Polar Star to be Decommissioned?

[patentesq]

I'm taking off my moderator hat here and putting on my regular forum member hat.

They require the mods to wear hats? Seems kinda weird.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I'm taking off my moderator hat here and putting on my regular forum member hat.

I for one would really like to see folks quit bashing (either openly or subtly) other services when commenting re: USCG funding (or other services), assets, etc. And yes, I consider your comment re: B-2 above "bashing."

The annual operating costs of a B-2 bomber is around $40.8M. Times 5 that's around $204M. And your comment: "Get rid of five B-2s...and you have more money than funds the entire Coast Guard."

Not quite accurate.

From the USCG's own website: "The FY 2012 President’s Budget requests $10.34 billion for the Coast Guard, including $8.68 billion in discretionary funding."

That's Billion with a "B." And it's @ 50 times more than those B-2's cost annually.

Now if you're speaking about the total development costs of the B-2 bomber and the "distributed costs" per aircraft, then we're in a completely different area and I agree; it's staggering. Put in proper perspective, when I watched the B-2 crash on takeoff at Anderson AFB years ago...it was, financially, the same as watching an aircraft carrier sink.

I realize you'd like to see a larger USCG; and frankly, so would I. Their mission is unique and the area they're tasked to cover is huge! However we have to realize that this is the smallest armed force we have and its budget is commensurate. How those monies are spent is the bigger question.

The bigger "evil" is the group that determines the budget funding and distribution. That would appear to me to be the big issue that needs addressing.

But ending with comments that "dig" at other services...and folks here do that too often...is just inviting a "service versus service" bashing and we don't need that.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

I've got to say, I find that amount even MORE disturbing. $40.8M operating cost for a SINGLE B-2? Or is that for the entire B-2 fleet? That's a good kick to the jewels for an aircraft that costs $2B to make.

I was in a joint class a few years ago. An Air Force colonel spoke to the group. She said "I know what you're thinking, why do we need an Air Force. This is a question we constantly answer...."

I sat there thinking "really, is that a true question? Are they really concerned with their existence?"

Why would a service with such an identity crisis warrant SO MUCH MONEY? Lobbying, plain and simple. The every growing hi-tech weapons needed to blow up a mud-hut are expensive. Who builds those weapons? Who bids for contracts to build those weapons? Defense contractors. Those defense contractors have HUGE lobbying programs, and throw serious $$ at Congress.

Is it any wonder the Coast Guard doesn't have the financial support of Congress. A majority of Coast Guard missions will be felt by the average American, in far more direct ways than the Air Force could dream of in the United States. The Air Force will put on an air show at Andrews AFB, spend MILLIONS to show of their planes. They reach the American public. The Coast Guard will pick up a family of 3 from a sinking vessel off of Cape Cod. Far less "bang", but maybe more "bang for the buck".

And who gets the love in Congress? The service asking for a $100M contract for a new vessel or the service asking for a much larger contract at $2B an aircraft.

Yes, the Coast Guard SHOULD have the smallest budget, as it is the smallest service, but if you for a second believe that it's budget is even close to proportional, either with its size or missions sets, it's time to do some more google research.

I don't need to saw a larger Coast Guard. I need to see a Coast Guard whose NORM isn't 60 year old technology. I've been on ships rusting out below the waterline. We've all talked about the MAJORITY of USCG cutters that had to leave Haiti for repairs because they were beat to death. I would LOVE to see the second oldest fleet in the world upgraded before I get to hear about the next round of NEW Air Force jets, replacing 10-20 year old jets, while BILLIONS are spent researching the NEXT NEW NEW jet.

You think these DIGs are bad, we can all just wait for DOD's in fighting when they actually see budgets cut, instead of rumors. That's when the "My aircraft carrier is more important than your B-2" or "my 5 LCS's are more important than your 2 F-35s" arguments will REALLY pick up.

With the current rumored $600M in initial cuts to the Coast Guard, included in that is continued work on the Coast Guard national security cutters. 8 were scheduled to replace 12 WHECs. Well, 2 WHECs have been decommed, and 2 NSCs are patrolling the high seas. We could have 4 NSCs completed to replace all 12 WHECs. And that says nothing about how to replace the even older 210's or the hurting 240' fleets.

