Obama to Kill Tomahawk, Hellfire Missile Programs

[PottedMeat]

So?

heh even if we spew out 200/year, that's 15 years worth

 

[fskimospy]

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!

From the article it looks like we only have a stockpile of about 3,500. (presumably 500 of the others manufactured were fired in tests, broke somehow, etc).

So now we only have 50% more tomahawks in stock than we have fired in every conflict since their invention to date. Truly, the correct answer here is to keep building them. You never know when you might need to fire several thousand tomahawks at someone.

Doesn't buying even more of them sound like the epitome of government waste?

 

[Texashiker]

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.

Not my numbers.

The numbers being presented are from the article.

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

You going to help the people put out of work find a job?

Maybe help them pay their rent or mortgage?

 

[Genx87]

Not my numbers.

The numbers being presented are from the article.





You going to help the people put out of work find a job?

Maybe help them pay their rent or mortgage?

So military spending should be used as welfare? Damned if we need the product produced?

 

[fskimospy]

You going to help the people put out of work find a job?

Maybe help them pay their rent or mortgage?

Are you saying that we should use government spending to create jobs? If so, I have a lot of other ideas.

 

[werepossum]

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?

Are you assuming that we would strike the Russians with sharply worded notes? Russia military doctrine is based on the idea that no aircraft are survivable within their forward air defenses, not even their own. US military doctrine is based on air supremacy. Assuming we can eliminate their forward air defenses at all - which is not at all guaranteed - the process would take months. Even Iraq's took weeks to eliminate. The F/A-117 is useless against Russian air defenses, far too visible to short wave radar and high power radar. (Throw up enough power and nothing above the tree line is stealthy.) The B-2 MIGHT be able to evade - until it opens its bomb bays, at which time it is toast. Ditto for the Raptor. Manned ground strike missions are simply out of our ability until we gain air supremacy. The Tomahawk represents our only credible stand-off threat. There is simply no replacement anywhere near production, much less maturity, and once that line is shut down we're looking at months to restart IF the production equipment is maintained AND the trained technicians are available and willing to return. We can largely hold our own on the ground, due to our tanks, and Bradleys and Warriors are also superior to Russian equivalents, but remember that we've been buying Stryker armored trucks which are largely useless for high intensity warfare and a LOT of our artillery is towed - meaning highly vulnerable to radar-guided anti-artillery fire. If forced to close and fight without air supremacy our casualties will likely be high, and we're not a casualty-tolerant nation. Fighting for Ukraine and losing would be the absolute worst case scenario short of a nuclear exchange.

As for the Hellfire, the Joint Missile is not near ready and may well never be ready. The Hellfire is our only FnF ground attack helo missile, and even in wire-guided form has a much more powerful warhead and much longer range than do the TOW 2 variants. And with NO form of Hellfire can we fully load every attack helicopter even once with our existing inventory.

Worst of all is the message this sends. At a time when we're trying to present a credible military deterrent we're visibly gutting our ability to fight a sustained high intensity conflict, which uses a lot of such missiles. (Especially US/NATO doctrine which accepts being out-numbered.) A less credible military deterrent means more chance of actually having to fight.

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?

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

I don't think this affects us with regard to Iran or North Korea, but with Russia our strength as a potential opponent just went down. We're visibly betting that there will not be a war in choosing to reduce our readiness.

 

[Texashiker]

So military spending should be used as welfare? Damned if we need the product produced?

Are you saying that we should use government spending to create jobs? If so, I have a lot of other ideas.

Tell me about the advances in technology government spending has produced.

Lets start with nuclear and rocket research and go from there.

How many hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs are based off government spending from 4 decades ago?

 

[Genx87]

Tell me about the advances in technology government spending has produced.

Lets start with nuclear and rocket research and go from there.

How many hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs are based off government spending from 4 decades ago?

Are we going to make some spectacular technological breakthrough producing Tomahawk missiles we dont need?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

You going to help the people put out of work find a job?

Maybe help them pay their rent or mortgage?

How do you know that these people won't be shifted to other projects? I suspect both Raytheon and Lockheed Martin have many projects in the works and may very well manufacture the Tomahawk and Hellfire missile replacements.

