Polar Star to be Decommissioned?

[scoutpilot]

The retired conventional force guy lecturing me on jointness? That's a hoot.

 

[raimius]

The retired conventional force guy lecturing me on jointness? That's a hoot.

That's nice. What about his points?

 

[scoutpilot]

That's nice. What about his points?

I doubt you honestly believe anyone needs Bullet to explain what air superiority is or why the Air Force believes in it and fights for every last dollar they can grab, or all the other programs they beg for.

Like I said...he's free to believe his theories about what happens in the current fight. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme.We all protect our own positions.

 

[Bullet]

I doubt you honestly believe anyone needs Bullet to explain what air superiority is or why the Air Force believes in it and fights for every last dollar they can grab, or all the other programs they beg for.

Like I said...he's free to believe his theories about what happens in the current fight. It doesn't matter in the grand scheme.We all protect our own positions.

Not quite sure if Ramius was referring to my points or TPG's. Regardless, do you really want either of us to unzip and start the measuring contest?

I will leave you with this: there is a world of difference between the tactical joint fight and the operational / strategic joint fight. I will grant you that your CURRENT experience in the tactical joint fight is higher than mine, but I do have quite an extensive background in it (to include a few years directly working for and with the Army). But I gather from your comments and refusal to respond to mine / TPG's on point, your background at joint at levels above and beyond the immediate fight are most likely minimal.

Also, glad to see your soda straw view of the current wars we are engaged in gives you the expertise enough to label what is going on above and beyond your world view at 50 feet and 100 knots as "theory". Again, widen your scope a little, it's a great big world out there supporting the immediate battle, and without it there would be little success. What's that old Army statistic? Oh yeah, for every soldier patrolling with a rifle, there are 7 behind him supporting him.....

 

[Bullet]

I doubt you honestly believe anyone needs Bullet to explain what air superiority is or why the DoD believes in it and fights for every last dollar they can to ensure it, or all the other programs they feel are critical to the entire joint fight.

Fixed it for you....

 

[LineInTheSand]

Why does DOD fight for every last dollar? That's easy for anyone who's been in DC for 30 mins. Once they lose that money...it's probably not coming back.

Once DOD admits that the United States doesn't need to spend billions on planes that are 4 generations superior to the next closest enemy, or that we don't need a "littoral" Navy or "global force for good".... once they admit that the black hole of money known as the Dept. of Defense doesn't need a majority of the funding.... well, then they will have some cuts on their hands.

It will get VERY interesting to see budgets justified after a the U.S. completely pulls out of Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Of course.... the U.S. Senate has yet to pass a budget anyway.... so maybe I mean "see items in continuing resolutions justified".

 

[Bullet]

Why does DOD fight for every last dollar? That's easy for anyone who's been in DC for 30 mins. Once they lose that money...it's probably not coming back.

Perhaps. And I will be the first to admit that sometimes is the case. Or perhaps it is the DoD has been directed by the civilian leadership to be prepared to accomplish so much, and have done the analysis to know what it will take to meet those objectives.

Once DOD admits that the United States doesn't need to spend billions on planes that are 4 generations superior to the next closest enemy, or that we don't need a "littoral" Navy or "global force for good".... once they admit that the black hole of money known as the Dept. of Defense doesn't need a majority of the funding.... well, then they will have some cuts on their hands.

When you make such blatantly wrong generalizations as the "4 generations superior" comment, your argument loses credibility rather quickly. I suggest you Google S-400, J-20,PAK-FA, SU-35,and MIG-29. More importantly, Google "Cope India" and get back to us with your assessment.

But you do have a very valid point. Can the US afford to continue to match or stay ahead of the potential threats we would have to face to meet the stated National Security Objectives? The cuts are coming, no one can look at the current situation and honestly state they are not. What needs to occur is an honest assessment from our civilian leadership that the objectives need to be lowered as well. The President and the Congress need to be brutally honest to the American people and say: we can no longer afford to ensure security for such-and-such. THAT is where the debate needs to be, and the result of that debate will allow the DoD to make the cuts smartly. Without it, we will try to meet objectives too high with resources too low: the proverbial "hollow force". Let the AF (and Navy, and Marines) know that we will no longer require us to ensure air superiority over certain countries or regions, and then the requirement for better "toys" goes away, and the dollars required to buy and support them...

It will get VERY interesting to see budgets justified after a the U.S. completely pulls out of Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Of course.... the U.S. Senate has yet to pass a budget anyway.... so maybe I mean "see items in continuing resolutions justified".

Agreed. It' a brave new world we are about to enter....

