The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: SecDef Gates recommends halting F-22 and POTUS Helo production
DarthAmerica    4/6/2009 3:53:07 PM
h*tp://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D97D4QTO1&show_article=1

Apr 6 02:44 PM US/Eastern
By ANNE GEARAN
AP Military Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Defense Secretary Robert Gates on Monday recommended halting production of the F-22 fighter jet and scrapping a new helicopter for the president as he outlined deep cuts to many of the military's biggest weapons programs.
Gates said his $534 billion budget proposal represents a "fundamental overhaul" in defense acquisition and reflects a shift in priorities from fighting conventional wars to the newer threats U.S. forces face from insurgents in places such as Afghanistan.

The department must ensure it has the right programs and money to "fight the wars we are in today and the scenarios we are most likely to face in the years to come, while at the same time providing a hedge against other risks," Gates said as he revealed details of his budget for the next fiscal year.

The promised emphasis on budget paring is a reversal from the Bush years, which included a doubling of the Pentagon's spending since 2001. Spending on tanks, fighter planes, ships, missiles and other weapons accounted for about a third of all defense spending last year. But Gates noted more money will be needed in areas such as personnel as the Army and Marines expand the size of their forces.

Gates will likely face stiff resistance in Congress, where lawmakers are wary of losing defense contractor jobs with an economy in crisis. Some defense contractors such as Lockheed Martin Corp. have warned of huge layoffs if programs are cut.

Production of the F-22 fighter jet, which cost $140 million apiece, would be halted at 187. Plans to build a new helicopter for the president and a helicopter to rescue downed pilots would be canceled. A new communications satellite would be scrapped and the program for a new Air Force transport plane would be ended.

Some of the Pentagon's most expensive programs would also be scaled back. 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.

Yet some programs would grow. 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.

"It is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-ensure against a remote or diminishing risk?or in effect to run up the score in a capability where the United States is already dominant?is a dollar not available to take care of our people, reset the force, win the wars we are in and improve capabilities in areas where we are underinvested and potentially vulnerable," Gates said.

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.

A bill in Congress would require the Pentagon to do a better job of making sure proposed weapons are affordable and perform the way they should before the military spends big sums on them. The Defense Department has already adjusted its acquisitions policy to achieve some of those goals.

------------------------------------------------------------------


I'm already bracing myself for the comments to follow...

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 11:36:49 AM
Give up JFKY. YOu will never get an objective debate about this from these people. They see policy differences as criminal unconstitutional behavior. That is an extremist view.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I disregard Darth because he is not qualified to have an opinion.   4/7/2009 11:49:15 AM

Item, that satellite canceled would have special forces to air power node capacity that we now won't have.

And haven't had, and still are winning.

Losing actually. There are EW features in that canceled satellite we will need and could use now. You haven't been paying attention to what I posted about the EW war we've been fighting in NE Asia have you?

Item, we will be left with less air and sea lift.

Will we?  Do you mean we will not be able to lift 3 MEB's, which we haven't had to do in the last 50 years, any way?

We will not be able to lift what we were able to. Taken a look at the LPD program recently? You really should. The LHA(R) isn't in too good shape either.   

Item, we will be left with less ammunition stocks and funds for training. 

Agreed a problem, but is it less than the training budget, per capita in 2001?  If so whilst bad, it's not a disaster, as the US Army was very well-trained in 2001.

We were not that well trained.  Don't delude yourself.

Item, we won't have theater missile defense because of MEADS funding cuts.

No, we won't have MEADS.  We'll still have Patriot PAC-3.

Which will not stop the DF 2X or M series  1X PRC missiles. MEADS with improved PAC III just barely will.CREF above about losing the EW war-specifically radar ghosting and active terminal seeeker technology.

Item, no particle beam, because that would be deemed as OFFENSIVE and destabilizing, so budget cut.

Well that's a crusher, I guess we'll just have to soldier on with the LASER program and the MISSILE interceptor's.  Particle beams are Sci-Fi weapons, not soon for deployment.

1. A laser is a particle beam. (photons)
2. Lasers suffer atmospheric jitter. A lightning gun (CPAC or free electrons) doesn't   
3. Missile interceptors need funding too to stay current with threat defense. 
 
You think you are going to argue this with ME?
 
How do we fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan if we can't control the SLOCS/LOCS and supply?
But we do control the SLOCS and the LoC's so your point is moot.  UNLESS you're going to posit that the Taliban can close off the LOC's in the face of 50,000 plus NATO troops and their air power...or that Russia is going to put a stop to their resupply and provoke a war....

They attacked another truck park today. They're doing it at the rate of at least once a week.  We control nothing inside Pakistan. its one of the reasons that Darth doesnb't know what he is talking about. Don't make the same error.

...that if you cannot secure your lines of communication and sustain your supply you will LOSE.    And I respond at that since we are, we are NOT losing, or not because of this.

You did make the same error.
 
Then there are the PRCs. They aren't going to play nice no matter how many lies you tell yourself. They fund the communist insurrection in eastern India. They supply the Paks with nuclear know how and rocket technology. Ditto the Saudis. They rape and pillage Africa. They tried to lodge into Canada and are trying to lodge into us. What the hell do you think is going on in the Pacific Northwest with their commercial imperialist adventuring in our oil shale fields for example?

Just what do you think is going on, JFKY?

I think the PRC is an authoritarian government, that is suspicious of the market and is trying to, foolishly, "secure" energy supplies at non-market rates or via non-market solutions...and in this they will fail, and make themselves poorer.  I think the PRC is an authoritarian government that would like to recapture Taiwan, but that they haven't the combat power to do so, and won't for several years.  I think the PRC is an authoritarian government that is going to have a major market meltdown a la Indonesia and Japan and is going to be DECADES in closing the economic gap with the rest of the Developed World.

You don't know what you are talking about. They are practicing a form of imperialism that is called Mercantilism.
 
Substitute oil for gold and you have their policy in a nutshell.
 
