The Stimulus Program

[PDub]

I agree as well. Even though we're focusing on counterinsurgency today, that shouldn't mean a lack of preparation for all types of warfare in tomorrow's battle.

 

[ds52262]

Boxer you are fighting the last war! Yes insurgency has become the fashionable thing for our enemies to employ against our forces, and with it both Gen Patraeus, and Odierno developed successfull tactics and stratagies to combat them.

Be sure the next war will not be fought on the same terms. You have rising powers in the east (China), old foes (Russia), unstable theocracies (Iran), and power hungry dictators to the south (Chavez's Venezula). They may employ some of the successfull elements of insurgency, but only as distraction. Each of these four must expand their power base and control over land and resources. This means a more conventional war, but on much different geography then Iraq.

We can become isolationist and rely on negotiation ala State and the UN, but in the face of open aggression (Iraq invading Kuwait) we will have few options because our forces have been reshaped.

Whem you have been there and bought the TShirt with blood and sweat this takes on a much different value.

 

[Just_A_Mom]

An interesting article on the Raptor and the imapct it has for providing jobs:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090215/GJNEWS_01/702159893

(you have to click on the link to read it.....but this is an excerpt:

Under the 2009 National Defense Authorization Act, President Barack Obama must decide whether to extend the F-22 program by March 1. Extending the program means 60 more would be produced over a three-year period at a cost of $9 billion. The F-22 program has cost about $70 billion to date.

After reading it I am thinking the reason (or one reason) the two Republican Senators from Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) voted for the stimulus package (2 of 3 Republican's to do so) is to encourage the administration to keep the F-22.

I didn't see it - but apparently there was a full page color ad in the Washington Post last weekend. It made the case for the F-22 based on two things:
National Security and American Jobs.

An Op-Ed from the Post as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603513.html

click on the link but here is an excerpt:

If he decides to terminate the F-22, Obama will, in effect, be firing the 25,000 people who directly work on the Raptor program (and the initial "stop-work" orders and layoffs would begin within months) and perhaps another 50,000 to 75,000 in the supplier base that supports it. His administration will also forgo any chance of selling the planes to allies -- Japan, Australia and Israel, among others -- and any additional return on the tens of billions of taxpayer dollars spent in developing this dominant fighter.

 

[Christcorp]

I would like to apologize for my last post coming across too strong. In a discussion/debate; it is important to understand and recognize other people's point of reference and thus their point of view. Especially in a forum where it's a lot less personal. Boxer obviously did not know who I am or my experiences. That is my fault. I should have said "WHY" I had the opinion that I had instead of just stating it. With an understanding of a person's experiences, we can understand where they are coming from with their opinions. For that, I apologize. Boxer; you didn't deserve me snapping at you. It was totally my fault. Please jump back in with some healthy discussions and debates. later... mike.....

 

[hornetguy]

Sorry to you Zoomies rooting for USAFA, but the raptor is unneeded. With the counterinsurgencies we're fighting (and will fight in the future) in the Middle East, there simply is no need for a $350 million-a-jet fighter program. Plus, the fighters are only ready for flight 62% of the time. for the price of one Raptor, we could buy a dozen UAVs, which are much more helpful and needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel bad for saying it, but the days of the combat pilot are coming to an end

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1879176,00.html

Gates has a tough job of taming the Pentagon, but is a noble endeavor. When IEDs and Terrorists have replaced Russian MiGs as our enemies, the Raptor needs to have its wings clipped

What other insurgencies are we going to be fighting in the future? That would require us to invade unless South Dakota has a sudden uprising!

The unit cost of a F-22 is actually less than half that, they cost $138 million a piece, a paltry cost compared to a $2 BILLION dollar B-2. Where are you getting this 62% number? article link please.

A UAV doesn't work if an enemy has any combat aircraft or anti-air missiles. Recall when the Russians shot down a Georgian UAV not too long ago? Just kinda meandered along as a MiG demolished it.

Why are the days of combat pilots coming to and end? We don't have any UAVs or UCAVs capable of fighting other aircraft or have enough maneuverability to avoid so much as a SA-7. I personally don't feel comfortable having a robot flying around nuclear missiles as armament with someone able to drop it from thousands or miles away. I want a human to have control that is there with the weapon with SA on the target.

