Defense Secretary Hagel wants to reduce U.S. Army to pre WWII levels

[Angry Irishman]

Illegal aliens don't get any advantages of ACA subsidies you moron! If you represent the military's "best and brightest", this country is in bigger trouble than I thought.

Btw, even some vets and active duty use welfare so...I guess you really aren't about helping them either.

Let me make this simple...piss off. Unlike you I've earned through my service what benefits I have and yes I do care about the jobs and benefits of those serving this country. To you those GIs are just numbers. You wouldn't know service about anything beyond your agendas if it hit you in the head. You're on my ignore list as you are truly obnoxious. This country is in big trouble with people like you progressing along. Yes, I know illegals supposedly don't get "benefits" as you call it from ACA but give it time and weakening this country by gutting our military does pay for welfare...disgracefully for some of our junior troops. Cutting their benefits further will make that welfare to our troops something that happens even more often.

 

[michal1980]

I guess if that's what Fox News told you and you read it in breitbart.com then it must be true!

It must be nice to never have to do your own thinking.

its must be nice to live in pretend land.

I described exactly how ACA works and you deny it.

 

[rommelrommel]

Thank goodness they can only put about 700 then. What would 'Merica do without her shit?!?

Sure, if you believe that they could put every one of their SSBN's off the coast at the same time. But then America could put their whole 5k or so worth of nukes off their coasts.

Back in reality, China is lucky to have one SSBN at sea at any given time, let alone reach the pacific coast of NA undetected. Russia might have 2 or 3 at sea.

America has a massive advantage in any nuclear exchange, yet some bitch about anyone else even coming close to parity because they "might" gain first strike capability.

 

[RampantAndroid]

Sure, if you believe that they could put every one of their SSBN's off the coast at the same time. But then America could put their whole 5k or so worth of nukes off their coasts.

Back in reality, China is lucky to have one SSBN at sea at any given time, let alone reach the pacific coast of NA undetected. Russia might have 2 or 3 at sea.

America has a massive advantage in any nuclear exchange, yet some bitch about anyone else even coming close to parity because they "might" gain first strike capability.

Last I looked SOSUS was still unmatched.

 

[alzan]

This is perfect.

Now President Palin can blame whatever terrorist attack occurs under her watch on the Obama admin!

That made me vomit in my mouth a little.

 

[Gerle]

Boo hoo for them. Time to get a normal job like everyone else. The glorification of soldiers is ridiculous. Most of them barely graduated high school and would have been failures in life regardless. Its the officers that are usually the intelligent ones and they would be fine.

Only about a quarter of the population qualify to enlist in the first place, what does that say about the non-military people?

 

[ivwshane]

Let me make this simple...piss off. Unlike you I've earned through my service what benefits I have and yes I do care about the jobs and benefits of those serving this country. To you those GIs are just numbers. You wouldn't know service about anything beyond your agendas if it hit you in the head. You're on my ignore list as you are truly obnoxious. This country is in big trouble with people like you progressing along. Yes, I know illegals supposedly don't get "benefits" as you call it from ACA but give it time and weakening this country by gutting our military does pay for welfare...disgracefully for some of our junior troops. Cutting their benefits further will make that welfare to our troops something that happens even more often.

Let me make this real simple for you, non military personnel are real Americans too and yet you have no problems shitting on anyone without a uniform. You are a disgrace to the uniform you wear and all things it represents.

Now fuck off you hypocrite!

 

[ivwshane]

its must be nice to live in pretend land.

I described exactly how ACA works and you deny it.

Listen incorruptible, when you actually present any facts in any of your posts I'll take you more serious than the brain dead parrot you are.

 

[Fern]

We're not going agree. I can see that but I'll answer.

Originally Posted by Fern View Post
It's your assumption that our fights abroad will always be poorly chosen and unnecessary, not mine.

force projection. you know, the whole "let's fund 20 aircraft carriers so that iran isn't tempted to shut the straits." that's expensive by itself. eliding the point.

