global corporatocracy. But, the rest of your point is not borne out by history. Almost all military spending takes away from civilian advance, usually by deeming "vital to national security" and then proscribing it from the civilian sector.

Check out the history of encryption technology for a primer on how this militaristic thinking fails us.

This not about being "warm & fuzzy" (an epithet most commonly used by reich-wing nutballs to justify the criminal conduct of their thugs), it is about developing tech to be used, not hoarded or restricted.

[bdab1973]

42. You say it takes away from the civilian sector..

But I have family in Wichita that works in the aerospace business...some of their work is civilian products, other is military. And all of them are civilian workers. Whether we wear a uniform or work for Boeing as a civilian, we all live in this country and live off the same economy. Your military/civilian divide is artificial. You act as though military spending is done in a vacuum, and military personnel spend their paychecks in some other military-world. You also act as though military aerospace products only generate revenue and research in that same military-world. It's all tied together, and we are all in the same country, living on the same economy, spending money at the same stores, and getting 401(k) revenues from the same companies we invest in.

One thing I never understood is how some people like to take the military and everything that accompanies it and wall it off in it's own special little sphere, where it has no interaction with the "civilians" on the outside. That's not how it is.

[Greyhound]

46. No, I merely point out that military spending is just about the most inefficient

means of spending we have devised. I'm happy for your family and that their employment in Wichita's single industry. But if you look at the numbers, you will see that of the dollars expended, a much smaller portion of it gets to your family.

This is not about the relatively few (considering the budget expenditure) average people that are paid through the work they do for the military, this is about how many of the dollars fed into the military maw get to your family. By comparison, multinational corporations are efficient.

Did you ever stop to ask why Boeing is the only American (sort of) aircraft company left? Do you think it's a good idea that there is only one game left in town?

[kentuck]

59. Some of the military, especially the AF, have become like the spoiled executives...

of the banks and auto industry. They have their own private jets with the leather lounges and bars so they can travel in the most luxurious comfort. Yes, the enlisted spend their money in the economy like everyone else and it has the same impact on our economy. However, the wasteful programs and weapons systems are totally unjustified. We do not need to spend this kind of money at this time. You make good arguments but I don't buy it.

[TwilightGardener]

61. You're talking about the merits of weapons systems and new planes, etc. in

the same breath as "fraud waste and abuse", as they say in the DoD. I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on what sort of planes, missiles, satellites, etc. we need or don't need, but you're going apples and oranges when you bring up leather lounges. I have found out (thru my husband) that sometimes a lot of little "luxuries" that aren't really needed are purchased because wings, squadrons and flights are always looking for ways to spend their allotted funds at the end of each quarter--because if the unit doesn't spend it, they will have their funding cut, and that makes commanders look and feel bad (like their unit's mission is not vital enough to justify a certain level of funding). Hence you get the flat-screen TV's, unused in boxes, that Bdab1973 mentions below--spend that squadron money, or lose it next quarter or next year. Now THAT is something that needs to change, but that's not really in the same category as current and future military capability.

edit to add: I think commanders should be rewarded for wise and frugal spending, and for accomplishing their missions on time and under budget, as they say.

[Bill McBlueState]

18. So the hundreds of billions of dollars in military spending is mainly a jobs program?

There has to be a more efficient way to spend that money if the main purpose is job creation.

[Ichingcarpenter]

45. "According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld

"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

"We know it's gone. But we don't know what they spent it on," said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml

Yeah that's one hell of business. We need a defense budget slowly cut down
to 2/3 of what it is now as we transfer those jobs into the civilian sector.

[treestar]

48. Exactly, we have to find a way to make sure people survive

transitioning in their jobs.

Everyone hangs onto their jobs. The few times listened to Rush, it was when Clinton was closing military bases, and the people who lived in those towns saw their livlihoods going. They start to convince themselves the military spending is necessary.