The new MiGs and Sukhois that have been exported along with China's fighter programs (remember the Euros have the new Eurofighter too), are out there and have proven their ability to evenly match or beat our F-15s which have had a record of never being shot down by an enemy aircraft. Others have shown us in simulations that we no longer have that advantage. We also haven't lost a single soldier on the ground to an enemy aircraft since 1953! I would like to keep in that way for as long as possible.

The F-15 initial operational requirement was for a service life of 4,000 hours. Testing completed in 1973 demonstrated that the F-15 could sustain 16,000 hours of flight. Subsequently operational use was more severely stressful than the original design specification. With an average usage of 270 aircraft flight hours per year, by the early 1990s the F-15C fleet was approaching its service-design-life limit of 4,000 flight hours. Following successful airframe structural testing, the F-15C was extended to an 8,000-hour service life limit. An 8,000-hour service limit provides current levels of F-15Cs through 2010. The F-22 program was initially justified on the basis of an 8,000 flight hour life projection for the F-15. This was consistent with the projected lifespan of the most severely stressed F-15Cs, which have averaged 85% of flight hours in stressful air-to-air missions, versus the 48% in the original design specification.

Full-scale fatigue testing between 1988 and 1994 ended with a demonstration of over 7,600 flight hours for the most severely used aircraft, and in excess of 12,000 hours on the remainder of the fleet. A 10,000-hour service limit would provide F-15Cs to 2020, while a 12,000-hour service life extends the F-15Cs to the year 2030. The APG-63 radar, F100-PW-100 engines, and structure upgrades are mandatory. The USAF cannot expect to fly the F-15C to 2014, or beyond, without replacing these subsystems. The total cost of the three retrofits would be under $3 billion. The upgrades would dramatically reduce the 18 percent breakrate prevalent in the mid-1990s, and extend the F-15C service life well beyond 2014.

We need new aircraft. If you bought a car in 1990 and needed to replace it now, does it make more sense to buy another 1990 model produced now or buy a 2009 model? I would argue with many points the 2009 model would be preferable!

All our planes, ships, and tanks are getting old. How many people drive around in 50 year old cars? Not many because they were not designed to survive that long nor can they do the job as well as a new one. When the average tanker in the AF is 50 years old, somethings going to eventually give.

Either pony up and pay the cost to replace the old and put in new equipment, or be willing to lose the advantage we have always enjoyed as a nation with our military and be willing for a future adversary to inflict greater harm and death than they would had we kept up.

Here it goes again... *sigh*


Anyway, just because the F-15 and F-16 do the job now doesn't mean they will later. Think if we kept WWII weapons for Vietnam.

Opposing countries will continue to develop weapons to beat ours. We must stay ahead.

Plus, who says we'll only be at war with Iraq and Afghanistan in 10 years? No one know what could happen. Hope for the best, expect the worst.

Spot on.

Boxer, I see you are new. Forums are hard to read how people are trying to convey their post. I have been on this forum since September, I have read many posts and have become to understand how some people convey their messages. Christcorp was not trying to "attack" you, he was curious to see how we could talk about this.



P.S. Another thread gone off track and leading to personal attacks, it appears we are becoming like college confidential

I haven't seen any kind of attacks or insults thrown at CC like I have here lately. I'm really not sure what I've been missing! Might be because I stick to the AF CC forums only.

An interesting article on the Raptor and the imapct it has for providing jobs:
http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090215/GJNEWS_01/702159893

(you have to click on the link to read it.....but this is an excerpt:


After reading it I am thinking the reason (or one reason) the two Republican Senators from Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins) voted for the stimulus package (2 of 3 Republican's to do so) is to encourage the administration to keep the F-22.

I didn't see it - but apparently there was a full page color ad in the Washington Post last weekend. It made the case for the F-22 based on two things:
National Security and American Jobs.

An Op-Ed from the Post as well:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/02/06/AR2009020603513.html

click on the link but here is an excerpt:

Good info, I liked the Wash Post article when I read it last week. Military spending is a great short-term stimulus item. Many seem to forget that fact.

 

[packermatt7]

JAM, good post, interesting articles.

One thing about one of them, though. I'm pretty sure that we won't sell any F-22s to foreign countries. The F-35 will more than likely take care of that.

Good read, though.

Edit: As it turns out, I used one of those articles for my economics class the other day.

Good info, I liked the Wash Post article when I read it last week. Military spending is a great short-term stimulus item. Many seem to forget that fact.

