Defense budget cuts for ROTC??

Ah, yet another lecture from the cheap seats. First of all, for the love of Moses, take a freakin' joke! I realize you're a 110% loud jets homer, but lighten up. Secondly, when my firsthand knowledge of the needs of aviation in the close fight fails me, I will PM you and ask you to read a JSF pamphlet to me. :thumb:

This really needs a separate thread, but Oh well, here we go...

Ah, yet another "I was only joking" bait and switch excuse from someone who should know better. First of all, the internet is a funny thing, no one can catch the twinkle in your eye or the sly smile that makes people understand you were joking. Especially when what you are saying doesn't seem that way. Secondly, I know you're a "Woop Woop" homer, but it seems your firsthand knowledge of the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and USMC towards aviation HAS failed you in this case (Hint: there's a lot more to the battle going on you have NO CLUE about away from the line of engagement that seems to be a pretty high priority to those WAY above your pay grade in the DoD).

I'll gladly PM you and tell you what I can, but you really don't have the clearances for it or the need to know...

Oh yeah, wait... :thumb::thumb: There, that makes it ALLLLL better and friendly like.
 
This really needs a separate thread, but Oh well, here we go...

Ah, yet another "I was only joking" bait and switch excuse from someone who should know better. First of all, the internet is a funny thing, no one can catch the twinkle in your eye or the sly smile that makes people understand you were joking. Especially when what you are saying doesn't seem that way. Secondly, I know you're a "Woop Woop" homer, but it seems your firsthand knowledge of the needs of the Air Force, Navy, and USMC towards aviation HAS failed you in this case (Hint: there's a lot more to the battle going on you have NO CLUE about away from the line of engagement that seems to be a pretty high priority to those WAY above your pay grade in the DoD).

I'll gladly PM you and tell you what I can, but you really don't have the clearances for it or the need to know...

Oh yeah, wait... :thumb::thumb: There, that makes it ALLLLL better and friendly like.

So when you say "bait and switch" were you referring to the usual "Pima stirs the pot and DH swoops in to cover for her?" That trick never fails. You're right, I should've known that a simple tongue-in-cheek remark about umpteen billions of dollars being spent at echelons above reality would cause someone's MASTER CAUTION light to illuminate. As for "no one" being able to tell I was joking, in fact several folks seemed to notice.

I'm sure there's no shortage of the well-known belief among people in suits at the Pentagon that they have their finger on the pulse of "the battle." Meanwhile, I'm just shaking' the tree, boss.

As for clearances, well, they're like money. Those who really have them don't brag about them.
 
Last edited:
When the Army comes up with Helo that the Navy, Marines and other countries are willing to purchase than you can state...the AF should not get new jets they don't need. Until that time, understand the 35 gives this country air superiority. Look at Iran and Pakistan, they have F-16s rusting out on their flight lines. They can't get parts for their airframes because they didn't play nice with us. That is true for the 35. Don't play nice and we won't sell you parts, eventually you will not have parts to fly the jets. Hence we have air superiority.

I don't want to stir the pot but something in your post caught my eye.

If the F-16's are rusting on the runways of Iran and Pakistan, doesn't that, by default, mean that we already have Air Superiority.

Realize that I know very little about the debate over new Aircraft so be kind.

I do agree with LITS....the Coast Guard needs more money, and a new Ice Breaker.

Semper Paratus
 
From this parent's perspective, I would like more (rather than less) information concerning the impact of budget cuts (most surely going to happen) on not only rotc scholarships, but also commissions.

pennak, there are two sources of information that you might want to keep an eye on. First is the testimony that the Marine Corps provides to Congress. General Amos' testimony from earlier this year can be found here http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/10Mar11_CMC_HACMPosture.pdf (check out page 17). And here is General Amos' testimony to the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago on how the Marine Corps plans to "do its part" to respond to budgetary issues: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=08eaf78f-203b-4804-ad15-8593b91a86e2 (see paragraph entitled "Rightsizing in the face of new fiscal realities" on page 6).

I haven't followed the Marine Corps numbers closely, and there are likely many more links from both the Senate and the House on this stuff. I expect there will be more testimony than usual in the coming year about cost-related measures (and the Navy Times will report on it as well). I further expect that TPG would be a valuable resource, because he probably reads everything Marine Corps.

The second peace of information is the President's budget that comes out in February. Here is the section for the Marine Corps from last year. http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/OMMC_Book.pdf

I don't think you can forecast anything really more than 18 months in advance, though, especially in this environment The President's budget for FY13, which we can expect in Feb. 2012 would not really see an impact on those graduating in May 2013.

Hello Patentesq. I started this thread and have enjoyed the lively, intelligent discussions. Im new to the forum, and im wondering why this thread was moved on the front page to a lowly status?

