Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Gates' military budget cuts


  • Please log in to reply
12 replies to this topic

#1 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,747 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 09:48 AM

http://www.reuters.c...E53600C20090407

Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday proposed killing weapons programs that are over budget, behind schedule and out-of-date, urging Congress to rise above parochial interests to support his plan.

But it took just minutes before the first group of U.S. senators dashed off a letter to President Barack Obama opposing the proposed $1.4 billion cut in missile defense spending, showing the challenges Gates faces in pushing through reforms.


Representative John McHugh, the top Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, also weighed in, saying the proposals would amount to $8 billion in cuts in defense spending.


"There is a reason President Eisenhower originally wanted to call it the 'military-industrial-congressional' complex," said Travis Sharp, defense analyst at the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation. "Particularly in this economy, Congress is motivated by jobs and home state pork, not national defense."


Not sure what to think about this yet. Congress, on both sides, has lots of motivation to block this. I'm all for military reform, but that's also a lot of jobs. I'm interested to know what some of you military guys think.

#2 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,104 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 10:05 AM

Missile defense is more about obstinant Reaganites wanting to prove he was a visionary than cold reality. I never understood the billions spent on a system that will always have a hard time keeping up with cheaper countermeasures or just bringing in a bomb on a truck or boat instead.

That being said, there's no doubt that short range ballistic missile defense has improved thanks to the research (like the SCUDs) - but since ships and shore installations are usually attacked by non ballistic cruise missiles, other countermeasures are used.

#3 natty

natty

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,747 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:13 PM

I've seen snide remarks on this board about Obama putting us at danger by cutting military spending. Yet no one has anything to say about this?

#4 cookinwithgas

cookinwithgas

    Grey Poupon Elitest Trash

  • ALL-PRO
  • 23,104 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 03:17 PM

At least the Repulicans can admit that defense spending is in and of itself largely pork and "stimulus" and not actually defense.

#5 thefuzz

thefuzz

    coppin a feel

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,091 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 04:19 PM

Well I am a bit of an isolationist, so I am cool with it.

Scale back what we spend overseas..Japan, Germany, etc....

There is not HUGE need to be there anymore now that we can see what kind of toilet paper they use from space.

#6 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 06:14 PM

As a military member, I don't mind this. While I am not in the research and development part of the Air Force, it just seems that there are too many "technologically advanced" systems that have been worked on for years but have yet to turn out true results, i.e. F-22, which is now being followed by the JSF. Sure, the F-22 is cool to look at, but it seems like F-15s and F-16s did a heck of a job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no doubt that tons and tons of money is wasted by the Air Force, let alone the entire military. I don't mind the Secretary of Defense trying to increase the Department of Defense's fiscal responsibility, if you can say that it even had any to begin with.

#7 N1kkadeemuz

N1kkadeemuz

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 08:05 PM

My favorite part of being a 130 crew chief is when I order a rare bolt or "precisely machined" part and the supply invoice it comes with says 2,393.00, when you know damn well you could get it at home depot or lowes for 1.75.

#8 Squirrel

Squirrel

    Drink a beer and relax

  • ALL-PRO
  • 12,523 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 09:01 PM

My favorite part of being a 130 crew chief is when I order a rare bolt or "precisely machined" part and the supply invoice it comes with says 2,393.00, when you know damn well you could get it at home depot or lowes for 1.75.


Yeah but those parts havent been tested.

#9 Fox007

Fox007

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,290 posts

Posted 08 April 2009 - 11:36 PM

As a military member, I don't mind this. While I am not in the research and development part of the Air Force, it just seems that there are too many "technologically advanced" systems that have been worked on for years but have yet to turn out true results, i.e. F-22, which is now being followed by the JSF. Sure, the F-22 is cool to look at, but it seems like F-15s and F-16s did a heck of a job in Afghanistan and Iraq.

There is no doubt that tons and tons of money is wasted by the Air Force, let alone the entire military. I don't mind the Secretary of Defense trying to increase the Department of Defense's fiscal responsibility, if you can say that it even had any to begin with.




The F-22 is the real deal, and unmatched in our Air Force.(and any for that matter)

In the first real test against F-15's/F-16's/FA-18 it scored a total kill ratio of 108:0. With the latest tests being around 144:0.

The best 15/16 and 18 pilots were used.

It kills the SU-35 at a 10:1

Believe it or not the Russians have some bad ass planes, and you better believe we need the F-22 even if as a deterrent. Their Aeronautical science and technology is right there at the top.

We should definitely keep around 130 in service.

#10 mmmbeans

mmmbeans

    FBI SURVEILLANCE VAN

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 14,000 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:33 AM

The F-22 is the real deal, and unmatched in our Air Force.(and any for that matter)

In the first real test against F-15's/F-16's/FA-18 it scored a total kill ratio of 108:0. With the latest tests being around 144:0.

The best 15/16 and 18 pilots were used.

It kills the SU-35 at a 10:1

Believe it or not the Russians have some bad ass planes, and you better believe we need the F-22 even if as a deterrent. Their Aeronautical science and technology is right there at the top.

We should definitely keep around 130 in service.


Russia has around 12 SU-35s.

#11 Bama Panther

Bama Panther

    USAF JAG

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 355 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:05 PM

My favorite part of being a 130 crew chief is when I order a rare bolt or "precisely machined" part and the supply invoice it comes with says 2,393.00, when you know damn well you could get it at home depot or lowes for 1.75.


I used to be a 130 crew chief. How about the $250 toilet seats?

#12 N1kkadeemuz

N1kkadeemuz

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:29 PM

I used to be a 130 crew chief. How about the $250 toilet seats?


You ever seen where they're manufactured:

good ol compton

#13 N1kkadeemuz

N1kkadeemuz

    HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,029 posts

Posted 09 April 2009 - 05:30 PM

Yeah but those parts havent been tested.


I'm thinking you're being sarcastic because $12 camlocks aren't exactly individually tested, along with thousands of other parts.


0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com