Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Putting a few aircraft carriers into storage will free up some money as well.

ACtually I think the number of Carriers is Fine, but there are PLENTY of military projects that could be canned. The DDX Stealth Destroyer, the F-22A and the biggest White Elephant of them all: the Missile Shield.

Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.

F-35 replaces F-117 & F-16 & F-22 replaces F-15. They're making a huge gamble that 187 F-22s & 1700 F-35 will get the job done for 10-20 years. Considering the spreading missle & nuclear know how we need a shield before some nut that doesn't care about consequinces does something.

Originally Posted by the_13th_redneck

Too many carriers. There is no need for 11 right now. There just isn't.
A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose. As a complete replacement of the F-15... NO. Hell no. It's way too expensive. It'll serve in the sort of capacity the F-117 served in, except with the addition of air superiority duties.
DDX has been cancelled for all I know. But I could be wrong.

The concern I have with a lot of these new projects is that in the past strategic planners (along with their math whizzes) would come up with parameters for what would be a necessary weapon to fulfill their strategic needs. Weapons would be built to fulfill these parameters.
Nowadays it's like Lockheed Martin or General Dynamics needs to keep a damned plant open and will deliver some kind of new super weapon that doesn't even have a mission. It's like they have to create a mission for these new wonder weapons that cost a fortune to develop and end up with so many bugs they're practically useless.

A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose.

For what it is worth the F-22 is history. Congress has removed funding from the Defense Budget. There will not be any further F-22 other than the current 187.

President Obama during his speech to the VFW commented on his ideas for future service needs.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Repealing the Bush Tax Cuts, eliminating HMO subsides in Medicare, taxing revenues from the HMO and Drug companies. Furthermore Bush's war in Iraq will be coming to an end in 2011 and that will be saving us a bundle.

Yes America's war in Iraq may be moving to A'stan and costing us another bundle. God forbid we should conserve money.
Repealing tax cuts, gee I wonder who's taxes are going up?
HMOs don't "subsidize" Medicare.
Tax pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies and guess who they pass the costs on to?

Originally Posted by Mighty Mouse

Yes America's war in Iraq may be moving to A'stan and costing us another bundle. God forbid we should conserve money.
Repealing tax cuts, gee I wonder who's taxes are going up?

I hate to mention it but we're fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2 minus 1 equals 1. Therefore, less money will be spent.

And the taxes that will be going up will be the same people whose taxes were cut. And it wasn't mine.

Originally Posted by Chukpike

A lot of projects can get canned too.
F-22A... not really. It's expensive as hell but I think it'll have its purpose.

For what it is worth the F-22 is history. Congress has removed funding from the Defense Budget. There will not be any further F-22 other than the current 187.

President Obama during his speech to the VFW commented on his ideas for future service needs.

The manufacturer has said it won't or can't reassemble the production line once it is dismantled, regardless of the situation. The line might have been preserved for a while with foriegn sales, but Air Force Magazine said that Dem. Senators for several years prevented any spending by the Air Force to even study an export version.

So the F-22 won't even get spare parts??
Sheesh.

Yeah I know the theory that the F-22 is the F-15 replacement but quite honestly looking at the price, there is simply no way. Maybe they can reopen the F-22 production at a later date when it becomes more affordable. I think regardless of what they say, it will be used like the F-117.

Originally Posted by The Other Guy

I hate to mention it but we're fighting two wars, Iraq and Afghanistan, and 2 minus 1 equals 1. Therefore, less money will be spent.

And the taxes that will be going up will be the same people whose taxes were cut. And it wasn't mine.

Wrong math Other Guy. As one war decreases, the other will continue to draw increasing resources ergo, still sucking gigantic bucks.
If you think your taxes won't go p to cover the costs of the healthcare scheme then I think you're kidding yourself unless, of course you make no money at all now and don't plan to in the future. If that's the case, you may just benefit from this deal after all.

So you think we're spending less fighting TWO wars than we would if we were only fighting ONE???


I'm gonna need a breakdown of that one.


BTW, he's talking about the bracket being higher than his income.