They don't have to close much of a gap either if they can induce a monetary system collapse and realignment, or do you think that Septemeber 23 market attack out of Hong Kong last year was an accident? Google Jim Rogers, a possible Americasn traitor, and likely PRC bandit agent.

UNLIKE Herald I don't see them as a threat as the USSR was....and as both you and I have an equivalent knowledge of the world, I'd say that we are both equally right and wrong in  our assessments.  I'm sure the PRC will be more violent than I suppose and that they will be far weaker than you fear.

Again you don't know what you are talking about. You really haven't shown me much evidence that you have a thorough grounding of subject. Be nice if you did, but you don't. It isn't just planes and tanks that are weapons, you know.
 
Some more on Jim Rogers.
 
The only way that China can rise is if we FALL.


I know my enemy very well. Do you?
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       4/7/2009 11:57:04 AM




Item, that satellite canceled would have special forces to air power node capacity that we now won't have.
 
And haven't had, and still are winning.
 
Losing actually. There are EW features in that canceled satellite we will need and could use now. You haven't been paying attention to what I posted about the EW war we've been fighting in NE Asia have you?
Item, we will be left with less air and sea lift.
 
Will we?  Do you mean we will not be able to lift 3 MEB's, which we haven't had to do in the last 50 years, any way?
 
We will not be able to lift what we were able to. Taken a look at the LPD program recently? You really should. The LHA(R) isn't in too good shape either.   
Item, we will be left with less ammunition stocks and funds for training. 
 
Agreed a problem, but is it less than the training budget, per capita in 2001?  If so whilst bad, it's not a disaster, as the US Army was very well-trained in 2001.
 
We were not that well trained.  Don't delude yourself.
Item, we won't have theater missile defense because of MEADS funding cuts.
 
No, we won't have MEADS.  We'll still have Patriot PAC-3.
 
Which will not stop the DF 2X or M series  1X PRC missiles. MEADS with improved PAC III just barely will.CREF above about losing the EW war-specifically radar ghosting and active terminal seeeker technology.
Item, no particle beam, because that would be deemed as OFFENSIVE and destabilizing, so budget cut.
 
Well that's a crusher, I guess we'll just have to soldier on with the LASER program and the MISSILE interceptor's.  Particle beams are Sci-Fi weapons, not soon for deployment.
 
1. A laser is a particle beam. (photons)

2. Lasers suffer atmospheric jitter. A lightning gun (CPAC or free electrons) doesn't   

3. Missile interceptors need funding too to stay current with threat defense. 
You think you are going to argue this with ME?
How do we fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan if we can't control the SLOCS/LOCS and supply?
But we do control the SLOCS and the LoC's so your point is moot.  UNLESS you're going to posit that the Taliban can close off the LOC's in the face of 50,000 plus NATO troops and their air power...or that Russia is going to put a stop to their resupply and provoke a war....
 
They attacked another truck park today. They're doing it at the rate of at least once a week.  We control nothing inside Pakistan. its one of the reasons that Darth doesnb't know what he is talking about. Don't make the same error.
...that if you cannot secure your lines of communication and sustain your supply you will LOSE.    And I respond at that since we are, we are NOT losing, or not because of this.
 
You did make the same error.
Then there are the PRCs. They aren't going to play nice no matter how many lies you tell yourself. They fund the communist insurrection in eastern India. They supply the Paks with nuclear know how and rocket technology. Ditto the Saudis. They rape and pillage Africa. They tried to lodge into Canada and are trying to lodge into us. What the hell do you think is going on in the Pacific Northwest with their commercial imperialist adventuring in our oil shale fields for example?
 
Just what do you think is going on, JFKY?
I think the PRC is an authoritarian government, that is suspicious of the market and is trying to, foolishly, "secure" energy supplies at non-market rates or via non-market solutions...and in this they will fail, and make themselves poorer.  I think the PRC is an authoritarian government that would like to recapture Taiwan, but that they haven't the combat power to do so, and won't for several years.  I think the PRC is an authoritarian government that is going to have a major market meltdown a la Indonesia and Japan and is going to be DECADES in closing the economic gap with the rest of the Developed World.
 
You don't know what you are talking about. They are practicing a form of imperialism that is called Mercantilism.

Substitute oil for gold and you have their policy in a nutshell
.
 
They don't have to close much of a gap either if they can induce a monetary system collapse and realignment, or do you think that Septemeber 23 market attack out of Hong Kong last year was an accident? Google Jim Rogers, a possible Americasn traitor, and likely PRC bandit agent.
UNLIKE Herald I don't see them as a threat as the USSR was....and as both you and I have an equivalent knowledge of the world, I'd say that we are both equally right and wrong in  our assessments.  I'm sure the PRC will be more violent than I suppose and that they will be far weaker than you fear.
 
Again you don't know what you are talking about. You really haven't shown me much evidence that you have a thorough grounding of subject. Be nice if you did, but you don't. It isn't just planes and tanks that are weapons, you know.
Some more on Jim Rogers.
The only way that China can rise is if we FALL.

 
 
I know my enemy very well. Do you?

Herald


 
 
It took you one week to resume posting like an arrogant SOB.
 
[sigh!]
 
 
Quote    Reply

eldnah       4/7/2009 12:14:13 PM
Can anyone tell me how a $27 millionish EH-101 became a $427 millionish VH-71 presidential helicopter? Certainly there were some enhanced communication and safety retrofits and of course some luxury additions but the costs quoted in various usually reliable publications are unbelieveable. Are those numbers real and if not what are the actual numbers?
 
