I'd kind of want you to answer the question.  The US Defense Budget is relatively fixed, residing between about 4.5% of GNP (1993) and  3.0% of GNP (2001).  Given that it is relatively FIXED, and that GNP is CONTRACTING, even if the share of GNP devoted to defense remains constant the defense budget WILL SHRINK.  Given that, what will you cut in order to buy more F-22's?  I repeat, you are giving a larger share of a smaller pie to the F-22, what will you give up? 

 

That's not a "straw man" that's budget logic.  So I'll ask you to get "serious".

 

As to LCS it is and is not a waste of time...From your Mahanian, Big War v. the PRC view I'm sure you view it as such, in ANY form.  As Mahan and you are off-base, I'll have to say that it is NOT clear that LCS is a waste of resources.  I'd recommend you peruse "Information Dissemination", if you haven't, for a discussion of the LCS program.  That site's position is somewhat agnostic on LCS, critical of the current management of the program, and it's current product, but supportive of the necessity of LCS.

 

As to your other "serious" proposal, that some of the DOMESTIC budget go to defense, for a serious guy you have the most unserious views about defense spending and politics...as Pelosi, Reid, and Obama are NOT going to entertain your suggestion, what do you propose we cut, to pay for your increased F-22's?  Sure, when there's a new Congress and a new POTUS, some of what you suggest may come to fruition, but for the nonce we have the politicians we have.

 

Finally, yes, SecDef Gates took an oath to the Constitution.  And guess what, both he and Obama feel that they are fulfilling that oath.  You disagree with their policy preferences, to an extent I do as well, but to cut the FCS and limit F-22 to 187 air frames is NOT treason and not unConstitutional, it is merely bad public policy.  Or GOOD public policy in straightened economic circumstances, but in neither case has SecDef Gates NOT undertaken his sworn oath.  And Gates works for Obama, not Herald, and as long as Obama is happy with Gates' performance, he'll remain SecDef, because he doesn't work for you.  When Obama is not POTUS, and you do get a say in his hiring/firing, then there'll be another SecDef...who may or may not do what YOU want, but that's life in politics.

 

Bottom-line: Your proposal(s) are not serious.  Please get back to me on which programs you'd cut to pay for an increase in the number of F-22's.  Will you cut CVN's, DDG's, LCS', Operations and Maintenance, cut operations in Iraq or Afghanistan, what?

Herald is not capable of supporting his feelings with any sort of objective reasoning. Nor can Phaid, With regard to Herald, unless he is insulting another person, me, politicians he hates or the PRC. He is incapable of conducting the kind of threat based analysis we do in the military to determine what our needs are. I do this on a constant basis and if someone came in presenting an argument like this they would be laughed out of the room. 60 more F-22's will not make the kind of difference these posters claim. What it will do is bias our Airforce towards a capability we already dominate nd neglect the kind of capabilties and emphasis we need. Priority number one for the DoD is getting out of OIF/OEF on favorable terms. Then we've got to effectively deal with the Russians and rebuild our land components.  This constant going on about the PRC is a waste of time from people outside of defense who don't understand the dynamic or nature of the threat vs our interest.

I keep asking these guys to present on scenario where we can't achieve air superiority because we were short 60 Raptors. In response we get all kind of strawman and insults against Obama rather than a reasoned response. I know thats because they can't make up such a scenario. I've seen what the official opinions are and I've done my own research and I know they have no substance to their argument. I hate to say it but these guys are fanboys in the sense that they like a platform and religiously worship it in spite of data that says we have other priorities. I'm done addressing them unless they can do better and come back at me with an actual case. And while presenting that case, do so professionally and without calling people who are far more competent than any of us who's decisions these are to make "fools" and all of that nonsense. It's ok to disagree with policy but I'm going to hold them to the kinds of standards we use in the military when we make these assessments. If you make an assertion, support it. Otherwise we can just agree to disagree because Obama and Gates are doing the things I voted for and I'm quite pleased to leave it at that and not argue with the losing philosophy since my defense ideas/views are actually being carried out in real life. This is inline with what I said would happen years ago on these boards and I am content to continue to watch things play out as I have foreseen. No need to lower my standard of debate because other posters can't control their emotions and reply with facts.

-DA 

 

And haven't had, and still are winning.

 

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?

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

How do we fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan or Pakistan if we can't control the SLOCS/LOCS and supply?

 

Stop being foolish and answer the overarching question. What would you do in the face of mounting evidence that there is an organized quasi anti-US Alliance at work seeking to hem in and destroy us by any and all means necessary and that this alliance begins in Beijing?

Now would you like to discuss the reasons why I think a central war with the PRCs is in the offing and that we better damn well start planning for it?

 

Or are you going to ostrich on this topic? Why don't you try to come up with some FACTS too while you are at it, instead of your assertions?

 

For example, JFKY, .......... 

 

In the BHO  four trillion dollar budget for example defense is what %? 12.5%?

 

In Bush's last budget it was what %? 21%?

 

The GNP collapse was brought about by idiots like BHO with their socially engineered subprime lending disasters and schemes  plus their own out of control spending for stupid and useless vote buying schemes. That is the political side of the pie.

 

What is left of the national budget has to go to what is first and foremeost national survival. THAT is what drives defense and economic policy these days.

 

Herald

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 

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?