Reducing Military Spending

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there are real needs that a lot of these projects address. The Pentagon isn't stupid. They know that they have limited (albeit a lot of) funding. They push the programs that they feel address security holes based on foreign policy handed down from Washington. While 183 Raptors isn't enough to really fulfill their mission, that is why the Pentagon backed not extending the buy order. There were other things that they needed more.

There is no foreign policy need for F-22s. It's a wet dream of the Pentagon. Hell, there's not even an enemy for us to fly them against nor is there one on the horizon (unless you're going to lump our largest trading partner and third biggest holder of our public debt into the 'future enemy' category).

Sure there is. Our foreign policy, which hasn't really changed since the Cold War, has always dictated that we make up for our deficiency in numbers with a technological edge.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

The other thing to consider is that there are real needs that a lot of these projects address. The Pentagon isn't stupid. They know that they have limited (albeit a lot of) funding. They push the programs that they feel address security holes based on foreign policy handed down from Washington. While 183 Raptors isn't enough to really fulfill their mission, that is why the Pentagon backed not extending the buy order. There were other things that they needed more.

There is no foreign policy need for F-22s. It's a wet dream of the Pentagon. Hell, there's not even an enemy for us to fly them against nor is there one on the horizon (unless you're going to lump our largest trading partner and third biggest holder of our public debt into the 'future enemy' category).

Not according to Putin.

It's possible that the F-22 will come in very handy in the future. Not guaranteed, just possible. We should think of that fleet as spec ops. Highly capable but limited quantity so that we can't use them everywhere, all the time, instead of our larger F-15, F-16, F/A-18 fleets.

I personally like the thing better than the F-35 but I'll always pick a dual-engine over a single-engine. They're better at tolerating the loss of one engine.

It takes a long time for a state-of-the-art fighter to go from design to service. Remember, the first demonstrator prototype F-22 flew in 1990. 20 years ago. It is very difficult and expensive to develop a weapon to solve an immediate problem. The only question is, will we need the F-22 soon enough that it'll still be cutting edge, or did we prepare this great piece of technology for nothing?

Why are we wasting time with the "future potential" of the F-22 when we all know that the only hope we have against the future Zentraedi menace is the VF-1 Valkyrie. If they started production on them, Hell, I'd help pay. Military budget problem = solved. You're welcome.
IMAGE(http://www.yousaytoo.com/gallery_image/pic2/31862/original/remote_image.28183.0.jpg)

When I was a kid, there was a Taranis character comic books... Our father was getting us this French magazine Pif, and there was a Taranis section in it, syndicated I guess.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100713...

The combat fighter of!.... THE FUTURE!!!!!

Can't get a ground team close enough to fly the plane? No problem!

No air dominance? No problem!

Need to hit a target a Continent away? No problem!

No problem! No problem! No problem! No problem!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

.......................................................................................................

Come, and fly the friendly skies.

Nevin73 wrote:

Sure there is. Our foreign policy, which hasn't really changed since the Cold War, has always dictated that we make up for our deficiency in numbers with a technological edge.

What deficiencies in numbers? We have more planes, bombers, tanks, missiles, ships, etc. than everyone else, including anyone that could remotely be considered a threat. The F-22 is yet another costly Cold War program that refused to die. We simply don't need it now nor can you claim we need anything like it in the foreseeable future.

OG_slinger wrote:
Nevin73 wrote:

Sure there is. Our foreign policy, which hasn't really changed since the Cold War, has always dictated that we make up for our deficiency in numbers with a technological edge.

What deficiencies in numbers? We have more planes, bombers, tanks, missiles, ships, etc. than everyone else, including anyone that could remotely be considered a threat. The F-22 is yet another costly Cold War program that refused to die. We simply don't need it now nor can you claim we need anything like it in the foreseeable future.

We do have more. We don't have as many as we should, for how much we spend. It is a fact that aircraft are becoming more expensive and if you have a set budget you need to find a balance between quantity and quality.