Quote    Reply

mustang22       4/7/2009 12:22:23 PM

How many Us citizens dead from an Al-Quaeda attack do you consider 'acceptble" for purchasing an extra 60 F-22's for a war that is most likely to NEVER happen?  But the pruchase of which divert resources from the War in Afghanistan?
Completely seperate funding for preventing an Al-Queda attack INCONUS and you know it. Homeland Security, FBI and all major law enforcement agencies take part in this on a daily basis with funding that has nothing to do with buying more F-22's. If China believes this war will likely NEVER happen then who is threatening them into the increased defense spending and weapons research and procurement? Maybe they just want to be the tough guy on the block.  This administration seems more worried about disarming America than it does about protecting it. 8 billion over the course of 3 years is a drop in the bucket to provide the Air Force with a force structure to achieve complete air domination.
 

See many can play that game.....

 

And yes, Herlad, DA has a good point. You want 250 F-22's, for fighting the PRC...but you don't discuss the trade-offs necessary within the fixed DoD budget to pay for them.  What do you give up to pay for them?  After all you've complained about the "gutting" of the Army, but your proposal guts it more...US GNP is shrinking, so even at a fixed rate of GNP for Defense the Defense BUdget will shrink.  You want more F-22's from a smaller pie, what will you cut to pay for them?

 
 



 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    There is not one personal attack in that post, Warpig.   4/7/2009 12:27:21 PM
I simply pointed out that they are not making a case on the merits especially when Darth personally accused me of being unable to do a situational or strategic analysis.
 
Well I just performed the situational analysis right in front of you and showed you that the evidence they question is in plain sight and my ability they said that I don't have I used  right in front of them.  
 
I was the one insulted here, not them.
 
If I don't respect an assertion am I prohibited from saying so? If I am constantly accused of being biased against someone because of emotions, when time after time its data that I roll out showing that the point under discussion is not something I emote about like some of them do, but that I take a coldly cynical view as to the arguments and emotional appeals poured forth by them in support of theor heroes? 
 
Frankly, I would like some facts instead of opinions that is based on "official authority" or because "I claim that I served where I do operational analysis and I have insider knowledge and you don't"^1.
 
 Pfui. I looked at the postings of some of those who claim that they have "insider knowledge" and I match it against what I KNOW and can cite and prove. 
 
And guess what?  They don't know what they are talking about,.but I can't say this, that they don't know what they are talking about-right when I demonstrate it there to them in print; because that would show I'm arroigant?

Come on. 
  
Then on top of that; I'm supposed to shut up and be insulted too? 

Herald
 
^1 Appeal to hidden authority.
 
 
Quote    Reply

EvilFishy       4/7/2009 12:33:26 PM
With respect war pig, I read his article and could not detect any arrogance (or personal insults).
 
I chalk it up to his style and I like it.    I found Heralds post to be quite informative.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 1:28:58 PM

Then on top of that; I'm supposed to shut up and be insulted too? 



Herald


^1 Appeal to hidden authority.

You aren't being asked to shut up or be insulted. You are being asked to articulate why you think 60 more F-22's are necessary. If all you are going to say is "The PRC Bandits...ect and so forth", then fine. But can you back that up? Thus far it is a resounding NO. About all you have done is call Gates a fool and what ever term you are using for the week to refer to Obama. THAT IS NOT HOW WE DO AN ANALYSIS.

You are quite literally being asked to articulate why the DoD is a mere 60 airframes short of achieving the USAF core mission. Thats it. It's all very simple and can be done without all the drama. OR you can take the side of the USAF can do it's mission with or without the 60 additional planes and because of that the 60 extra Raptors are discretionary rather than mandatory for mission accomplishment.

What's so hard about that? 


-DA



P.S. When you go around calling people like the SecDef "fools" and disrespect the President of the United States, it does indeed come off as arrogant. These people have risen to the top of their career paths and are privy to information you can't even imagine. That doesn't mean they are always making the best decision as they are human. But it does mean that in order to credibly negate what they say, you have to be on very solid ground and capable of backing up your positions. Perhaps if you avoided the insults, people who are biased toward Obama and Gates might actually listen to your position without immediately writing you off as a ultra right wing fanatic. Remember, these are two immensely popular leaders and the chances are most people don't harbor your negative views outside your normal circle of friends and family. Consider that. Logos, ethos and pathos. All three need to be well articulated and consider the audience. Regards.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    EH-101 - US 101 - VH-71   4/7/2009 1:32:41 PM

Can anyone tell me how a $27 millionish EH-101 became a $427 millionish VH-71 presidential helicopter? Certainly there were some enhanced communication and safety retrofits and of course some luxury additions but the costs quoted in various usually reliable publications are unbelieveable. Are those numbers real and if not what are the actual numbers?


The original contract was for an off the shelf solution but it quickly balloned into almost a new chopper.  The mods required for safety, load, and various other defensive systems included a longer rotor, longer tail boom, and a new heavy drive chain.  The result was a whole new series of certification tests.  So - EH-101 became US101 and finally VH-71.
 
So this cost has to be spread out over 18 (and later after LockMart punted - 23) airframes - thus pumping up the total cost per to around $427 million. Of course, this included the added commo gear, new anti-missile defenses and rescue/safety loads.
 
Meanwhile - the boys at Sikorsky were falling over themselves pointing at the cost and asking why. 
 
Do keep in mind that the plant (LockMart) that was charged with making all these conversions/changes and testing is located in ... (wait for it)... NEW YORK.  In fact, LockMart sponsored then Senator Hillary Clinton on a paid trip to visit the plant and give a pep-talk to the cheering workers.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Herald    4/7/2009 1:45:02 PM
Losing actually. There are EW features in that canceled satellite we will need and could use now. You haven't been paying attention to what I posted about the EW war we've been fighting in NE Asia have you?
No Herald, darn it, I don't keep up with your every utterance.  but as we are WINNING, by any objective measure, it's a capability that it might be NICE to have, but not essential.  And there is always the POTUS after this one, to re institute the program.
 
