Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
What is obama doing to our military? The new miliatary budget cuts the funds for Tomahawk and Hellfire missiles to 0 by 2016.

The replacement missiles will not be battle ready for another decade.

http://freebeacon.com/obama-to-kill-tomahawk-hellfire-missile-programs/
President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades.

The Tomahawk missile program—known as “the world’s most advanced cruise missile”—is set to be cut by $128 million under Obama’s fiscal year 2015 budget proposal and completely eliminated by fiscal year 2016, according to budget documents released by the Navy.

Lets see:

Isolate Russia
Strain relations with Israel
Ease sanctions on Iran
Cut funding to Tomahawk and Hellfire missile programs

And people still have faith in obama?

We have to make cuts somewhere to pay for welfare. Can not raise taxes on fortune 500 or people like Warren Buffet. So lets just cut national defense.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
How many thousands of these warheads are sitting in a desert somewhere next to M1A2 Abram tanks?

Anyways the next president is free to request an increase in funding when that stock pile is run dry from bombing people in NW pakistan.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
well we needed the joint missiles like yesterday

are the stocks enough to last until then?

we might as well do the smart thing and unify our military also

what about the joint aircraft programs like the blackhawk replacement
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,342
30,878
136
We can convert the retiring A-10s into kamikaze drones. Also, your "story" reads like a press release from the missle manufacturer.
 

berzerker60

Golden Member
Jul 18, 2012
1,233
1
0
Do we need these missiles more than we need an educated, healthy population? Because theoretical ability to blow up more shit doesn't rank very highly on my list of priorities for how to spend tax dollars to improve this country.
 

norseamd

Lifer
Dec 13, 2013
13,990
180
106
We can convert the retiring A-10s into kamikaze drones. Also, your "story" reads like a press release from the missle manufacturer.

way too big and slow

they would be better used to prototype a drone air support plane
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,714
52,535
136
Do we need these missiles more than we need an educated, healthy population? Because theoretical ability to blow up more shit doesn't rank very highly on my list of priorities for how to spend tax dollars to improve this country.

He didn't even read his own article. While I agree that more spending on education and health is a better use of our money, the funds are being repurposed in the budget for R&D on new missiles.
 

Newell Steamer

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2014
6,894
8
0
More importantly,..
Navy experts and retired officials fear that the elimination of the Tomahawk and Hellfire systems—and the lack of a battle-ready replacement—will jeopardize the U.S. Navy’s supremacy as it faces increasingly advanced militaries from North Korea to the Middle East.

And now w,.. wai,.. wait. What?

Seriously.

North Korea and the Middle East.

By Middle East, you mean Iran? The same Iran who's soldiers needed to be saved by the US Navy; http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/06/world/meast/iran-us-navy-rescue/

So, instead of Iran sending it's naval forces to the rescue, the US Navy swooped in;
Pirates hijacked the Al Molai 40 to 45 days ago, U.S. Naval Forces Central Command said in a statement. The crew was "held hostage, with limited rations and we believe were forced against their will to assist the pirates with other piracy operations," according to the statement.

Uhm... yeah. Well,.. how about this!?

Those poor military industrialists!! They will make a few million less from the billions they are raking in each year!!! More job losses!!

Thanks Obama!
 
Last edited:

JManInPhoenix

Golden Member
Sep 25, 2013
1,500
1
81
Both of these systems have been around for 30 years or more. Time for new things that go boom. Not to mention we probably have a shit ton of them stockpiled.
 

moonbogg

Lifer
Jan 8, 2011
10,671
3,209
136
We probably have enough stock to not have to worry. We can always build some quickly enough.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Okay, this is insane. At the same time we're trying to present a credible threat to Russian aggression we're publicly gutting our ability to fight a sustained war.
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
Good.

But I want a lot more military cuts. We spend WAY too much on that bullshit.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
36
91
The reason those would be wound down is because there is a replacement in the works. This happens all the time.