An Su-30 Flanker is about $35 million. An F-15 is $70 million. In training exercises, the two had similar capabilities but the Su-30 could engage at longer ranges and outmaneuver close-in. An F-22 is $140 million. Is one F-22 more effective than 4 Flankers? It's possible. How about if you have four targets in opposite directions? Not unless only one of those targets really matters or time is not an issue. In a war like Iraq or Afghanistan, where our targets have no air force and only primitive anti-air systems, the Su-30 seems like a better choice. The F-22's stealth would go to waste.

Now that's not to say that in some future conflict there won't be situations where all four Su-30s would get shot down whereas the F-22 would slip through undetected, and the F-22 is definitely faster, with better electronics and sensors. There is a time and a place for that level of technology and as I've noted before, we can't wait until we need it RTFN to start developing it. With that in mind, a small fleet of F-22s seems pretty reasonable (despite accusations of "cutting" or "gutting" the program).

...In today's war, what we need are larger fleets of lower-tech, lower-cost aircraft. The fact that we may some day use the F-22 does not change that it's extremely expensive, that there are cheaper alternatives that would be effective in today's conflict, that we have a gigantic air fleet, and that we spend vast amounts of money on defense.

Actually, what we need in the conflicts we find ourselves in today is slow moving, heavily armed aircraft with lots and lots of loiter time, unmanned recon drones with DAYS worth of loiter time, and a few fast movers with racks and racks of ordinance. What we don't need is an ultra expensive air superiority fighter that would be too valuable to lose in combat (ie: the F-22).

The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is troop support. And for that, all we need is the AC-130, the predator drone, and the F-16 fighter bomber.

Paleocon wrote:

Actually, what we need in the conflicts we find ourselves in today is slow moving, heavily armed aircraft with lots and lots of loiter time, unmanned recon drones with DAYS worth of loiter time, and a few fast movers with racks and racks of ordinance. What we don't need is an ultra expensive air superiority fighter that would be too valuable to lose in combat (ie: the F-22).

The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is troop support. And for that, all we need is the AC-130, the predator drone, and the F-16 fighter bomber.

Sounds like you need a Goblin Zeppelin. Or a Flying Machine. A nice airship would do, too, preferably one that can launch fighter aircraft.

I honestly think that the era of the manned air superiority fighter aircraft is over. Even if we do find ourselves in conflicts with nations that have functional militaries and trained air forces, they aren't going to have the ability to contest airspace for very long even if we never shoot down a single fighter.

Take the invasion of Iraq. Let's mix it up and say they had a highly capable air force with three times as many Mig fighters, trained pilots, world class ordinance, and functional logistics (all missing, btw). In 20 minutes we could cover all of their airbases with airdropped mines from cruise missiles. In 30, we could blow the hell out of their airfields with Durandels from strike aircraft. In 40, we'd destroy their remaining air assets piecemeal. Command and control infrastructure would be destroyed in the opening minutes as well. At that point, the only thing left would be golden bb style blind fire anti aircraft batteries.

All of this without a single air to air engagement.

Air superiority fighters exist because of their political popularity. Folks want them because they want fighter slots, just like WW2 naval commanders wanted battleships because they were sexy.

Spending is the problem, not just defense spending. We got spending under control, and still had the best military in the world, about a decade ago. Then congress and the white house decided to spend us into the biggest deficit ever, and not just through military spending. If our government was profit motivated, like private industry, we wouldn't be in this situation, but they're not, and they spend like they're not.

We could do all we do AND be efficient about it - we just don't because the budget-teers don't see a need to be.

Plus, without the US Military as a deterrent, and the ability to fight and win conventional wars, nukes become much MUCH more likely to be used by everyone that has them, and that's a probability scenario that's not worth testing. In fact, countries like India and Pakistan might have nuked each other a long time ago has they not had pressure from the US and China to keep it in their pants. In turn, China and the US keep pressure on each other from interfering in many countries spats and conflicts (again, like India and Pakistan).

The geopolitical landscape isn’t as cut and dry as many people here seem to think it is. The public diplomacy display has become much more refined, and what is going on in the shadows and the offices of the major superpowers is even more touch and go/intense then the cold war. What looks like an ally really isn’t (sometimes) and many countries haven’t changed as much as they let the public think they have. The devil’s greatest trick was convincing everyone he didn’t exist.

The Taranis cost what? Just over $300 million US dollars? The 5th Generation fighter jets have all cost over a billion. Could 3 Taranises bring down 1 F-22 Raptor?

Dirt wrote:

The Taranis cost what? Just over $300 million US dollars? The 5th Generation fighter jets have all cost over a billion. Could 3 Taranises bring down 1 F-22 Raptor?

I don't know if this is the case here, but when the US publishes numbers for things like defense tech, we tend to roll in R&D costs into the price, so you see "the total price of a F-22 Raptor is 1.2 billions ea" or whatever. This, of course, would decrease the more we buy, because the R&D would be spread out more. Other countries don't generally do this.

Again, I don't know if this is the case here...

There is a lot of money in laser equipped sharks.

Shoal07 wrote:

Spending is the problem, not just defense spending. We got spending under control, and still had the best military in the world, about a decade ago. Then congress and the white house decided to spend us into the biggest deficit ever, and not just through military spending. If our government was profit motivated, like private industry, we wouldn't be in this situation, but they're not, and they spend like they're not.

We could do all we do AND be efficient about it - we just don't because the budget-teers don't see a need to be.

Plus, without the US Military as a deterrent, and the ability to fight and win conventional wars, nukes become much MUCH more likely to be used by everyone that has them, and that's a probability scenario that's not worth testing. In fact, countries like India and Pakistan might have nuked each other a long time ago has they not had pressure from the US and China to keep it in their pants. In turn, China and the US keep pressure on each other from interfering in many countries spats and conflicts (again, like India and Pakistan).

The geopolitical landscape isn’t as cut and dry as many people here seem to think it is. The public diplomacy display has become much more refined, and what is going on in the shadows and the offices of the major superpowers is even more touch and go/intense then the cold war. What looks like an ally really isn’t (sometimes) and many countries haven’t changed as much as they let the public think they have. The devil’s greatest trick was convincing everyone he didn’t exist.

For all your military might is hasn't stopped Pakistan from intentionally screwing with NATO in Afghanistan. Fact is, the US is never going to use its military against Pakistan in any real way and we all know it. All the US military does now is remove an option from the table and that is the option of using conventional warfare in a overt fashion so everyone else is shifting tactics. You guys are brilliant at that so everyone else has left that game to you. Its not that the US is in a different league to everyone else, we're just not playing the same sport. I'd even argue that the US military is one of the causes of nuclear proliferation because it quickly levels the playing field for states that are threaten by it. Ironically, the historical argument now is that the very purpose of the original nuking of Japan was to ward of the Red Army when they were the conventional steam roller.

But I digress. Even if the argument did hold water don't you think the US could do the same job with half the funds? Maybe a third? If I conceded the point that the US was blocking off an avenue for others to travel, I'd argue that you have long blocked it off but you, excuse the metaphor here are now mounting the wall with sharks that shoot laser beams when the original rifle was doing the job just fine.

Paleocon wrote:

Actually, what we need in the conflicts we find ourselves in today is slow moving, heavily armed aircraft with lots and lots of loiter time, unmanned recon drones with DAYS worth of loiter time, and a few fast movers with racks and racks of ordinance. What we don't need is an ultra expensive air superiority fighter that would be too valuable to lose in combat (ie: the F-22).

The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is troop support. And for that, all we need is the AC-130, the predator drone, and the F-16 fighter bomber.

I agree with one exception. The A-10 is far more suited and frankly far superior for close in air support than the F-16. The Viper is an amazing airframe and the quintessential dogfighter but it's also really freaking fragile. The Hog can dish out HUGE punishment and take an absurd beating yet for some reason the Air Force can't wait to mothball it. I'm not completely up to speed on the most recent variant but I believe that with the exception of the AIM-120 and maybe some standoff munitions that the A-10 airframe is capable of deploying the same ordinance. Best of all, it's carries an absurd amount of CBU's

I find it ironic that it's the same argument the military had in Vietnam. The F-4 was fast and nasty but the A-1H Skyraider kept a LOT of troops alive because of it's extensive ToT.

If I was on the ground taking fire I'd much rather have an A-10 on standby than an F-16. I'm willing to bet the A-10 scares the sh*t out of the opfor as well.

Paleocon wrote:

There is a lot of money in laser equipped sharks.

I go back to my previous position of dropping really ill tempered bears on Pakistan. They would clean out the caves and eat the insurgents.

Ever seen a pissed off grizzly in full battle dress? It's scary.........

Bear wrote:
Paleocon wrote:

Actually, what we need in the conflicts we find ourselves in today is slow moving, heavily armed aircraft with lots and lots of loiter time, unmanned recon drones with DAYS worth of loiter time, and a few fast movers with racks and racks of ordinance. What we don't need is an ultra expensive air superiority fighter that would be too valuable to lose in combat (ie: the F-22).

The mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is troop support. And for that, all we need is the AC-130, the predator drone, and the F-16 fighter bomber.

I agree with one exception. The A-10 is far more suited and frankly far superior for close in air support than the F-16. The Viper is an amazing airframe and the quintessential dogfighter but it's also really freaking fragile. The Hog can dish out HUGE punishment and take an absurd beating yet for some reason the Air Force can't wait to mothball it. I'm not completely up to speed on the most recent variant but I believe that with the exception of the AIM-120 and maybe some standoff munitions that the A-10 airframe is capable of deploying the same ordinance. Best of all, it's carries an absurd amount of CBU's

If I was on the ground taking fire I'd much rather have an A-10 on standby than an F-16. I'm willing to bet the A-10 scares the sh*t out of the opfor as well.

The A-10 is very nice if you're trying to eliminate an armor column, but it shouldn't be confused with a fast mover. You use the A-10 when you have a heavy concentration of armor you want to turn into the Highway of Death. You use fast movers for getting ordinance onto target in minutes rather than tens of minutes or hours.

If you're a mount patrolling Southern Afghanistan, about 90% of the time, you're going to knock on doors, get uncooperative people, and maybe take fire from a single gunman trying to get "juice" to join the Bloods or the Crips or whatever ten dollar tabby chapter is in fashion in the area. On bad days, you might get hit with an IED. On REALLY bad days, you find yourself hit by a coordinated ambush.

That might start with an IED taking out your lead vehicle and be followed by a bunch of folks lighting you up with RPG and RPK fire from a ridge on the other side of the river you just crossed (cutting you off from your path of retreat). If you're really screwed, you might have yourself locked in the kill zone by a triangulated crossfire.

At that point, you need the fast movers. You need them to be right on top of you in 2 minutes or less. For that, the F-16 is pretty ideal. A formation of 4 F-16's can drop their wing tanks, hit their burners, and cover the length of the state of Maryland in less time than it takes for me to empty my dishwasher. And the ordinance it will drop on you once it gets there will light up the Tabifest get together in spectacular fashion. That sure beats waiting for an A-10 to arrive.

Shoal07 wrote:

Spending is the problem, not just defense spending. We got spending under control, and still had the best military in the world, about a decade ago. Then congress and the white house decided to spend us into the biggest deficit ever, and not just through military spending. If our government was profit motivated, like private industry, we wouldn't be in this situation, but they're not, and they spend like they're not.

We could do all we do AND be efficient about it - we just don't because the budget-teers don't see a need to be.

Plus, without the US Military as a deterrent, and the ability to fight and win conventional wars, nukes become much MUCH more likely to be used by everyone that has them, and that's a probability scenario that's not worth testing. In fact, countries like India and Pakistan might have nuked each other a long time ago has they not had pressure from the US and China to keep it in their pants. In turn, China and the US keep pressure on each other from interfering in many countries spats and conflicts (again, like India and Pakistan).

The geopolitical landscape isn’t as cut and dry as many people here seem to think it is. The public diplomacy display has become much more refined, and what is going on in the shadows and the offices of the major superpowers is even more touch and go/intense then the cold war. What looks like an ally really isn’t (sometimes) and many countries haven’t changed as much as they let the public think they have. The devil’s greatest trick was convincing everyone he didn’t exist.

I agree. However, as I see it someone on capital hill had better see the need for the efficiency you speak of in a hurry. Spending in general may be out of control but I believe military spending is probably the type that is least justifiable at its current level.

Axon wrote:

Pakistan

That was my point - We can't invade Pakistan because that's as good as a declaration of war on China. Then it really becomes a US/China war. So, we look hog tied when the reality is the only thing stopping us is political staging that the public never sees/cares to see. China won't invade India because the US response would be the same (war). Our mutual fear of each other keeps 4 countries at peace (kind of) who would otherwise have commited genocide (India/Pakistan).

Oh, but we shouldn't care what China thinks because they're militarily crippled... lol

Personally I always think that the Air Force hated the A10 because of the fighter jock mentality that permeates the service. It was only when the Army said they would take over flying the A10s if the Air Force ditched them that they relented and held on to them.

I mean, hell, look at the F-117. In no way, shape, or form is it a fighter. But to get it sold to the top brass, they had to throw the "F" designator on it.

Paleocon wrote:

The A-10 is very nice ......

No argument here, I was assuming a situation where you know hostilities are eminent an CAS is on standby in the vicinity.

When the 174th was flying F-16's in Syracuse they used to do a lot of drills with the 10th Mountain Division up at Fort Drum. It takes me about 1.5 hours to drive there, they used to get there in under 5 minutes

Shoal07 wrote:
Axon wrote:

Pakistan

That was my point - We can't invade Pakistan because that's as good as a declaration of war on China. Then it really becomes a US/China war.

This aspect of China-US relationships is a surprise to me. Is Pakistan considered a Chinese proxy?

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Axon wrote:

Pakistan

That was my point - We can't invade Pakistan because that's as good as a declaration of war on China. Then it really becomes a US/China war.

This aspect of China-US relationships is a surprise to me. Is Pakistan considered a Chinese proxy?

China and Pakistan share mutal defense agreements, same with US and India. Hence the situation. Or at least that was true and I haven't heard of any recent changes. It also might not be a full on mutal defense deal, more of a "come to your aid" deal - either way, mix it up with one and you involve the other.

It's not like the Taiwan situation, that's different, even with a similar outcome if it comes to blows - maybe.

EDIT -
eh, here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10070...

China's relationships with India and Taiwan are more complicated than simple military hegemony. China wants to invade Taiwan because it's an ideological threat to its political ideals. Or at least it used to be. The China of today is far too politically stable to care about what Taiwan might do to its internal stability. It simply isn't as big of a threat as it used to be.

Beijing doesn't really want to invade Taiwan. It just wants to posture and tell the US to invest in resources manning the place. It's a win-win situation for China. The way it stands, it doesn't have to invest in lots of resources to secure that area from pirates that traditionally plague those shipping lanes, Taiwan remains economically active and attracts investors into the region (which is of benefit to China's economic interests), and it gets the US to take it seriously. If the US doesn't maintain hold, China sends a token force, bends Taiwan over the negotiating table for the world to see, and then assigns some governor whose main duty is to see that he remains as unobtrusive as possible.

Hong Kong and Taiwan are success stories that benefit the East Asian sphere on the whole. Beijing is pragmatic about this. As long as Taipei doesn't thumb its nose at China, it's not going to want to kill the golden goose.

LarryC wrote:

China's relationships with India and Taiwan are more complicated than simple military hegemony. China wants to invade Taiwan because it's an ideological threat to its political ideals. Or at least it used to be. The China of today is far too politically stable to care about what Taiwan might do to its internal stability. It simply isn't as big of a threat as it used to be.

Beijing doesn't really want to invade Taiwan. It just wants to posture and tell the US to invest in resources manning the place. It's a win-win situation for China. The way it stands, it doesn't have to invest in lots of resources to secure that area from pirates that traditionally plague those shipping lanes, Taiwan remains economically active and attracts investors into the region (which is of benefit to China's economic interests), and it gets the US to take it seriously. If the US doesn't maintain hold, China sends a token force, bends Taiwan over the negotiating table for the world to see, and then assigns some governor whose main duty is to see that he remains as unobtrusive as possible.

Hong Kong and Taiwan are success stories that benefit the East Asian sphere on the whole. Beijing is pragmatic about this. As long as Taipei doesn't thumb its nose at China, it's not going to want to kill the golden goose.

That and Taiwan is either the first or second largest foreign investor in Mainland China.

Shoal07 wrote:
Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Shoal07 wrote:
Axon wrote:

Pakistan

That was my point - We can't invade Pakistan because that's as good as a declaration of war on China. Then it really becomes a US/China war.

This aspect of China-US relationships is a surprise to me. Is Pakistan considered a Chinese proxy?

China and Pakistan share mutal defense agreements, same with US and India. Hence the situation. Or at least that was true and I haven't heard of any recent changes. It also might not be a full on mutal defense deal, more of a "come to your aid" deal - either way, mix it up with one and you involve the other.

It's not like the Taiwan situation, that's different, even with a similar outcome if it comes to blows - maybe.

EDIT -
eh, here: http://www.cfr.org/publication/10070...

Our own military/diplomatic relationship with Pakistan runs pretty deep as well. It wasn't after all, the Chinese who sold them the F-16's.

It wasn't until fairly recently that we started warming up to India. Part of the reason we sidled up to Pakistan to begin with was that it was one of the self-described "non aligned nations" and we considered them a commie threat. That was one of many reasons we supported the far more ideologically reliable Pakistanis whose tendency toward fundamentalist Islam made them reliable enemies to Soviet communism. We even threatened to nuke the bejeebus out of the Indians during the Nixon Administration during one of the flare ups in Kashmir when it was clear Pakistan was going to get the wrong end of that exchange.

When the Russian invasion of Afghanistan happened, our relationship with Pakistan jumped into full speed. Cooperation between the ISI and the CIA made it possible to arm the hell out of the Taliban (um, the mujaheddin). The Pakistanis loved that because it meant that they would get material support for the terrorist training camps they built to blow up school buses full of little Hindu kids. We generally turned a blind eye to that as long as they were blowing up trucks full of Russians as well.

LarryC wrote:

China's relationships with India and Taiwan are more complicated than simple military hegemony. China wants to invade Taiwan because it's an ideological threat to its political ideals. Or at least it used to be. The China of today is far too politically stable to care about what Taiwan might do to its internal stability. It simply isn't as big of a threat as it used to be.

Beijing doesn't really want to invade Taiwan. It just wants to posture and tell the US to invest in resources manning the place. It's a win-win situation for China. The way it stands, it doesn't have to invest in lots of resources to secure that area from pirates that traditionally plague those shipping lanes, Taiwan remains economically active and attracts investors into the region (which is of benefit to China's economic interests), and it gets the US to take it seriously. If the US doesn't maintain hold, China sends a token force, bends Taiwan over the negotiating table for the world to see, and then assigns some governor whose main duty is to see that he remains as unobtrusive as possible.

Hong Kong and Taiwan are success stories that benefit the East Asian sphere on the whole. Beijing is pragmatic about this. As long as Taipei doesn't thumb its nose at China, it's not going to want to kill the golden goose.

I think you're giving the Chinese government far more ideological credit then it deserves. Sure, they've grown into an industrial powerhouse (much like we were last century), but Iran also has a strong/growing middle business class not unlike our own 10 years ago, who are now looking to the international stage. Both still have governments working counter to these economical positions due to their locked in ideology and fanatic state-control.

I also don't think Korea is anyone's success story. Kim creates many polotical headaches for China, and China would be torn on what to do if war actually did break out. They're sort of the equivilent to our relationship with Isreal - not much benifit to us but a lot of international headache. It's not like they can just ignore a long standing "ally", and hope to retain the trust of all the other countries they're heavily politically invested in.

I wonder what the PRC's tax brackets are? I know its off topic but I'm curious.