We will not be able to lift what we were able to. Taken a look at the LPD program recently? You really should. The LHA(R) isn't in too good shape either.
Yeah, again, you mean the ability to lift 3 MEB's, though we've never had the need to do so in the last 50-60 years.  The last amphibious operation didn't involve the full MAF, I believe only the opening waves, at Inchon, were amphibious, the rest were sea-lift.  And since then we've used the USMC, in its amphibious role, exactly..NO times.  So you're saying we need lift capacity we don't use?  The mismanagement of the San Antonio Class is a different discussion than the necessity of 12 ARG's.
 
We were not that well trained.  Don't delude yourself.
Well, we seem well enough trained to have beaten the heck out of the Taliban, Saddam Hussein, and the Iraqi Insurgency.  It's like the old story about the two guys and the bear, "I don't need to outrun the bear. I just need to outrun, YOU."  If you'd care to mention a military BETTER trained than the US I'm all ears.  Mind you I'd dispute the UK or Tzahal....and certainly the DPRK or the PRC forces are not as well trained.  I don't think the Iranians, the Chinese or the North Koreans have a force nearly so well-trained, and they seem to be our most likely STATE ACTOR opponents.  As to the non-state opponents I see a lot of dead Iraqi insurgents and dead Taliban and Al-Qaeda, but not a lot of dead US troops.  I don't see there's much evidence of a training gap, on the US side there, either.  Bald assertions, aren't evidence.

Which will not stop the DF 2X or M series  1X PRC missiles. MEADS with improved PAC III just barely will.CREF above about losing the EW war-specifically radar ghosting and active terminal seeker technology.
So they are MARV warheads....?
1. A laser is a particle beam. (photons)
Yes, but the common definition of a particle BEAM weapon is NOT a laser.  Generally it means a charged or non-charged particle, such as electrons or helium nuclei, IIRC.  Lasers are generally called LASERS.
2. Lasers suffer atmospheric jitter. A lightning gun (CPAC or free electrons) doesn't   
So, lasers AREN'T PArticle Beam weapons, when you want them to be so, right? As suddenly there's a difference between Free Electron and lasers...interesting.  There is atmospheric jitter, I'm sure, but as no one has a Free Electron Laser or a Charged or Neutral Particle Beam weapon any where near deployment, the Laser just barely crossing the usability threshold, I think you're being a bit silly.  Because whilst many Particle Beam Weapons might be better than a laser, they aren't available now any way, and so we are left with the Laser and Missiles, for the foreseeable future.  No matter WHAT budget decisions are made.
3. Missile interceptors need funding too to stay current with threat defense. 
You think you are going to argue this with ME?
Um' yes Herald...I will because it's not about electron-volts or propagation chambers, but about the idea of what is available TODAY, and what is available TOMORROW...that's not engineering.  See you make the mistake of thinking because you know engineering you know other stuff and that's a dangerous assumption to make.
They attacked another truck park today. They're doing it at the rate of at least once a week.  We control nothing inside Pakistan. its one of the reasons that Darth doesn't know what he is talking about. Don't make the same error.
Wow, another truck park was attacked...just like the Iraqi's assaulted the MSR...and in no case has the ability of the ISAF forces been compromised by a lack of supplies.  When the Taliban can cut supplies by an average of 10% per day or so, then they're doing good and give me a call.  The fact that a semi or two dies daily supplying ISAF in Afghanistan is the cost of doing business in a COIN Campaign, not some earth-shattering strategic defeat.
You don't know what you are talking about. They are practicing a form of imperialism that is called Mercantilism.

Substitute oil for gold and you have their policy in a nutshell
.
Oh yeah, and Mercantilism worked out so well...Oh WAIT, it didn't...most mercantile powers failed...yes that whole the more gold you have thing worked so well for France and Spain, and that's why they defeated Britain, oooh Wait....The PRC is trying to secure oil supplies, on that we agree.
 
HOWEVER, you think that if they spend $150 a barrel securing them, that they have achieved a victory and my belief is that it they spend more than market price for oil they have made themselves poorer.  So, you're saying if they own US/Canadian oil shale they've got what?  Access to expensive oil, and only in time of peace?  Or is it your contention that those wascally Chinese have found a way to extract the oil from oil shale and SECRETLY ship it to the PRC, even if we are at war?
 
They don't have to close much of a gap either if they can induce a monetary system collapse and realignment, or do you think that September 23 market attack out of Hong Kong last year was an accident? Google Jim Rogers, a possible Americasn traitor, and likely PRC bandit agent.
Except 20 million Chinese lost their jobs in the most recent global downturn...yeah they cause GLOBAL economic chaos/collapse and they suffer from it too!  Well because, you see, THEY'RE A MAJOR EXPORTER AND THEREFORE A PART OF THE GLOBAL ECONOMY.  I'm sorry this is just silly reasoning....Now I'm not a member of the Manchester School, Free Trade=Global Peace, but I sure as heck am not some kind of person who believes that the PRC is going to benefit from global economic chaos.
Again you don't know what you are talking about. You really haven't shown me much evidence that you have a thorough grounding of subject. Be nice if you did, but you don't. It isn't just planes and tanks that are weapons, you know.
Yeah well since I don't buy into the belief that the global system is a Zero-Sum game, I don't buy that the PRC's rise is predicated on the US' fall, or does that not apply to India?  You know our erstwhile SA Asian Ally?  Is their growth at our expense, too?
 