Hello, defense money honey! I don't think anyone considers your thread as "lowly". You have asked a legitimate question that is likely on the minds of many. The problem is that answering your question requires folks to provide their "best guess," which caused a bit of consternation among some very smart folks whom I respect very much (especially bruno and Just A Mom) about whether it is perhaps best not to say anything at all. Given the uncertainty of things this year, I'm afraid not even Cadet Command nor the President of the United States could answer your question definitively. The best we can provide you is expected trends and examples about how things have been handled in the past (of course, there is no guaranty that historical conduct predicts future conduct). I think the decision to move this out of ROTC was based on the fact that your thread had morphed to a broader discussion of defense cuts (i.e., weapon systems) and this would be confusing to folks focused solely on ROTC.
 
I don't want to stir the pot but something in your post caught my eye.

If the F-16's are rusting on the runways of Iran and Pakistan, doesn't that, by default, mean that we already have Air Superiority.

Realize that I know very little about the debate over new Aircraft so be kind.

I do agree with LITS....the Coast Guard needs more money, and a new Ice Breaker.

Semper Paratus

We definitely need more money. Pretty much all of the white hull fleet needs replaced (consisting of the 110' patrol boats, the 210' and 270' medium endurance cutters, and the 378' high endurance cutters). As for the red hull fleet....nonexistent, which is an incredibly huge issue once those oil companies start making their way up north. Could you imagine a Deep Water Horizon, but we have no way to clean the oil?
 
We definitely need more money. Pretty much all of the white hull fleet needs replaced (consisting of the 110' patrol boats, the 210' and 270' medium endurance cutters, and the 378' high endurance cutters). As for the red hull fleet....nonexistent, which is an incredibly huge issue once those oil companies start making their way up north. Could you imagine a Deep Water Horizon, but we have no way to clean the oil?

Oh, it'll just make nice oil-bergs and they'll have the black hulls tow them to a refinery conveniently.
 
:thumb:
So when you say "bait and switch" were you referring to the usual "Pima stirs the pot and DH swoops in to cover for her?" That trick never fails. You're right, I should've known that a simple tongue-in-cheek remark about umpteen billions of dollars being spent at echelons above reality would cause someone's MASTER CAUTION light to illuminate. As for "no one" being able to tell I was joking, in fact several folks seemed to notice.

I'm sure there's no shortage of the well-known belief among people in suits at the Pentagon that they have their finger on the pulse of "the battle." Meanwhile, I'm just shaking' the tree, boss.

As for clearances, well, they're like money. Those who really have them don't brag about them.

Woah, woah, woah! Slow down your rotor speed there, boss! For pity's sake, learn to take a joke. I, for one, find it hilarious that someone known for smacking down the opinion of others on this forum because in their narrow world-view the other poster "hasn't been there and doesn't have the expierence I have to know what they're talking about", had to suddenly face the same (and legitimate) rebuttal. :thumb: *

Now go back and continue to save the world (in between your continual postings on here) while I continue to screw it up from "the building"! :thumb: *

* My bad if this emoticon led to more confusion. I took it from the way you constantly use it after smacking someone down that you use it to mean: "It's all good, I'm just ribbing you!" My apologies if you we're in fact meaning something else!
 
You definitely hug your lawyer. It's like nukes. You need them because the other guy has them.

And like nukes, once you use them, they fu$k everything up. :shake:

I'm a former AF nuclear operator and current attorney, so I speak from experience on both matters....
 
Last edited:
:thumb:

Woah, woah, woah! Slow down your rotor speed there, boss! For pity's sake, learn to take a joke. I, for one, find it hilarious that someone known for smacking down the opinion of others on this forum because in their narrow world-view the other poster "hasn't been there and doesn't have the expierence I have to know what they're talking about", had to suddenly face the same (and legitimate) rebuttal. :thumb: *

Now go back and continue to save the world (in between your continual postings on here) while I continue to screw it up from "the building"! :thumb: *

* My bad if this emoticon led to more confusion. I took it from the way you constantly use it after smacking someone down that you use it to mean: "It's all good, I'm just ribbing you!" My apologies if you we're in fact meaning something else!

A cute closing argument, for sure, but you neglected the fact that the initial post was, in fact, recognized as a joke. Note how I didn't jump all over LITS for his response? Yeah, because it was humor, not an attempt to disrespect my life's work.

If by "smacking down the opinion of others" you mean "repeatedly telling the same person who's never spent a day in uniform to quit endlessly shrieking/lecturing the myriad active duty personnel and veterans on this forum about how the military works" then I'm proudly guilty as charged.

I'm allergic to BS. In some places, it's not a tradable commodity.

Of course, Pima is welcome to speak for herself if she thought my initial post or response was intended in any seriousness.
 
Too lazy, and too busy, to continue this silly back-and-forth. Besides, no one on here really cares to see this type of stuff on the forums, anyway. If you want to continue, I suggest you take this to PMs instead.