Nobody wants to lose their job, whatever it may be. Since we have a look-out-for-yourself society, that says you failed and society has no responsibility for you, when you lose your job, it is natural that people will hang onto whatever it is they do to the bitter end.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

2. As long as the politicians are able to scare us with bogeymen and get their payoffs from the MIC.

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.” H.L. Mencken

[Winterblues]

4. If Republicans REALLY wanted to protect America they would funnel

the very great majority of our spending to cancer, diabetes, aids, MS, Parkinson's, etc. research and protection. We lose 3000 people in eight years from "terror" and millions from tobacco and cancer and ?????. Republicans are just not truthful people.

[Aristus]

5. Until we ally with the Goths to fight off the Huns, and then slowly sink into a pit

of national indifference, devalued currency, puppet emperors and aggressive, power-mad tribal chieftains.

Hey, it's happened before...

[DavidDvorkin]

7. We can't do it now. That's a major reasons for our economic problems.

[99th_Monkey]

10. We NEED a fat & happy Pentagon to suppress US citizens pissed-off about the economic train-wreck.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm: :sarcasm:

[The2ndWheel]

11. If there was an actual international military, then we'd have to pay less for it

Same with health care. If more people pay into a single system, each person has to pay less. If other countries were to contribute to a global military, in terms of money and man power, then the US taxpayer wouldn't have to take care of the entire bill. However, since we still have a few hundred regional governments on this planet, all acting in their own interests, we're stuck here in a reality where the US Government can choose it wants to bomb this or that, and no other government can stop it.

[Greyhound]

12. K&R #5, welcome ot the greatest page.

Did you notice that Obama gave them another 8% raise in his first week?

[Captain Hilts]

13. In terms of GNP it's a lot LESS than we spent in the Cold War. nt

[Ichingcarpenter]

19. With the increase of Nuclear Spending it now exceeds Cold War Expenditures

the budget numbers can be a bit confusing. For example, the Fiscal Year budget requests for US military spending do not include combat figures (which are supplemental requests that Congress approves separately). The budget for nuclear weapons falls under the Department of Energy, and for the 2009 request, was about $29 billion.

The cost of war (Iraq and Afghanistan) is estimated to be about $170 billion for the 2009 spending alone. Christopher Hellman and Travis Sharp also discuss the US fiscal year 2009 Pentagon spending request and note that “Congress has already approved nearly $700 billion in supplemental funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan and an additional $126 billion in FY'08 war funding is still pending before the House and Senate.”

Furthermore, other costs such as care for vetarans, healthcare, military training/aid, secret operations, may fall under other departments or be counted separately.

The frustration of confusing numbers seemed to hit a raw nerve for the Center for Defense Information, concluding

The articles that newspapers all over the country publish today will be filled with numbers to the first decimal point; they will seem precise. Few of them will be accurate; many will be incomplete, some will be both. Worse, few of us will be able to tell what numbers are too high, which are too low, and which are so riddled with gimmicks to make them lose real meaning.

— Winslow T. Wheeler, What Do the Pentagon’s Numbers Really Mean? The Chaos in America’s Vast Security Budget, Center for Defense Information, February 4, 2008
Commenting on the earlier data, Chris Hellman, noted that when adjusted for inflation the request for 2007 together with that needed for nuclear weapons the 2007 spending request exceeds the average amount spent by the Pentagon during the Cold War, for a military that is one-third smaller than it was just over a decade ago.

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending

[LeftinOH]

14. How much $$$ does the Guantanamo base (Gitmo) cost every year...

...the "terrorist prisoners" not included.. I mean, the whole base? What a friggin money pit: A military base which protects absolutely nothing- even fresh water has to be shipped in.

[Gregorian]

15. It's not the money. I'd pay a trillion a year to feed the world.

And the real problem is that it's a big part of our economy. Food, clothing, vehicles, ammunition, fuel, ad infinitem. If we even cut it in half I have to wonder what would happen.

And I doubt the human race is going to change now. Hate and fear rule on planet earth.

But I try. I try to find optimism. Otherwise what would be the point in living on a world populated by republican mentality?

[Greyhound]

16. The supreme irony is that it would only cost about 1/10th of what we pay for

the dead-end, dead-loss, wealth destruction, that is the military to do just that, feed the world. It would also be enough to clothe, shelter, and educate them as well.

Additionally, if we did that we would not even need a military. After all who wants to attack the people are taking care of everybody else? How do you talk people that have their basic necessities met into blowing themselves up to kill their benefactors?

[The2ndWheel]

17. Even cheaper. Let people around the world do it themselves

Allow life to live, and let evolution do its thing.

[Greyhound]

20. That would be viable if not for a century of looting and meddling that has crippled

so many nation's ability to do it themselves. Unfortunately, it is too late to just walk away from the mess we helped create.

[The2ndWheel]

21. In that case, it's been more than a century

More like a few thousand years.

Perhaps if we dismantled, or walked away from, what gives us the ability to loot and meddle. The only reason we looted and meddled was because of the mess that our own activity created, which required an expansion of the ability to loot and meddle. It's not as if we can even do it ourselves anymore.

[Greyhound]

24. This discussion is about the budgetary black hole, the American military.

We have been looting and meddling externally for a little over a century, we were preoccupied with looting and murdering internally prior to that.

That is the past. What we can do in the present is spend a little to save a lot.

[The2ndWheel]

26. I'd still say it was externally and not internally prior to that, but fair enough

"What we can do in the present is spend a little to save a lot."

Buying off the rest of the world not to hate us isn't my idea of freedom. We put up with enough of that from our own corporations and our own government.

[Greyhound]

27. Yes, good point. As for the second, it is not buying off the of the world

so much as paying for the damages we did.

I don't see how that has anything to do with freedom.

[The2ndWheel]

53. Paying for the damage done is one thing

"After all who wants to attack the people are taking care of everybody else? How do you talk people that have their basic necessities met into blowing themselves up to kill their benefactors?"

This is something else. To me, those two sentences are buying off, not paying back.

[Gregorian]

23. I love this! You're subtle about it, but it's a big transformation.

What I am hearing from your statement is that we literally use the military infrastructure. It already exists. Swords to plowshares. Instead of moving tanks and humvees, we move sacks of grain and other such goods.

I love this. It keeps the military employed. And it serves as a defense against aggression. I can't think of anything I would rather see. I would gladly go broke doing this. And instead of the world hating us, we would be loved.

I can dream.

[Greyhound]

25. And have another $500,000,000,000 per year to put into our infrastructure and economy.

Perhaps as the status quo warriors keep making things worse, we will have the opportunity to try something truly different.

[bdab1973]

29. The military is worn out...it's not about weapons to fight the Soviet Union...

It's about recapitalizing the fleet. I have people walk up to me all the time asking if it's cool to fly the most advanced aircraft in the world. When I tell them that the airplanes I fly were designed right after WWII, and some of our radios are still tuned by turning a knob, they are shocked. We can't even fly the same GPS approach that a single-engine Cessna can fly. The airplanes I fly were built in the early 1960s, and many have wing cracks.

It doesn't just stop with the type I fly. Many other types of our aircraft are old and falling apart. B-52s are nearly 50 years old. The KC-135 tankers are all around 50 years old. The C-5s are about 40 years old. Most of our fighter fleet is around 30 years old, which is old for an aircraft that spends its life pulling 7-9 times the force of gravity (develops stress faster).

Basically, in the early 1990s, we simply stopped buying any substantial number of aircraft. Those few programs that were kept alive, were cut so far that the smaller numbers coming off the production line had to absorb all that R&D cost, so the unit costs went through the roof (it's common knowledge that the more you produce of a given product, the lower the unit price is). And being deployed non-stop since 1990 hasn't helped either...Desert Shield/Storm, Operation Northern and Southern Watch, Bosnia, Kosovo, Somalia, Haiti, Iraq, Afghanistan and the list goes on.

And for those who think that the defense industry is bad for our country, consider the fact that those aircraft are made by US union workers, and many of the subcomponents are also made by US workers. Aside from that, having a production line open for the US government allows the companies to export those products to allies (some for military use, some for civilian use). Hell, the EU subsidizes the crap out of EADS (makers of Airbus, etc). Why not keep our aerospace business alive? Those airplanes are some of the few things NOT made in China anymore...