And you don;t say that the basis of power is more than tanks, planes, and guns?  Man thanks for letting me know.  Yeah I know the basis of POWER is money...and the PRC isn't playing a bright money game, being a non-market economy.  But authoritarians and Paleo-Conservatives seem to be blind to market-based realities and instead believe that some how government "manipulation" of markets is more efficient and will produce state benefits.  When really the track record of such mercantilistic efforts has been failure...ask Indonesia, France, or Japan...but mayhap this time the PRC will get it right.
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    So Far Unanswered   4/7/2009 2:42:47 PM
  Lest we get too far off the track, with Herald and this thread become some obscure discussion of Free Electron Lasers and the utility of Touch Screens let?s review?.  
1)      The US economy shrank last year, and is likely to shrink this year.
2)      The Defense Budget is a percentage of GNP, as GNP SHRINKS, so shrinks the Defense Budget. The only way to achieve even a non-shrinkage, much less budget growth, is to INCREASE the Defense Budget as a percentage of the GNP
3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.
4)      So, defense spending must decrease.
5)      Herald, and others, want to INCREASE the numbers of F-22?s bought, in a shrinking Defense Budget.
6)      Herald has presented a list of things that are being cut, and at the level of 187 air frames for the F-22.
7)      Herald wants to spend MORE on the F-22.
8)      Conclusion: The budget is shrinking, and Herald wants more F-22?s therefore Herald will sacrifice all things listed as ?bad? budget cuts, and then make some more, in order to purchase another 60 F-22?s
9)      My question remains, IN ADDITION TO THE CUTS ALREADY SUGGESTED, what cuts will you, Herald, or others recommend, in order to fund another 60 F-22?s? Defense spending is NOT going to increase. It IS going to shrink, for some period of time. So what would you give up for another 60 air frames?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Don't offer advice.    4/7/2009 2:53:26 PM
untilo you pull the mote out of your own eye, Darth.
 
Gates is a fool. The case against him is solid. He could have canceled Marine One last year. He didn't. He could have argued LCS last year. He didn't he could have argued F-22 last year. He didn't  Instead he chose to wait until a fool was in charge so he could put his own stupid theories into action.  I didn't know we could find a Rumfeld II, but we did. 
 
The interregnumist is a fool. The unemployment figures are the leading domestic indicator. Coordinated actions by the PRCS, the Iranians, and the DPRKs show this internationally. The interregnumist's inability to get more NATO troops for Afghanistan when he pranced around in Europe making protocol mistakes everywhere show this.
 
 

Can't Spell NATO Without NO: Obama's Troop Request Denied

HuffPo reports that the US' NATO allies have spurned a request from President Obama for more troops in Afghanistan:
STRASBOURG, France - President Barack Obama hailed "strong and unanimous support" from NATO allies on Saturday for his stepped-up anti-terror strategy in Afghanistan and Pakistan and welcomed their "down payment" promises of 5,000 fresh forces.

The allies rebuffed U.S. appeals for more combat forces to join the war, but the backing Obama did gain at a European summit allowed him to claim an early victory on the world's foreign policy stage.
The President downplayed this aspect of the meeting, noting the progress that was made. His characterization of the 5,000 troops as a "down payment" seems to be a signal to the Allies that US expectations have not changed.

I expect many Americans, right, left, and center, will be enraged by European reticence to pitch in. After all, this was the war that we all agreed about. Was their opposition to the Iraq War sincere, or merely a fig leaf for naked self-interest?

Still, for those inclined to see this as a failure, I offer this:Barack Obama's modus operandi is that of the wise man who builds his house upon the rock. He's patient, willing to allow a strong consensus to build, rather than to force a weak agreement. France and Germany are mulling this request over, and while they ruminate, their respective peoples will have a chance to weigh in on the notion that Afghan/Pakistan-based terrorists aren't such a threat to Europe.

If public opinion doesn't force them to step up, the President can then apply, more effectively, the pressure that might have been wasted at this early stage.

Here at home, I would urge those who seek to undercut the President that their outrage would be more productively aimed at those shamefully reticent countries, rather than at Barack Obama. International perception that the US is divided in its support for the President on this issue will certainly weaken America's ability to pressure their support.

You can see what this story looked like in my head, before I niced it up, by clicking here.

 
What you take away from the fluff piece is that Merkel and Sarkozy told the interregnumist to get stuffed.
 
Same on economics.
 
 
news and top international stories

G20 summiteers OK big emergency loans, but rebuff Obama on economic stimulus spending

by Tom Raum / Associated Press
Thursday April 02, 2009, 4:31 PM

Associated PressBritain's Prime Minister Gordon Brown, left, greets U.S. President Barack Obama as he arrives for the G20 summit at the ExCel centre in London, Thursday, April 2, 2009. Leaders of the world's rich and developing countries sought to dispel the clouds over the world's troubled economy -- and clear up divisions over how far to go with tougher financial regulation -- at a crisis summit Thursday in London.

LONDON -- Anxiously assembled at the most perilous moment for the global economy since the Great Depression, the world's financial powers pledged hundreds of billions of dollars for emergency loans to combat spreading chaos. But they rebuffed President Barack Obama's bid for new stimulus spending and made no guarantees.

"This was the day the world came together to fight back against global recession," declared British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the summit host, as he led a choreographed show of unity designed to boost confidence in homes and boardrooms everywhere. "This is just the beginning," added Obama.

Among the initiatives by the Group of 20 industrial and developing countries: a pledge of $1.1 trillion for lending to less-well-off countries and promises of tighter regulation over financial high-flyers in the U.S. and other rich nations.

Collectively, the measures were an attempt to free the clogged pipes of capitalism, so spending, lending, borrowing and manufacturing can expand instead of continuing to retreat. But any impact will take time to make a difference, and much remained to be done.

 
 In short, the two little things that the interregnumist wanted to show a success the allies told him to go pound sand.
 
 The facts are there in pro Obama articles so you can't say that I chose biased sources or that I made this stuff up as you've often accused your opponents of doing.
 
In short, once again you try to belittle an opponent who has to sit there and accept that you feel safe to do so. Well guess what, Darth.
 
 

Employment Situation Summary

Technical information:
Household data: (202) 691-6378 USDL 09-0328
link />
Establishment data: (202) 691-6555 Transmission of material in this release
link is embargoed until 8:30 A.M. (EDT),
Media contact: (202) 691-5902 Friday, April 3, 2009.


THE EMPLOYMENT SITUATION: MARCH 2009


Nonfarm payroll employment continued to decline sharply in March (-663,000),
and the unemployment rate rose from 8.1 to 8.5 percent, the Bureau of Labor
Statistics of the U.S. Department of Labor reported today. Since the recession
began in December 2007, 5.1 million jobs have been lost, with almost two-thirds
(3.3 million) of the decrease occurring in the last 5 months. In March, job
losses were large and widespread across the major industry sectors.

