Obama administration asks for 10% military budget cut

[Vertigo]

We flew OSW and ONW for 12 years...while the other services enjoyed the peace. Those operations used up 30-40 years of service life on our F-15's, F-16's, Tankers...etc.

My prediction is another period of the Air Force carrying the load, without the credit, or more importantly, the funding.

This we agree on- as I stated earlier I don't think we should be cutting the F-22 program.

I entered in '93 so I had no comparison to what it was like prior to Clinton- to me that was just the norm. Plus I was young and ill-informed on politics and diplomacy. I'll have to take your word that the AF was raped by Clinton- but that doesn't mean Obama is bound to do the same does it? We do still have a conservative SECDEF and I'm willing to bet Obama kept him for a reason.

[ClearedHot]

This we agree on- as I stated earlier I don't think we should be cutting the F-22 program.

I entered in '93 so I had no comparison to what it was like prior to Clinton- to me that was just the norm. Plus I was young and ill-informed on politics and diplomacy. I'll have to take your word that the AF was raped by Clinton- but that doesn't mean Obama is bound to do the same does it? We do still have a conservative SECDEF and I'm willing to bet Obama kept him for a reason.

I am not willing to bet...

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Our military spending is more than five times that of China, ten times that of Russia and almost fifty percent of global military spending. WOW! If the rest of the world can get by without spending forty-three percent of their revenue on the military, I think we could too.

That argument doesn't factor in several realities:

1. We provide the bulk of the defense forces for Europe. If you compare the number of ground forces and air forces EU countries have committed for NATO, and then compare the forces we have stationed there (to defend Europe), we provide a HUGE chunk of the EU's defense needs. So why would EU nations spend more if the US is going to provide a significant defense contribution?

2. We provide a substantial addition to Japan's defense.

3. We provide a substantial addition to South Korea's defense.

4. Other than a minor role played by Canada, no other country actively participates in defending US territory proper. Sure, they may help defend various vital interests worldwide, but only when it's also directly connected to their own survival. Again, aside from Canada, no other country actively participates in defending the US proper.

I think if you eliminated our substantial NATO role, eliminated our presence in Japan, Korea and various other allied nations, you'd see that our defense budget is much more in line with other's spending. Also, you need to understand that China and Russia can both produce end items such as tanks and airplanes at pennies on the dollar compared to the US, since they own much of the production capabilities.

Also, consider that several sources I've read in the past have discussed that China's actual military spending is hidden, since much of it's defense industry is interwoven with other industries. For example, bicycle plants produce tanks, refrigerator plants produce missile parts, and so on. The operating expenses of those manufacturing sites most certainly do NOT appear in China's "official" defense budget. Many of its military forces are "paramilitary", and are also not part of the official figures for spending.

If you really want to get into actual comparisons, the UK is buying the Typhoon to replace the Tornado. The Typhoon, while not quite as expensive as an F-22 (around $90 million versus $140 million fly-away for the F-22), this nation that's about the size of Alabama is buying 232 of these next-generation fighters. Meanwhile, the USAF is having to justify why we, the third largest nation, needs to have 180 Raptors. The Brits have figured out that the Tornado won't last forever, and they are around 30 years old and need to be replaced. But I see time and again the opinion pieces in the magazines, newspapers and blogs that seem to think all we need to do is bolt on a new gizmo onto the 30+ year old F-15, repaint it and voila, we've got something worth keeping another 30 years.

I am tired of hearing people say "the F-15 is the world's best fighter, nothing has dominated it in the past 30 years". Something similar could also have been said about the P-51 in 1947, but we heeded conventional wisdom back then...that wisdom being that your adversary is busy creating the next P-51 killer, or F-15 killer if you will....and we forged ahead with expensive and untried jet technology.

I think the root of the problem is the last several generations of Americans have grown up in a cocoon of safety and security. The idea and thought of military threats is foreign to them, and they find the endeavors of the military fruitless, pointless and expensive. True, we have been in wars in the past 40 years, but they were arguably wars of choice (despite whether or not they served an actual strategic purpose, they were not wars of survival).