So you have a problem with "force projection"?

Look, if you're an isolationist just say so. It would've saved a lot of unnecessary conversation.

Force projection? Heck yes, we need to be able to project force. We have mutual defense treaties etc that require such. And there are other good reasons for it:

I''l start simply: There is safety and/or strength in number. We can see this in schools of fish, herds of cattle, street gangs, business associations, political parties and armies. Same with allies.

Right now there are 3 spheres of influence (and one is losing 'gravity' rapidly): Russia, China and the USA.

If we can't project force we haven't got much to offer (potential) allies. And our allies lie across large expanses of ocean, whether it be the Atlantic or the Pacific, so we need to be able to project pretty far.

Ans nukes are not a deterrent (except in the case of a nuke threat and China isn't going to nuke Japan, nor Russia the Ukraine).

I'm not a military person. I don't know how many carrier groups or what type of equipment we need. I'll leave that up to the professional military folks. But I strongly favor the ability to project sufficient force to both sides (East & West) simultaneously. Otherwise, if we're forced to deploy in one direction the other is left naked. I'm afraid that's inviting trouble. I'm also afraid that our allies, actual or potential, will quickly recognize this.

No, we're not.

I see this mistake from time-to-time. The headline "U.S. producing more oil than it imports" seems to be misinterpreted by some as we produce more than we consume. That's not what it says or means.

Nope, we still import about 35%-40% of what we use.

And there is nothing that says should the poop hit the fan we can't use emergency powers and mandate that US produced oil cannot be exported.

no shit. again, you're eliding the point. the US could pull all the oil it needs out of the ground and it'd still be a globally traded commodity and be subject to large and often unpredictable price swings.

The only one "eliding" the point is you.

My remark was clearly directed at the possibility the straights get closed etc, and how we could keep US production here. This was never a general economic discussion.

you're the one that brought up ukraine in the context of our military spending and china and russia being on the prowl, not me.

did you really forget your own post that fast?

Nothing forgotten. I mentioned several current 'hot spots' to make the point that this ain't exactly the time for a "peace dividend". After the fall of the USSR things were pretty calm; that isn't the case now.

I didn't mention those examples in any manner suggesting they need immediate military action. That was clear.

The 'big boys' are on the prowl: China and Russia.

Too many countries are an out-of-control dumpster fire: E.g., Syria, Libya, Egypt (who just lost their govt), and the Ukraine (who also just lost their govt).

seriously, you're better than this.

I don't know what you're attempting to say with your derogatory remark. I stand by what I wrote. Those examples are not indicative of a global climate suggesting we should downgrade. Quite the contrary. We don't need less influence now, we need more.

Fern

 

[rommelrommel]

Last I looked SOSUS was still unmatched.

I thought SOSUS was practically decomissioned or turned over to civilian research.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Let me make this real simple for you, non military personnel are real Americans too and yet you have no problems shitting on anyone without a uniform. You are a disgrace to the uniform you wear and all things it represents.

Now fuck off you hypocrite!

You're quite the forum tough guy tonight....I suspect you're not so brave in the real world.

I really have no idea how you come up with this tripe. You draw your own conclusions to suit your usual insults. Your comments regarding my status as a veteran show your true and consistent colors about how you feel about vets. This discussion is about the military and you turn it into some fantasy about my supposed disdain for civilians. Why do you think folks volunteer to serve their country? For all of those civilians you ass. You wouldn't know that though; would you?

Ignore mode activated for one ignorant self righteous ass....it's apparent that your only goal on this forum is to argue and troll.

 

[Zorba]

As an aerospace engineer I've worked with the Air Force quite a bit, both on the design and sustainability side of the world. It is insane how much waste and stupidity there is at the Air Force. If they just streamlined their processes and operated more like an airline they could save billions and keep their fleets. If they would stop awarding contracts to Lockheed, maybe they would have fielded a decent JSF aircraft by now.