Unemployment (Household Survey Data)

In March, the number of unemployed persons increased by 694,000 to 13.2 mil-
lion, and the unemployment rate rose to 8.5 percent. Over the past 12 months,
the number of unemployed persons has grown by about 5.3 million, and the unem-
ployment rate has risen by 3.4 percentage points. Half of the increase in both
the number of unemployed and the unemployment rate occurred in the last 4 months.
(See table A-1.)

The unemployment rates continued to trend upward in March for adult men (8.8
percent), adult women (7.0 percent), whites (7.9 percent), and Hispanics (11.4
percent). The jobless rates for blacks (13.3 percent) and teenagers (21.7 per-
cent) were little changed over the month. The unemployment rate for Asians was
6.4 percent in March, not seasonally adjusted, up from 3.6 percent a year earlier.
(See tables A-1, A-2, and A-3.)

Among the unemployed, the number of job losers and persons who completed tem-
porary jobs increased by 547,000 to 8.2 million in March. This group has nearly
doubled in size over the past 12 months. (See table A-8.)

The number of long-term unemployed (those jobless for 27 weeks or more) rose
to 3.2 million over the month and has increased by about 1.9 million since the
start of the recession in December 2007. (See table A-9.)

- 2 -


Table A. Major indicators of labor market activity, seasonally adjusted
(Numbers in thousands)
_______________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| Quarterly | |
| averages | Monthly data | Feb.-
Category |_________________|__________________________| Mar.
| | | | | | change
| IV | I | Jan. | Feb. | Mar. |
| 2008 | 2009 | 2009 | 2009 | 2009 |
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
HOUSEHOLD DATA | Labor force status
|_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
Civilian labor force ....| 154,648| 153,993| 153,716| 154,214| 154,048| -166
Employment ............| 144,046| 141,578| 142,099| 141,748| 140,887| -861
Unemployment ..........| 10,602| 12,415| 11,616| 12,467| 13,161| 694
Not in labor force ......| 80,177| 80,920| 81,023| 80,699| 81,038| 339
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
| Unemployment rates
|_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
All workers .............| 6.9| 8.1| 7.6| 8.1| 8.5| 0.4
Adult men .............| 6.8| 8.2| 7.6| 8.1| 8.8| .7
Adult women ...........| 5.6| 6.7| 6.2| 6.7| 7.0| .3
Teenagers .............| 20.7| 21.3| 20.8| 21.6| 21.7| .1
White .................| 6.3| 7.4| 6.9| 7.3| 7.9| .6
Black or African | | | | | |
American ............| 11.5| 13.1| 12.6| 13.4| 13.3| -.1
Hispanic or Latino | | | | | |
ethnicity ...........| 8.9| 10.7| 9.7| 10.9| 11.4| .5
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
ESTABLISHMENT DATA | Employment
|_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
Nonfarm employment.......| 135,727|p133,678| 134,333|p133,682|p133,019| p-663
Goods-producing (1)....| 20,803| p19,835| 20,127| p19,842| p19,537| p-305
Construction ........| 6,949| p6,593| 6,706| p6,599| p6,473| p-126
Manufacturing .......| 13,062| p12,474| 12,640| p12,471| p12,310| p-161
Service-providing (1)..| 114,924|p113,843| 114,206|p113,840|p113,482| p-358
Retail trade (2)...| 15,127| p14,942| 14,992| p14,941| p14,893| p-48
Professional and | | | | | |
business services .| 17,485| p17,042| 17,205| p17,027| p16,894| p-133
Education and health | | | | | |
services ..........| 19,035| p19,136| 19,119| p19,141| p19,149| p8
Leisure and | | | | | |
hospitality .......| 13,348| p13,236| 13,268| p13,240| p13,200| p-40
Government ..........| 22,538| p22,540| 22,540| p22,543| p22,538| p-5
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
| Hours of work (3)
|_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
Total private ...........| 33.4| p33.3| 33.3| p33.3| p33.2| p-0.1
Manufacturing .........| 40.2| p39.5| 39.8| p39.5| p39.3| p-.2
Overtime ............| 3.2| p2.8| 2.9| p2.7| p2.7| p.0
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
| Indexes of aggregate weekly hours (2002=100)(3)
|_____________________________________________________
| | | | | |
Total private ...........| 104.1| p101.8| 102.5| p101.9| p100.9| p-1.0
|________|________|________|________|________|________
|
| Earnings (3)
|_____________________________________________________
Average hourly earnings, | | | | | |
total private .........| $18.34| p$18.47| $18.43| p$18.47| p$18.50| p$0.03
Average weekly earnings, | | | | | |
total private .........| 612.55| p614.32| 613.72| p615.05| p614.20| p-.85
_________________________|________|________|________|________|________|________

1 Includes other industries, not shown separately.
2 Quarterly averages and the over-the-month change are calculated using
unrounded data.
3 Data relate to private production and nonsupervisory workers.
p = preliminary.


- 3 -


Total Employment and the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

The civilian labor force participation rate (65.5 percent) was little changed
in March. The employment-population ratio fell by 0.4 percentage point to 59.9
percent. The employment-population ratio for adult men was 68.2 percent in March,
down 4.3 percentage points since December 2007. The employment-population ratio
for adult women was 56.8 percent, down 1.3 percentage points since the beginning
of the recession. (See table A-1.)

In March, the number of persons working part time for economic reasons (some-
times referred to as involuntary part-time workers) climbed by 423,000 to 9.0
million. (See table A-5.)

