Gates Calls for Cuts to High-Tech Weapons Programs - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

cmbdiesel · #16 04-12-2009, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville

If that is what you wanted, then why comment on NEA at all?

It's high time we started cutting off some if these defense contractors whose projects are routinely WAY over budget and no where near the time line promised.

We have few on this forum who preach against government intervention in the free market, but how many companies with the track record of the defense industry would be able to survive? The ridiculous helicopter 1 project - flush that ***** down the drain, quit pouring good money after bad. The F-22, granted it's a cool plane, but where is the competition? There is none. I approve of Gates attempt to shift the defense budget toward the things the grunt on the ground needs to do his job, and so does John McCain, who last I checked had a pretty strong following with the republican party.

Botnst · #17 04-12-2009, 02:24 AM

Republicans would follow anybody who isn't a Democrat. And vice versa. Both of whih fail to recognize themselves as two sides of the same coin -- big government interventionists.

Consider this: Is there a significant difference between Dubyuh's reaction to the economic so-called "crisis" and Obama's?

cmac2012 · #18 04-12-2009, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

I'd like to see social services cut before military....how about jacking the SS benifit age up to 72 insted?

I like F22's, one of the few good uses of my tax dollars.

We spend as much on defense as the next 38 or so countries in the world combined. Or maybe it's the next 20 countries -- the statistic is represented in various ways but I think we can safely say that we spend a lot on defense.

We crow about how we spent the USSR under the table with military build-up competition. Funny that no one considers that we could fall prey to the same conundrum.

Eisenhower was right.

cmbdiesel · #19 04-12-2009, 09:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Republicans would follow anybody who isn't a Democrat. And vice versa. Both of whih fail to recognize themselves as two sides of the same coin -- big government interventionists.

Consider this: Is there a significant difference between Dubyuh's reaction to the economic so-called "crisis" and Obama's?

I'm not sure how that relates to the topic.

Big government interventionists, you mean like the huge defense contracts, awarded to the states of the party in power, that only get fulfilled on one side, the payment? Talk about government give-away. Total up the money wasted on defense contracts and it will dwarf the AIG and GM bailouts. I'm for keeping our military strong, and to do that, we must spend money, but I am sick of the $5000 hammer story. The defense industry should be forced to operate like any other business. If you don't produce what you signed on for, when it was due, you are in breach of contract. Sue the bastids, close 'em down, sell off the parts. Don't keep rewarding failure to produce with more and bigger contracts. I applaud Gates for taking a step towards spending our money to help our military rather than to help the defense contractors.

Hatterasguy · #20 04-12-2009, 09:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

The F-22, granted it's a cool plane, but where is the competition? There is none.

The F22 and 23 locked horns, they chose the 22.

cmbdiesel · #21 04-12-2009, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatterasguy

The F22 and 23 locked horns, they chose the 22.

I meant competition from the 'other' guys. Who has anything that can touch our airforce? Even without the F-22, we are the unquestioned, unchallenged leader of the pack.

Unless we already sold the plans for the F-22 to someone else, which would not surprise me in the slightest.

Hatterasguy · #22 04-12-2009, 09:52 AM

Russians, and Chinese. The new Mig 35 for instance.

The problem is we havn't fought Russian planes flown by good pilots since the Korean war. We faught amatures with cheap export models in Iraq, thats it.

cmbdiesel · #23 04-12-2009, 09:59 AM

Mig-35 is a paper tiger.
Same vintage as our F-16, without the bottomless funding.

Hatterasguy · #24 04-12-2009, 10:05 AM

Oh in Russian hands maybe, although I dispute that.

These guys are working hard:

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/default.asp

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/fighter/jxx.asp

http://www.sinodefence.com/airforce/aircraft.asp

Botnst · #25 04-12-2009, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

I meant competition from the 'other' guys. Who has anything that can touch our airforce? Even without the F-22, we are the unquestioned, unchallenged leader of the pack.

Unless we already sold the plans for the F-22 to someone else, which would not surprise me in the slightest.

What, you want our pilots to be in a "fair" fight? Fork that, I want any fight involving any of our forces to be as lopsidedly unfair in our favor as possible.

BTW, I think Gates and Obama are on the right track. We're still strategically hooked to massed land/sea/air battles. Given the current state of opposition around the planet, I think shifting to small unit, extremely intense actions needs an awful lot more development and support.

OTOH, the wars we have fought in remote places demonstrate the need and value of the carrier task force. Since GWI, it has been the Navy that has had the tactical strike fighter roll in the gap between initiation of hostilities and securing of forward air bases of sufficient quality and security to accommodate the USAF. How many carrier groups should the USN have -- one for each ocean? One for each ocean plus one in the yards for rotation? One under slow construction for each ocean to replace the carriers that are already in harm's way? How long could we keep conducting six month deployments before crews got sick of military life at sea and just want to go back to the farm?