Just an example, on fleets I have experience with that has similar size and systems, the air force spends about 5x more per heavy overhaul that what would be spent in the commercial world and they do less work. At an airline about 10 to 15% of your fleet is on the ground any given day, for maintenance/spares; at the air force this number is about 40% on the ground - and some platforms have a really hard time with that.

Also the air force will go buy a ton of spare parts, but if nobody uses a specific part in 90 days, they surplus them for penny's on the dollar. There are actually a lot of companies that just buy air force surplus for next to nothing, then a year later sell it back to the air force for full price, only to rebuy it surplus again.

I've never understood why republicans dislike government waste everywhere except the military, which is a sacred cow for waste. If you just cut the waste, we could have a much better military for the same money.

BTW: Some of the A-10's CAS roles are being replaced with heavy bombers, especially the B-1B and to a lesser extent the B-52. If I ran the world, I would personally restart the line for A-10 and kill the F-35.

 

[Brainonska511]

would have fielded a decent JSF aircraft by now.

It would help if every Tom, Dick, and Harry that gets put in charge of major projects stops changing the project requirements on a whim. That helps to drive the costs through the roof.

They should be commissioning prototypes, get the kinks worked out, then go to production, with few changes after the prototype step.

Also the air force will go buy a ton of spare parts, but if nobody uses a specific part in 90 days, they surplus them for penny's on the dollar. There are actually a lot of companies that just buy air force surplus for next to nothing, then a year later sell it back to the air force for full price, only to rebuy it surplus again.

I feel like I've read something similar, at least in regards to parts quality. I think the example was: the AF buys tires that have extremely long service lives, but they're relatively expensive. They could save money by buying shorter life tires and replacing them more often.

I've never understood why republicans dislike government waste everywhere except the military, which is a sacred cow for waste. If you just cut the waste, we could have a much better military for the same money.

It's the same old political games: cut everything but what affects my district.

BTW: Some of the A-10's CAS roles are being replaced with heavy bombers, especially the B-1B and to a lesser extent the B-52. If I ran the world, I would personally restart the line for A-10 and kill the F-35.

Why would you restart the A-10 line then? We already have 300+ A-10s. How many do we really need? Wouldn't the practical solution be to simply use existing bombers for CAS, as is already being done? The F35 isn't just replacing the A10, it's slated to replace a large chunk of the Air Force and Navy's aging planes. At least in theory, the streamlining of weapons systems to multi-role systems gives the AF mission flexibility at a reduced operating cost, as they no longer have to field the logistical support for tons of dedicated-role air craft.

On a side note, the B-1B was a waste of money. Too bad Carter couldn't keep that thing dead, as we were already developing the B-2 in secret.

 

[Zorba]

It would help if every Tom, Dick, and Harry that gets put in charge of major projects stops changing the project requirements on a whim. That helps to drive the costs through the roof.

Yes, that is a huge problem with every military project.

They should be commissioning prototypes, get the kinks worked out, then go to production, with few changes after the prototype step.

The problem is the JSF is already almost 20 years old and it isn't even operational yet. If you delayed production longer, you'd make a lot of issues worst. Not to mention the F136 engine was based on a 1980 design, I assume the F135 engine is too.

I feel like I've read something similar, at least in regards to parts quality. I think the example was: the AF buys tires that have extremely long service lives, but they're relatively expensive. They could save money by buying shorter life tires and replacing them more often.

I live parts issues every single day. Many parts they just bid out to the low bid contractor, who does a horrible job and the parts don't even match the drawings, much less the materials and processes. Then, you throw in the surplusing because DLA "isn't a warehouse."

Why would you restart the A-10 line then? We already have 300+ A-10s. How many do we really need? Wouldn't the practical solution be to simply use existing bombers for CAS, as is already being done? The F35 isn't just replacing the A10, it's slated to replace a large chunk of the Air Force and Navy's aging planes. At least in theory, the streamlining of weapons systems to multi-role systems gives the AF mission flexibility at a reduced operating cost, as they no longer have to field the logistical support for tons of dedicated-role air craft.