USCGC DALLAS, a WHEC homeported on the east coast was one of the first US ships to enter the Republic of Georgia after the Russian invasion. On a 4-6 month patrol.... how many FIRES do you think that ship's crew battled?

They battled 6 fires.

The Coast Guard fleet is breaking down at an alarming rate. But no one at Lockheed or Boeing will fight for that in Congress. It doesn't have the appeal of a big defense contract...with big $$.


Those fights are coming. That fun lovey-dovey relationship at the Pentagon will change as the service chief's actually have to buckle down and steal $$ from each other... all will the self-interest they should display, in their roles.

 

[Bullet]

My question is whether you dislike the "digs" at other services because of principle, or whether you dislike them because those comments are almost always directed at the Air Force. I don't know, but it's something I wonder about.

Personally, I found Steve's point, that everyone on here needs to get over the standard bias of "MY sandbox is more important than YOUR sandbox" and instead understand how the budget decisions are ultimately made and by WHOM, and THOSE people should be the focus of our ire, is a legitimate point.

Inferring that his bias is a primary reason for his point is quite frankly an insult, as he has never before made any post that could be construed as such (unlike certain persons on these forum I know ).

Is it really a dig to say one service is soaking up valuable money that many believe is disproportionate to their recent and current (and projected) mission set? Or is it a citizen voicing his/her opinion about strategic spending? I think the latter is an absolute right we all have.

Ah, understood. It's YOUR bias that really is the issue here. The budget decision goes through quite a bit of oversight beyond each individual service before it is signed into law by the President. From OSD, to Congress, to the Presidential staff. And don't get me wrong, INDIVIDUALS withing each of these agencies will have jsut as much bias as you have shown, and some will have similar opinions. Some will have quite the opposite opinion. Getting the budget through is a balancing act.

BTW, I like your forecasting ability as to what is required in the future. I know just as many who find your conclusions wrong. Again, all part of the budgeting process. Forecasting what is probable, what is the most dangerous to our National Security if we don't fund it, and what the expected environment will look like in the future.

Case in point: we have never used, and hope to never use, our fleet of nuclear ballistic submarines in the nuclear role. Not in either war in Iraq, not in Afghanistan, not in Kosovo (where we didn't use helicopters either until after the Armistice was signed). But we still spend billions a year to make sure that capability is there if needed. I wonder why?

Complaining about the B-2 vs. the Polar Icebreakers, when we ignore the parochial tendencies of folks who get their bread from acquisitions, is essentially a debate about what sort of strategic security we want to pay for...

And now you've finally hit on what this debate should be about: America's National Security Strategy and the impacts the reduced budger will have on it. The NMS sets and prioritizes what we shoud PREPARE (and therefore) budget for, approved and signed by the Pres himself. If you don't like that your parochial pet project isn't making the top line in a reduced budget... Well, you now know whom should be blamed.

Personally, I feel each piece of America's military, to include the CG, adds an important role and capability to the war fight. I'll even grant you helos do their part. In a day where the belt needs to be tightened, whether we like it or not, the debate should be on what is a higher priority for the National Defense as set by the NMS, or whether the NMS needs to be changed.

And BTW, I hope you like the GPS nav system in your helo, making sure you know where you are, where the friendlies are, and helping those aided weapons help our enemies become the matyrs they want to be. You can thank the AF for that, and it ain't cheap!

 

[LineInTheSand]

And BTW, I hope you like the GPS nav system in your helo, making sure you know where you are, where the friendlies are, and helping those aided weapons help our enemies become the matyrs they want to be. You can thank the AF for that, and it ain't cheap!

And you can thank the Coast Guard for dGPS (and LORAN-C before DHS cut it).

 

[flieger83]

My question is whether you dislike the "digs" at other services because of principle, or whether you dislike them because those comments are almost always directed at the Air Force. I don't know, but it's something I wonder about.

No, I dislike "digs" like that because I've worked in various offices in the DOD and such where this was the "norm" to "justify" dollars and I hated it. Part of the reason I switched to the AF reserve; I simply didn't like the "Ours is better, more important, SCR** them, etc." Too many people were more concerned about their promotion/assignment/joint medal, and lost the "big picture" of the NMS and their role, however small or large, in that.

