It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama to kill Navy’s Tomahawk, Hellfire missile programs in budget decimation

page: 2
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:37 PM
link   
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass




Clearly the US psyche is suffering a crisis.


I disagree.

What this country is suffering from is a BAD case of Obama.




posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: LDragonFire
Was this due to the sequester agreed by both political parties in congress?


No the US Navy are the ones wanting to cut off the tomahawk missile because they want a newer type missile.
Proposed halt of Tomahawk missile buys raises concerns at Raytheon


The Navy’s budget plan would end procurement of Tomahawks after a contract for production of 100 of the missiles in fiscal 2015, following 196 in production in the current fiscal year. At a budget hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee in late March, Navy Secretary Ray Mabus said that the roughly 4,000 Tomahawks in inventory “will carry us through any eventuality that we can foresee,” until the Tomahawk is replaced by a “next-generation land attack weapon” still in the early planning stages.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:38 PM
link   
Could this be the beginning of American non-interference in world affairs that have nothing to to with America's business.
Because America can't afford it anymore?

Or just maybe there are better weapons to replace those ones?



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: InverseLookingGlass




Clearly the US psyche is suffering a crisis.


I disagree.

What this country is suffering from is a BAD case of Obama.

The we need to keep wasting billions on weapons we no longer need mentality doesn't help either.
edit on 15-7-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Look at all the rage.

DON'T YOU DARE STOP FEEDING THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!


The reduction of Tomahawk missiles reflects the Pentagon's decision to invest more in next-generation land attack weapons, Lt. Caroline Hutcheson, a Navy spokesman at the Pentagon, told Defense News. She also noted that the military's supply of Block IV Tactical Tomahawks currently exceeds combat requirements.

source - Business Insider

Calm down, don't get your camo panties in a bunch. They are being phased out and replaced with something better and of course, more expensive. In the meantime, the good folks at Raytheon will rake in plenty of profit.


ere was a plan to develop a successor to the retired xGM-109B ship-killer by 2015, as an interim capability for the US Navy’s Offensive Anti-Surface Warfare (OASuW) program. That was shelved in the FY 2014 budget, as the Navy opted to drop the interim capability. Instead, they’re moving ahead with OASuW’s main xGM-84 Harpoon missile replacement program for air and sea launch, using the LRASM derivative of Lockheed Martin’s subsonic but stealthy AGM-158B JASSM-ER.

So, what’s Plan B for Raytheon?

The key to the next set of Tomahawk improvements is actually a warranty. The missile has a 15-year warranty and a 30-year service life, so 2019 will begin a recertification cycle for the fleet that could last until 2030. Threats continue to evolve, so why not add some missile upgrades while they’re back in the shop anyway? The US Navy already has a specifications sheet of possible improvements, and they’ve done a number of capability studies.

Raytheon is investing almost $40 million of its own funds in parallel, and they’re still talking to the Navy about that final package, which will break down into 3 broad categories.

source - Defense Industry Daily

The replacement for the Tomahawk will be something that can fire from the same launch platform more or less, so we won't be sending anything off to the junkyard.
edit on 2014-7-15 by theantediluvian because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:43 PM
link   
a reply to: beezzer

I read a comment elsewhere on the 'internets' about progressives, and their never ending push to turn this country in to a 'gun free' zone.

And with those delusions of grandeur that by extension encompasses the military, and has for quite sometime.

They honestly think is we all lay down our arms the 'world will be a better place' which is quite delusion.

As those 'gun free zones' are not nor will they ever be 'gun free'.

The funny thing there is those who push for civilian, and military disarmament never, EVER push for the police to be disarmed.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

The newer classes of destroyers will utilize rail guns and lasers. While I do agree with you to a certain extent, I think we should start rolling out some of the "good stuff" that hasn't seen the light of day yet.

I do, however, believe we should keep the program around on a life-support budget. Who knows when we might have to fall back on rockets and missiles.

I'm not to worried, if what I've seen is halfway as awesome as I thought -- we'll be just fine.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:46 PM
link   
a reply to: buster2010




The we need to keep wasting billions on weapons we no longer need mentality doesn't help either.