See: World War II

 

[13ryan13]

Sorry to you Zoomies rooting for USAFA, but the raptor is unneeded. With the counterinsurgencies we're fighting (and will fight in the future) in the Middle East, there simply is no need for a $350 million-a-jet fighter program. Plus, the fighters are only ready for flight 62% of the time. for the price of one Raptor, we could buy a dozen UAVs, which are much more helpful and needed in Iraq and Afghanistan. I feel bad for saying it, but the days of the combat pilot are coming to an end

How could you say this? In an era of enemy militaries expanding their fleets, how do you feel safe depending on comparably old airplanes to defeat new Chinese and Russian aircraft? The Raptor is by far the most superior airplane in the skies, and if America is to remain the world power we are, we need to be able to defend ourselves against countries who hate us for what we are.

And, what makes you think combat pilots are being phased out. That is just rediculous. If we are phasing out combat pilots, we should also building remote controlled subs for which a person can launch torpedos from New York City, and tanks that are controlled by somebody many miles away. Of course, none of that makes sense, which is the point! Fighters will always have pilots if they are to be superior to enemy aircraft.

 

[mdanderson]

My son was inspired to join the military (just received an appt to USAFA) by now President Obama.
Our political leanings tend to be more on the "liberal" side (if you must use that word) and we are most definitely patriots.
I am a reservist, a nurse and an educator, and currently spend my time working with our returning women veterans. I was deployed during the Katrina disaster, served in subsequent national medical emergencies and have never once been asked about my party affiliation.
I count among my colleagues and friends, those with a wide variety political, religious and cultural views. In service to others, you must be non-judgmental and apolitical--I would hope that we are creating leaders who follow that creed. Most with whom I have the pleasure of serving have actually taken the TIME to read the stimulus package and understand the nuances. While they may not agree with the economics they also do not let their politics cloud the fact that there is not one shred of anti military sentiment evidenced by the bill itself. Mrs. Obama has made veterans and their families her number one priority and for that we are all grateful.
Things in this country are not going to change until we let go of our bias to our ideology and move past our assumptions.
BTW--the coast guard cutters were removed during the concession meetings with the republican negotiators, and were part of the original house bill......

 

[Luigi59]

BTW--the coast guard cutters were removed during the concession meetings with the republican negotiators, and were part of the original house bill......

Bottom line is they still have an aged fleet and probably a more urgent need to update their core resources than any other military branch.

 

[thud105]

<snip>
they cost $138 million a piece, a paltry cost compared to a $2 BILLION dollar B-2.

Not to mention that the unit cost will decrease if we buy more. If we bought over 100 B-2s, like originally planned, they wouldn't cost $2 bil. each. The reason the cost is so high is that there is a fixed overhead for things like reseach and development for the new aircraft. That cost has to be spread over however many are produced, be it 20 or 240.

On a side note, the reason nations such as Japan, Australia, and Israel are seeking to buy the F-22 is because they do not feel that the F-35 can meet their needs. I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that the F-35 is not as stealthy from some angles as the F-22. Not to mention the F-22 has 2 engines instead of 1, giving it increased reliability. That was one of the reasons why the Navy chose the YF17/F18 over the F16 in the FX competition.

 

[Bullet]

Thud, the articles you are mentioning were posted on Australian Defense Weekly. Gave me a head-ache for quite a few weeks as I had to get the information to the guys on the E-ring that the author had many facts wrong in his assessments. Bottom Line: you are correct, there are certain parts of the Australian establishment that would prefer getting the F-22 instead of the F-35, and they have been quite vocal in their criticism. A lot of their arguements are incorrect, however....

And a great explanation of how buying new jets in larger numbers ultmiately lowers the cost per jet, BTW. You looking for a job in the Pentagon?

 

[Christcorp]

So true. There are a lot of things in our government that can contribute to stimulating the economy. It can help put a lot of people back to work. The reverse is also true. There's a lot of waste in the government and they can spend a lot of money on things that do nothing to the economy as far as making it grow, creating jobs, or stimulating.

The military happens to be one government agency that has more of a direct impact on the economy, including trickle down economics; than any other government agency. With the exception of military pay to the soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc... Most of every dollar spent on the military finds it's way back into the local/federal economies. Even the military pay is used a lot on rent, utilities, walmart, mini-mart, target, and other local economies.