And if you are correct, and I won't dispute (and I won't research either), those "digs" are mostly aimed at the USAF...then I feel sorry for the folks that think that's "okay." It serves no purpose.

They require the mods to wear hats? Seems kinda weird.

Not really...but as a moderator I wanted to clearly show that this was me speaking in my own opinion, not "tagging" or "spanking" or anything from a moderator position.

I've got to say, I find that amount even MORE disturbing. $40.8M operating cost for a SINGLE B-2? Or is that for the entire B-2 fleet? That's a good kick to the jewels for an aircraft that costs $2B to make.

Yes, that is the "projected" annual cost for maintenance, etc., for a single B-2. And yes, it's huge. But realize this...the USAF has "retired" airframes that became too expensive when their capability could be met with another system. Case in point, the SR-71. To date, we do not have an aircraft that can match or meet the B-2's abilities.

But I digress...I think Bullet said it very well and I really can't improve upon that.

Steve
USAFA ALO
USAFA '83

 

[Bullet]

I've got to say, I find that amount even MORE disturbing. $40.8M operating cost for a SINGLE B-2? Or is that for the entire B-2 fleet? That's a good kick to the jewels for an aircraft that costs $2B to make.

And yet that single B-2 can hold at risk targets an ENTIRE carrier strike group won't even be able to get near to, in a more responsive manner, at a fraction of the cost. Go figure?

Look, we can play these games all day. (And in my job, I usually have to). It's tiring, and done at much more detailed (and classified) levels than this forum. It's also an endless circle fight, decided by people much higher in pay grade than us.

It's bar talk, plain and simple, and not really worth any more of my time....

I was in a joint class a few years ago. An Air Force colonel spoke to the group. She said "I know what you're thinking, why do we need an Air Force. This is a question we constantly answer...."

I sat there thinking "really, is that a true question? Are they really concerned with their existence?"

More like "We've heard it before and keep hearing it from people who don't have a clue. So let me pre-emptively explain why you are ignorant."

Why would a service with such an identity crisis warrant SO MUCH MONEY? Lobbying, plain and simple. The every growing hi-tech weapons needed to blow up a mud-hut are expensive. Who builds those weapons? Who bids for contracts to build those weapons? Defense contractors. Those defense contractors have HUGE lobbying programs, and throw serious $$ at Congress.

Yeah, that's the reason one part of the budget gets higher priority than another, lobbying. It couldn't at all be about National priorities, as determined by our civilian leadership.

Is it any wonder the Coast Guard doesn't have the financial support of Congress. A majority of Coast Guard missions will be felt by the average American, in far more direct ways than the Air Force could dream of in the United States. The Air Force will put on an air show at Andrews AFB, spend MILLIONS to show of their planes. They reach the American public. The Coast Guard will pick up a family of 3 from a sinking vessel off of Cape Cod. Far less "bang", but maybe more "bang for the buck".

Certainly. The US Coast Guard IS important, and plays a crucial and DIRECT role in the everyday lives of Americans. In many more examples than you provide. Just because most Americans don't know or don't understand the INDIRECT impacts our USAF, and other air arms of the US military, brings to their table doesn't make them less important.

We're a team, remember? And each member of that team brings an important role to the accomplishment of the mission: protecting America and its interests. Your example of dGPS is a good one. The USCG does a wonderful job of oversight of this increased GPS capability. Bit the REAL expense in GPS is getting the satellites in orbit and maintaining them. Without those satellites, purchased, luanched, and maintained by the USAF, dGPS are just 30 or so nice boxes sitting in the CONUS...

And who gets the love in Congress? The service asking for a $100M contract for a new vessel or the service asking for a much larger contract at $2B an aircraft.

Your fights with Congress, then. Not the other services. Maybe the Coast Guard should request a $2B Ice Breaker, with parts made in every state?

Yes, the Coast Guard SHOULD have the smallest budget, as it is the smallest service, but if you for a second believe that it's budget is even close to proportional, either with its size or missions sets, it's time to do some more google research.

Who on this board has even suggested the USCG's budget should be kept at disproportionate levels? What a few of us HAVE been saying is the budgetting decision is made by our civilian leadership based on priorities THEY set. Your issue shouldn't be trying to convince us, it should be trying to convince THEM.