I grew up as an Army dependent in the 1970s and 1980s. I lived very close to the Fulda Gap in Germany. We practiced air raid drills when I was a kid, I remember them very well. My father's attack helicopter company existed for one reason...to destroy all the bridges and avenues of approach to slow the Soviet advance just enough to mobilize the rest of NATO. His AH-1S Cobra unit was expected to have 100% casualties within 24 hours, so time was of the essence and he had to memorize the locations of all the useable bridges in the area. They were shot at from East Germany by Mi-24 Hinds and L-29s, and regularly flew border patrols unarmed to prevent starting World War III.

But I was very atypical for an American kid back then. When I moved back to the US, most of my friends were more worried about watching Hulk Hogan on TV than what the USSR was doing.

Anyways, our country has benefitted from decades of relative peace and prosperity (at least to those not in the military), and it shows by a general lack of understanding of the world's geopolitics. Most people in our own country would agree that Americas are among the most violent of societies, because that's what they've been brought up to believe through school, movies and other sources. But having been around the world, our culture, however rough around the edges it may be, is among the most tolerant and peaceful of societies. That statement might confuse some of the new kids on this site, but the old heads here will agree with me, because they've BTDT and seen the other corners of the world. And it's not pretty.

Edited March 1, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[Vertigo]

The Typhoon, while not quite as expensive as an F-22 (around $90 million versus $140 million fly-away for the F-22),

Is the $140 million the per cost if we get the full order of 381? I see different numbers on the cost of the F-22 ranging from $350 million per to your figure of $140 million.

I know about incremental cost; so is the $350 million the price we have paid so far per aircraft and is expected to decrease to $140 million as we near the full order of 381?

Just trying to clear up the confusion in my head over the actual cost. Thanks.

[ClearedHot]

Is the $140 million the per cost if we get the full order of 381? I see different numbers on the cost of the F-22 ranging from $350 million per to your figure of $140 million.

I know about incremental cost; so is the $350 million the price we have paid so far per aircraft and is expected to decrease to $140 million as we near the full order of 381?

Just trying to clear up the confusion in my head over the actual cost. Thanks.

Yes...$350 Million each is based on a buy of 183 and all the sunk costs that have already been incurred. Every new F-22 purchased from now on will cost approximately $140 Million each.

Had we completed the originally planned buy of 700+ the the total cost per plane would have been about 12% more than the F-15 in inflation adjusted dollars.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

700?

WOW!! That would outfit 90% of U.S Army's Infantry Divisions. I am also accounting for NG when I say this. 1 M1 A2 cost about $5 mil, so do the math.

Army Generals see this and go for a kill. AF Budget will undergo more scrutiny in the years ahead.

Edited March 2, 2009 by CAVEMAN

[ClearedHot]

700?

WOW!! That would outfit 9% of U.S Army's Infantry Divisions. I am also accounting for NG when I say this. 1 M1 A2 cost about $5 mil, so do the math.

Army Generals see this and for a kill. AF Budget will undergo more scrutiny in the years ahead.

Argh...you must all be 12.

700 was the the original buy when were still in the Cold War and the F-22 was called the ATF. The project was supposed to be a 1:1 replacement for the F-15. Regardless, that is what the original cost basis was planned on.

If you want to use WOW figures go look at how many divisions and M-1's the Army planned on keeping at that point in time. Funny, I don;t recall an M-1 A2 ever being attacked by an enemy Air Force...

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Good catch gearpig!

CH:

I am not arguing the dominance we enjoy and the War machines that provide them. But you see how they can quickly spin things around. I think it is quite obvious we ain't getting 700 and there isn't going to be a 1:1 swap. F-35 might feel those shoes but I do not see any more than 20 additional F-22 being added to the 183. And we better not lose one of those things to any mishaps in the immediate future!

[ClearedHot]

Good catch gearpig!

CH:

I am not arguing the dominance we enjoy and the War machines that provide them. But you see how they can quickly spin things around. I think it is quite obvious we ain't getting 700 and there isn't going to be a 1:1 swap. F-35 might feel those shoes but I do not see any more than 20 additional F-22 being added to the 183. And we better not lose one of those things to any mishaps in the immediate future!

I was not suggesting we were going to purchase 700 (the actual original proposal was 750), I said that was the basis point for the cost when it was first proposed. That decision led to the enormous cost we see today.