Persons Not in the Labor Force (Household Survey Data)

About 2.1 million persons (not seasonally adjusted) were marginally attached
to the labor force in March, 754,000 more than a year earlier. These individ-
uals wanted and were available for work and had looked for a job sometime in
the prior 12 months. They were not counted as unemployed because they had not
searched for work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey. Among the marginally
attached, there were 685,000 discouraged workers in March, up by 284,000 from
a year earlier. Discouraged workers are persons not currently looking for work
because they believe no jobs are available for them. The other 1.4 million
persons marginally attached to the labor force in March had not searched for
work in the 4 weeks preceding the survey for reasons such as school attendance
or family responsibilities. (See table A-13.)

Industry Payroll Employment (Establishment Survey Data)

Total nonfarm payroll employment continued to fall sharply (-663,000) in
March. Payroll employment has declined by 3.3 million in the past 5 months.
In March, job losses were large and extended across nearly all major industry
sectors. (See table B-1.)

Manufacturing employment fell by 161,000 in March, with widespread job losses
occurring among the component industries. Factory employment has declined by
1.0 million over the past 6 months. In March, the largest decreases occurred
in fabricated metal products (-28,000), machinery (-27,000), and transportation
equipment (-26,000).

The construction industry lost 126,000 jobs in March, with declines occur-
ring throughout the industry. Employment in construction has fallen by 1.3 mil-
lion since peaking in January 2007; nearly half of that decline occurred over
the last 5 months. In March, employment fell in specialty trade contractors
(-83,000) and construction of buildings (-33,000). These declines were split
about evenly between the residential and nonresidential portions of these in-
dustries. Heavy and civil engineering construction also lost 10,000 jobs. Em-
ployment in mining and logging declined by 18,000 in March.

- 4 -


Employment in professional and business services fell by 133,000 in March,
with declines throughout most of the sector. More than half of the loss occurred
in temporary help services, which cut 72,000 jobs in March and 767,000 since
December 2007. In March, architectural and engineering services lost 16,000 jobs.

Retail trade employment fell by 48,000 over the month. Since peaking in
November 2007, employment in the industry has declined by an average of 44,000
per month. In March, employment decreased in building material and garden
supply stores (-13,000), automobile dealerships (-12,000), and electronics and
appliance stores (-10,000). Employment in wholesale trade fell by 31,000 in
March, with nearly all of the decline occurring in durable goods.

Employment in financial activities continued to decline in March (-43,000).
The number of jobs in this industry has dropped by 495,000 since an employment
peak in December 2006. More than half of this loss occurred in the past 7
months. In March, job losses occurred in credit intermediation (-15,000); real
estate (-12,000); and securities, commodity contracts, and investments (-7,000).

Leisure and hospitality shed 40,000 jobs in March, with most of the decrease
in the accommodation industry (-23,000). The leisure and hospitality industry
has lost 351,000 jobs since an employment peak in December 2007.

Transportation and warehousing lost 34,000 jobs in March, raising total job
losses to 265,000 since employment peaked in December 2007. In March, employ-
ment declined in truck transportation (-15,000), support activities for trans-
portation (-7,000), and couriers and messengers (-5,000). Health care employ-
ment continued to trend up in March (14,000); however, monthly job growth in
the first quarter averaged 17,000 compared with 30,000 per month in 2008.

The change in total nonfarm employment for January was revised from -655,000
to -741,000, while the change for February remained -651,000. Monthly revisions
result from additional sample reports and the monthly recalculation of seasonal
factors.

Weekly Hours (Establishment Survey Data)

In March, the average workweek for production and nonsupervisory workers on
private nonfarm payrolls fell by 0.1 hour to 33.2 hours, seasonally adjusted--the
lowest level on record for the series, which began in 1964. The manufacturing
workweek decreased by 0.2 hour to 39.3 hours, and factory overtime was unchanged
at 2.7 hours. (See table B-2.)

The index of aggregate weekly hours of production and nonsupervisory workers
on private nonfarm payrolls fell by 1.0 percent in March. The manufacturing index
declined by 2.1 percent over the month. (See table B-5.)

Hourly and Weekly Earnings (Establishment Survey Data)

In March, average hourly earnings of production and nonsupervisory workers on
private nonfarm payrolls rose by 3 cents, or 0.2 percent, seasonally adjusted.
This followed a gain of 4 cents in February. Over the past 12 months, average hour-
ly earnings increased by 3.4 percent, and average weekly earnings rose by 1.5 per-
cent. (See table B-3.)

______________________________


The Employment Situation for April 2009 is scheduled to be released on Friday,
May 8, at 8:30 A.M. (EDT).



The PDF version of the news release

Table of Contents

Last Modified Date: April 03, 2009 
 
By every visible standard of data including unsustainable debt.
 
 
 
That interregnumist^1 has failed into his first 100 days.
 
Meaning that aside from being elected and, making himself look good he has not shown one positive outcome for the United States. Not one.
 
Little things called facts are why your assertions and opinioms are just that, Darth. You don't know how to prove a case because you don't have the facts to back the case up.
 
What do you need to generate a 12 aircraft standing patrol over Guam, Darth?  How about 12 over  Kadema?:" How about that CAP over Okinawa? 
 
What do you need to CAP Taiwan?  What about counterair into Fujian? What do you need to kill those new HQ-9 and S-300 sites and then go after those Sukhois and J-10s and J-11s, so you legacy birds can now strike those mobile rocket launchers? What are you going to send after the standing Y-8 AWACS patrols? What about their ground based jammers? What about their ground based microwave weapon they've parked out in Xinjiang which they use to take pot shots at our satellites (ineffective so far, but one day they'll figure it out)?
 
Well? You need those 250 F-22 aircraft to provide something called AREA COVERAGE and guarajnteed air superiority. And that is just for a war against the PRCs as they grow into the 2012-2018 timeframe. It leaves nothing for anywhere else except US defense and a minor presence in Europe. Even that won't be enough because this count assumes that we will have at least 300 usable Eagles to augment the Raptors and Sparkies. And we won't have them, Darth. Aircraft wear out. Unless you want to send Falcon drivers into the teeth of a growing RUSSIAN style air defense with good densities that should be ready emplaced by the time the PRCs make their blackmail grab for Taiwan?   
 