I don't need to saw a larger Coast Guard. I need to see a Coast Guard whose NORM isn't 60 year old technology. I've been on ships rusting out below the waterline. We've all talked about the MAJORITY of USCG cutters that had to leave Haiti for repairs because they were beat to death. I would LOVE to see the second oldest fleet in the world upgraded before I get to hear about the next round of NEW Air Force jets, replacing 10-20 year old jets, while BILLIONS are spent researching the NEXT NEW NEW jet.

Look. We'd ALL love to have that fictional "Cash Tree" in our back-yard, where we'd have an endless supply of money to buy what we want and what we need. And for a few years, it seemed like that tree was alive and well and in the Pentagon courtyard. But reality is that tree died last year, and it's time to prioritize. For every story you can provide on a worn out Coast Guard fleet, we all can provide stories of worn out ships, planes, tanks, armored personnel carriers, helos, etc., etc., etc. 20+ years of constant war can do that to a military. The issue then becomes convincing Congress that your need is the higher priority than someone else's, plain and simple. THAT is a very ugly debate, and I really don't think you or I want to get into it...

You think these DIGs are bad, we can all just wait for DOD's in fighting when they actually see budgets cut, instead of rumors. That's when the "My aircraft carrier is more important than your B-2" or "my 5 LCS's are more important than your 2 F-35s" arguments will REALLY pick up.

This ain't new. Congress has seen this in-fighing every year since the Goldwater-Nichols Act, and even before then...

With the current rumored $600M in initial cuts to the Coast Guard, included in that is continued work on the Coast Guard national security cutters. 8 were scheduled to replace 12 WHECs. Well, 2 WHECs have been decommed, and 2 NSCs are patrolling the high seas. We could have 4 NSCs completed to replace all 12 WHECs. And that says nothing about how to replace the even older 210's or the hurting 240' fleets.

USCGC DALLAS, a WHEC homeported on the east coast was one of the first US ships to enter the Republic of Georgia after the Russian invasion. On a 4-6 month patrol.... how many FIRES do you think that ship's crew battled?

They battled 6 fires.

The Coast Guard fleet is breaking down at an alarming rate. But no one at Lockheed or Boeing will fight for that in Congress. It doesn't have the appeal of a big defense contract...with big $$.


Those fights are coming. That fun lovey-dovey relationship at the Pentagon will change as the service chief's actually have to buckle down and steal $$ from each other... all will the self-interest they should display, in their roles.

First off, again: the USCG has a VERY important role, and we as Americans should always stand proud at the heroic and wonderful things the men and women in that service do every day. I truly salute their dedication and effort.

Second, like I said before, the in-fighting between the services has been there for a LONG time, and has gotten VERY ugly many times. They've been playing the money grabbing game for quite a while. Actually, the smart leaders know that the term "joint" sells, and are qorking together on numerous requirements and programs to make them joint becuase they know that Congress won't use the axe so much on programs labeled such.

There's a reason the Pentagon is shaped almost like a wheel. The games here keep spinning round and round, and have been for decades....

 

[Packer]

We're a team, remember? And each member of that team brings an important role to the accomplishment of the mission: protecting America and its interests.

 

[scoutpilot]

It's easy to say "we're all one team!" when the money is flowing in your direction. LITS is right...the circus is just getting warmed up.

 

[Idzak]

Are you guys standing in a circle and kicking the shins of the guy to your right?

 

[LineInTheSand]

Are you guys standing in a circle and kicking the shins of the guy to your right?

Yeah, but the guy to your left is kicking you...

 

[Bullet]

It's easy to say "we're all one team!" when the money is flowing in your direction. LITS is right...the circus is just getting warmed up.

The Defense Budget Request for 2012 seems to disagree with your assessment:

Table 8.1:
Army: $144.9B (ish)
AF : $150B (ish)
Navy (and Marines): $161.3B (ish)

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

The AF's budget was about 3% (ish) larger than the Army's. Mostly because the space budget is quite large.

Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of perception?

 

[Packer]

It's easy to say "we're all one team!" when the money is flowing in your direction. LITS is right...the circus is just getting warmed up.

It is the same in the corporate world just on a smaller scale and it is mostly about empire building and ego's.