I probably wouldn't actually restart the line, but I would invest in improvements and actually fund the re-winging program. I would also look into replacing the engines with CF34s, to increase efficiency and decrease maintenance costs. The A-10 is also cheaper to operate than a B-1B and a few rounds out its gun is way cheaper than a smart bomb.

The F-35 is a horrible overpriced, under performing platform that has many serious drawbacks versus the platforms it is slatted to replace. At the end of the day will we end up with a much smaller, less effective, more expensive air force because of that contract.

The F-35 saving any money is nothing but a pipe dream. Even if maintenance and operational costs were inline or less than existing platforms, you would never climb out of the procurement cost hole. We also have tried the all purpose airplane before, and went back specialization.

"I think we've normalised to a couple of numbers now, about $25,000 per flying hour for the [Lockheed] F-16 C/D model and about $32,000 roughly for the F-35,"

Link

On a side note, the B-1B was a waste of money. Too bad Carter couldn't keep that thing dead, as we were already developing the B-2 in secret.

The B-1B costs less than 1/3 to operate as the B-2. The B-1B is also cheaper than the B-52. It carries far more smart bombs the B-52 and has the largest payload in the air force. There were a lot of parts issues earlier in its life, but I've heard it has gotten far better and is much more reliable now than it used to be.

Here is an interesting link for operational costs Link Notice the A-10 is the cheapest to operate combat aircraft. The U-2 is also cheaper than UAV replacing it. Good to know these "cuts" will be increases costs.

 

[z1ggy]

According to Wikipedia, of the 18 Ohio class submarines, 4 have undergone conversions to carry cruise-missiles and deploy special forces from old launch tubes, leaving 14-nuclear capable Ohio class submarines, so there are some Ohio-class subs involved in conventional operations.

As for nuclear deterrents, at any given time, 2 are undergoing an overhaul, leaving 12 active-duty subs, with only 8-9 of those at sea (total warheads deployed: ~1150). The replacements slated for the Ohio class are aiming to have a fleet-size 2 boats smaller and carry fewer ballistic missiles, so there is a desire to shrink the fleet.

I know. The Providence was used to launch Tomahawks on Libya.

And generally speaking, a deployment on a boomer lasts you 3 months. So I could see at MAX only needing to have 8 total, with 4 per coast. send 2 out per coast at a time, with 2 being in the dock getting fixed, etc etc.

And yes they are downsizing the fleet slightly because they realize it's an expensive thing to maintain that many SSBN's. Also, having less missile tubes is not a direct relation to wanting less nuclear power, it has to do with something else.

Source: My job is to help design the replacements.

Edit: +1 to Zorba on the military inefficiency stuff. My company wastes so much money and time on things, it makes my head spin. I'll never work for the military again, unless its contracting in a very small company.

 

[ivwshane]

As long as we can pay for ACA and fund welfare for illegal aliens. I just Love all the military experts in here.

You're quite the forum tough guy tonight....I suspect you're not so brave in the real world.

I really have no idea how you come up with this tripe. You draw your own conclusions to suit your usual insults. Your comments regarding my status as a veteran show your true and consistent colors about how you feel about vets. This discussion is about the military and you turn it into some fantasy about my supposed disdain for civilians. Why do you think folks volunteer to serve their country? For all of those civilians you ass. You wouldn't know that though; would you?

Ignore mode activated for one ignorant self righteous ass....it's apparent that your only goal on this forum is to argue and troll.

You aren't very bright are you? That was your original comment I quoted and responded to, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you weren't being sarcastic, I got no response from you. My posts in this thread haven't had one ounce of disdain for our vets, not one. On the other hand, your post certainly shit on people in need and I called you out on it like I do every other time you shit on non military personnel.

My true colors are quite clear, I don't like hypocrites, of which you are one of them, your status as a veteran is unimportant to me other than to highlight your hypocrisy. You serve civilians only because it pays you, otherwise, based on your comments in many threads, you don't give a fuck about them.
The sad part is that every time I point out your hypocrisy you are too stupid to get the point and you some how think an attack on you is an attack on all veterans. Only someone with an oversized ego would have that mentality

You are right, the discussion is about the military, your first post obviously didn't care about the topic.