 

[Genx87]

Are you assuming that we would strike the Russians with sharply worded notes? Russia military doctrine is based on the idea that no aircraft are survivable within their forward air defenses, not even their own. US military doctrine is based on air supremacy. Assuming we can eliminate their forward air defenses at all - which is not at all guaranteed - the process would take months. Even Iraq's took weeks to eliminate. The F/A-117 is useless against Russian air defenses, far too visible to short wave radar and high power radar. (Throw up enough power and nothing above the tree line is stealthy.) The B-2 MIGHT be able to evade - until it opens its bomb bays, at which time it is toast. Ditto for the Raptor. Manned ground strike missions are simply out of our ability until we gain air supremacy. The Tomahawk represents our only credible stand-off threat. There is simply no replacement anywhere near production, much less maturity, and once that line is shut down we're looking at months to restart IF the production equipment is maintained AND the trained technicians are available and willing to return. We can largely hold our own on the ground, due to our tanks, and Bradleys and Warriors are also superior to Russian equivalents, but remember that we've been buying Stryker armored trucks which are largely useless for high intensity warfare and a LOT of our artillery is towed - meaning highly vulnerable to radar-guided anti-artillery fire. If forced to close and fight without air supremacy our casualties will likely be high, and we're not a casualty-tolerant nation. Fighting for Ukraine and losing would be the absolute worst case scenario short of a nuclear exchange.

As for the Hellfire, the Joint Missile is not near ready and may well never be ready. The Hellfire is our only FnF ground attack helo missile, and even in wire-guided form has a much more powerful warhead and much longer range than do the TOW 2 variants. And with NO form of Hellfire can we fully load every attack helicopter plane even once with our existing inventory.

Worst of all is the message this sends. At a time when we're trying to present a credible military deterrent we're visibly gutting our ability to fight a sustained high intensity conflict, which uses a lot of such missiles. (Especially US/NATO doctrine which accepts being out-numbered.) A less credible military deterrent means more chance of actually having to fight.


I don't think this affects us with regard to Iran or North Korea, but with Russia our strength as a potential opponent just went down. We're visibly betting that there will not be a war in choosing to reduce our readiness.

Prowlers and Growlers systematically reduce the capability of radar missile networks. In other words kill them or make them turn off all together.
And as Eskimospy pointed out. We have 50% more Tomahawks than we have ever used in our stock pile. If we ever got into a real shooting war with Russia. We can fire up the production lines again.

 

[fskimospy]

Are you assuming that we would strike the Russians with sharply worded notes? Russia military doctrine is based on the idea that no aircraft are survivable within their forward air defenses, not even their own. US military doctrine is based on air supremacy. Assuming we can eliminate their forward air defenses at all - which is not at all guaranteed - the process would take months. Even Iraq's took weeks to eliminate. The F/A-117 is useless against Russian air defenses, far too visible to short wave radar and high power radar. (Throw up enough power and nothing above the tree line is stealthy.) The B-2 MIGHT be able to evade - until it opens its bomb bays, at which time it is toast. Ditto for the Raptor. Manned ground strike missions are simply out of our ability until we gain air supremacy. The Tomahawk represents our only credible stand-off threat. There is simply no replacement anywhere near production, much less maturity, and once that line is shut down we're looking at months to restart IF the production equipment is maintained AND the trained technicians are available and willing to return. We can largely hold our own on the ground, due to our tanks, and Bradleys and Warriors are also superior to Russian equivalents, but remember that we've been buying Stryker armored trucks which are largely useless for high intensity warfare and a LOT of our artillery is towed - meaning highly vulnerable to radar-guided anti-artillery fire. If forced to close and fight without air supremacy our casualties will likely be high, and we're not a casualty-tolerant nation. Fighting for Ukraine and losing would be the absolute worst case scenario short of a nuclear exchange.

The Tomahawk missile is quite vulnerable to ground fire and is likely not effective against current Russian anti-air defense systems, being to easy to spot, too slow, and not maneuverable enough, which renders basically everything you just wrote there moot. What were you basing it on, anyway?

As for the Hellfire, the Joint Missile is not near ready and may well never be ready. The Hellfire is our only FnF ground attack helo missile, and even in wire-guided form has a much more powerful warhead and much longer range than do the TOW 2 variants. And with NO form of Hellfire can we fully load every attack helicopter plane even once with our existing inventory.