 

[scoutpilot]

The Defense Budget Request for 2012 seems to disagree with your assessment:

Table 8.1:
Army: $144.9B (ish)
AF : $150B (ish)
Navy (and Marines): $161.3B (ish)

http://comptroller.defense.gov/defbudget/fy2012/FY2012_Budget_Request_Overview_Book.pdf

The AF's budget was about 3% (ish) larger than the Army's. Mostly because the space budget is quite large.

Don't you just hate it when facts get in the way of perception?

The only thing worse than that is when someone thinks every remark is about his sore spot.

I was referring to your comment about LITS' concerns over USCG budgets.

But I'll play this silly game...

If you want to talk budget, let's put it in some realistic terms...

Rough per capita budget:
Air Force - $451,000k per AD servicemember.
Army - $275,000k per AD servicemember
CG - $248,000k per servicemember
Navy/MC - $305,000k per...

The point of LITS' remarks was that AF fancy toys get paid for and CG fancy toys don't....Since we know they aren't spending all that money on the servicemembers, it has to go somewhere. Hardware, PPE, etc. LITS has a pretty solid argument.

 

[Bullet]

The only thing worse than that is when someone thinks every remark is about his sore spot.

I was referring to your comment about LITS' concerns over USCG budgets.

Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it usually is a duck. Most of your comments on this thread, and others, have been those silly "the AF gets all the money while we do the real work" kind of statements. Forgive me if you brought in another duck and are now trying to call it a goose.

We're not that blind, you quoted my "team" comment directly, and tried to use it again in another poke at the AF and how it is getting an "unfair" share of the budget.

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. My Kung Fu is stronger!

But I'll play this silly game...

If you want to talk budget, let's put it in some realistic terms...

Rough per capita budget:
Air Force - $451,000k per AD servicemember.
Army - $275,000k per AD servicemember
CG - $248,000k per servicemember
Navy/MC - $305,000k per...

The point of LITS' remarks was that AF fancy toys get paid for and CG fancy toys don't....Since we know they aren't spending all that money on the servicemembers, it has to go somewhere. Hardware, PPE, etc. LITS has a pretty solid argument.

Ahhhh. The standard "But look at the size of the respective branches!" rebuttal. I've seen this Crane Technique before. Now, feel the wrath of my Crouching Tiger Defense!

First, you forget that the AF oversees and BUDGETS for the vast majority of space capabilities used by the ENTIRE DOD (and just about every US citizen everyday). The US military, and the US (if not global )economy, would be crippled without GPS, Satellite communications, weather satellites, and a few other things. That stuff costs many chickens from father's farm. Eats up about a quarter of the AF's budget, for capabilities not exclusively our own. Lesson here, grasshopper? Your math is wrong, you need to adjust for Joint capability the AF pays for.

I won't even go into the AF's support of the INTRA and INTER Theater logistics chain through strategic, operational, and tactical airlift (we put the "Air" in Airborne!), something the Navy also supports. Or our Tanker fleet and what it does for the whole DOD. But you get my point.

KA-POW!

Takes stance, extends out right arm, palm facing up, sneers, curls fingers back and forth in a "come here and take more punishment" gesture....

Second: Yep, the AF's fancy toys do cost a lot of money. But that money spent gave a lot of bang for the buck for the joint fight these past few decades, didn't it?

Those "fancy toys" play a key role in the National Military Strategy. That is why the SECDEF (and the AF, and the Navy, and the USMC) puts them at such a high priority in the DoD's budget. If LITS is upset that the CG can't get their own Fancy Toys, then he needs to take it up with DHS. To complain would be similar to NFL players complaining that MLB players make so much more than them. It's a different game, for a whole different league...

You fought with honor. But my King Fu remains stronger, and gave me victory today! Now, who's up for walking off into the sunset back to my place for rice cakes and wine! HA HA HA HA HA!

 

[scoutpilot]

Well, if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it usually is a duck. Most of your comments on this thread, and others, have been those silly "the AF gets all the money while we do the real work" kind of statements. Forgive me if you brought in another duck and are now trying to call it a goose.

We're not that blind, you quoted my "team" comment directly, and tried to use it again in another poke at the AF and how it is getting an "unfair" share of the budget.

Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me. My Kung Fu is stronger!