Actually the administration is quietly suggesting the USAF will get 60 additional F-22's, the President's tune changed when he got "The Brief". Look for movement on the F-22 decision this week, there is a looming decision ($90 Million to continue you the line), that must be decided....like today!

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I hope Obama gets it that after nearly 20 years of continuous deployments and 30-40% cut in overall spending compared to the Cold War, the military is worn out, particularly the Air Force. I don't understand why the public seems content with us flying 50+ year old airplanes (the KC-135's civil counterpart exists only in museums now), but they were about to skin Bush alive for not giving the Army body armor fast enough.

Even if Obama gets it and decides he needs to invest a little money in replacing the old airframes out there, he's surrounded by his Democratic buddies who feel they now have free range of it on Capitol Hill, and many are asking for much greater than a 10% reduction.

[Guest CAVEMAN]

I hope Obama gets it that after nearly 20 years of continuous deployments and 30-40% cut in overall spending compared to the Cold War, the military is worn out, particularly the Air Force. I don't understand why the public seems content with us flying 50+ year old airplanes (the KC-135's civil counterpart exists only in museums now), but they were about to skin Bush alive for not giving the Army body armor fast enough.

Even if Obama gets it and decides he needs to invest a little money in replacing the old airframes out there, he's surrounded by his Democratic buddies who feel they now have free range of it on Capitol Hill, and many are asking for much greater than a 10% reduction.

Is this based on information you know or hear say? I am sure the services are all feeling the pinch. The Navy and Marine Corps still fly CH-46. For some reason, flying an old plane/tanker over Iraq does not display suicide as much as facing an enemy machine gun nest in Fallujah without body armor. Some threats are more than others !

[joe1234]

I don't understand why the public seems content with us flying 50+ year old airplanes (the KC-135's civil counterpart exists only in museums now), but they were about to skin Bush alive for not giving the Army body armor fast enough.

I'll tell you exactly why, it's because they aren't crashing. People aren't dying. If we invaded Iraq with flintlock rifles and minuteman uniforms, and suffered very few casualties while succeeding in our mission, the public would balk at paying for M-16's, tanks, and kevlar.

People hear Air Force types complaining about how old their fleet is, but planes aren't falling out of the skies. People aren't dying, families aren't getting letters, and you don't see CNN footage of flaming wreckage. That's the reason why. Thank god that we have such high safety standards, and have perfected maintenance to the point where we will probably never see this happen, but the squeaky wheel gets the grease.

This is why people get so angry about the F-22. Our F-15's aren't getting shot down left and right, so they [understandably] think, well why the hell are we replacing them if they still work? You can throw around buzz phrases like "maintaining air dominance" and "datalinking capability", or whatever the hell else, but it's a hard case for us to make that we NEED all these F-22's because the F-15 isn't good enough, when it's been good enough for so long. We defend these programs based off of hypotheticals -- there's no hard numbers relevant to modern times because we've had air dominance for so long.

Until people actually see a clear and present need to upgrade the fleet, you'll always get a bunch of resistance. Luckily, we have enough people in Congress that will take us at our word alone that, so that the program even still exists, but it's still a hard case to make. I'm not arguing that we don't need to upgrade things, but I'm just playing the devil's advocate, so don't shoot the messenger on this one.

[yerfer]

I hope Obama gets it that after nearly 20 years of continuous deployments and 30-40% cut in overall spending compared to the Cold War, the military is worn out, particularly the Air Force. I don't understand why the public seems content with us flying 50+ year old airplanes (the KC-135's civil counterpart exists only in museums now), but they were about to skin Bush alive for not giving the Army body armor fast enough.

Even if Obama gets it and decides he needs to invest a little money in replacing the old airframes out there, he's surrounded by his Democratic buddies who feel they now have free range of it on Capitol Hill, and many are asking for much greater than a 10% reduction.

Because people are loosing jobs left and right. Don't believe me? Come to Arizona and drive down a few streets to watch businesses shutting their doors. Large businesses going down the toilet.

Take a look at the education system in America. It's screwed up beyond recognition. Recently, Arizona State University got slammed. Major budget cuts by the legislature leaving students with lower learning opportunities (over 55 academic programs being shut down), hundreds of staff, teachers, and administration with no jobs. This is a reality. I might be lucky to finish my major before the shit really hits the fan.

