An Impressive Win on Defense Spending

[one...two...tree 2,762]

President Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2010, funding the military for the next year. At a White House event for the bill signing, the president took some time to note the significance of this particular spending bill. "[W]hen Secretary Gates and I first proposed going after some of these wasteful projects, there were a lot of people in this town who didn't think it was possible, who were certain we were going to lose, who were certain that we would get steamrolled, who argued that the special interests were too entrenched, and that Washington was simply too set in its ways," Obama said. "And so I think it's important to note today we have proven them wrong."

The president was right to tout the accomplishment. This really is something of a breakthrough.

[A]s the president signed a $680 billion military policy bill on Wednesday, it was clear that he had succeeded in paring back nearly all of the programs and setting a tone of greater restraint than the Pentagon had seen in many years. [...]

White House officials say Mr. Obama took advantage of a rare political moment to break through one of Washington's most powerful lobbies and trim more weapons systems than any president had in decades.

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program -- in this case, the F-22 fighter jet -- "to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not."

Once the Senate voted in July to stop buying F-22s, Mr. Emanuel said in an interview, that success "reverberated down" to help sustain billions of dollars of cuts in Army modernization, missile defense and other programs.

"They probably get an 'A' from the standpoint of their success on their major initiatives," said Fred Downey, a former Senate aide who is now vice president for national security at the Aerospace Industries Association. "They probably got all of them but one or maybe two, and that's an extraordinarily high score."

Now, it's worth emphasizing that the administration didn't actually cut defense spending. Obama increased the military budget and doesn't intend to make reductions so long as we're in two wars. Rather, the president is spending more money smarter, directing funds away from wasteful projects that few had the political courage to take on.

Defense contractors and lobbyists don't lose often, especially not in recent years. The White House and the Pentagon took the leap anyway, and scored a big win. Good for them -- and for us.

http://www.visajourney.com/forums/index.ph...w_post&f=16

[spookyturtle 9,466]

I like the F-22. I want one.

Edited November 13, 2009 by spookyturtle

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I like the F-22. I want one.

Buy yourself a good flight simulator game. Way cheaper.

[DeadPoolX 9]

I like the F-22. I want one.

Buy yourself a good flight simulator game. Way cheaper.

Sure, if you can find one nowadays. The last good one was IL-2 Sturmovik.

[alienlovechild 75]

Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said Wednesday that the plan was to threaten a veto over a prominent program -- in this case, the F-22 fighter jet -- "to show we were willing to expend political capital and could win on something that people thought we could not."

It's wasn't that big of a a win as there wasn't much of a push for many more F-22s. Obama was two wars on his hands where the F-22 isn't very useful, a weak economy, and billions more to blow on his other programs.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

What is a good flight simulator? It will give me a good excuse to build a new computer.

[Pooky 3,807]

Thing is, the USAF is now into the procurement phase of the Lockheed-Martin F-35, the multi-role fighter once known as JSF - the Joint Strike Fighter. It's cheaper than the F-22, which is good.

Unfortunately, it's 3 years behind schedule, overweight, with engine troubles (more troubling since the second engine option was also sh*t-canned in this Bill) and a unit cost that is at best rather vague and at worst, very expensive.

The USAF was supposed to order over 750 F-22's, but ended up with 189. Any good economist can see the "Oh sh*t" moment concerning the unit costs there. But that's what you get when politicians try to "cut costs" on a program. Don't expect the F-35 program to be any different.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

The F-22 is a kick a$$ plane. 189 isn't cost effective. We need this plane as sooner or later we will be engaged in a war where the enemy has ariel capabilities, not like the last few.

[alienlovechild 75]

We need this plane as sooner or later we will be engaged in a war where the enemy has ariel capabilities, not like the last few.

Which potential enemy nation's air force or ground based defense should we be worried about? We've got a great navy, too but I don't see massive sea battles in foreseeable future.

[spookyturtle 9,466]

We need this plane as sooner or later we will be engaged in a war where the enemy has ariel capabilities, not like the last few.

Which potential enemy nation's air force or ground based defense should we be worried about? We've got a great navy, too but I don't see massive sea battles in foreseeable future.

The past few wars have show the advantage of our air supremacy. And the Navy provides a lot of that air power. What happens if there's a conflict with North Korea? Russia?

[Heracles 417]

For Pete's sake, never cut back on R&D.

Personally, I would continue to develop new technology but just don't build it. Keep it warehoused for when (if) the need arises. Just don't cut back on it.

[alienlovechild 75]

We need this plane as sooner or later we will be engaged in a war where the enemy has ariel capabilities, not like the last few.

Which potential enemy nation's air force or ground based defense should we be worried about? We've got a great navy, too but I don't see massive sea battles in foreseeable future.

The past few wars have show the advantage of our air supremacy. And the Navy provides a lot of that air power. What happens if there's a conflict with North Korea? Russia?

Air supremacy helps but it hasn't been decisive in Iraq or Afghanistan. It's good to able to bring in firepower on target on time when it's needed.

If we haven't been directly at war with Russia during the Cold War, I don't see it happening now. N.Korea's air force can't be that great but since have missiles and a nascent number of nukes, they could be a problem.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I like the F-22. I want one.

Buy yourself a good flight simulator game. Way cheaper.

You're not kidding:

In July 2009, the Air Force reported that the F-22 requires more than 30 hours of maintenance for every flight hour, with the total cost per flight hour of $44,000.