It's an awfully complicated problem. We should all keep in mind that Gates/Obama are merely continuing the shift in strategy that began under Carter and especially Reagan. It proceeded slowly under Bush I and Clinton. Rumsfeld/Bush accelerated the transition. Gates/Obama are simply continuing that trend.

Kuan · #26 04-12-2009, 10:48 AM

Bot, listen to Elgar's Enigma Variations. Very good. Then Samuel Barber's School for Scandal, then maybe some of Arvo Part's religious music such as http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbxnnC22gwY

As for Phil Glass, beats the heck out of me what he's trying to do.

cmbdiesel · #27 04-12-2009, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

What, you want our pilots to be in a "fair" fight? Fork that, I want any fight involving any of our forces to be as lopsidedly unfair in our favor as possible.

We're on the same page there, the issue arises out of the nature of our conflicts. Do we pursue absolute superiority for our pilots at the expense of the ground troops? I say no. The pilots are in far better shape comparatively speaking, than the boots on the ground guys. It would be nice to fund both to the hearts content of the big brass, but we cannot afford it. Big part of that is due to the cozy relationship of defense contractors to the Pentagon and Congress. If we could reign in the ludicrous costs of developing new weapons, we probably could have it all. In 2007, Lockheed-Martin paid their CEO over 30 million. The same company that is years behind schedule, and at least 5.1 billion over budget on the new VH-71

Botnst · #28 04-12-2009, 11:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

We're on the same page there, the issue arises out of the nature of our conflicts. Do we pursue absolute superiority for our pilots at the expense of the ground troops? I say no. The pilots are in far better shape comparatively speaking, than the boots on the ground guys. It would be nice to fund both to the hearts content of the big brass, but we cannot afford it. Big part of that is due to the cozy relationship of defense contractors to the Pentagon and Congress. If we could reign in the ludicrous costs of developing new weapons, we probably could have it all. In 2007, Lockheed-Martin paid their CEO over 30 million. The same company that is years behind schedule, and at least 5.1 billion over budget on the new VH-71

Ah prioritization. I misunderstood your point. We're on the same page, m/l.

tankdriver · #29 04-12-2009, 11:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

Unless we already sold the plans for the F-22 to someone else, which would not surprise me in the slightest.

Maybe not the plans, but certainly a fleet of jets. As is the case with the F-35 Gates is spending more on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F-35_Lightning_II

LUVMBDiesels · #30 04-12-2009, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel

We're on the same page there, the issue arises out of the nature of our conflicts. Do we pursue absolute superiority for our pilots at the expense of the ground troops? I say no. The pilots are in far better shape comparatively speaking, than the boots on the ground guys. It would be nice to fund both to the hearts content of the big brass, but we cannot afford it. Big part of that is due to the cozy relationship of defense contractors to the Pentagon and Congress. If we could reign in the ludicrous costs of developing new weapons, we probably could have it all. In 2007, Lockheed-Martin paid their CEO over 30 million. The same company that is years behind schedule, and at least 5.1 billion over budget on the new VH-71

Gates is also cutting the Joint Tactical Strike Vehicle (the Humvee replacement) How is that helping the boots on the ground? Our current rescue helos are reaching the end of their useful lives. We need replacements.While I hate all the waste I have seen one of the biggest reasons for the overspending - a government that 1) Cannot get easily understandable specifications to the contractors during the RFP phase 2) Constantly changes the specs after the contract is awarded. 3) Changes the number of units being produced constantly causing the price per unit to go up and 4) Mismanages the contracts execution letting the contractors get away with murder...

Just purchasing computers turned into a fiasco that 1) Cost much more than originally thought (like 100 MILLION MORE!) 2) has been the subject of three prostests in Congress by people who were not awarded the contract (and they have a valid point to protest on) 3) Has taken over a year and a half to write and 4) has crippled the organization that now is using outdated equipment (if it is available or has people SHARING outdated equipment as there arenot enough computers to go around!

Multiply this contract by the enormous amount of contracts especially in DOD and you can see how billions are lost each year. If we cleaned up our procurement process things would be much easier and cheaper. Oh and the $5000 hammer , which was more like a $3000 hammer was designed to be part of a rescue kit put in B1b bombers. It is a special shape, lightweight, made of titanium and was only made in a run of 100. It was not something you could get at Home Depot... I just saw an airconditioner made for the Army that runs on 200V 400cycle AC. It is a 12000 BTU unit and cost aout $5000! If the Army had spec'ed 120v 60Hz units they could have picked up units at any Walmart for under $300...

All I am saying is that Gates could fix the process and save $$ without cutting projects...