Why yes we clearly 'don't' !

We just need to waste billions of dollars, making people fat,lazy, and 'educated'.

Funny thing there is ?

The people who make those things PAY for all those programs progressives love so much.

The technology developed by that is what people love the most about the 'modern age'.

The internets.

In dash navigation in auto.

And the list goes on.

ALL the direct result of military technology.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:49 PM
link   
a reply to: theantediluvian




DON'T YOU DARE STOP FEEDING THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!


Why YES the WIC is so much better as in the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

I love how Eisenhowers speech gets twisted to suit the progressive agenda.

I really do.



A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.


coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Our arms must be mighty as opposed to NO arms at all.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 02:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: neo96

The newer classes of destroyers will utilize rail guns and lasers. While I do agree with you to a certain extent, I think we should start rolling out some of the "good stuff" that hasn't seen the light of day yet.

I do, however, believe we should keep the program around on a life-support budget. Who knows when we might have to fall back on rockets and missiles.

I'm not to worried, if what I've seen is halfway as awesome as I thought -- we'll be just fine.


Those are still decades away from real deployment.

Then there is the whole power issue.

Down the road, yeah.

Today ?

Systems that have been proven in combat is what we need.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96

We've been having a grand old time in the aviation forum in regards to the "black triangles", a new LRSB, and the SR-72.

Right now, there are platforms already in place and operational that are years ahead of the Tomahawk.

We don't have many details, just a few sightings here and there and some snippets of facts -- but if even half of what is claimed is true, wowza!

But, I will agree we shouldn't scrap the programs. Keep the powder dry!



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:11 PM
link   
Hilarious. CUT! CUT! CUT!

He cut what!?!?!?!?!?!



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:20 PM
link   
a reply to: usernameconspiracy

Yeah hilarious since the Potus didn't have problems with tomahawks, or the military when he bombed the hell out of Libya.

Didn't have a problem with it when he invaded Pakistan to kill Bin Laden.

Didn't have a problem sending arms to Syrian 'rebels'.

Didn't have a problem arming Egypts new regime.

Didn't have a problem arming Saudi Arabia's regime.

Didn't have a problem arming 'evil' Israel.

Didn't have a problem arming Mexican drug cartels.

Arming this countries 'enemies' is just fine and dandy.

US little people, and the people they send off to fight their wars ?

Nooooooooooooooooo arms are 'bad'.
edit on 15-7-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:28 PM
link   
We can only hope in November that there will be big changes coming.

If the republicans take control of the senate they will control both the house and senate and Obama will show his true colors when he starts using his veto powers to kill all the bills he does not like.

He then can not claim congress is doing nothing.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Keep in mind that the US Navy changes missile systems and weapons system based upon what they need and what becomes available.

TLAMS are anti-land missile. They proved their worth in the first Persian Gulf War.

However, the US Navy has several different missile systems: Ageis system which is AAW (Anti Air Warfare). Harpoon missile system which is ASM (Anti Ship Missile). The Tomahawk is mostly a land targeting missile.

Removal of the Tomahawk system does not make our Navy useless. All 3 of the ships I was on did not even have the Tomahawk system on it. We were a AAW platform, and our Terrier missiles could drop any air target from 90+ miles away from us. We carried 8 RGM-84D Harpoon cruise missiles (woe be it to any enemy ship that got within 75 miles of us). Six torpedo launchers, and a 5 inch gun that could engage targets up to 20 miles away.

All that on a guided missile destroyer who's keel's were laid in the early 1960s.

The removal of the Tomahawk missile system will not cripple the US Navy. It will not destroy the US Navy's ability to fight or defend the US.

Why? Well because the Navy has more than enough of those missiles to see them through until the next generation of anti-land missile system is ready for them.

Talos, Tatar, Terrier, Aegis, Harpoon, Tomahawk.....

All different missiles that the US Navy has used in times past and evolved to different systems over time. It's perfectly normal to leave one type of weapon's system and move on to something newer and better.

While I don't agree with many things Obama has done during his time in office, I'm afraid this bit of news is really over reacting.

