Bad news for the Air Force...

I recognize the argument that we don't NEED Raptors because the JSF will do, but the math of this "crisis" (which is clearly not being let go to waste... but is being used just for President Obama's personal agenda) confuses the hell out of me.

Creating or "saving" (notice how it would be nearly impossible to prove that jobs were "saved" and not lost, nice use of words to keep from being accurately criticized) 3 million jobs (with the most optimistic estimate) for 800 billion comes to about 266.6k per job.

Let's theoretically say we wanted to keep some actual American Manufacturing jobs alive by putting 20 billion (enough to buy a little more than 130 raptors, a LARGE order) for purchase of new '22s. Given that will keep the 100,000 workers nationwide producing raptors in business, will come to 200,000 per job.

I remember learning in elementary school how to figure out which number is smaller than the other, not sure where these bozos in Washington learned how to do it.

Also, it begs the mention that the article says the R&D cost that "more than doubles the price" has already been paid, so why not drive down the relative cost of the technology by buying more!
The hundred thousand production jobs kept in the works is just the primary impact of the spending, think of how many of OUR future (some current) jobs will be "saved" from putting a little (compared to the enormous deficit being run this year) bit of money to a plane that is the best out there.

Ok, my rant is done.
 
yep, there are a lot of opinions i've formed about higher levels of government with just my basic economics class this semester. seems like no one can do simple math, they're all just scrounging for votes and have NO sense whatsoever about what they're doing to the economy.. all politics i guess. and everyone's guilty, it's not just one side.

i dunno.. seems like we're really dumb sometimes. but nonetheless, it's happening, and no one can say they didnt foresee this. lol
 
I think that number is based on DoD wide numbers, not just the Air Force.
 
I'm pretty sure that includes the Royal Navy's order, as well.
 
and yet another instance where the spin of the news will never be realized by the average American.
 
HNeedle said:
they're all just scrounging for votes and have NO sense whatsoever about what they're doing to the economy
Click to expand...

That's all politics has ever been. It's never been for the good of the country.
 
Sorry for all of you who wanted the 22, but in our house we were happy that it was the 22 and not the 35. Looks like Bullet will be working more hours (or they going to need to hire more people for his office in the Pentagon)...oh never mind back to reality...Bullet will be working more hours!
 
I think as the article stated companies like SAIC are going to be hit hard. SAIC fills alot of these clerical administration jobs, and very few technical in comparison to companies like Lockheed, Raytheon and L-3Comm. The reality is most of these people will be offered the govt job. One day they will walk out as an SAIC employee and walk in the next day as a fed employee. For people like Bullet, they will offer their job 1st to the contractors, since there needs to be fluidity in the system, their expertise is so specific that you can't just hire an entire dept without bringing over the old team members...they know everything about the program and it would cause more issues to even fill them with military members since it would cause gaps and empty out the cockpits. Currently, they are trying to bring the 35 online, they can't now take the fighter guy out to attend srategic planning meetings, because you need them to fly and teach the new guys. Thus, their only option is to offer these contractors the option to cross over to the fed side, which they will all do because a paycheck for the rest of their life is there. Too many people think that there will all of the sudden be a job hiring spree at the Pentagon, when there won't be. They are just shuffling the deck from one side to the other.
I also think that this is one of the stupidest financial decisions that Gates could have made. Fed employees get 50% of their pay at retirement for their life and they get it at 20 yrs, not tied to their age(i.e. 65), using a contractor costs more up front, but they do not pay their retirement or medical, or even one of the most expensive costs for working at the Pentagon, the SECURITY CLEARANCE. This costs about 10K+. Yes, for the 1st couple of yrs it will be a cost savings, but the minute they start having to pay out the retirement pay you will see them go uh oh Rorge! For Bullet's job level, we have a friend who took an equivalent with the govt. He is being paid 120K, he took the pay cut knowing that in 20 yrs he would get at least 50% guaranteed, unlike us who took the corporate route where our 401K will always be a component of our retirement. When you start adding up the fact that even a GS9 (high end administration) makes up to 58K, that is a lot of money the budget will need to increase by when they start retiring.
In comparison SAIC is probably getting paid 70K to fill that job and covers all of the benies.(insurance and vacation time is very expensive)
The old say if it flies, floats or fornicates it is cheaper to rent than to buy. Changing over to govt means they are buying!
 
Last edited:
No they didn't they just decided by hiring a Marine, you could help them correct their new uniform when they come into work!:shake:
 
Reading the Wall Street Journal this morning, Air Force took quite the hit on more than one airframe. No fear, USAF isn't the only one feeling the crunch. You don't even want to know where the Coast Guard is feeling it.
 
http://www.militarytimes.com/news/2009/04/military_defense_budgetcuts_040609w/

good article in the military times.

excerpt:
But the overall plan drew praise from Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, who said Gates “has set out major changes to the defense budget based on changed assumptions about the wars our military must be prepared to fight.”
Skelton, who was briefed earlier Monday along with other congressional leaders, called the proposal “a good faith effort” and said he appreciates “the hard work and thoughtful consideration” Gates and his staff put into the proposals.
Gates said he knows he’ll be roundly criticized in some circles. “In the coming weeks, we will hear a great deal about threats and risks and danger to our country and to our men and women in uniform associated with different budget choices,” he said. “Some will say I am too focused on the wars we are in and not enough on future threats. The allocation of dollars in this budget definitively belies that claim.
“But it is important to remember that every defense dollar spent to over-insure 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 under-invested and potentially vulnerable,” Gates said. “That is a risk I will not take.”
“We are at a crossroads,” added Marine Corps Gen. James Cartwright, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs who sat in at the briefing for the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, who is on travel.
“We have under our belt the experiences of 9/11, the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the emergence of things like cyber, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction,” Cartwright said. “This submission represents the best balance of the most likely conflicts and the most dangerous conflicts we will face. It has been informed by the war fighters and the challenges they face today and are likely to face as we move to the future.”
Gates said his decisions were not guided by “finding a way to balance the books” or to fit everything within the budget top line.
“Let me be clear: I would have made virtually all of the decisions and recommendations announced today regardless of the department’s top-line budget number,” he said.
He said he consulted with the Pentagon’s military and civilian leadership and “consulted closely” with President Barack Obama, but added: “I received no direction or guidance from outside this department on individual program decisions.”
Click to expand...
 