What are you basing this on? As recently as October, 2012 we ordered 24,000 more Hellfires, which would be more than 50% more than we fired in all of the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts over the last decade.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htairw/articles/20121019.aspx

Worst of all is the message this sends. At a time when we're trying to present a credible military deterrent we're visibly gutting our ability to fight a sustained high intensity conflict, which uses a lot of such missiles. (Especially US/NATO doctrine which accepts being out-numbered.) A less credible military deterrent means more chance of actually having to fight.

I'm still waiting for your answer. Say every Tomahawk missile went away tomorrow, how much more likely do you think Russia is to start a military conflict with NATO and what is your reasoning for this?

I don't think this affects us with regard to Iran or North Korea, but with Russia our strength as a potential opponent just went down. We're visibly betting that there will not be a war in choosing to reduce our readiness.

Choosing to reduce our readiness to only 50% more missiles than have been fired in the entire 30 year history of the program.

 

[norseamd]

the strategy page

a fine military resource

 

[boomerang]

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.

But everybody loves us now. The oceans are receding and all that shit. Besides, we need to divert funds so we have a healthy, educated population. There are people that actually believe that's what any savings will be spent on. They're known as Democrats.

 

[Pens1566]

And that stockpile would continue to be added to until the 2016 deadline. OP fails at math and/or reading comprehension.

 

[thraashman]

Jesus Christ people we're not going to go to fucking war with Iran, North Korea, Russia, or anyone else for that matter. The public won't have it and we all know it. Any politicians that vote for war anytime soon won't be voted back in and they all know it. This paranoid idea that we need a stockpile of missiles to deter Russia is stupid.

 

[fskimospy]

Jesus Christ people we're not going to go to fucking war with Iran, North Korea, Russia, or anyone else for that matter. The public won't have it and we all know it. Any politicians that vote for war anytime soon won't be voted back in and they all know it. This paranoid idea that we need a stockpile of missiles to deter Russia is stupid.

The same people who constantly complain that we waste too much money feeding, housing, and caring for US citizens appear to desperately want us to instead spend that money on building missiles and putting them in a warehouse.

 

[crownjules]

Tell me about the advances in technology government spending has produced.

Lets start with nuclear and rocket research and go from there.

How many hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs are based off government spending from 4 decades ago?

So let's start be diverting that $128M from the military to NASA. So many technological advances were made via the space program that trickled down to civilian life. That's where we'll really benefit, by progressing. Not spending money on the same old shit.

 

[Gooberlx2]

Tell me about the advances in technology government spending has produced.

Lets start with nuclear and rocket research and go from there.

How many hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of jobs are based off government spending from 4 decades ago?

If you want gov't spending to be a jobs and technology stimulus, then I'm pretty sure our money is much better spent on NASA.

edit: damnit crownjules!

 

[Vic]

The same people who constantly complain that we waste too much money feeding, housing, and caring for US citizens appear to desperately want us to instead spend that money on building missiles and putting them in a warehouse.

Nothing new here.

 

[AViking]

Cut the military budget by $600B and start spending it on education in Texas please.

 

[JumBie]

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/


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.

America needs more warmongering people like you.

 

[BUnit1701]

Jesus Christ people we're not going to go to fucking war with Iran, North Korea, Russia, or anyone else for that matter. The public won't have it and we all know it. Any politicians that vote for war anytime soon won't be voted back in and they all know it. This paranoid idea that we need a stockpile of missiles to deter Russia is stupid.

You mean we aren't going to (intentionally) start a war. Don't think for a second the people aren't interested in defending ourselves if attacked.

 

[ElFenix]

The same people who constantly complain that we waste too much money feeding, housing, and caring for US citizens appear to desperately want us to instead spend that money on building missiles and putting them in a warehouse.

everyone is a keynesian at heart

 

[thraashman]

You mean we aren't going to (intentionally) start a war. Don't think for a second the people aren't interested in defending ourselves if attacked.

I don't see a Red Dawn situation happening anytime soon.


WOLVERINES!

 

[alzan]

Yathihot