Spending Shift: F-22 On Chopping Board

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You mean the missle that fell into the ocean? You’re right! We need more F-22s!

It sure went a hell of a lot farther than the last one, which blew up 40 seconds into its flight. This one flew about 3,000 km. Quite an improvement.

Don’t worry, I’m sure the N. Koreans won’t sell the Taepodong-2 to any Pakistani Islamists once they get it working like they did their nuclear technology through the Khan network. I doubt they’ll advise the Iranians either - it wouldn’t be very nice and Obama would definitely write them a strongly worded letter condemning such a thing, were it to happen.

[/quote]

We have used our military more irresponsibly than almost any country in history. If anyone deserves to have the international community tell them “You can’t have these weapons,” it’s us. Yet there’s no clamoring here for disarmament on our side.

What you people fail to realize, or to acknowledge, as the case may be, is that dictating to the rest of the world what they can and can’t do is precisely why everybody hates us. You think taking out their missile would have solved the problem? No. It just would have justified whatever resentment they already harbor.

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You mean the missle that fell into the ocean? You’re right! We need more F-22s!

It sure went a hell of a lot farther than the last one, which blew up 40 seconds into its flight. This one flew about 3,000 km. Quite an improvement.

Don’t worry, I’m sure the N. Koreans won’t sell the Taepodong-2 to any Pakistani Islamists once they get it working like they did their nuclear technology through the Khan network. I doubt they’ll advise the Iranians either - it wouldn’t be very nice and Obama would definitely write them a strongly worded letter condemning such a thing, were it to happen.

We have used our military more irresponsibly than almost any country in history. If anyone deserves to have the international community tell them “You can’t have these weapons,” it’s us. Yet there’s no clamoring here for disarmament on our side.

What you people fail to realize, or to acknowledge, as the case may be, is that dictating to the rest of the world what they can and can’t do is precisely why everybody hates us. You think taking out their missile would have solved the problem? No. It just would have justified whatever resentment they already harbor.[/quote]

What does any of this have to do with the N. Korean missile program? I should have known better…

[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
jawara wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You mean the missle that fell into the ocean? You’re right! We need more F-22s!

Dude, even the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison had flops. Eventually they’ll make a missle that works. You also failed to mention the fact that the Chinese are building up their military and guess what… They really don’t care for Americans that much.

They would never ever get their money back if they attacked us. Try again.
[/quote]

You should listen to Peter Schiff. They arent going to get their money back anyway.

[quote]lixy wrote:
jawara wrote:
300andabove wrote:
jawara wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You mean the missle that fell into the ocean? You’re right! We need more F-22s!

Dude, even the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison had flops. Eventually they’ll make a missle that works. You also failed to mention the fact that the Chinese are building up their military and guess what… They really don’t care for Americans that much.

Maybe not, but they REALLY dont care for Japan :stuck_out_tongue:

Add to that Russia has alot of natural resources that China will need sooner than later, Amercica is an ocean away wouldn’t worry to much.

Well the fact that the Chinese submarine fleet is rapidly growing worries me china submarine - Google Search

The fact that they have missle that can destroy an aircraft carrier with one hit, worries me U.S. Can't Stop Chinese Missile; No Tests 'Til 2014 | WIRED

I know some of yall think I’m parnaoid but this shit aint no joke.

Hah!

Now consider that the USA has a lot more firepower, that it outspends China in military expenditure by an order of magnitude and that it is actually going around the globe bombing and invading other countries.[/quote]

Maybe if your buddies in Al-Qaida would chill we wouldnt need to.

[quote]GDollars37 wrote:
jawara wrote:
300andabove wrote:
jawara wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
You mean the missle that fell into the ocean? You’re right! We need more F-22s!

Dude, even the Wright Brothers and Thomas Edison had flops. Eventually they’ll make a missle that works. You also failed to mention the fact that the Chinese are building up their military and guess what… They really don’t care for Americans that much.

Maybe not, but they REALLY dont care for Japan :stuck_out_tongue:

Add to that Russia has alot of natural resources that China will need sooner than later, Amercica is an ocean away wouldn’t worry to much.

Well the fact that the Chinese submarine fleet is rapidly growing worries me china submarine - Google Search

The fact that they have missle that can destroy an aircraft carrier with one hit, worries me http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/04/us-cant-stop-ch.html

I know some of yall think I’m parnaoid but this shit aint no joke.

You realize a war between China and the U.S. would be a disaster for both countries, right?[/quote]

I agree, and to be honest I don’t know who would win. We’ve spent more in the long run but now our servicemen are tired and burnt out. Our gear needs to be fixed because its worn out. Our economy is in shambles we have no money, printing it only cause hyperinflation. The Chinese also vastly outnumber us, not to mention is war were to break out between us I think we would lose even more people that would be able to fight because I think the illegal aliens from Mexico would run back across the border. I don’t know if your a gun owner but do you know how hard it is get ammo these days? Do you think the Chinese would have any trouble manufacturing ammo? I doubt it. I can’t remember who it wa but someone figured out that in war the country that can manufacture things out steel the fastest usually wins. China has been buying US scrap metal like crazy over the years. And I say again…They don’t like the US very much.

Get your head out of your ass, Jawara!

If China was to declare war on anyone, it would be its immediate neighbors. Why the hell would the Chinese want to travel halfway across the world to fight the world’s sole hyperpower, and knowing it would get a serious asswhooping?

Question: Did Gates decrease the US defense budget? Did he increase it? Or is it at the same level? I must have read a dozen articles and the issue isn’t discussed in any of them.

I think it was a slight increase.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
I think it was a slight increase.[/quote]

Correct. The debate is over priorities, and balancing our present wars with future threats. I think Gates is largely on the money, but may well be stymied by Congress and defense lobbyists who care more about buying expensive weapons than protecting America.

[quote]PRCalDude wrote:What does any of this have to do with the N. Korean missile program? I should have known better…
[/quote]

I should have known better than to think you’d be able to grasp the point, which was that the our “do as I say, not as I do” policies don’t work. Although this point will inevitably be lost on all the nationalists here.

It is about goddamn time that the pentagon sacked up and cancelled the F-22 and the Future Combat System. Gates has made a bold move to break the pentagon away from still fighting the russians in the fulda gap. I need small airbone sensors, cultural training, and a common software and communications sytem that will allow me to tap into national level intelligence capabilities at the small unit level. I don’t need a billion dollar piece of crap, built by the lowest bidder, flying around to drop bombs for me. An F-15 will do just fine.

Oh yeah, lightweight body armor and good boots would be awesome. Maybe we can break off a million dollars and invest in that. Thats all I want, a million freakin dollars worth of boots.

I created my own thread on this without reading the entire board. Comments from that thread. My apologies gentlemen.

[quote]lixy wrote:
Get your head out of your ass, Jawara!

If China was to declare war on anyone, it would be its immediate neighbors. Why the hell would the Chinese want to travel halfway across the world to fight the world’s sole hyperpower, and knowing it would get a serious asswhooping?

Question: Did Gates decrease the US defense budget? Did he increase it? Or is it at the same level? I must have read a dozen articles and the issue isn’t discussed in any of them.[/quote]

Maybe for same reason why your boys from Al-qaida came over here and blow up those 2 buildings in NY.

Interesting article, and perspective, from Austin Bay.

Secretary Gates’ Defense Budget Proposals

by Austin Bay
April 7, 2009

Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan is the driving force behind Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ new long-range defense plan. Gates made that clear in an article he wrote for the January issue of Foreign Affairs Magazine: “The United States’ ability to deal with future threats will depend on its performance in current conflicts. To be blunt, to fail – or to be seen to fail – in either Iraq or Afghanistan would be a disastrous blow to U.S. credibility, both among friends and allies and among potential adversaries.”

Given the long lead time in high-tech weapons procurement programs, is this a contradiction, apparently putting short-term considerations over longer-term, over-the-horizon risks that could threaten national survival?

The answer is no.

Gates understands the importance of perseverance in war – the weapon of spine, determination, will.

Osama bin Laden committed many strategic blunders, but one of his greatest was underestimating American will. References to America “fleeing” from Somalia litter captured al-Qaida documents.

Credibility of commitment – the will to win – is the psychological backbone of deterrence. A determined foe will scorn advanced weapons with near-magic capabilities if he believes you won’t use them or that he can force you to fight on a battlefield where the weapons are not decisive. He wagers his will to win far exceeds your comfy, bourgeois fecklessness.

Credible commitment, Gates wrote, extends beyond winning the war of bullets to winning the war for long-term security, which requires maintaining “small war” capabilities, including counter-insurgency skills, local security training programs, rule of law projects, and economic and political stabilization capacities. In the strategic context of the 21st century, these are “systematic weapons” (strategic approaches and tactics not dependent on specific weapons systems, but rather people skills). They are potentially more decisive than the deadliest high-tech weapons system, for they are the means of restoring or promoting productive, just societies and thus creating future allies.

The continuing tragedy is that the United States has yet to comprehensively integrate civilian entities and non-military governmental agencies into this process and thus never achieves “Unified Action” (Pentagonese for the synchronized use of diplomatic, military, information and economic power).

The U.S. military is often the only agency on the ground. Infantrymen must act as diplomats in the morning, agricultural experts in the afternoon and cops after dark. Gates’ article noted improvements in inter-agency cooperation, but – with succinct resignation – concluded that “military commanders will not be able to rid themselves of the tasks … .”

Gates’ defense plan, presented this week, seeks to embed these capabilities but also thwart the most likely current and emerging conventional threats, what he called “the security challenges posed by the military forces of other countries – from those actively hostile to those at strategic crossroads.”

“Most likely” sounds bland, but for Congress, defense industries and many military leaders, they are fighting words. Money isn’t the only reason – legitimate debate over what constitutes adequate preparation for a “war of national survival” is not only justifiable, but a duty. The reason the United States confronts terrorist threats is that America has the combat power to win conventional force-on-force fights, and that must be retained.

Gates doesn’t dispute that – he argues for balance. Budgets are limited. Procuring the expensive “perfect” may be ideal, but acquiring sufficient numbers of “the better than good enough” is more rational.

As a specific example, Gates bets that a sufficient number of F-35s assures U.S. air dominance in the coming decades, so the Pentagon can buy fewer F-22s. Now a battle over numbers flares. Gates says 187 F-22s. I estimate the right number is around 250. Hey, it’s not quite thin air. It’s based on attrition and operational estimates, and posits a U.S.-China clash over Taiwan.

No one wants that conflict, but if it occurs sometime in the next 20 years we’ll rue the day we didn’t buy more F-22s. Gates, however, wins the bigger point – America has less expensive systems that more than overmatch potential adversaries.

Choices must be made, and Secretary of Defense Gates has made his. He has done so with an acute assessment of the long-term strategic benefits of assuring success in Iraq and Afghanistan complemented by a cool, intellectually defensible estimate of future requirements. His proposals now become a Washington budget warfighting document.

http://www.strategypage.com/on_point/20090407231923.aspx

[quote]lixy wrote:
Get your head out of your ass, Jawara!

If China was to declare war on anyone, it would be its immediate neighbors. Why the hell would the Chinese want to travel halfway across the world to fight the world’s sole hyperpower, and knowing it would get a serious asswhooping?

[/quote]
Here’s another interesting tidbit I found out about this morning.
http://story.chinanationalnews.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/9366300fc9319e9b/id/487183/cs/1/

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It is about goddamn time that the pentagon sacked up and cancelled the F-22 and the http://story.chinanationalnews.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/9366300fc9319e9b/id/487183/cs/1/. Gates has made a bold move to break the pentagon away from still fighting the russians in the fulda gap. I need small airbone sensors, cultural training, and a common software and communications sytem that will allow me to tap into national level intelligence capabilities at the small unit level. I don’t need a billion dollar piece of crap, built by the lowest bidder, flying around to drop bombs for me. An F-15 will do just fine.

Oh yeah, lightweight body armor and good boots would be awesome. Maybe we can break off a million dollars and invest in that. Thats all I want, a million freakin dollars worth of boots.

I created my own thread on this without reading the entire board. Comments from that thread. My apologies gentlemen. [/quote]

I agree with you on the Future Combat System. I still think we need a few of those F-22’s just in case. Lighter armor would be great. There was an article i ArmyTimes last week about some new stuff that they came up with but shipping out was delayed because the Army wanted to do more tests. Oh well.

ha ha ha…North Korea…that’s a good one. Ah, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

F22s are unnecessary in light of all the other military weapons the US has that can kill foreigners just as effectively.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ha ha ha…North Korea…that’s a good one. Ah, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

F22s are unnecessary in light of all the other military weapons the US has that can kill foreigners just as effectively.[/quote]

You need air superiority in order to do that. The F15 is no longer a superior weapon and the fleet is getting old and worn out.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ha ha ha…North Korea…that’s a good one. Ah, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

F22s are unnecessary in light of all the other military weapons the US has that can kill foreigners just as effectively.

You need air superiority in order to do that. The F15 is no longer a superior weapon and the fleet is getting old and worn out. [/quote]

step 1) push red button.
step 2) wait for mushroom cloud

air superiority my ass…

[quote]BH6 wrote:
It is about goddamn time that the pentagon sacked up and cancelled the F-22 and the Future Combat System. Gates has made a bold move to break the pentagon away from still fighting the russians in the fulda gap. I need small airbone sensors, cultural training, and a common software and communications sytem that will allow me to tap into national level intelligence capabilities at the small unit level. I don’t need a billion dollar piece of crap, built by the lowest bidder, flying around to drop bombs for me. An F-15 will do just fine.

Oh yeah, lightweight body armor and good boots would be awesome. Maybe we can break off a million dollars and invest in that. Thats all I want, a million freakin dollars worth of boots.

I created my own thread on this without reading the entire board. Comments from that thread. My apologies gentlemen. [/quote]

That’s the thing isn’t it, COIN/LIC technologies and training is much cheaper than the big conventional procurement programs.

Thoughts on the EFV?

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Sifu wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
ha ha ha…North Korea…that’s a good one. Ah, I needed a good chuckle this morning.

F22s are unnecessary in light of all the other military weapons the US has that can kill foreigners just as effectively.

You need air superiority in order to do that. The F15 is no longer a superior weapon and the fleet is getting old and worn out.

step 1) push red button.
step 2) wait for mushroom cloud

air superiority my ass…
[/quote]

step 3) wait for cloud of radioactive fallout to fly over and rain death on homeland.
step 4) watch teeth and hair fallout.
step 5) bury fish and flipper baby.

[quote]Sifu wrote:
step 3) wait for cloud of radioactive fallout to fly over and rain death on homeland.
step 4) watch teeth and hair fallout.
step 5) bury fish and flipper baby.[/quote]

Radioactive fallout is a myth.