What I'm saying is, the American people don't see as much value to giving flyboys new flight suits and gloves. Even though you need them and your ride is falling apart, The American people don't put the military in priority when we're spending approximately $720 million a DAY in the middle east to find men in caves causing problems in the neighborhood.

It comes down to the real problems we have here on US soil that needs mending. Pitching the idea that "they'll be over here if were not over there", doesn't cut it anymore. People are more concerned about surviving everyday life, feeding their children, having a stable income, and providing a better future for tomorrow's children.

I think the last thing on the everyday American's mind is helping the military put new planes on the assembly line. I can understand how it's more feasible for a military pilot flying ghetto craft everyday, to argue the importance of new needed aircraft, but how will you pitch this to the mom and pop Americans paying for them when they don't have jobs?

Edited March 2, 2009 by yerfer

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Is this based on information you know or hear say? I am sure the services are all feeling the pinch. The Navy and Marine Corps still fly CH-46. For some reason, flying an old plane/tanker over Iraq does not display suicide as much as facing an enemy machine gun nest in Fallujah without body armor. Some threats are more than others !

In case you didn't notice my sign-in name, I was an Army enlisted engineer and a warrant officer for around 8 years. I'm not blind to what the other services went through during the 1990s. That's the time frame I'm specifically talking about. We all know about the well-publicized issues the Army and Marines have been dealing with since 2001. But most people do not know that during the 1990s, the USAF took the brunt of deployments while the Army primarily remained in garrison. During the 1992-1999 time frame I was in the Army, only once did I actually almost deploy, and that was to Honduras for the hurricane relief. The JTF commander specifically told us not to bother coming with our single-engine Hueys in the Honduran mountains.

My primary point regarding the Air Force is our fleet is OLD, and getting older. Everyone's focused on re-equipping the Army, but doing so at the expense of the USAF, which in case you noticed, other than a handful of F-22s and C-17s, everything else we have is around 20+ years or older. The C-130s I fly were made 47-48 years ago. Tankers are in worse shape, and the fighter community, while "newer", is seeing just as many structural problems as the older mobility airframes.

One last thing...yes, the Marines are flying Phrogs. But they are getting their buy of V-22s to replace them. The Army's pressing ahead with new UH-60s (UH-60M) and CH-47s (CH-47F). They killed the ARH because it was over budget, but I'm sure they'll find something else to replace the OH-58D soon. Also, they have more MRAPs over here than you can shake a stick at. The Army is being fairly well funded in comparison to the USAF.

Because people are loosing jobs left and right. Don't believe me? Come to Arizona and drive down a few streets to watch businesses shutting their doors. Large businesses going down the toilet.

What I'm saying is, the American people don't see as much value to giving flyboys new flight suits and gloves. Even though you need them and your ride is falling apart, The American people don't put the military in priority when we're spending approximately $720 million a DAY in the middle east to find men in caves causing problems in the neighborhood.

It comes down to the real problems we have here on US soil that needs mending. Pitching the idea that "they'll be over here if were not over there", doesn't cut it anymore. People are more concerned about surviving everyday life, feeding their children, having a stable income, and providing a better future for tomorrow's children.

I think the last thing on the everyday American's mind is helping the military put new planes on the assembly line. I can understand how it's more feasible for a military pilot flying ghetto craft everyday, to argue the importance of new needed aircraft, but how will you pitch this to the mom and pop Americans paying for them when they don't have jobs?

Dude...REALLY?

You really believe all that crap? Buying new equipment for the US military CREATES jobs. Do you think all those KC-767s, F-22s, tanks, trucks and other stuff gets made by itself? NO. It gets manufactured by PEOPLE. People who need jobs. How do you expect to "save" this economy? By pouring more money down the black hole known as "entitlements"? You know what that is? It's called a hand-out...a waste of money because it only helps people today, not tomorrow.

When you compare the amount of money our country flushes down the toilet on an entitlement-based economy each day to what's spent on defense (including the wars), you'd be surprised to know how much money goes towards simply doing nothing but keeping Sally and Suzie from needing a job in the first place. Go ahead and buy the argument that we need the government to step in and give us all our hand-out of bread and water...and we'll all be much poorer for it. If you don't believe me, look at the USSR, it didn't work there either.

