Quote:
Originally Posted by LUVMBDiesels
He called for production of the F-22 jet to stop at 187 jets. The U.S. military has 183 jets in service now, so just four more would be funded as part of the fiscal 2009 supplemental budget if President Obama approves the recommendations. The planes cost $140 million each.
|
Is 187 not enough? Why not? How does the F22 compare to the F35 that is receiving additional moneys?
Quote:
|
Lockheed Martin has already warned that ending this production would result in the loss of more than 90,000 jobs.
|
They don't have to lay those workers off. They just have to build something the customer wants to buy.
Quote:
|
Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would also be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.
|
Does the President need a new (overbudget) helicopter? Are we unable to rescue downed pilots? How much, if any, is the decrease in risk with the new ones?
Quote:
|
The Army's $160 billion Future Combat Systems modernization program would lose its armored vehicles. Plans to build a shield to defend against missile attacks by rogue states would also be scaled back.
|
Does the future combat systems modernization program need the particular armored vehicles? What do they use them for? How much is the missile defense system scaled back? Is it scaled back to a point at which it is useless, or is it's scope appropriate to the level of rogue state missile attack likelihood? Who determines that likelihood and how? How many rogue states have ICBM capability?
Quote:
To fight new threats from insurgents, Gates is proposing more funding for special forces and other tools.
"In many ways, my recommendations represent a cumulative outcome of a lifetime spent in the national security arena -- but above all, questions asked, experience gained and lessons learned from over two years of leading this department, and in particular, from our experience in Iraq and Afghanistan," Gates said.
He said his recommendations would "profoundly reform" the way the Defense Department does business.
"We must re-balance this department's programs in order to institutionalize and finance our capabilities to fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years ahead, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks and contingencies," he said.
|
What is wrong with this logic?
Quote:
But Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Okla., in YouTube video posted on his Senate Web site, said he was "very disappointed" Obama was preparing to cut back the military budget in a time of war, while he's increasing spending everywhere else.
"I can't believe what we heard today," he said. "Right now we have our men and women in uniform, in harm's way, and we hear an announcement we're gutting ... our military."
Inhofe and five other senators sent a letter to Obama opposing what they called "deep cuts in U.S. missile defense programs that are critically important to protecting our homeland and our allies against the growing threat of ballistic missiles."
|
What is the correlation of these spending cuts to the men and women in uniform in harm's way? Are commanders of deployed forces, or the forces themselves, requesting more F22s? Are they requesting the new rescue helicopters? Are they in increased danger from ICBM attacks?
Where is the growing threat of these missiles? How much has the threat grown?
Quote:
|
Gates proposed speeding up production of the F-35 fighter jet, which could end up costing $1 trillion to manufacture and maintain 2,443 planes. The military would buy more speedy ships that can operate close in to land. And more money would be spent outfitting special forces troops that can hunt down insurgents.
|
What is wrong with this?
Quote:
|
The Government Accountability Office reported last week that 96 of the Pentagon's biggest weapons contracts were over budget by a "staggering" figure of $296 billion.
|
How does this overspending help our troops in harm's way?