You see of the blackmail fails, those PLAAF planes won't be coming out to fight us, until the Second Artillery has attrited us oinfrastructure wise  and our allies opposite Fujian Lianing and Julin are blinded amd helpless, and not until the PRCs have neutralized our other forward bases in the western Pacific (Guam principly.) .
 
Did you know the Raptor can mount a standing anti-cruise missile patrol? The Eagle can try, but there is a little technical problem..........hint: supercruise. 
     
There is a lot that Gates didn't tell you in your private super secret briefing he gave you, and which you don't understand here, Darth
 
BHO and Gates, with this budget, just wrote off Taiwan, and with it, the First Island Ring and the western Pacific.
 
Herald 


 
 

 
 
 

 
 
 
 

 
 

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       4/7/2009 2:55:59 PM

  Lest we get too far off the track, with Herald and this thread become some obscure discussion of Free Electron Lasers and the utility of Touch Screens let?s review?.  

1)      The US economy shrank last year, and is likely to shrink this year.

2)      The Defense Budget is a percentage of GNP, as GNP SHRINKS, so shrinks the Defense Budget. The only way to achieve even a non-shrinkage, much less budget growth, is to INCREASE the Defense Budget as a percentage of the GNP

3)      The political philosophy that would increase the percentage of GNP devoted to Defense did NOT win, the elections of 2008.

4)      So, defense spending must decrease.

5)      Herald, and others, want to INCREASE the numbers of F-22?s bought, in a shrinking Defense Budget.

6)      Herald has presented a list of things that are being cut, and at the level of 187 air frames for the F-22.

7)      Herald wants to spend MORE on the F-22.

8)      Conclusion: The budget is shrinking, and Herald wants more F-22?s therefore Herald will sacrifice all things listed as ?bad? budget cuts, and then make some more, in order to purchase another 60 F-22?s

9)      My question remains, IN ADDITION TO THE CUTS ALREADY SUGGESTED, what cuts will you, Herald, or others recommend, in order to fund another 60 F-22?s? Defense spending is NOT going to increase. It IS going to shrink, for some period of time. So what would you give up for another 60 air frames?


And if I may add, WHAT missions will we not be able to accomplish with 60 less F-22's in the fleet? In other words, do we have viable alternatives to an F-22 fleet of 250+?

 
-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       4/7/2009 2:58:33 PM
For the record, I don't think Gates' decision or Obama's support of that decision is unconstitutional.  It's just stupid.  Stupid isn't treasonous, otherwise we'd have to arrest half of Congress and at least a third of Obama's cabinet.  Obama trying to bypass the filibuster, Holder trying to use the DOJ to get what he wants, and Geithner wanting to impose a 90% tax on private business bonuses--that's unconstitutional.
 
I'll throw out some historical lessons why I think the F-22 buy is inadequate.  (The F-22 thread has a lot more reasons.)  The Germans fielded the Me 262, a very advanced fighter flown by expert pilots in JV 44 and Kommando Nowotny.  Did the 262 win the war for the Germans? Obviously not, because they were swamped by hordes of technologically-inferior P-47s and P-51s.  (To be fair, this does leave out the 262's chronic engine problems.)  The reason why the 262 was never available in numbers was due to a political decision made by Hitler and the Nazi Party, none of whom knew a damn thing about fighter combat, to try and make the 262 into something it wasn't.  I'm not comparing Gates or Obama to Hitler; that's silly.  But I am saying that this is a political decision being made without the input and against the wishes of the pilots whose asses will be on the line.
 
As far as the "just good enough" argument, the F-4 was just good enough to survive over North Vietnam.  That "just good enough" led to a 2:1 kill ratio against an enemy the United States outnumbered, outgunned, and outperformed.  The F-4 simply wasn't designed for what it was doing.  It did it well due to ingenuity and decent pilot training (excellent pilot training in 1972).  The pure fighter of the war, the F-8, sustained a 6:1 kill ratio.  Now which would you rather have--the 2:1 just good enough, or the 6:1 excellence?
 
Okay, great, this budget increases funds to COIN.  Wonderful.  But we're not going to be fighting in Afghanistan forever.  No, what I see here is a typical politician's choice: get the goodies now, and hope to God that the price doesn't come due until some other poor bastard is in office.  It's the same reason why Obama can pass off running up multi-trillion dollar deficits as no big deal.  He won't be around to pay for it, so what the hell does he care?
 
I don't believe we should cut funding to the F-35--it's needed, because the F-16 isn't getting any younger either.  But at some point, even with Silent Eagle, there is going to come a time when a new fighter is needed, just like at some point we're going to have to replace the KC-135 and the B-52.  Some people seem to think that these aircraft can just soldier on forever until the magical UCAV fighter finally replaces them.  Assuming that doesn't get cut as well...another sad fact is that Democrats tend to see the defense budget as a piggybank for their own pet programs.  Need I remind anyone of Barney Frank's comment that the military doesn't need "fancy toys"?
 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar       4/7/2009 3:00:38 PM
You make one assumption that may not be true - the defense budget will shrink over time.  If the DPRK or Iran decide to fling one into the USA itself, if a terrorist attack the US homeland again on national TV, if China decides to step off or start something... Any of these events of a dozen others could change the results in a quick fashion.
 
One thing is for sure - despite a smaller GNP - the entitlements section of the Federal budget is going to grow at a rate larger than inflation.  We also know that welfare reform is out the window and we are back to cash benefits sent out to non-productive members of society.  We are funding those who cannot pay their mortgage - by taxing people who can pay their mortgage - all for the sake of some sort of entitlement.  We have union bail outs for GM and Chrysler.  We have bank bail outs for Citibank and a host of others.  We have Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac bail outs - complete with bonus money for the quasi-government execs.
 
So what section of the Entitlements are you willing to cut back on out of the trillion dollar budget?
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy