China ups military spend by 12 percent. Are the gloves coming off?

Zaphod58
reply to post by LDragonFire

 

There's a lot more to it than the amount spent. The new budget would remove the U-2 and A-10, cut new fighter and UAV buys, slash the P-8 buy in half, etc.

Meanwhile, we still have F-15s and F-16s as our primary fighter force. The Eagle fleet is over 25 years old on average, the Viper fleet is approaching the early 20s. A number of Eagles are still flying with longeron patches, are G limited as well as speed limited. The Viper fleet has 25% with cracks in the wings or bulkheads.

Something like 90% of the F-15 fleet is within 5-10% of their expected life cycle, so they're extending the life cycle of the fleet.

That's just a tiny fraction of just the Air Force. While everyone else is modernizing the US is cutting and coasting.

Thank You Zaph!

They don't get most of the US arsenal is DECADES OLD.

reply to post by Zaphod58


No Satellites more than do the U-2's job and the A-10 is a anti tank weapon build when the Spviets had 100k main battle tanks, the Apache is all the anti tank air weapon we need. That and drones, you can blame drones for the A-10 being replaced.

As for maintenance on what we have they should use the $495 Billion for that don't ya think?

neo96

Grimpachi
reply to post by neo96

 

Haven't been paying attention to China flexing it's 'muscle' in the 'South China Sea' ?

Egads, you mean they have their naval power by THEIR HOME in the CHINA SEA by CHINA. Next you will tell me they operate in the East China Sea as well. OMG.

edit on 5-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

If you call islands in Japan's territorial waters their 'home'.

If you call the soverign nation of Taiwan their 'home' waters.

Well I certainly would not call them our home waters. I am not sure if you know this or not but Taiwan and Japan are like Cuba to us. Are you saying we need to give Cuba a wide birth? Apples to apples and all.

If so I may not be able to go fishing next week because I would be to close to Cuba's territorial waters.

LDragonFire
reply to post by Zaphod58

 

No Satellites more than do the U-2's job and the A-10 is a anti tank weapon build when the Spviets had 100k main battle tanks, the Apache is all the anti tank air weapon we need.

As for maintenance on what we have they should use the $495 Billion for that don't ya think?

Seriously ?

You think the Apache can take this ?

www.aircraftresourcecenter.com...

reply to post by neo96


If it was all that would it be cut? Or do they have a cheaper way to fulfill the mission?

Why are you guys so afraid other than 9/11, 1812 was the last time we were invaded!!!

reply to post by LDragonFire


You mean the satellites that even amateurs can tell when they are passing overhead to the second? Yeah, so much more valuable than a U-2.

The A-10 is so much more than an antitank platform. It's one of the best CAS platforms ever to fly.

So you would rather do maintenance on what we have, even though the average platform is as old or older than their crews? Makes a lot more sense to replace them than to keep fixing them.

There are new threats on the horizon that will turn our current fleet into targets waiting to be slaughtered. And they will be active long before any replacements could go active.

reply to post by LDragonFire


The Air Force has tried to cut the A-10 since the early 90s. It's slow, and ugly. The leadership doesn't like it partly because of that.

There is currently nothing even close to being able to replace the Hogs.

It has nothing to do with fear. It's being realistic that there are very real threats in the world, and our military is in bad shape and getting worse.

LDragonFire
reply to post by neo96

 

If it was all that would it be cut? Or do they have a cheaper way to fulfill the mission?

Why are you guys so afraid other than 9/11, 1812 was the last time we were invaded!!!

9-11 was the last time were invaded, no wait we have been invaded from our southern border for the last 20 years.

Cutting edge technology has never been cheap. Most people don't have cell phones, or computers, or cars as old as most military systems.

Grimpachi

neo96

Grimpachi
reply to post by neo96

 

Haven't been paying attention to China flexing it's 'muscle' in the 'South China Sea' ?

Egads, you mean they have their naval power by THEIR HOME in the CHINA SEA by CHINA. Next you will tell me they operate in the East China Sea as well. OMG.

edit on 5-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

If you call islands in Japan's territorial waters their 'home'.

If you call the soverign nation of Taiwan their 'home' waters.

Well I certainly would not call them our home waters. I am not sure if you know this or not but Taiwan and Japan are like Cuba to us. Are you saying we need to give Cuba a wide birth? Apples to apples and all.

If so I may not be able to go fishing next week because I would be to close to Cuba's territorial waters.

edit on 5-3-2014 by Grimpachi because: (no reason given)

Hmmm.

Territorial waters, or a territorial sea, as defined by the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea,[1] is a belt of coastal waters extending at most 12 nautical miles (22.2 km; 13.8 mi) from the baseline (usually the mean low-water mark) of a coastal state

en.wikipedia.org...

12 miles that is a far as 'territorial water' goes.

Some people have a problem with that which is why the US and VIetnam are doing joint exercises right now.

reply to post by neo96


And here you I thought you were talking about Taiwan and Japan.

You do realize the US violates territorial waters. Don't you? Or does that not matter?

Please don't go on about the Daioyu islands because they have been in dispute long before either of us were borne.

reply to post by Grimpachi

And here you I thought you were talking about Taiwan and Japan.

Talking about a lot of things in this thread.

You do realize the US violates territorial waters. Don't you? Or does that not matter?

So does Russia,China, but hey I am only suppose to hold the Us accountable, and ignore everyone else.

The US is not the only country in the world is it ?

Guess I should also Ignore Russian, and Chinese subs stalking American ships in international waters right ?

And Russia flyby of aircraft carriers while I am at it.


As to China 'waters' disputes guess they have been in waters they shouldn"t be in for a lot longer than the Us.

reply to post by neo96


Nope. The map I posted shows where many countries have violated waters in someones eyes. However, I would call that their back yards.

Grimpachi
reply to post by neo96

 

Nope. The map I posted shows where many countries have violated waters in someones eyes. However, I would call that their back yards.

IF you read the earlier link that is because of that thing called the 'economic' zone.

That's 200 miles.

Which means EVERYONE, and the brother gets to claim things.

Which is why China makes things like this:

Even more frightening, the missile allegedly holds the ability to attack naval vessels up to approximately 1,000 miles away, outranging by many times the strike range of all U.S. aircraft aboard existing carriers. Read more: www.washingtontimes.com... Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

deadcalm
reply to post by neo96

 

China could double their military spending and they still would't come close to what the US spends on defence....so I'd hardly characterize it as "taking the gloves off". When they up their military budget to 680 billion a year...then you can panic.

Given the last 12 years of American illegal wars of agression and the US's love of threatening military intervention anywhere it pleases, it is logical that China would want to look to it's security, and beef up it's military.

So what if America spends more, did you not read the Op? China gets their military equipment at a cheaper rate then Americians.

we must look at what China can get with that 130+ billion compared to what the USA gets for its 400+ billion dollars.

China could very well be getting more for their money then the states. Its Like comparing Wal-mart prices to Dollar store prices. Obviously your going to get more for your buck at the dollar store then you would at walmart.
It is the same situation here.. Dont be blind to that, its not always how much money they spend, They obviously shopped around for the right price of everything. Thats whats called being smart with your money.

Besides If China wanted too, they could spend double what the USA spends, remember The USA is in debt to China, That Means that China has a Frakk load of money my friend, They just know how to spend it wisely.

reply to post by snypwsd

So what if America spends more,

WE DON"T SPEND MORE.

China gets their military equipment at a cheaper rate then Americians.

I said that.

China could very well be getting more for their money then the states. Its Like comparing Wal-mart prices to Dollar store prices

That is a good comparison.

The US is Saks Fifth Avenue.

China is Walmart.

Besides If China wanted too, they could spend double what the USA spends, remember The USA is in debt to China, That Means that China has a Frakk load of money my friend, They just know how to spend it wisely.

They already do.

When they buy treasuries we pay in USD's then they turn around and pay their companies, in CNY.

reply to post by neo96


How can you say America doesnt spend more when the qoute in your Op clearly says china spends 132 billion and america spends 495 billion?

snypwsd
reply to post by neo96

 

How can you say America doesnt spend more when the qoute in your Op clearly says china spends 132 billion and america spends 495 billion?

Intentionally ignore the comment about the state owning business in China ?

When people get paid peanuts, and have no benefits they can build on the cheap.

WASHINGTON — The nation’s top military commander painted a dark picture Tuesday of future U.S. defense capabilities clouded by shrinking Pentagon budgets and adversaries’ technological advances that he said would erode American battlefield superiority. Read more here: www.mcclatchydc.com...=cpy

So those who support defense cuts remember this:

It was because of the Clinton era of cuts that created the Walter Reids, and troops in Iraq, and Afghanistan not having body armor.

It also created more contractor usage, and It also created the use of national guard on foreign soils.

Since defense is getting cut which lots of people are happy about ?

Guess it just sucks for the national guard who is going to be called up even more than they already are.

And it is going to be some good business for the 'blackwaters'.

reply to post by neo96


You didnt answer my question.. How can you say america doesnt spend more when your op clearly states other wise?