Ahhhh. The standard "But look at the size of the respective branches!" rebuttal. I've seen this Crane Technique before. Now, feel the wrath of my Crouching Tiger Defense!

First, you forget that the AF oversees and BUDGETS for the vast majority of space capabilities used by the ENTIRE DOD (and just about every US citizen everyday). The US military, and the US (if not global )economy, would be crippled without GPS, Satellite communications, weather satellites, and a few other things. That stuff costs many chickens from father's farm. Eats up about a quarter of the AF's budget, for capabilities not exclusively our own. Lesson here, grasshopper? Your math is wrong, you need to adjust for Joint capability the AF pays for.

I won't even go into the AF's support of the INTRA and INTER Theater logistics chain through strategic, operational, and tactical airlift (we put the "Air" in Airborne!), something the Navy also supports. Or our Tanker fleet and what it does for the whole DOD. But you get my point.

KA-POW!

Takes stance, extends out right arm, palm facing up, sneers, curls fingers back and forth in a "come here and take more punishment" gesture....

Second: Yep, the AF's fancy toys do cost a lot of money. But that money spent gave a lot of bang for the buck for the joint fight these past few decades, didn't it?

Those "fancy toys" play a key role in the National Military Strategy. That is why the SECDEF (and the AF, and the Navy, and the USMC) puts them at such a high priority in the DoD's budget. If LITS is upset that the CG can't get their own Fancy Toys, then he needs to take it up with DHS. To complain would be similar to NFL players complaining that MLB players make so much more than them. It's a different game, for a whole different league...

You fought with honor. But my King Fu remains stronger, and gave me victory today! Now, who's up for walking off into the sunset back to my place for rice cakes and wine! HA HA HA HA HA!

So, in short...you concede that LITS is absolutely correct. The Air Force budget pays for a multitude of fancy toys which have yet to perform their real-world mission while the overstretched Coast Guard rusts. Thank you for playing.

A lot of bang for the buck? Boy, those F-22s practically pay for themselves. As for Air Mobility...that's a nice theory you have there.

 

[SamAca10]

I really do not care how much money the other services get. Just give us enough money to replace the fleet and I'll be good.

 

[LineInTheSand]

I have not seen that figure. It would amaze me, however that the 6 WPBs and number of LEDETs deployed with the U.S. Navy would get funding nearly equal to the entire U.S. Coast Guard's budget. I would be very interested to see exactly where this money is you're quoting. Maintaining the round-the-clock operations of 6 WPBs in PATFORSWA?

 

[Luigi59]

The excerpt below is from an editorial that appeared yesterday in the Seattle Times, summing up this "argument" perfectly.

The Coast Guard said it needs three heavy-duty icebreakers and three medium-duty icebreakers. The cost for one is put at $895 million, with volume discounts.

Get started. These monster icebreakers take years to build, but have an operating life of several decades. If the Chinese will not loan us the cash, spread the cost among the Department of Defense, and other federal clients. Do not lay it all off on the Coast Guard.

Arctic conditions, and duties in Antarctica, demand the capacity to navigate year round. More shipping, ecotourism, resource extraction and transport, and fights over sovereignty require protection of basic U.S. interests very close to home.

Grab funds from Iraq and Afghanistan contingencies. Close U.S. bases in Germany. Now it's an icebreaker gap, not the Fulda Gap. Get real about the gravy in defense contracts, including the leasing of icebreakers.

Once again, spread costs and be honest about our thin capabilities and options in U.S. polar operations. Spend the money; this is like arguing about needing a fire truck.

Larsen's subcommittee recently heard temporary options from an executive with Vigor Shipping who estimated the Polar Sea could be operational with engine work for $11 million. A retired commander of the Polar Sea told the same Dec. 1 hearing the icebreaker was otherwise in decent shape.

The Navy has new combat ships designed to work close to shore around the world. Give the Coast Guard the capacity to serve and protect in all U.S. territorial waters.

Read the entire editorial HERE

 

[Bullet]

So, in short...you concede that LITS is absolutely correct. The Air Force budget pays for a multitude of fancy toys which have yet to perform their real-world mission while the overstretched Coast Guard rusts. Thank you for playing.