 

[scoutpilot]

Why does DOD fight for every last dollar? That's easy for anyone who's been in DC for 30 mins. Once they lose that money...it's probably not coming back.

Once DOD admits that the United States doesn't need to spend billions on planes that are 4 generations superior to the next closest enemy, or that we don't need a "littoral" Navy or "global force for good".... once they admit that the black hole of money known as the Dept. of Defense doesn't need a majority of the funding.... well, then they will have some cuts on their hands.

It will get VERY interesting to see budgets justified after a the U.S. completely pulls out of Iraq AND Afghanistan.

Of course.... the U.S. Senate has yet to pass a budget anyway.... so maybe I mean "see items in continuing resolutions justified".

No, LITS, you're wrong. You can justify anything by saying "but it's a joint capability blah blah future threat blah blah capabilities overmatch blah blah the commies are coming." In the entire span of the noisy bleating about how much capability the F-35 will bring and how much the services want it, I've yet to hear any justification as to why this needs to be paid for now? Suit-clad beltway bandits of ALL flavors have used that mantra for years with great success.

Hey, if DoD thinks its worth the money, it MUST be a good investment, right? Any dissent on the brilliance of where DoD puts its money is unthinkable.

The analogy about kids at Christmas doesn't work. The kids in this case aren't neighbors. They're siblings.

America's Air Force: No One Comes Close....in budgets.

 

[Bullet]

No, LITS, you're wrong. You can justify anything by saying "but it's a joint capability blah blah future threat blah blah capabilities overmatch blah blah the commies are coming."

Says the man whose service just received over a trillion dollars over the last decade in supplemental budgets to buy shiny new toys like Strykers, MRAPs, and a whole bunch of replacement helicopters. Plus asking the other services to support the fight with things like 60 or so UAV caps, continual direct fire and logistics support, and hundreds of thousands of troops. All so they can beat an enemy of 30,000 men stuck in the 14th century using AK-47s, donkeys, RPGs, a few explosives, and a willingness to meet their God. And you know what? It was WORTH EVERY PENNY, because American lives were at stake. I would recommend giving that money to the Army again in a heart beat.

A simple acknowledgment of that, and a Thank You to the American taxpayer and the other services would suffice.

In the entire span of the noisy bleating about how much capability the F-35 will bring and how much the services want it, I've yet to hear any justification as to why this needs to be paid for now?

Because this thread is about the Coast Guard's needs, correct?

But if you insist. There is a reason the Marines are getting their F-35s as quickly as they can, before anyone else. Their Harriers (which the F-35 is replacing) are dieing out. And without air support from these types of assets, Marines (and soldiers) start dieing in battle in greater numbers. The AF's F-16 fleet is only slightly better, but some are quite old and on their last legs as well.

Hey, if DoD thinks its worth the money, it MUST be a good investment, right? Any dissent on the brilliance of where DoD puts its money is unthinkable.

Proof again that you aren't listening / reading. You know who else agrees with the DoD on it's spending priorities? In fact, they set them? Congress and the President. I'd start your whining with them...

Your analogy about kids at Christmas doesn't work. The kids in this case aren't neighbors. They're siblings.

UUUggghhh! How many times does it need to be explained to you that the Coast Guard's budget is under an entirely different Department? Totally different set of "parents". More than neighbors, more like second cousins. But different parents altogether.

The analogy stands correct.

America's Air Force: No One Comes Close....in budgets.

Except the Army and the Navy, as demonstrated by the current budget links I provided you but have seemed to ignore...

You know what, TPG is correct. This is a silly debate and I'm tired of it. I could answer with my usual response to idiotic parochial whining from those who don't get the big picture, but I'll keep it friendly instead. We're one team here, Scout. Whether you believe it or not (more's the pity, as most in the DoD do get it). That's your problem, not mine (ours)...

 

[Luigi59]

Heard that we are leaving over two hundred billion ($200,000,000,000) worth of equipment in Iraq.

Just giving it to Iraq.

Two hundred thousand million dollars.

Here's an idea - instead of giving it to Iraq, why not give it to the Coast Guard?

Then let them sell it to Iraq for 10 cents on the dollar. Surely the oil production from their wells could easily pay for it.

No new appropriations, no new taxes, no budget issues.

The resulting twenty billion of income - $20,000,000,000 (twenty thousand million) - could then fund the replacement of every icebreaker and cutter over the age of 20, as well as every cutter in the entire fleet.

But that would make too much sense.

 

[cisco]

But that would make too much sense.

Way too reasonable. It has to be more complicated than that.