Enlist and spend time in the military like some of us have done. You'll see that this is how things are done, and how things change.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96

originally posted by: khnum
Retiring the A10 warthog without developing a replacement platform and announcing that the F35 Turkey will do the role was another stroke of genius.


Yeah and the cancellation of the f-22.

This country is ran by nothing, but morons.


I would like to assume that there is a very practical reason--other than a desire for cutting the military off at the knees--for the elimination of those programs. Actually, I do think there is more to the move. Actions by this administration aside, I'm gotta go with what I know and you readers can think what you want about the various cuts and my opinion on them.

I know that alien UFOs exist. I know that triangles exist. I've seen both and the latter must be our own devices. Following on that lead, I must assume that we have equipment and armament that overshadow about all conventional weapon systems that include the F-22, F-35 and even warships at sea. As I maintain, much of that stuff is of limited use and is principally make-work projects while revolutionary systems were being equipped and made operational. In fact, the government is proving my contention with every move they make like this.
edit on 15-7-2014 by Aliensun because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I am pretty sure nobody here is dumb enough to think Obama or any President for that matter decides what weapons systems to keep or cut. If you are that dumb then let me assure you they do not. The military makes these choices although at times the are over ruled by Congress and forced get or keep things they do not want for political reasons.

So TLAMs are now being replaced and no it had nothing to do with Obama Navy seeks next generation Tomahawk

The Navy is killing the program,


Meanwhile, production of the Tomahawk is slated to stop by fiscal year 2016, according to the Navy’s five year budget plan outlined in the 2015 proposal.


They have 4,000 sitting around that will modernize but, do not see the need for anymore. They say they must move on to the next generation or be left behind.


“What we have procured to date meets our inventory requirements for Tomahawks. What we have to get to is that next-generation weapon. That next-generation weapon could be an upgraded Tomahawk or could be another weapon,” he said.

The Navy also plans to compete a surface-ship launched variant of its air launched Long Range Anti-Ship Missile, or LRASM which is now in development, Stackley said.

Service officials said the next LRASM test-firing is slated for early fall of this year. The weapon, which is designed to defeat advanced enemy air-defense systems using sensors and autonomous flight, will be fired from an Air Force B-1 bomber. The Navy also plans to configure its F/A-18 fighter jets to be able to fire the LRASM.

“LRASM is transitioning from the demonstration phase to a development program during fiscal year 2014. Early operation capability is planned for 2018,” a Navy official said.


So yes they Navy has 4000 TLAMS. They cutting down ordering from 400 to 200 next year and then 100 the year after and then want to end buying anymore so that 2 years later they can role out a new system. They can always change their minds of course. If your worried we might use all 4000? Well in the first Gulf War we used 288, during the second Iraq war we used 725, and in Libya 161. So we are not danger of running out this decade.



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: MrSpad




I am pretty sure nobody here is dumb enough to think Obama or any President for that matter decides what weapons systems to keep or cut.


I guess this doesn't mean WHAT IT MEANS.



President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: theantediluvian




DON'T YOU DARE STOP FEEDING THE MILITARY INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX!


Why YES the WIC is so much better as in the WELFARE INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX.

I love how Eisenhowers speech gets twisted to suit the progressive agenda.

I really do.



A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.


coursesa.matrix.msu.edu...

Our arms must be mighty as opposed to NO arms at all.


The military industrial complex IS part of the welfare industrial complex what part of that do you not understand? Our outspending most of the world is nothing more than corporate welfare.
Also here is the part of his speech that you chose to overlook where he warns the people about the Military Industrial Complex gaining too much power.


This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

If you have a problem understanding what he is saying here just say so I'm sure one of the Progressives will be more than happy to explain it to you.

edit on 15-7-2014 by buster2010 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 15 2014 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: MrSpad




I am pretty sure nobody here is dumb enough to think Obama or any President for that matter decides what weapons systems to keep or cut.


I guess this doesn't mean WHAT IT MEANS.



President Barack Obama is seeking to abolish two highly successful missile programs that experts say have helped the U.S. Navy maintain military superiority for the past several decades

Other links have been provided that shows it was the Navy not Obama that chose to cut that program but you still blame Obama.




top topics



 
11
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join