there are a lot of opinions i've formed about higher levels of government with just my basic economics class this semester. seems like no one can do simple math, they're all just scrounging for votes and have NO sense whatsoever about what they're doing to the economy
Click to expand...
you learned all of this in your high school economics class? my goodness.
Please do not think your education is complete. Keep on learning, asking questions and keep an open mind.
 
Sounds like you're mixing some political science in with the economics. Your statement isn't that far off. If you're elected every 6 years and you can point your finger at 99 other people, what do you stand to lose?
 
Please do not think your education is complete. Keep on learning, asking questions and keep an open mind
Click to expand...

I agree on that point, however, I think by political reasoning, they were right on the mark.
seems like no one can do simple math, they're all just scrounging for votes and have NO sense whatsoever about what they're doing to the economy
Click to expand...
Our elected members spend more time on worrying about polls than common sense.

Fiscally, the reason the DOD went the way of contractors is that it is cheaper. Lifetime benefits for govt employees will cost a heck of a lot more than using the contractor. The only difference is accounting terms, like a mutual fund...front load or back load. The govt employees are a back load fund, tax payers will pay for it dearly in the end. 30 yrs ago life expectancy was much shorter than it is now. If a govt employee gets even 30K a yr at retirement age of 62, lives until 92, that is almost 1 million in tax payer dollars, before we even discuss medical costs. Now if you take the contractor and the DOD pays 25K a yr more, for 20 yrs (most are retired military at the age of 42), YOU SAVE 500K per GS9, at the same time not being respsonsible for medical coverage or SECURITY CLEARANCE COSTS. For econ/acct purposes this was a foolish mistake.

I don't bet, put I am willing to place a $5K bet right now, that if they go this route, in 10 yrs from now(5 yrs after the full placement of this decision), you will see all of the GS employees walking out one night as a govt employee and walking in the next day as a contractor! This is the true problem with the military, they flip-flop on how to run the DOD...too many officers-RIF...not enough open up the pipeline...oops TOO MANY, shut it down! They are very cyclical and it is an all or nothing situation!

Please understand that since the 35 will be doubled, and Bullet is the expert for the 35, we are in a safety position, he'll be one of those that can transition over into the govt quite easily (he is the equivalent of GS14/15). The GS9 administrator for SAIC is not, but they hold a security clearance so the govt will most likely offer them the position...than again maybe they want to spend more money in getting the security clearance and training a new employee while making the transition as difficult as possible within the DOD since everybody will now be new!
 
Last edited:
If anyone cares to read it, here is the transcript from Gates' remarks:
http://www.defenselink.mil/speeches/speech.aspx?speechid=1341

Yes - mixing politics with economics. However, I believe that had McCain won, Gates would still be recommending the same cuts. From what I hear McCain is on board with this. Many Democrats won't be happy if they represent a district that will be affected by job losses.
This will go to Congress and the budget will become contentious and I betcha some of this stuff will be put back in by Congress, in the name of jobs.
 
I agree McCain would have hit the programs, afterall he was against the Marine 1.

I also agree, when the MOCs take a deeper look, I am not sure they will pass it. People seem to forget that although Lockheed makes the 22, they have many subcontractors that supply those parts for the jet, thus, if a town somewhere in PA is living by the biggest employer that makes the plastic seals and another small town in WV makes the glass, and another in OR makes the seats, you will start seeing MOCS voting against it, b/c they will have towns economically hit.

Now lets add in the MOCs from GA and Texas who will lose direct jobs from Lockheed. Then of course wherever Prattt & Whitney make the turbofan, those MOCs will be having issues.

For any MOC it is hard to be re-elected if you voted YES to kill the jobs and reality is they want to be re-elected.

Do I think the 22 will get a reprieve? NO
Do I think Marine 1 will get a reprieve? NO

However, I do believe it won't be a cake walk for Gates. They will smooth Lockheeds and Pratts fears because they are doubling the 35, so in essence, their loss is offset by their gain. The real issue is the small companies that are subcontractors for the 22 and not the 35 that will squawk to their MOCs about having to cut back in this economic downturn and the MOCss will squawk at Gates about the hardship their constituents will endure.

The problem for the 22 was that it was only for the AF, the 35 is not only for the AF, but the Navy, and then there is a laundry list of countries that are buying it Australia, India, Spain, Finland and China to name a few. The beauty of this situation is that our 35s will always be upgraded 1st and we will maintain air supremacy,tick us off and no more spare parts or upgrades for you!

I have yet to speak to DS, but I am sure it was a sad day for him yesterday. His plan was to always go Strike Eagle and XTU into the 22 after the 1st op tour(wanted to get back to Elmendorf and Bullets old squadron the 90th). When we spoke last week I told him Bullet and I always thought that the STrike was realistic, but the 35 was more realistic than the 22. Bullet is still trying to sell him on the 35! I think DS now would rather fly the Strike into the boneyard than not get the 22! (IMO the STRIKE is the most beautiful jet in the AF, then again I still love the the 111 top because of the wings and that it was known as the whispering death you never heard it until it already passed over you)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top