- Joined
- Jan 6, 2011
- Messages
- 1,580
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.
I'm taking off my moderator hat here and putting on my regular forum member hat.
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
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.
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.
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 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!
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.
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.They require the mods to wear hats? Seems kinda weird.
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'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.
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.
Are you guys standing in a circle and kicking the shins of the guy to your right?
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.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?
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.
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!
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.
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.