(I'll probalby be yet again too busy and too un-interested to do so, however. You had your piece, I had mine, and I suggest we just keep it at that.)

My apologies to the Mods for de-railing the specualtion on the defense budget's impacts to ROTC programs.
 
FOLKS...

Before one of my colleagues comes on board here and does it for all of us/you...

SHUT IT DOWN.

It's now becoming personal, no matter how you phrase it or slice it. And that steps over the boundaries we've established for this forum, and all the others.

Steve
 
pennak, there are two sources of information that you might want to keep an eye on. First is the testimony that the Marine Corps provides to Congress. General Amos' testimony from earlier this year can be found here http://appropriations.house.gov/_files/10Mar11_CMC_HACMPosture.pdf (check out page 17). And here is General Amos' testimony to the House Armed Services Committee a few weeks ago on how the Marine Corps plans to "do its part" to respond to budgetary issues: http://armedservices.house.gov/index.cfm/files/serve?File_id=08eaf78f-203b-4804-ad15-8593b91a86e2 (see paragraph entitled "Rightsizing in the face of new fiscal realities" on page 6).

I haven't followed the Marine Corps numbers closely, and there are likely many more links from both the Senate and the House on this stuff. I expect there will be more testimony than usual in the coming year about cost-related measures (and the Navy Times will report on it as well). I further expect that TPG would be a valuable resource, because he probably reads everything Marine Corps.

The second peace of information is the President's budget that comes out in February. Here is the section for the Marine Corps from last year. http://www.finance.hq.navy.mil/FMB/12pres/OMMC_Book.pdf

I don't think you can forecast anything really more than 18 months in advance, though, especially in this environment The President's budget for FY13, which we can expect in Feb. 2012 would not really see an impact on those graduating in May 2013.
.

patentesq. Many Thanks!!
 
And like nukes, once you use them, they fu$k everything up. :shake:

I'm a former AF nuclear operator and current attorney, so I speak from experience on both matters....

I too have experience in both, albeit not from the perspective of those in command of a Minuteman missile. What you say is very true. Lawyers just leave a lot less collateral damage. :eek:
 
Back on track to the OP

[u said:
defense money honey[/u]] see today that our esteemed lawmakers (not so super-committee) have failed to do their jobs in Washington. With automatic cuts to the budget, how will this effect those with ROTC scholarships already awarded, as well as future awards. Automatic cuts would reduce the defense budget by 23%...whooaa, thats a lot!! Now what? My DS is a freshman on a 4 year scholarship. Any of you have any thoughts regarding 1) current scholarships being resended or 2) with the cuts last year in ROTC awards, will it only get worse this year?

Here is a link that you might find useful, the majority of the answers are not schockingly vague. At @ the 1 Hr 39 minute marker they state that what they have promised already, they intend to fulfill those promises.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YYdc2sVuOpA&feature=player_embedded#!

Your child is in the system now so you can expect them to fulfill the scholarship needs as long as your child is fulfilling his requirements for the scholarship.

Will the cuts get worse this yr? Several times throughout this session, all of the Gens/Adm stated yes. Personnel will be hit.

The positive for your DS is that because he will not commission until 2015, by the time he comes around to raising his hand and taking the oath, most of this will have settled out already.

That doesn't mean he should take anything for granted because traditionally there is fine print in the contract, i.e. CGPA to make the contract null and void.

Nobody here is psychic, nobody can tell any candidate or cadet that in a few short yrs it will be the same.

11 yrs ago when the class of 2005 entered the military, no branch foresaw 9/11. Many thought it was a great option to pay for college. Little did they know 4 yrs later they would be in the desert, and may spend 50%+ of their AD life deployed there while they paid back their commitment for the scholarship.

For AFROTC many of the cadets that entered in 06 on scholarship, attended Summer Field Training (SFT) did not expected to be cut loose 3 months prior to commissioning, but it happened in the AF. Our DS entered in 08, pull a 3.0 + and you had close to a guarantee shot for SFT. 2 yrs later when he was up for SFT the gpa was 3.2 for non-tech to feel comfortable; only 55% of all cadets were selected.

AF trimmed personnel by reducing the amount of cadets accepted to SFT. It was never even a thought in our mind that when he contracted they could cut him after 2 yrs. That was now his reality. No SFT = no commissioning. We did not read the fine print of the scholarship.

Truly, the ones on this site that have a better insight to your question would be Marist or Clarkson. They are both AD Army ROTC officers at colleges.

They have a strong pulse on this situation. This is the time they are interviewing and moving forward for FY13 for AROTC.

I am not sure which branch your DS is in as a ROTC cadet/mid. Each branch has their own budget and each branch will determine where to cut and how.