Many other government spending programs do very little for the economy or to stimulate. Any type of welfare program is simply taking money out of one person's pocket and giving it to another. That doesn't create jobs. Except for military members/employees paychecks; weapons, planes, ships, logistics, R&D, etc... all has direct relationships to jobs. These aren't companies that ONLY contract to the military. These are jobs and companies that have other civilian or global contracts. Military contracts is what gives them the stability to venture. I.e. Boeing, McD Douglas, Sandia Labs, etc....

Military is definitely one place where spending money pays back and helps. Unlike save the owl, welfare programs, money to the National Endowment of the Arts, etc....

 

[inthenavy2008]

As a mother of a future Navy officer, I find the attitude of this new administration, both inside and outside of this stimulus package, to be discouraging and non-supportive at best.

 

[fencersmother]

"have actually taken the TIME to read the stimulus package and understand the nuances. "

Wow mdanderson!!! I am really impressed. That package is what, 800 or more pages, and I didn't think there was a person on the planet who would admit to understanding the nuances of this atrocity.

 

[Rock_Chalk]

I actually read it for one of my classes, we had to go over the differences between HR and SR variations along with the final passed version. Really it is more comprehensive (sources of stimulus) than any of the past resolutions, such as the bank bailout. Of course it is all "pork" that is exactly what it is, but pork is not really all that bad. If a person thinks that all pork is bad they seriously shouldn't be engaging in any debate except with others persons who do not fully understand the legislative process and major projects process of our country.

Pork creates jobs, it is just civic project spending. Nevertheless it is these "left wing" administrations that have gone through wars and won, infact both sides have afterall we are all American and that is what both sides care about it, the rehtoric is just different but the ends are still the same.

 

[ds52262]

"Yes We Can" rob our children and grandchildren, my own Senator snuck 2 billion for a train from Vegas to Disneyland. They won't pour an ounce of concrete, and pound a single nail for 5 years though. It will take that long for all the environmental studies to be completed. The cost of ridership will also never payback the expense of construction. I'd much rather have seen "Infrastructure" expenditures at Creech AFB, home of all those whiz bang extra cheap predators and reapers.

 

[Maximus]

I actually read it for one of my classes, we had to go over the differences between HR and SR variations along with the final passed version. Really it is more comprehensive (sources of stimulus) than any of the past resolutions, such as the bank bailout. Of course it is all "pork" that is exactly what it is, but pork is not really all that bad. If a person thinks that all pork is bad they seriously shouldn't be engaging in any debate except with others persons who do not fully understand the legislative process and major projects process of our country.

Pork creates jobs, it is just civic project spending. Nevertheless it is these "left wing" administrations that have gone through wars and won, infact both sides have afterall we are all American and that is what both sides care about it, the rehtoric is just different but the ends are still the same.

Glad to see that someone read the 1,000 page pork bill in the last day or two lol I have not, I've only read what has been spoon feed out by the Obama supporting media, and I don't see how spending $15,000,000 on a new play ground that has 15 permanent jobs, is a stimulus package

BTW, I don't know what all the fuss was over having it rushed through Congress when Barry is on vacation now anyway? I think he's planning on signing/grandstanding it in Colorado, Tuesday or something? I wonder how the liberal media would have portrayed Bush by taking a long weekend for Valentines day with the Country is such dire need lol

 

[BoxerXO]

Talk about walking into the wrong part of the neighborhood!

Sorry for getting any Air-Force folks out there riled up.

I just feel like watching for Ivan to storm europe is a thing of the past, and with China so dependent on our consumer demand for its production and economy, the threat of a Sino-American war is farfetched right now.

What I think everyone can take away from this argument is that one of the most critical issues confronting policy-makers today is how to balance the constant vigilance against conventional threats with the need to focus on unconventional conflicts in the present and near future.

Let me revise what I have said: The F22 is an outstanding plane (Ive always felt that way), but i just feel as though at the current moment, with an economy in recession and a War on Terror that doesnt require them, producing more F22s shouldnt be a top priority. Maybe in the future we can produce more, but I think now production should be paused

Also, Dont get me wrong! I hate the idea of technology replacing combat pilots! lol, Id be just as angry if you said robots were replacing infantry! Its just that with how much technology continues to advance, the idea of a "UAV-ed" F22 isnt so farfetched

 

[2012Cadet]

Spending a trillion dollars and they have to cut back on the Raptor program. Un-stinking-believable.