 

[BUnit1701]

Yes, that is a huge problem with every military project.



The problem is the JSF is already almost 20 years old and it isn't even operational yet. If you delayed production longer, you'd make a lot of issues worst. Not to mention the F136 engine was based on a 1980 design, I assume the F135 engine is too.



I live parts issues every single day. Many parts they just bid out to the low bid contractor, who does a horrible job and the parts don't even match the drawings, much less the materials and processes. Then, you throw in the surplusing because DLA "isn't a warehouse."



I probably wouldn't actually restart the line, but I would invest in improvements and actually fund the re-winging program. I would also look into replacing the engines with CF34s, to increase efficiency and decrease maintenance costs. The A-10 is also cheaper to operate than a B-1B and a few rounds out its gun is way cheaper than a smart bomb.

The F-35 is a horrible overpriced, under performing platform that has many serious drawbacks versus the platforms it is slatted to replace. At the end of the day will we end up with a much smaller, less effective, more expensive air force because of that contract.

The F-35 saving any money is nothing but a pipe dream. Even if maintenance and operational costs were inline or less than existing platforms, you would never climb out of the procurement cost hole. We also have tried the all purpose airplane before, and went back specialization.

Link



The B-1B costs less than 1/3 to operate as the B-2. The B-1B is also cheaper than the B-52. It carries far more smart bombs the B-52 and has the largest payload in the air force. There were a lot of parts issues earlier in its life, but I've heard it has gotten far better and is much more reliable now than it used to be.

Here is an interesting link for operational costs Link Notice the A-10 is the cheapest to operate combat aircraft. The U-2 is also cheaper than UAV replacing it. Good to know these "cuts" will be increases costs.

You hit on an interesting and important point at the end here. Only the Republican/neo-con shills can call this 'military cuts'. Its reduction in troop numbers, with the same or more money being spent on the high tech 'toys'.

No one can cut the active military, no, we go after their pensions, that's where you can get some traction!

 

[Angry Irishman]

You aren't very bright are you? That was your original comment I quoted and responded to, I even gave you the benefit of the doubt and asked if you weren't being sarcastic, I got no response from you. My posts in this thread haven't had one ounce of disdain for our vets, not one. On the other hand, your post certainly shit on people in need and I called you out on it like I do every other time you shit on non military personnel.

My true colors are quite clear, I don't like hypocrites, of which you are one of them, your status as a veteran is unimportant to me other than to highlight your hypocrisy. You serve civilians only because it pays you, otherwise, based on your comments in many threads, you don't give a fuck about them.
The sad part is that every time I point out your hypocrisy you are too stupid to get the point and you some how think an attack on you is an attack on all veterans. Only someone with an oversized ego would have that mentality

You are right, the discussion is about the military, your first post obviously didn't care about the topic.

All I hear is self righteous noise....and a person who is simply unable to remain civil while fabricating conclusions about other people to meet his own agenda. Noise...

 

[norseamd]

As an aerospace engineer I've worked with the Air Force quite a bit, both on the design and sustainability side of the world. It is insane how much waste and stupidity there is at the Air Force. If they just streamlined their processes and operated more like an airline they could save billions and keep their fleets. If they would stop awarding contracts to Lockheed, maybe they would have fielded a decent JSF aircraft by now. Just an example, on fleets I have experience with that has similar size and systems, the air force spends about 5x more per heavy overhaul that what would be spent in the commercial world and they do less work. At an airline about 10 to 15% of your fleet is on the ground any given day, for maintenance/spares; at the air force this number is about 40% on the ground - and some platforms have a really hard time with that. Also the air force will go buy a ton of spare parts, but if nobody uses a specific part in 90 days, they surplus them for penny's on the dollar. There are actually a lot of companies that just buy air force surplus for next to nothing, then a year later sell it back to the air force for full price, only to rebuy it surplus again. I've never understood why republicans dislike government waste everywhere except the military, which is a sacred cow for waste. If you just cut the waste, we could have a much better military for the same money. BTW: Some of the A-10's CAS roles are being replaced with heavy bombers, especially the B-1B and to a lesser extent the B-52. If I ran the world, I would personally restart the line for A-10 and kill the F-35.