Even on the youtube link, all of the 4 stars discussed at various times how they are cutting personnel. Gen Amos stated with these cuts they may be forced to go below the 187K service members. Schwartz stated it may be 1000's of military personnel cut. Odinero stated that because they got hit harder compared to other services with the original 465 BN, there is nothing sacred, including personnel and Guard units. Adm. Greenert has stated the same as the others.

Believe it or not warning signs exist before anything happens. We, as fools refuse to see them and will rationalize what is occurring away for our own sanity. For ex: In 2010 the AF announced the cancellation of non-rated OCS boards. Few months later they announced that no IS scholarships will occur. On top of SFT reducing from the 65%+ SFT selection to a 55%.

The signs were there. The last signal was the AFA decided not to ask for a waiver to be over 4400 cadets, but instead cut drastically the class of 15 and 16.

AF not washing back UPT students, but washing out was a flare... in other words you will not be a pilot, and because of that we can cut you loose from the AF. RIFs bringing brought back for field grade with 15 yrs was huge.

Look at waivers for ROTC candidates they are not being handed out like candy.

Look at A/NROTC the transferring of the scholarship to another unit from public to private are becoming rarer with each day.

Clarkson and Marist will tell you that last yr the amount of cadets awarded scholarships for 15 was greatly reduced compared to the commissioning class of 11.

Good luck, Bless you and your family for stepping up to defend this country.

For me personally, I am sorry that your 1st post became a land mine. This site is truly filled with people who get this unique life, but like family sometimes we forget to illustrate our best manners at all times. We forget that even if we bicker, if something horrendous occurred in our lives no words would need to be said, we would be the 1st to show up at the door and say it will be alright.
 
Jcleppe said:
If the F-16's are rusting on the runways of Iran and Pakistan, doesn't that, by default, mean that we already have Air Superiority.

Realize that I know very little about the debate over new Aircraft so be kind.

The issue for Iran is that they are becoming chummy with Russia and China, both are bringing out their new generation jets. So, even though the 16's are rusting out and have been cannibalized it does not mean in the next few short yrs they could have jets purchased from other countries. Since we do not have control over those sales, and have not fought against them in real life scenarios, and I hope we never do, we just can't sit back and say because today we have superiority we will have it in 5 yrs.

Each airframe has a specific mission. The 22 is an agile jet, and would be viewed more as an air to air mission. The 35 is not seen as agile, and their mission is different due to their agility, however they still have a mission that the AF, Navy and Marines believe will be needed to retain air superiority.

This would be like the 90's. The F-111 was an air to ground frame with air to air abilities. The F-4 was air to air with air to ground capabilities. However their missions during a war-time package were not the same.

You could even break it down more to the EF-111 and the RF-4. EF-111 were radar jamming. RF-4's were reconnaissance. The airframes were 111's and 4's, but their missions were different from the straight F-111 and F-4.

To maintain superiority in the defense world is like Apple and Microsoft. You need to keep pumping out the newest/best product.

If Apple decided to not create any new products for their company do you think that would stop Microsoft from R & D? Of course not. China and the US from a DOD perspective are Apple and Microsoft.

If Apple or Microsoft have to make cuts, would they cut R & D immediately, or would they cut non-essential personnel, such as an executive assistant?

Back on track, personnel will always be needed, but as illustrated by the 4 stars from my you tube link if push comes to shove they will "dial down forces, and than hardware". Just like Apple or Microsoft, their success will be tied to market share.
 
Back on track to the OP

For me personally, I am sorry that your 1st post became a land mine. This site is truly filled with people who get this unique life, but like family sometimes we forget to illustrate our best manners at all times. We forget that even if we bicker, if something horrendous occurred in our lives no words would need to be said, we would be the 1st to show up at the door and say it will be alright.

Well said. Thank you.
 
.......The F-4 was air to air with air to ground capabilities.

Emphasize the "AIR TO GROUND". The F-4 had the glide ratio of a "ROCK". A LOUD Rock. If the plane had engine problems, it pretty much was going straight down.
 
Emphasize the "AIR TO GROUND". The F-4 had the glide ratio of a "ROCK". A LOUD Rock. If the plane had engine problems, it pretty much was going straight down.

Th F-4 Phantom II: proof that if put enough thrust on it, you could make a barn fly! Turned like a pig, bled energy in the turn like a stuck pig. But it had one thing going for it that made it one of the world's most lethal killing machines and ruler of the skies: the WSO in back! :thumb:
 
Th F-4 Phantom II: proof that if put enough thrust on it, you could make a barn fly! Turned like a pig, bled energy in the turn like a stuck pig. But it had one thing going for it that made it one of the world's most lethal killing machines and ruler of the skies: the WSO in back! :thumb:

I do recall one of the Vietnam aces commenting that having two sets of eyeballs made a big difference.
 
Back
Top