OK, this should get some people really fired up!

the surprise and heated anger to the things happening to this country have long since past to the point it has simply given me more peace to just not care anymore and trust God that all things will work together for His will...it's what keeps me going every day

 

[Christcorp]

As a mother of a future Navy officer, I find the attitude of this new administration, both inside and outside of this stimulus package, to be discouraging and non-supportive at best.

Well; if you have followed politics for any length of time, you'd know that the military is one area that the democratic party said that wanted to cut into if/when they regained power. Now; if you're a liberal, you support that. If you're a conservative, you oppose that. It's pretty much that simple.

I can't/won't speak for anyone else. But you are correct that my "attitude" about the new administration is discouraging and non-supportive. I am willing to admit that. The "Presidency" is NOT a person. It's an office. And if the far left can say for the last 7 years that they "Don't Support the president and the war in the middle east; BUT THEY SUPPORT OUR TROOPS"; which is pure B.S. Then I have no problem saying that I don't support Barrack Obama; but I DO SUPPORT THE PRESIDENCY of the United States. If I was still active duty; I would do whatever I was ordered to do as long as I wear the uniform. But I am now retired. I DO NOT have to support the beliefs and politics of Barrack Obama just because he's the president. If something's wrong, you don't BLINDLY support him.

Personally; I hope the stimulus package is a total disaster. Because if it isn't, then the government will be looked at as being able to fix ALL OUR PROBLEMS. And as such, the government will control more and more of our country. And looking at past history in Japan, Germany, the USA, and other countries; and stimulus plan as such CAN NOT WORK. You can't SPEND your way out of debt. So I hope the stimulus package fail horribly. Then the people will realize that the government is the problem and not the solution.

Realize however, that I do not place any BLAME or SUCCESS on the president. The president is ONLY a leader. He does not make law or spend money. The economic good times during Clinton's reign was NOT HIS DOING. Neither was the stock crash and recession of 2000 his fault. The good times of the GW Bush years weren't his doing; but neither was the recession we are currently in. Anyone who believes the president controls the economy doesn't know much about economics or politics.

Economics go through a normal and traditional 6-7 year cycle. Look back and you will see it many times. The government only has the power to extend or diminish what will happen. Unfortunately; most people don't realize that the answer is in the congress. The house and senate decides on every dollar spent. The president can't say give it to me and he gets it. He can't fund the military without congress saying yes. He can't continue operations overseas with congress' approval. Same with every other government program. I blame the congress of the united states 95% for the economic problems we are in. If the president (Bush) had been a better leader, he would have told congress to shove it all right up their #($@. For that, he is at fault. Unfortunately, now we not only STILL HAVE THE LAME BUTT Congress that got us into this mess over the last 6 years (Remember; bush had a 35% approval rating, but congress only had a 17% approval rating. But now we have a president who WANTS the same things that the congress wants.

The congress has the entire year to get the budget where they want it for all their pet projects. A stimulus package is suppose to be for IMMEDIATE actions required to create jobs and improve the economy. When more than a third of the package has absolutely NOTHING TO DO with jobs and stimulating the economy; you are correct that I am non-supportive. And I hope I sound discouraging. I want you and everyone else to be outraged that they would spend so much money on crap that is needed and has nothing to do with stimulating the economy. It's the pet projects of the democratic congress that they've wanted for the last 6-7 years. They are using fear as a means of passing a PORK Package with all their wants in it.

Sorry; but I DON'T support the administration JUST BECAUSE it is the president and congress. Ain't going to happen. Yes; the active duty military members will have to learn that as long as they wear the uniform, their involvement in politics is limited to voting, writing their congressman, and having private conversations. However; I have paid my dues. I am allowed to speak about this administration any way I like to. And hopefully; the candidates and appointees; as well as the cadets who are at the academy currently and our active duty personnel; will know that there are SOME PEOPLE out here who will continue to hold the administration (CONGRESS) accountable. We will speak for you when you can't. There's plenty of people who blindly support this congress. I still don't know how they can have a 17% approval rating and still get re-elected. I truly hopes the stimulus package crashes and burns. It will hurt a little, but the end will result in a government that the people will hold much more accountable. The people will know that the government isn't the answer to their problems. But if the stimulus package passes in any measurable means, then our government and way of life as we know it will come to an end. The banks, stock market, health care, industries, energy, etc... will all fall under government control. Because the government knows best how to regulate and control it. Also how to bale them out of trouble. Sorry. I hope everything about the stimulus package fails. And that EVERY Rep and senator who voted for it loses their job in 2010. God help us all.