[Ichingcarpenter]

34. Its still way too much money spent. I like another kind of industrial socialism

like providing jobs for things that don't kill.


Your argument is awash with fallacies of necessity and circular reasoning.

[bdab1973]

37. It's not socialism...and I don't fly things that kill...

As I've mentioned in another post, much of our disaster response is tied into the military as well. Were it not for the US military, thousands more would have died in New Orleans in 2005. How else were you going to rescue them and fly them out to safety?

Second, just because the government is a customer doesn't mean it's socialism. Keeping those jobs around is a side benefit of rebuilding the military that's been worn down to a nub over the past twenty years. The primary reason I advocate for not giving in to quick cuts in the military is because WE'RE FLYING AROUND IN 50 YEAR OLD AIRPLANES!

I wonder how loud you'd howl if you found out you had to ride around in an airplane that should be in a museum, that's got known wing cracks? I have to fly them every day, and a few years ago an ex-USAF C-130A that was only a few years older than the aircraft I fly today folded its wings up and crashed while fighting a wildfire in the western US....and it had the same wing crack issues ours have. Many of the aircraft in our fleet are old and tired, and it won't be long before they are simply worn out...they will become increasingly dangerous to even operate.

Let me ask you...where were you in 1961? The airplane I fly was rolling off the assembly line back then, and JFK was the president. The basic aircraft design was fairly new for the time...only about 7-8 year old technology...the best the early 1950s had to offer. Not bad in 1961, but it's freakin' 2009!!!!

It's sad when a simple Cessna 172 light prop airplane has better navigational capabilities than we have in a 155,000 lb airlifter.

[Greyhound]

39. Your point is completely valid. The problems comes from the mindset of the men making the decisions.

You mention the B-52 fleet. It is old and in need of replacement, no argument there at all, but what did they do to "fix" it? Did they come up with viable, updated craft that could continue the mission? No, we got the God knows how many hundreds of billions of dollars clusterfuck called the B-1. It gave all the Generals hard-ons, blew through brazillions of taxpayer dollars, and made tons of money for a couple of corporate welfare queens, but never delivered on range, capacity, visibility, or reliability, and costs so much that there is no possibility of it replacing the B-52s. So, the B-52 are still flying out of March, etc.

Pick your project, it is the same story time and again, the military has become a hollowed out shell used only to as corporate welfare.

[bdab1973]

41. Something I want to point out...

First of all, the B-1 was never designed to replace the B-52. Second, the B-1 isn't a new aircraft...it's been in the fleet for about 25 years now. Third, many of the problems of the B-1 were worked out, and the reliability problem is more an issue with the supply chain rather than the airplane (I have friends that fly B-1s). Fourth, the B-1 can carry a greater payload than a B-52, as well as a greater range of weapons. Finally, B-52s don't operate out of March. March is a reserve base that has C-17s and tankers from the Reserves. The only B-52 bases are Barksdale and Minot.

Then you say its the same story for other aircraft, but again, I disagree. I fly C-130Es, and the airplane that's supposed to replace our old 1961-1964 era C-130Es is the new-build C-130J. It was a much maligned aircraft, but not because it's really a bad airplane...just how Congress funded it was screwed up. It took years for the first C-130J to reach operational status, but it wasn't the fault of the airplane, it was the fault of the Congress for buying an airplane that hadn't yet been through operational test and evaluation.

When the military buys an airplane, they buy a couple of them and put them through rigorous testing and evals at Edwards AFB in California. The purpose of these evals isn't to see if it can fly, that's already been established. It's to develop the methods by which the aircraft will be flown, ie operational procedures, etc. So in 1997 when the first C-130J appeared on the ramp in Maryland, no one had ever even tested it yet. Congress figured "eh, why test it...it's a C-130 and the USAF already owns a bunch". Problem is the C-130J is so different from older C-130H and C-130E models that you can't operate it the same.

In the E and H models, we have a flight engineer and a navigator in addition to the two pilots and two loadmasters. So all our checklists, airdrop procedures and other operational techniques and procedures were written with that in mind. The C-130J does not have an engineer or a navigator, so the question was...who calls the drop? Who calls the checklist out (in the E and H, the engineer calls the checklist)? Everything in the J is computerized, whereas in the E and H, it's 1950s technology.