Until people actually see a clear and present need to upgrade the fleet, you'll always get a bunch of resistance. Luckily, we have enough people in Congress that will take us at our word alone that, so that the program even still exists, but it's still a hard case to make. I'm not arguing that we don't need to upgrade things, but I'm just playing the devil's advocate, so don't shoot the messenger on this one.

For once I actually agree with you. There are many misconceptions out there regarding our military. As great of a "victory" it was, Desert Storm didn't do us any favors 20 years later, because the general public had it seared in their brains that the US military is tops no matter what, and the airplanes we have are unbeatable.

Many times I've had family and friends say they think it's cool I fly the most advanced aircraft in the world. When I reply to them that my airplane was designed in the 1950s, built in 1961-62, and some of the nav radios are still tuned by a crank (WWII-style), not to mention the wing cracks in the fleet, they are honestly shocked, because that's NOT the image they have of the Air Force. The simply can't believe that a Cessna 172 has more advanced avionics than front-line USAF aircraft. I recently took some family members on a tour before I left LRAFB, and I heard lots of comments like "wow, this IS old".

Edited March 2, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[Guest CAVEMAN]

In case you didn't notice my sign-in name, I was an Army enlisted engineer and a warrant officer for around 8 years. I'm not blind to what the other services went through during the 1990s. That's the time frame I'm specifically talking about. We all know about the well-publicized issues the Army and Marines have been dealing with since 2001. But most people do not know that during the 1990s, the USAF took the brunt of deployments while the Army primarily remained in garrison. During the 1992-1999 time frame I was in the Army, only once did I actually almost deploy, and that was to Honduras for the hurricane relief. The JTF commander specifically told us not to bother coming with our single-engine Hueys in the Honduran mountains.

My primary point regarding the Air Force is our fleet is OLD, and getting older. Everyone's focused on re-equipping the Army, but doing so at the expense of the USAF, which in case you noticed, other than a handful of F-22s and C-17s, everything else we have is around 20+ years or older. The C-130s I fly were made 47-48 years ago. Tankers are in worse shape, and the fighter community, while "newer", is seeing just as many structural problems as the older mobility airframes.

One last thing...yes, the Marines are flying Phrogs. But they are getting their buy of V-22s to replace them. The Army's pressing ahead with new UH-60s (UH-60M) and CH-47s (CH-47F). They killed the ARH because it was over budget, but I'm sure they'll find something else to replace the OH-58D soon. Also, they have more MRAPs over here than you can shake a stick at. The Army is being fairly well funded in comparison to the USAF.

I notices your sign-in name but It does not say "FrmrArmyHueyPilot"

I agree to a degree with your point however; it applies in many respect to the Army. The Navy and Marines were constantly deploying during the Cold War. Navy ships, subs were always at sea and ready to project our interest. Marines were also deployed with the Navy during that time period and were still doing this during the Iraq/Afghanistan War. So really, the Army was the only one sitting on its a$$.

Like I said, I am only airing out the other side of the arguement. Our aircrafts are old and they need replacement. It is either we stop stretching ourselves militarily as a nation or roger up and pay for new equipment. There is a price to pay for everything. The folks that really do not want to fund these appropriations are not interested in military actions overseas, so you see where this is going?

[yerfer]

Dude...REALLY?

You really believe all that crap? Buying new equipment for the US military CREATES jobs. Do you think all those KC-767s, F-22s, tanks, trucks and other stuff gets made by itself? NO. It gets manufactured by PEOPLE. People who need jobs. How do you expect to "save" this economy? By pouring more money down the black hole known as "entitlements"? You know what that is? It's called a hand-out...a waste of money because it only helps people today, not tomorrow.

When you compare the amount of money our country flushes down the toilet on an entitlement-based economy each day to what's spent on defense (including the wars), you'd be surprised to know how much money goes towards simply doing nothing but keeping Sally and Suzie from needing a job in the first place. Go ahead and buy the argument that we need the government to step in and give us all our hand-out of bread and water...and we'll all be much poorer for it. If you don't believe me, look at the USSR, it didn't work there either.

Be civil here. I never said anything about free hand outs or temporary solutions to bigger problems tomorrow. My biggest point is the general public not making military spending a priority. I understand your position, I just don't think it's the best way to help the nation as a whole. I'll leave it at that.

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I notices your sign-in name but It does not say "FrmrArmyHueyPilot"

I agree to a degree with your point however; it applies in many respect to the Army. The Navy and Marines were constantly deploying during the Cold War. Navy ships, subs were always at sea and ready to project our interest. Marines were also deployed with the Navy during that time period and were still doing this during the Iraq/Afghanistan War. So really, the Army was the only one sitting on its a$$.

Like I said, I am only airing out the other side of the arguement. Our aircrafts are old and they need replacement. It is either we stop stretching ourselves militarily as a nation or roger up and pay for new equipment. There is a price to pay for everything. The folks that really do not want to fund these appropriations are not interested in military actions overseas, so you see where this is going?

I've been on this site for many years (my old handle was just "HueyPilot" and I started out with the SPN gang back in 1998...a long hiatus in 2006-2008 lost my original name), I guess you haven't noticed that I'd talk about flying for the Army at times. Additionally, I don't know of many USAF Huey guys that get to transition to Herks.

In any case, you may be airing the other side of the argument. But if you truly advocate for getting our stuff replaced, then it's up to us to get the word out.

Edited March 2, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Be civil here. I never said anything about free hand outs or temporary solutions to bigger problems tomorrow. My biggest point is the general public not making military spending a priority. I understand your position, I just don't think it's the best way to help the nation as a whole. I'll leave it at that.

It's hard to remain calm when such a large number of our population is convinced that closing down the production lines of the last few remaining industries that we lead in, and then throw that cash to other useless programs (entitlements or "infrastructure" jobs), is the best thing for our country. It is NOT in the best interest of our country, both militarily and economically.

The companies that manufacture the aircraft, vehicles and other equipment for our nation's military contribute directly to employing real people, and building our nation's productivity. There are people employed not just building these things, but also designing and performing research that benefits other industry sectors, both civil and military uses.

I didn't say that sustaining production of the F-22 and other aircraft for the military is THE solution for our economy, but it won't hurt, and it's much better than just giving that money away to other programs that don't amount to anything or add anything to our nation's ailing productivity. We need to jump start production, not just in military hardware, but in all sectors. But yanking funds from such production to fund "infrastructure jobs" (the new catch-phrase for jobs that are funded by the stimulus) does nothing in the long term to secure our nation's position as a country of production. Filling pot-holes, paving roads and building schools are fine, but that's not where we need to focus our efforts to improve our economy to compete with the rest of the world.

I would argue that those employed making the F-22 get paid much better than those who will be employed laying bricks for those new school buildings. They not only get paid better, but they are directly contributing to keeping our nation's aerospace industry firmly in the top spot, and the R&D behind the F-22 and other programs is funneled directly into other programs like the Boeing commercial aircraft line and others. Keep in mind I'm just speaking of the aerospace facet of defense spending...it also impacts the other arenas like ground vehicles, space-based systems and nautical production.

Our nation is being cut off at the knee caps by politicians looking to buy your vote with "programs", while other countries (who are also going through financial hard times) forge ahead with their industries. The EU in particular is heavily government subsidized, and they have an interest in convincing us Americans that military spending is "bad" for us. If it's so bad, then why do they fund their own EU military programs with such zeal? Here's some insight for those of you that may not realize, we're not the only ones wanting to drop heavy coin on new airplanes:

F-22: Fly-away unit costs $139 mil; total unit costs (incl. R&D) approx. $340 mil.

Only 183 have been ordered.

Rafale: Fly-away unit costs $90 mil; total unit costs approx. $175 mil.

France is ordering almost 300.

Eurofighter: Fly-away unit costs $98 mil; total unit costs approx. $175 mil. (estimated...EADS won't really give details)

EU countries have ordered approx. 700, UK has ordered 232 and Germany 180.

That's just for the fighter world. It's about the same for the mobility side (C-130J/C-17 versus A400M). EADS has rapidly expanded market share worldwide, and it's because the EU jealously guards and promotes the consortium. It's heavily subsidized, and employs millions of Europeans in several countries. It's so heavily guarded that Eurofighter refused to disclose overall costs of the EF-2000 program because of "costs sensitivities". Basically, they don't want their newest product to be labeled a "waste" like the F-22 has. Yet here in the US, it seems politicians and now everyday people are jumping on the bandwagon that defense corporations and defense budgets are bad.

If you bump up production of the F-22 beyond the 183 (perhaps to the 381 the USAF wanted) then overall costs per airplane go down to the EF-2000 and Rafale range. That, and we remain competitive worldwide as far as aerospace. Honestly, if you want our nation to become #5 on the list of aerospace leaders, and #8 on the list of automotive manufacturers, and continue to slide down in production, then keep supporting stuff like the "stimulus" bill and politically-motivated programs like "infrastructure jobs" and defense cuts.

If you want those looking for jobs to find employment making something that adds to our productivity and national trade balance, and helps our nation remain at the top of the technological mountain, then support our government funding procurement of high-tech US-made products for defense and other government needs.

[ClearedHot]

As opposed to saying 2 is less than 1? ;)

Perhaps this will make it more clear...

Wall Street Journal

March 2, 2009

Pg. 14

Declining Defense

Obama's budget does cut one federal department.

For all of his lavish new spending plans, President Obama is making one major exception: defense. His fiscal 2010 budget telegraphs that Pentagon spending is going to be under pressure in the years going forward.

The White House proposes to spend $533.7 billion on the Pentagon, a 4% increase over 2009. Include spending on Iraq and Afghanistan, which would be another $130 billion (or a total of $664 billion), and overall defense spending would be around 4.2% of GDP, the same as 2007.

However, that 4% funding increase for the Pentagon trails the 6.7% overall rise in the 2010 budget -- and defense received almost nothing extra in the recent stimulus bill. The Joint Chiefs requested $584 billion for 2010 and have suggested a spending floor of 4% of GDP. Both pleas fell on deaf ears. The White House budget puts baseline defense spending at 3.7% of GDP, not including Iraq and Afghanistan. The budget summary pleads "scarce resources" for the defense shortfall, which is preposterous given the domestic spending blowout.

More ominously, Mr. Obama's budget has overall defense spending falling sharply starting in future years -- to $614 billion in 2011, and staying more or less flat for a half decade. This means that relative both to the economy and especially to domestic priorities, defense spending is earmarked to decline. Some of this assumes less spending on Iraq, which is realistic, but it also has to take account of Mr. Obama's surge in Afghanistan. That war won't be cheap either.

The danger is that Mr. Obama may be signaling a return to the defense mistakes of the 1990s. Bill Clinton slashed defense spending to 3% of GDP in 2000, from 4.8% in 1992. We learned on 9/11 that 3% isn't nearly enough to maintain our commitments and fight a war on terror -- and President Bush spent his two terms getting back to more realistic outlays for a global superpower.

American defense needs are, if anything, even more daunting today. Given challenges in the Mideast and new dangers from Iran, an erratic Russia, a rising China, and potential threats in outer space and cyberspace, the U.S. should be in the midst of a concerted military modernization. Mr. Obama's budget isn't adequate to meet those challenges.

That means Secretary of Defense Robert Gates faces some hard choices when he finishes his strategic review this spring. An early glimpse will come soon when the Pentagon must decide whether to continue to purchase more Lockheed F-22 Raptors. The Air Force is set to buy 183 of the next generation fighters, though it wanted 750, which would be enough to give the U.S. air supremacy over battlefields over the next three decades. Now the fighter may be prematurely mothballed.

Weapons programs, such as missile defense or the Army's Future Combat Systems, are also in danger. Others have been ridiculously delayed. The Air Force flies refueling tankers from the Eisenhower era. Mr. Obama's own 30-something Marine One helicopter is prone to break down and technologically out of date.

The Pentagon shouldn't get a blank check, though much of its procurement waste results from the demands made by Congress. Mr. Gates has also rightly focused on the immediate priority of irregular warfare and counterinsurgency. But history also teaches that a nation that downplays potential threats -- such as from China in outer space -- is likely to find itself ill-prepared when they arrive.

The U.S. ability to project power abroad has been crucial to maintaining a relatively peaceful world, but we have been living off the fruits of our Cold War investments for too long. We can't afford another lost defense decade.