A lot of bang for the buck? Boy, those F-22s practically pay for themselves. As for Air Mobility...that's a nice theory you have there.

Scout, I highly recommend you heed TPG's advice and open your scope up a little to see the big picture. Reading a little beyond your Army Tactics Manuals and Doctrine pamphlets, working towards attending a Joint PME, or getting a joint assignment sometime in your career may help get you there.

Are the ground forces and SOF leading the way in the current fight as the primary contributor? Certainly, because it is a COIN fight, and they're the best suited for THAT mission. But this is just one of MANY missions the US DoD is responsible for, as set out by the NMS (which in turn is set to support the President't National Security Strategy). Not every asset is required to meet the COIN scenario, or is best suited to do so. But to say the AF is not actively engaged in today's fight with assets that ARE suited for the mission is ignorant at best. You have bypassed "Silly" and are shooting for "sublimely ludicris" levels with your statements above.

Those "fancy toys" required to ensure Air Dominance in battle ensure the US security objects will be met if required in OTHER scenarios and mission sets. To say that they are not needed based on the most recent or current fight falls into the trap of very poor planning for the future conflicts. A trap that I think the Army would agree kind of bit SECDEF Rumsfeld in the patootie with his plans for reducing the Army's role in future conflict, wouldn't you agree?

Is the F-22 expensive? Yes. Is it needed in today's fight? No. Will it be needed in tomorrow's fight? Depends on the scenario. It's primarily an Air-to-Air fighter, and why use it if the enemy has no air threat to us? (Same can be said for the Army's ADA capabilities like the expensive PAC-3, or the Aegis Cruiser for the Navy). The US has enjoyed controlling the skies over our enemy for decades now thanks to those "fancy toys" like the F-15, which the F-22 was designed and fielded to replace because the potential enemy's air capabilities now match (and in some cases, overmatch) the F-15's. The F-15 was ALSO labeled an "expensive failure" when it first came out in the 70s. A label that has since be proven comically wrong based on its war record (101 enemies killed to zero in air engagments), and the fact that most enemies would rather not even take-off than face US airpower (proven during IOF, when the Iraqis simply buried the remainder of their air fleet in the sand rather than try to fight our air fleet).

So, would I say those F-22s pay for themselves? The fact that any potential enemy knows that if they are forced to go against them they would lose, so they better play nice with us is a benefit, wouldn't you? And forcing them to spend THEIR precious resources (which they have less than us) in order to keep up with us is a benefit as well. All without firing a shot. And if they do want to come and "play"? Well, we'll see how that turns out for them, won't we?

And that is why the SECDEF originally decided they were high priority and worth our precious tax dollars. Later SECDEF's changed their mind and said buying more wasn't worth them, however. Like TPG said, all part of the bigger budgetting picture.

I'm sure that if we need to go into Iran, or the Staights of Malacca, or defend Taiwan, or South Korea, tomorrow, you'll be glad the US has F-22s on its side...

As for your snide comment about my Air Mobility "theory", again your ignorance is showing in regards to the full picture. Those bullets and beans don't just show up magically in theater by themselves. And Air Mobility plays a huge role in that Global logistics chain...

As to LITS's comments? I feel for the Coast Guard. I really do, and wish they can convince their civilian leadership that they need to be higher in priority. But the constant "your service gets the toys and my service gets nothing" is parochial whining at best, and ignorant of how the budget process works at worst. I say it again (since you seem to have not gotten the point when I've said it multiple times already): it's the equivalent of the kid whining Xmas morning that the neighbor's kids all got X-Boxes while he got a comic book. He needs to blame HIS parents, and not the neighbors. But here is to hoping the USCG can get much nicer XMas presents in the future.

And Luigi, like I said, I agree with what the editorial is saying. Some of the money saved from the Defense Budget should be used to re-furbish the CG fleet. But notice it was the Seattle Times in an editorial saying this. It wouldn't be because perhaps those shiny new CG boats would be stationed in Seattle, would it? See, the game stays the same and constantly goes round and round, it's just the players who keep changing....

 

[AF6872]

Don't forget these guys. Hope they are under the radar when it comes to budget. Doubt any congressman knows that they even exist. Ask one about the Murmansk Run. Guarantee you will get a blank stare.

http://www.msc.navy.mil/