Tomahawk missiles most likely cannot defeat the Russian S-400, and possibly even Chinese AA.

The next generation will have to have the ability to rapidly maneuver and change direction in order to remain a threat to both countries, who are our two biggest adversaries.

We will have to overhaul our Minuteman ICBMs, and Trident SLBMs at some point, as China and Russia ultimately develop ABM systems like ours based in CA and Alaska. The Russians have since moved ahead of us in ICBM technology, due to the perceived threat of our pending Turkish installations.
 
Last edited:

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
86,714
52,535
136
Okay, this is insane. At the same time we're trying to present a credible threat to Russian aggression we're publicly gutting our ability to fight a sustained war.

To put it very lightly, the Russians are not afraid of us because of our Tomahawk missiles. I feel very confident in saying that their presence or absence comprises approximately 0% of their calculation as to whether or not they consider the US military a credible threat.

Say every US tomahawk missile disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would change in Russia's posture?
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
Okay, this is insane. At the same time we're trying to present a credible threat to Russian aggression we're publicly gutting our ability to fight a sustained war.

That is an interesting point of view.

How are we supposed to present ourselves as a strong military power, while at the same time we are cutting funds to our most successful missile program?

The tomahawk cruise missile is a workhorse. It has a proven battlefield reputation that goes back to the first gulf conflict in 1990.

Why would nations like Russia, Iran and north Korea take our president serious when he is cutting funds to workhorse programs?


To put it very lightly, the Russians are not afraid of us because of our Tomahawk missiles. I feel very confident in saying that their presence or absence comprises approximately 0% of their calculation as to whether or not they consider the US military a credible threat.

Say every US tomahawk missile disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would change in Russia's posture?

Iran and North Korea are probably throwing a party at this news.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,342
30,878
136
According to Wikipedia (yeah, that was hard to look up) the US has used a total of 2000 tomahawks to date and has a stockpile of 4000.


Edit: Wait, the tomahawk is made in my fair city. Ths is an outrage! TH is 100% correct; this decision is nuts! :mad:
 
Last edited:

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
To put it very lightly, the Russians are not afraid of us because of our Tomahawk missiles. I feel very confident in saying that their presence or absence comprises approximately 0% of their calculation as to whether or not they consider the US military a credible threat.

Say every US tomahawk missile disappeared tomorrow. What do you think would change in Russia's posture?

As long as there's no change to the US's nuclear arsenal, Russia's posture will remain unchanged.
 

PottedMeat

Lifer
Apr 17, 2002
12,363
475
126
The reason those would be wound down is because there is a replacement in the works. This happens all the time.

Tomahawk missiles most likely cannot defeat the Russian S-400, and possibly even Chinese AA.

The next generation will have to have the ability to rapidly maneuver and change direction in order to remain a threat to both countries, who are our two biggest adversaries.

We will have to overhaul our Minuteman ICBMs, and Trident SLBMs at some point, as China and Russia ultimately develop ABM systems like ours based in CA and Alaska. The Russians have since moved ahead of us in ICBM technology, due to the perceived threat of our pending Turkish installations.

you can't win against idiocy/trolling, facts will just be ignored
 

Texashiker

Lifer
Dec 18, 2010
18,811
197
106
you can't win against idiocy/trolling, facts will just be ignored

Linked article says replacement missile program is not ready.

Nearly 100 of these missiles are used each year on average, meaning that the sharp cuts will cause the Tomahawk stock to be completely depleted by around 2018. This is particularly concerning to defense experts because the Pentagon does not have a replacement missile ready to take the Tomahawk’s place.

No replacement and current stockpile will be depleted by 2018.
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
71,342
30,878
136
Linked article says replacement missile program is not ready.



No replacement and current stockpile will be depleted by 2018.

Your numbers don't add up. The stockpile is 4000. 4000/100 per year = 40 year supply. Using your logic, we should cut the budget for the replacement as well as it appears to be grossly premature.