what is your opinion of boeing?

could they make new tooling for the f-14 if they wanted too. or did they not do that because it would be too expensive.

how do you compare the b1 and the b52. can the b1 do large bombing runs like the b52 can?

 

[norseamd]

It would help if every Tom, Dick, and Harry that gets put in charge of major projects stops changing the project requirements on a whim. That helps to drive the costs through the roof. They should be commissioning prototypes, get the kinks worked out, then go to production, with few changes after the prototype step.

even more of a problem with nasa. and this time every new president is the one to do that. the whole idea of including research with contracts seems to be a way to funnel kickbacks to me.

and the way they require certain improvements can often re unrealistic. like replacing the m16 for example.

I probably wouldn't actually restart the line, but I would invest in improvements and actually fund the re-winging program. I would also look into replacing the engines with CF34s, to increase efficiency and decrease maintenance costs. The A-10 is also cheaper to operate than a B-1B and a few rounds out its gun is way cheaper than a smart bomb. The F-35 is a horrible overpriced, under performing platform that has many serious drawbacks versus the platforms it is slatted to replace. At the end of the day will we end up with a much smaller, less effective, more expensive air force because of that contract. The F-35 saving any money is nothing but a pipe dream. Even if maintenance and operational costs were inline or less than existing platforms, you would never climb out of the procurement cost hole. We also have tried the all purpose airplane before, and went back specialization.

this is what i want to know more about. why are there even seperate versions. why not just make a naval operational ready version of the f35b. what can you guys tell me about it?

do you guys know about the mess in norway because of lockheed and the f35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

and this is who was part of messing up the saab bid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Grete_Strøm-Erichsen

 

[Fenixgoon]

even more of a problem with nasa. and this time every new president is the one to do that. the whole idea of including research with contracts seems to be a way to funnel kickbacks to me.

and the way they require certain improvements can often re unrealistic. like replacing the m16 for example.



this is what i want to know more about. why are there even seperate versions. why not just make a naval operational ready version of the f35b. what can you guys tell me about it?

do you guys know about the mess in norway because of lockheed and the f35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

and this is who was part of messing up the saab bid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Grete_Strøm-Erichsen

lockheed originally bid the F35 is a multi-service fighter with ~80% parts commonality, meaning the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps would be able to share costs.

the problem is that the USAF, Navy, and Marine Corps all have completely different design requirements. at the end of the day, an aircraft designed to land on a 10,000ft runway is going to be a lot different than one designed to land on a 400ft carrier deck.

also, the process of testing was changed for F35. normally, design is done first, followed by full-scale testing, tweaks, LRIP, flight testing, and FRP. due to advances in design tools, it was pitched that full-scale testing and LRIP could be done in parallel rather than in series.

as it turned out, this was a bad idea (go figure).

 

[werepossum]

even more of a problem with nasa. and this time every new president is the one to do that. the whole idea of including research with contracts seems to be a way to funnel kickbacks to me.

and the way they require certain improvements can often re unrealistic. like replacing the m16 for example.

this is what i want to know more about. why are there even seperate versions. why not just make a naval operational ready version of the f35b. what can you guys tell me about it?

do you guys know about the mess in norway because of lockheed and the f35

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lockheed_Martin_F-35_Lightning_II_procurement#Norway

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen

and this is who was part of messing up the saab bid

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anne-Grete_Strøm-Erichsen

There's a different version because a carrier landing is essentially a controlled crash. The Air Force COULD operate the naval version, but with increased costs and reduced performance as all that strengthened structure is heavier than needed for a purely land-based multirole fighter.