[flyusaf83]

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0309/19470.html

The Sec of State is now pushing nearly a billion dollars of aid to Palestinians. I wonder if Hamas will get any of that aid...

This administration is getting even more ridiculous. Obamessiah tells us how he is going to halve the deficit by the end of his term, and the guy's administration is spending money like John Edwards in a beauty shop. The porkulus package is ridiculous enough, now we have to send a billion dollars to freaking terrorists. But we need to cut military spending NOW! That's the problem! This is more change that I can believe in.

Edited March 2, 2009 by flyusaf83

[FourFans]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Buckle down boys. The next decade for the military has a high likelihood to be rough. Less money, more threats. That's what you can plan for. Suck it up, figure out how to do more with less. Because if we don't no one else will.

SNAPS: Start learning Chinese and Russian now, we'll need you later.

FF

[GKinnear]

Well I think I just figured out where the military budget cuts are coming from. Fox news has announced that Pres Obama has sent a letter to Russia offering to stop the missle shield if, and it's a pretty big if, Russia will stop helping Iran with thier nuclear programs. Its seems like he his offering the up the whole farm right from the start. I feel like its stepping into the ring with Mike Tyson and just standing there letting him pummel you. I think Jimmy Carter will end up looking like a Hawk compared to the current administration.

On a side note: Is it just me but does it feel like the terrorists are more active with since November 08? Or am I just wholly buying into the "fear-mongering" broadcast by Fox against the jihadists?

[Guest Hueypilot812]

I agree with FourFans...the next 4-8 years are going to be rough, not just with our budgets, but also worldwide. Recession/depression throughout the world economies, nukes already in N. Korea and soon to be in Iran, and a US that has outright stated it's pretty much abandoning the tough-love stance and plans to make negotiations the centerpiece of its foreign policy, vice using force when needed.

This setup reminds me of the 1930s, and we all know that produced a great follow-up decade in the 1940s.

Edited March 3, 2009 by Hueypilot812

[Guest CAVEMAN]

Our nation is being cut off at the knee caps by politicians looking to buy your vote with "programs", while other countries (who are also going through financial hard times) forge ahead with their industries. The EU in particular is heavily government subsidized, and they have an interest in convincing us Americans that military spending is "bad" for us. If it's so bad, then why do they fund their own EU military programs with such zeal? Here's some insight for those of you that may not realize, we're not the only ones wanting to drop heavy coin on new airplanes:

F-22: Fly-away unit costs $139 mil; total unit costs (incl. R&D) approx. $340 mil.

Only 183 have been ordered.

Rafale: Fly-away unit costs $90 mil; total unit costs approx. $175 mil.

France is ordering almost 300.

Eurofighter: Fly-away unit costs $98 mil; total unit costs approx. $175 mil. (estimated...EADS won't really give details)

EU countries have ordered approx. 700, UK has ordered 232 and Germany 180.

This is actually positive news. The plan to initially replace F-15's with F-22's on a 1:1 was during the Cold War when Europe was sucking on US tit. Now that it is obvious our tit is running dry and they are starting to step up to the plate, how can we justify a large buy. NONE of these countries have as strong a Navy, Army or even AirForce as we have. We have other defense programs that we have to take care that they don't have. We also have many fleets over for every aircraft we have. How many fighters does France as a whole have(Navy and Airforce)?

[Guest Hueypilot812]

The point is...

I wouldn't expect France or any EU nation to have a fleet of fighter aircraft to match the US. What I was getting at is they are all each individually much smaller than the US, but they are still buying significant quantities of front-line NEW fighter aircraft. In addition, some of those EU nations are also going to buy the F-35 to augment their EF-2000 buys. All of those nations are currently modernizing their militaries, while many people here in the US seem to think it's just fine to have an Air Force equipped with 30 and 40 year old stuff.

You say none of those countries have a strong Army and Navy? I'd say relative to their size, they do. As for defense programs that we have to take care of that they don't...how about supporting a huge portion of NATO forces for one. I'd wager that 25-30% of EU defense needs are met by the United States, if not more. As for the 1:1 buy of F-22s, the USAF knows that won't happen post-Cold War, but they would like 381 (less than 50% of the original buy) to meet the requirements of having enough F-22 squadrons in the strategic locations we operate (ie, PACAF, USAFE, CONUS).