Now that things have been made right and the J was tested properly, it's flying operational missions now. It even has it's own set of operational guidelines and procedures completely separate from the E and H models. And the airplane is amazing...it can take off in shorter distances, carry a greater payload, fly farther on less fuel, fly faster, and land in the same or shorter distance as a lighter E or H model. Sure, flight engineers and navigators hate the airplane (it eliminates their job), but it does the mission better than the old airplanes.

So not everything is to blame on the industry and the military leadership. The USAF, for what it's worth, did not want to purchase the J at the time, but Congress bought the airplanes anyways. Also, the F-22 is far and away better than the F-15 ever could be, although the price tag is very steep for such an aircraft with a limited mission (ie, just air superiority, very limited role in other missions). The F-35 is also capable, but it's a much more versatile airplane, able to engage air-to-air threats as well as ground attack, and for about half the cost of an F-22.

The new tankers we are trying to buy will also be much more capable than the old KC-135s that were made in the mid-1950s. They can not only refuel airplanes in flight, but also carry cargo at the same time. I know that Airbus is hawking their own version, but I feel the US military should buy a US product. The Boeing product is very good (both are very good), and in this case there's no reason to buy the Airbus.

Anyways, that's my view. I understand where you are coming from...government procurement is a strange beast, but it's so convoluted that it's difficult to tell where the problem originated from. Actually, that would save us lots of money if we could somehow restructure the US budget system. As it stands, there are USAF flying squadrons with extra flat-screen TVs in boxes they have no use for, but they can't afford to buy extra flight suits or headsets for the pilots. It's all how the money is spent...different pools of money for different things, and it's obscene how chaotic the whole system is. Not just with the military, but most government agencies.

[Greyhound]

43. Very well, you wrote eight paragraphs reinforcing my main point.

Which airbases they fly out of is so far from relevant as to be silly, but you see to think that matters enough to mention, whatever.

The B-1 was originally sold as a replacement for the aging fleet of B-52s in the 70s and has gone through a series of re-missions and lowered expectations to the point we are at now. Those friends of your that fly them were probably not even born when this started out as a low-visibility, supersonic, replacement for the B-52 fleet which has never been realized and so leaves the hole that the B-52 have to keep filling. All because of the idiots that run the pentagon and their faithful lap dogs in Congress.

In trying to pick apart meaningless details, you've utterly missed the point, you must be a officer.

[JerseygirlCT]

30. Barney Frank on MTP yesterday was pointing out that

all the arguments his Republican counterparts were throwing around wrt the stimulus bill would be reversed and shouted soon when they deal with military funding. IOW, as far as the GOP is concerned, any military spending is good spending, and we should just continue to increase it all. But spending on things like jobs? Bad, bad, and imprudent idea.

[blindpig]

44. You have a problem with Empire and Captalists Profits?

Follow the Money.

[Romulox]

49. Doesn't the "stimulus" bill have a BIG BOOST to military spending? nt

[blindpig]

50. $20B by my understanding.

Small change, huh?

[Romulox]

52. Oh, well, that's just walking around money!

:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

51. Maybe a little longer than the soviets did but the reckoning is upon us.

[G_j]

56. who is gonna cut that fat?

NOBODY...

[Lilith Velkor]

58. Nevermind that, did you hear about the welfare mom that had octuplets?

:eyes:

[blindpig]

60. Exactly.

The biggest waste of public funds in the history of humankind, endangering us more than protecting us, and people get into a froth over one woman.

It's a sad statement, revealing how many identify with the ruling class, yet few of them get checks from the merchants of death.

It's pathetic when ya don't know which side yer on.

[Optical.Catalyst]

62. President Obama needs to announce some cuts right away

The F-22 Stealth fighter - Halt production and mothball existing units

Strategic Missile Defense - Cancel

Reliable Replacement Warhead (nuclear) - Cancel

DDG - 1000 Zumwalt Destroyer - Cancel

Take all of the funding for these programs and invest in clean, renewable energy sources.